Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2007-04-13 08:55:07
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6978|SE London

JahManRed wrote:

ATG wrote:

Notice the military attack on the U.S. Cole did not generate near as much outrage as 9-11.

You want to attack our military? Fine, fair enough.
You want to attack cities? Fine, be prepared for genocidal wrath.
Yes I totally agree attack the extremists, bomb the nations who harbour them. I agreed with the Afghan mission because of this. But this righteous argument fails because the US (if bound by your last statement) took a wrong turn in the ME and went into Iraqi instead of Saudi.
That's because Iraq was higher profile, would create less economic impact and be much, much easier. Going to war with the Saudis would be costly and tricky since their military is right up to date.

The only problem with Iraq as a target was that there was no sensible reason to go to war with them. Hence the WMD nonsense.
2007-04-13 08:57:06
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6998|132 and Bush

Bertster7 wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

ATG wrote:

Notice the military attack on the U.S. Cole did not generate near as much outrage as 9-11.

You want to attack our military? Fine, fair enough.
You want to attack cities? Fine, be prepared for genocidal wrath.
Yes I totally agree attack the extremists, bomb the nations who harbour them. I agreed with the Afghan mission because of this. But this righteous argument fails because the US (if bound by your last statement) took a wrong turn in the ME and went into Iraqi instead of Saudi.
That's because Iraq was higher profile, would create less economic impact and be much, much easier. Going to war with the Saudis would be costly and tricky since their military is right up to date.

The only problem with Iraq as a target was that there was no sensible reason to go to war with them. Hence the WMD nonsense.
Saddam tried to kill his Daddy... (insert Napoleon Dynamite-- Gaawd!)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-04-13 09:21:37
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6926|Global Command

JahManRed wrote:

They, being extremists................attack the extremists all you want, but what gives yous the right to collectively punish a predominately peaceful religion over the actions of a very few?
They have been given an opportunity to not tolerate exportation of extremism.
Yes I totally agree attack the extremists, bomb the nations who harbour them. I agreed with the Afghan mission because of this. But this righteous argument fails because the US (if bound by your last statement) took a wrong turn in the ME and went into Iraqi instead of Saudi.
Then you and i agree, we perhaps should have bombed Saudi Arabia and should bomb Pakistan now.

Saddam was giving money to the families of suicide bombers that attacked Israel, and that equals an act of war, and state sponsored terrorism.
2007-04-13 09:26:45
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6978|SE London

ATG wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

They, being extremists................attack the extremists all you want, but what gives yous the right to collectively punish a predominately peaceful religion over the actions of a very few?
They have been given an opportunity to not tolerate exportation of extremism.
Yes I totally agree attack the extremists, bomb the nations who harbour them. I agreed with the Afghan mission because of this. But this righteous argument fails because the US (if bound by your last statement) took a wrong turn in the ME and went into Iraqi instead of Saudi.
Then you and i agree, we perhaps should have bombed Saudi Arabia and should bomb Pakistan now.
Don't bomb Pakistan, they'll nuke ya. Plenty of terror training camps over there, plenty of would be terrorists to sneak nukes into the US.

ATG wrote:

Saddam was giving money to the families of suicide bombers that attacked Israel, and that equals an act of war, and state sponsored terrorism.
That's not state sponsored terrorism. Because the people recieving the money are not terrorists. It's close though, I'll give you that.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-04-13 10:03:39)

2007-04-13 09:35:05
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6998|132 and Bush

ATG wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

They, being extremists................attack the extremists all you want, but what gives yous the right to collectively punish a predominately peaceful religion over the actions of a very few?
They have been given an opportunity to not tolerate exportation of extremism.
Yes I totally agree attack the extremists, bomb the nations who harbour them. I agreed with the Afghan mission because of this. But this righteous argument fails because the US (if bound by your last statement) took a wrong turn in the ME and went into Iraqi instead of Saudi.
Then you and i agree, we perhaps should have bombed Saudi Arabia and should bomb Pakistan now.

Saddam was giving money to the families of suicide bombers that attacked Israel, and that equals an act of war, and state sponsored terrorism.
Those bombers were attacking Israel. Maybe Israel should have done something instead of us?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-04-13 09:55:49
Joshykiller1
Member
+3|6622
IF THE MUSLIMS ATTACK US WITH BOMBS AND KILL INCENT CILVIENS WOULD SHOULD KILL THERE CILVENS BLOW THEM UP SEE HOW THEY LIKE IT.

It will be easier to nuke the whole middle east end of terrorists end of story!!!!!!
2007-04-13 09:56:20
JahManRed
wank
+646|7025|IRELAND

@ATG.... Yes we do agree some what. I think Pakistan was always the bigger threat,. Military dictatorship with Nukes. It explains why we will see more ME nations clambering for nukes after Iran gets hers.

Kmarion wrote:

Those bombers were attacking Israel. Maybe Israel should have done something instead of us?
That's my thoughts. But then again, Israel would have been using US planes, money and Intel, so it wouldn't be so far off.
Should the Yankees invade Florida for harbouring  Cuban Terrorists?
2007-04-13 09:58:16
Joshykiller1
Member
+3|6622
Its kind of funny that we havent got surport from israil.

The war in Iraq would of ended by now if every country in europe gave 50,000 troops each.

Why not have another crusade like before everyone come together and fight the muslims.
2007-04-13 10:30:35
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6998|132 and Bush

Kmarion wrote:

Those bombers were attacking Israel. Maybe Israel should have done something instead of us?

