Falluja tactics - Bush people, justify this.

cdebru

chill wrote:

They are not iraqis.... but foreign imported fighters from Chechnya, Iran and other countries..

this is inaccurate
its a lie peddled by the americans and fox news there are some foreigners who have been attracted to iraq because they can fight americans there but they are in very small numbers

chill wrote:

No. They are terrorists who slaughter Iraqi people by the dozens on a daily basis..

they are resisting an invasion and occupation of their country the americans have killed over a 100,00 iraqis since the invasion

chill wrote:

And an accurate one..

if you insist on using the term it can equally be applied to the americans

chill wrote:

The insurgents are terrorists. The Allies are liberators. The Iraqi army are fighting to support the goal of elections and deomcracy. All verry clear to those willing to look.

the insurgents are doing what people all over the world do when they are attacked
and exactly what americans would do if someone came to liberate them from the fundamentalist president who allows torture and murder of his own people

you do not liberate people by killing them

the so called Iraqi army are collaborators they exist in every society we had them here as well the french had them there will always be people who collaborate

i suggest you look again at the democracy that they are trying to build banning newspapers threatening journalists with jail if they print stories about what is happening in fallujah hardly the bedrock of a democracy

shltter

terrorism

threats of) violent action for political purposes:

thats according to the dictionary


so it would equally apply to america the uk or the iraqi resistance

Sand

threats of) violent action for political purposes

So whats the difference between terrorism and war?

A Dub in Glasgo

Terrorism is the bringing of terror on a people for a political purpose. Nobody can deny that the 'shock & awe' tactics of the US is designed to bring terror on a people so in essence they are terrorists.

bonkey

Sand wrote:

I read that book recently when I was over in Zurich.

And you never called in to say Hi???

I'm wounded

chill wrote:

Good military tactics.

And once again I will have to remind you that something can be militarily tactically sound, but in violation of the Geneva Convention. You can argue all you like that various moves made militaristic sense, but that is not, never has been, and never will be an answer to allegations of War Crimes.

"It made our life easier" is exactly the mentality that the Geneva Conventions were set up to prevent, not encourage. Repeatedly showing how little you either understand or respect that (whichever it is) hardly serves to show that you have any sort of moral high-ground in terms of your arguments.

Indeed, I would have thought the opposite myself - repeatedly reaffirming that you firmly believe in the very mindset that the Geneva Conventtions were set up to put a stop to is not a good reflection on whowever you choose to support.
jc

Tuars

Here's an interesting article on how morals are playing a part in the tactics of this war: http://www.counterpunch.org/lind10222004.html

It's not just that the US bombing of Falluja is morally dubious, more importantly it is bad military strategy.

The key point for me is that the US is trying to defeat an enemy that uses 4G war tactics by using 2G war tactics. Their chances of success are slim until they change tactics.

Redleslie2

Well I'm convinced. All Iraqis, not just the males between 15 and 55 years old, but all of them, are potential suicide bombers/booby traps/terrorists/beheaders so it makes sense to kill them on sight or liquidate them Srebrenica style, until they give up. Say what you like about the Serbs, but they knew how to deal with muslim terrorists. They should have waited a few years though.

I noticed this report today.

Al-Jazeera continues to apologize for not offering more in-depth coverage, always reminding its viewers that its Baghdad bureau was shut down indefinitely by Allawi in August. But many in the Arab world saw its interview with Dr Asma Khamis al-Muhannadi of Fallujah's general hospital, invaded and "captured" by the marines. She confirmed that "we were tied up and beaten despite being unarmed and having only our medical instruments"; and that the hospital was targeted by bombs and rockets during the initial siege of Fallujah. When the marines came she "was with a woman in labor. The umbilical cord had not yet been cut. At that time, a US soldier shouted at one of the [Iraqi] National Guards to arrest me and tie my hands while I was helping the mother to deliver. I will never forget this incident in my life."

Delivering a baby my arse. I heard she was sticking a booby trap up there. Sneaky muslim whores. :mad:

mycroft

chill wrote:

Good military tactics. The Hospital was in terrosist hands, the city was almost deserted. Good solid military tactics.

Only tv reports.. Do you have ANY evidence that there were any civilians left in the hospital ? The name of being a "Hospital" is no reason to give it special status if it is not being used AS a hospital.

So no evidence. I posted a link to an article which stated.

1. The hospital was full of medical staff and patients, no terrorists.

You have no proof.

It has been covered thousands of times since the liberation that these insurgents are amost exclusively Chechnians, Iranians and others who have come to fight in Iraq.

Can you show me some proof please.

You're stating it, you back it up.

bonkey

Isn't it funny how all the Chechens are in Iraq....and the arabs are up in Chechnya!

Back when Beslan happened, we all were told that terrorism in Chechnya is all Al Qaeda-linked, arab-led, muslim-related.....and in Iraq, now its full of Chechens!!!

Why the flock don't they all stay in their own respective countries? Its like a bloody merry-go-round. "TerOps 101: Never do anything in your own country. Swap places with a neighbouring terrorist and fight there. It confuses the hell out of the enemy."

Y'huh.

jc

mycroft

bonkey wrote:

Why the flock don't they all stay in their own respective countries? Its like a bloody merry-go-round. "TerOps 101: Never do anything in your own country. Swap places with a neighbouring terrorist and fight there. It confuses the hell out of the enemy."

Y'huh.

jc

No it's a foreign exchange program. Y'know see a new country, experience the language, try the food, notice small cultural differences, blow up a small chunk of it.....

SkepticOne

bonkey wrote:

Why the flock don't they all stay in their own respective countries? Its like a bloody merry-go-round. "TerOps 101: Never do anything in your own country. Swap places with a neighbouring terrorist and fight there. It confuses the hell out of the enemy."

It proves that the CIA and the Bilderberg group are really behind the whole thing. Sometimes, in the rush to get the action going, they make mistakes when placing 'terrorists' in their appropriate countries. Right Sovtek?

cdebru

bonkey wrote:

Isn't it funny how all the Chechens are in Iraq....and the arabs are up in Chechnya!

Back when Beslan happened, we all were told that terrorism in Chechnya is all Al Qaeda-linked, arab-led, muslim-related.....and in Iraq, now its full of Chechens!!!

Why the flock don't they all stay in their own respective countries? Its like a bloody merry-go-round. "TerOps 101: Never do anything in your own country. Swap places with a neighbouring terrorist and fight there. It confuses the hell out of the enemy."

Y'huh.

jc

well god help the russians if all those millions of chechens go home


its not like the chechens dont have enough on their plate that they can send all these people to Iraq

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

Can you show me some proof please.

You're stating it, you back it up.

He is gone into hiding as he cannot back it up, he made it all up. The marines themselves have effectively demolished his argument

Sand

Terrorism is the bringing of terror on a people for a political purpose. Nobody can deny that the 'shock & awe' tactics of the US is designed to bring terror on a people so in essence they are terrorists.

So wars are another form of terrorism?

A Dub in Glasgo

When they are carried out to terrorise the population... yes. Do you disagree?

Sand

When they are carried out to terrorise the population... yes. Do you disagree?

Circular definition - Terrorism is to terrorise, which is terrorism, which is to terrorise.

All wars are terrifying to affected civillian populations. So whats the difference between war and terrorism?

A Dub in Glasgo

Nothing

passive

ah... i see what you did there. clever...

(edit, might as well make a point as well as mocking the stupidity of his)
:ahem...

war: A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Sand

Nothing

So the men who landed in Normandy on D-Day were terrorists? Morally equivalent with the guy who shot Hassan?

Cheers for that insight.

Gurgle

passive wrote:

war: A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

So is Terror(TM) a nation, a state or a party ?

passive wrote:

terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Can you really call the US government an organized group ?
(The rest obviously applies)

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

So the men who landed in Normandy on D-Day were terrorists? Morally equivalent with the guy who shot Hassan?

Cheers for that insight.

Huuge leap of logic there...... I am talking about the current invasion of Iraq.

You need to clear your mind to take insight

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

He is gone into hiding as he cannot back it up, he made it all up. The marines themselves have effectively demolished his argument

I would have said its the city, and not his argument, that they've effectively demolished....but thats obviously just anti-US propaganda from the, ummm, American media, embedded with the American troops....

jc

Sand

Huuge leap of logic there...... I am talking about the current invasion of Iraq.

Garbage - I asked what the difference between war and terrorism was. You told me there was no difference. Dont feel embarrassed, many posters have exspressed the same or a similar belief.

Now either be brave enough to follow through the logic of your statement that war=terrorism or admit that on closer examination throwing around loose definitions designed to either A) exscuse the actions of the so - called Iraqi "resistance" or to belittle the US, isnt so smart.

All Ive done is taken your, and ****ters(?) logic and applied it in the real world.

Carpo

Sand wrote:

Garbage - I asked what the difference between war and terrorism was. You told me there was no difference.

err... no actually. You asked wether or not "wars were a form of terrorism" and the reply you got was that they were only terrorism "when then are carried out to terrorise a population." You then yourself defined war as being something which will always instill fear in the population the implication being that it is therefore inherently terrorism. So, its by the definition you yourself gave that the men of D-Day are terrorists.

However all this is pretty irrelevant as its just word play and linguistic traps. A war is generally too big a thing to define either positive or negative for terrorism, as usually they contain both. Was the D-Day landing intended to scare people? No, it was a military attack. Was the fire bombing of Dresden intended to scare people? Yes (for the most part), and can therefore be described as terrorism. This 'all or nothing' approach to the arguement is meaningless.

Incidently, is there a version of Godwins Law that pertains to comparisons being made to World War 2 in general rather than just the Nazis?

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

Garbage - I asked what the difference between war and terrorism was. You told me there was no difference. Dont feel embarrassed, many posters have exspressed the same or a similar belief.

Now either be brave enough to follow through the logic of your statement that war=terrorism or admit that on closer examination throwing around loose definitions designed to either A) exscuse the actions of the so - called Iraqi "resistance" or to belittle the US, isnt so smart.

All Ive done is taken your, and ****ters(?) logic and applied it in the real world.

Oh dear, someone who loves to try and put words into the mouths of others and then try and be smart about it :rolleyes:

I stated quite clearly that where a war (or part of a war) instills fear and terror into a population, that is, by definition terrorism. Let me recap:

Question from Sands
So wars are another form of terrorism?

Reply by me
When they are carried out to terrorise the population... yes. Do you disagree?

Reply by Sands
Circular definition - Terrorism is to terrorise, which is terrorism, which is to terrorise.

All wars are terrifying to affected civillian populations. So whats the difference between war and terrorism?

Reply by me
Nothing

Now the actions of an aggressor (invading force) will instill fear in a population especially when it kills thousands of the civilian population. That agressor was Germany during WWII and it the US in Iraq. I call that terrorism, you call it something else. Fine, we both have to live with it. What I don't do is try to put words into another forum members mouth in a pathetic attempt to score points.

Memnoch

Peter Ustinov said, "terrorism is the war of the poor, and, war is terrorism of the rich".

Unfortunately most people still don't comprehend this simple basic fact. War and terrorism are one and the same, there is no difference between the two except the weapons that are used and the scale of the destruction is much greater in war as is the loss of life. Unfortunately the rich write the rules so terrorism is vilyfied and war is glorified. But know this

you will NEVER

EVER

NEVER

defeat terrorism with war, because they are one and the same.

Look at northern ireland.... did peace come by dropping endless bombs on the country?

DuPLeX

Of course its totally irrelevant to say that this situation would not exist had the americans not invaded in the first place ,
so obviously they must have the solution as they have caused the problem .

Memnoch

i'm sure they have a "solution" but it will be one that benefits them, and not the iraqi's

Nuttzz

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Now the actions of an aggressor (invading force) will instill fear in a population especially when it kills thousands of the civilian population. That agressor was Germany during WWII and it the US in Iraq. I call that terrorism, you call it something else.

So what was the carpet bombing of Dresden etc then?

Sand

I stated quite clearly that where a war (or part of a war) instills fear and terror into a population, that is, by definition terrorism. Let me recap:

No you didnt.
What I asked (twice) was

"So whats the difference between war and terrorism?"

The clear and simple answer you gave, without qualification, was

"Nothing"

Now either you believe that war=terrorism by another name, or you were lying when you answered that you believed there was no difference between war and terrorism. Its very simple, Im not putting any words in your mouth whatsoever. Youve stated you dont see any difference between terrorism and war, so the participants in a war must be the same as the participants in an act of terrorism. Isnt there a sig floating around here quoting ghandi where he argues the dead dont care if they were killed in the course of a good or evil act? Theyre just as dead.

Or, and this is a long shot - your definition of terrorism is a load of bollocks. A circular definition thats elastic enough to fit anyone whose acts you dont approve of so you can call them names. When your definition is applied to people you do approve of - like the men who fought on D-Day - you suddenly start backpeddling and inventing other qualifications after the fact.

err... no actually. You asked wether or not "wars were a form of terrorism"

Read again.

However all this is pretty irrelevant as its just word play and linguistic traps.

Nope, its demonstrating the bollocks that is this common idea floating around the forum that war=terrorism, or even worse terrorism=acts of terror.

I dont expect the advocates of such rubbish to accept that they need to tighten up their definitions or qualify their statements a bit more, but perhaps theyll admit to themselves if no one else that they need to be a little less convenient with their views.

Unfortunately most people still don't comprehend this simple basic fact. War and terrorism are one and the same,

See what I mean?

Do you know where all this came from? This came from me stating that there was a difference between that marine shooting a suspected suicide bomber and that terrorist shooting a bound charity worker! This was disputed! The marine is being investigated to see if he broke rules of engagement/geneva convention whilst that terrorist was just doing an average days work. But theres no difference between war and terrorism? No difference between the marines and the terrorists theyre fighting? One organisation that investigates suspected murders by its troops and another that endorses them? If the marine did murder a wounded enemy then hes viewed as a crinimal ( or a democratic party presidential candidate boom tish ) but if a terrorist does it no one expects anything better. Thats the difference between war and terrorism. There are rules in war, and there are none in terrorism.