JahManRed wrote:

That's my thoughts. But then again, Israel would have been using US planes, money and Intel, so it wouldn't be so far off.
Should the Yankees invade Florida for harbouring  Cuban Terrorists?
But it would have been Israeli pilots (The best in the modern World). Obviously you see the difference. If we were to work with the mindset of going after the people who delivered arms to our enemies we would be in a complete World War. I don't suppose I need to remind you where Iran gets their equipment from.

You do raise a good point about the Cubans. Being a Floridian myself I have never understood the pardons of people like Orlando Bosch. I don't think providing refuge to certain individuals is the same as funding entire organizations and providing training camps to terrorist. It is hypocritical to say the least and most Americans are unaware of it.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-04-13 11:44:23)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-04-13 10:44:10
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7018|London, England

Joshykiller1 wrote:

IF THE MUSLIMS ATTACK US WITH BOMBS AND KILL INCENT CILVIENS WOULD SHOULD KILL THERE CILVENS BLOW THEM UP SEE HOW THEY LIKE IT.

It will be easier to nuke the whole middle east end of terrorists end of story!!!!!!
No actually it doesn't work like that because the Terrorists don't really give much of a crap about the Civilians on either end. To put it frank. Seriously like, do you not know about the whole Iraq thing?

I'll get you started, you seem to know about 9/11 so that's a start. So i think you know about the Invasion of Afghanistan. Well after that this happened:

Coalition of troops invade Iraq and succeed quickly due to the awesomeness of Gunslinger and Usmarine (it's in there):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war

Then there was an insurgency (i know!! i was like omg aswell!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency

Ok, once you're upto date you can rejoin everyone. You've missed out on alot buddy. Shit happens i guess.

Edit: And i ain't taking the piss, i seriously think you have no idea about the Iraq thing.

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2007-04-13 10:46:05)

2007-04-13 11:42:37
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7018|London, England
Was that directed to me?
2007-04-13 14:47:12
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6842|The Land of Scott Walker

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

JahManRed wrote:


Yes I totally agree attack the extremists, bomb the nations who harbour them. I agreed with the Afghan mission because of this. But this righteous argument fails because the US (if bound by your last statement) took a wrong turn in the ME and went into Iraqi instead of Saudi.
That's because Iraq was higher profile, would create less economic impact and be much, much easier. Going to war with the Saudis would be costly and tricky since their military is right up to date.

The only problem with Iraq as a target was that there was no sensible reason to go to war with them. Hence the WMD nonsense.
Saddam tried to kill his Daddy... (insert Napoleon Dynamite-- Gaawd!)
We should've used our nunchucks skills, bowshooting skills, computer hacking skills . . .
2007-05-04 11:59:22
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6998|132 and Bush

Iraqi PM tied to Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Mahdi Army

Damn.. saw this coming. Maybe this will be the ticket.

The invaluable MEMRI has translated a report in the Egyptian press that contends that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has direct operational ties to the Mahdi Army and, through them, to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. If it’s true, he would be tied to the forces who are directly responsible for killing approximately 170 US troops via EFP IEDs.

Iraqi PM tied to Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Mahdi Army
The first document, labeled “secret, personal, and urgent,” is a January 2007 letter from Al-Maliki’s office to the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad, with copies to the presidency of the [Shi’ite party] Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and to the Al-Shahid Al-Sadr organization.” [2] In it, Al-Maliki requests that the commanders of the Mahdi Army, who have ties with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, be pulled off the Iraqi frontlines, in order to protect them from being arrested or killed. The following is a translation of the document:

    “Secret, Personal and Urgent

    “Based on a phone conversation with Sayyid Muqtada Al-Sadr and [after] consulting with [Iraq’s National Security Advisor] Dr. Muwafaq Al-Rubai’i, in order to preserve our great achievements and in light of what the present circumstances demand, we ask to temporarily conceal the commanders of the Mahdi Army, who are connected to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, [and to remove them] from the front line [of battle] in order to protect them from being arrested or killed by the American forces. [The names of the commanders] are listed below. It would be best to send them to Iran for the time being, until the crisis passes.

    “In addition, [we ask] to send the commanders from the second line [of battle] to the southern regions, since we know that intensive efforts are underway to persuade the Americans to leave the situation [there] as it is. All administrative and security arrangements for the transportation of these commanders have [already] been made.

    “We ask you to implement [these orders] and report to us.

    “[Signed,] Nouri Al-Maliki, Prime Minster [of Iraq]
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-05-04 12:30:43
Snake
Missing, Presumed Dead
+1,046|6963|England

ATG wrote:

Begin mass executions of any suspected trouble-makers or gtfo.
It's a complete mess.
Because that is going to make us "Westerners" more popular in the middle east isnt it?

As if the threat of Terrorism isnt bad enough at the moment, dont you think that that would act as even more reason for them to want to bomb us in our own country?

You dont want them to fly planes into our towers yet you want to go around and mass-murder any "suspected trouble makers"?

Ok, school bullies? Protesters?

Without the entire US army in the country do you think the population of Iraq is going to sit back and allow you to exterminate them?
Even if you do actually mean just the "terrorists", then don't you think the coalition are already fighting them - and cannot actually determine friend from foe as it is? Other than if they are being shot at, they return fire.
These people hide amongst the civilians in towns and reveal themselves to hit us as they choose. Its guerilla warfare in effect. I doubt you will be able to go around and "round up" people for a "mass execution".

Seriously.



As far as Im concerned, get out of Iraq and let it work its own problems out. Even though we created the problems, with us not in the country what have the Insurgents got to shoot at? Nothing. Other than themselves.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard