35 US soldiers captured in Fallujah: mosques

[Geezah]

FALLUJAH, Iraq, Nov. 8 (Xinhuanet) -- Mosques in Iraq's restive city of Fallujah announced on Monday that the fighters inside the city have captured 35 US soldiers.

Loud speakers of the mosques blared out the news as US forces were trying to penetrate the rebel-held city, but the news could not be independently confirmed.

US troops and Iraqi special forces stormed into the western districts of Fallujah early Monday and seized the main city hospital and two key bridges over the Euphrates River.

US officials said there may be more fierce fighting to come if US forces try to enter downtown Fallujah on the east bank of the river.


Link (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-11/08/content_2191504.htm)

[usmcbud]

sounds like old Baghdad Bob is back spreading lies...

[Geezah]

sounds like old Baghdad Bob is back spreading lies...

I hope so :|

[Freibier]

Hope that's just BS propaganda :|

[futurepilot2004]

I`ll believe that when its confirmed by ******* etc, until that happens I wouldn`t give too much credability to those claims.

[Avary]

One, two or even three captured Americans would be plausible.

But thirthy-five?

Unless they mean 35 Iraqi Army prisonners.

[Meph]

Yeah right, like a platoon of heavily armed US Marines will just lay down like that and the rest of their company wouldn't come rescue them.

No chance that's true.


Bagdad Bob indeed.

[Levan]

cheap propaganda.
hope marines will silent those assholes very soon.

[Locked N Loaded]

That's Horse****........ :fork: ....And Uday and Qusay are still alive too....! :roll:

[aartamen]

In fact they doublehandedly took those Americans prisoners.

[Argyll]

That's Horse****........ :fork: ....And Uday and Qusay are still alive too....! :roll:


Are they?.............bastid I thought they were dead too!

[shrek]

35!!??? think about it, 35!!!!! 35 Marines all giving up, NOT

[scm77]

http://www.code7r.org/inquiz/0503/images/baghdad_bob_18b_sm.jpg

[FinnishMF]

35 monkeys wouldnt give up lol
Those cheese eating monkeys :roll:

[usa320]

My bull**** meter broke because of this thread.

[aartamen]

35 monkeys wouldnt give up lol
Those cheese eating monkeys :roll:

Cheese eating surrender monkey would.

[Nizark]

I did read that we lost two tanks so far. Also took 9 POW's 6 iraqi, 2 egyptian, 1 syrian...those stats are from debka, so they could be all wrong.

[Gringo]

*sniff sniff*

It's too fooking late in the evening (GMT) for bull****.

[usa320]

From what ive read so far weve had about 10 KIA's since the assault began, and weve offed about 90 terrorists and taken some POWS.

[Pooga]

I think somthing was lost in the translation. It's "35 US soldiers capture mosques." Ha. Ha. Guess not…

Anyhoo, 10 dead? :(

[Meph]

weve offed about 90 terrorists

Damn, sooner or later their heaven is going to run out of virgins. If the remaining terrorists don't hurry up and die they might have to settle for eternal sloppy seconds.

[Sayeret]

Sounds like a lot of bs to me.

[DPGLAW]

You think by now that these terroists would KNOW that they are not believed.....I assume that only Al-Jazeera and the US network that seems to support terroism, CBS, will probably air this. I really hope as well that the muslim world and the people of Iraq do not believe that , if they do we are in alot more trouble than thought as it then becomes obvious that they are far too stupid to do anything required of a real civilization..... I just have to believe that this is not the case as then we are in real trouble

[lastdingo]

My best guess when I read the title was "rather encircled".
That, after all, did even the Somalis achieve.

[Nordic Fire]

weve offed about 90 terrorists and taken some POWS.
So, everybody inside Fallujah who shoots back at the US troops is a "terrorist"?

Would you mind telling me your definition of a terrorist? These days a "terrorist" is starting to sound a lot like how "communists" were regarded during the cold war? You know those 7" tall invincible and supremely equipped guys who were just about to conquer the free world. And how did it turn out?

Were you even born back then?

[Pooga]

So, everybody inside Fallujah who shoots back at the US troops is a "terrorist"?

Ok, Freedom Fighters. There, did I make your day?

[Kilgor]

weve offed about 90 terrorists and taken some POWS.
So, everybody inside Fallujah who shoots back at the US troops is a "terrorist"?


Were you even born back then?

Lets just say, if anyone is shooting at you, you kill them to preserve your life. Its either you or them. Take your pick.

Or I guess you rather surrender and take it up the arse euro style hey ?
:bash:

[Kilgor]

Would you mind telling me your definition of a terrorist? These days a "terrorist" is starting to sound a lot like how "communists" were regarded during the cold war? You know those 7" tall invincible and supremely equipped guys who were just about to conquer the free world. And how did it turn out?

?

Funny how these invisable communists managed to wage war on Finland. How did that turn out ?

[Pooga]

Funny how these invisable communists managed to wage war on Finland. How did that turn out ?

Come on man, were you even born back then?

(wink wink)

[Nordic Fire]

So, everybody inside Fallujah who shoots back at the US troops is a "terrorist"?
Ok, Freedom Fighters. There, did I make your day?
I'm happy with "insurgents", thank you very much.

[Kilgor]

no, but thats aparently why we have history and books. So future generations can indulge in nationalistic flamewars on webforums :P

[szr]

Haha. Maybe these calls over the loudspeakers will get the cowards out of their holes and on to the streets, where we can bomb them to paradise.

[Nordic Fire]

Funny how these invisable communists managed to wage war on Finland. How did that turn out ?
("Invisable"? You meant to say "invincible"?)

It looks like you didn't get the point I was trying to make. The unlikely alternative is that you are actually thinking that the 1950s and 60s Cold War hysteria over communism was actually based on realistic intel. It wasn't realistic at all. It's pretty much well known now in military, political and social sciences within academia that intelligence services overestimated the offensive potential and political integrity of the Warsaw Pact intentionally. The goal was to boost up military spending and maintain the status quo of fear. Just like the way fear of terrorism is now being used up by the politcos to effect increased social control over the population and, surprise-surprise, to revive the military industry that's been languishing after the end of cold war and those juicy government deals.

[Kilgor]

Yeah.. how we are duped. The Islamic extremism that exsists on nearly every continent of the world is just a US fabrication to sell weapons.

[ZaakM433]

no i thought it existed to make the french women dislike us...

[Pooga]

Oh really, so the US Army units in Germany were in fact stronger than the Soviet Army?

Wow, you learn something everyday. :roll:

[Abolith]

Yeah right, like a platoon of heavily armed US Marines will just lay down like that and the rest of their company wouldn't come rescue them.

No chance that's true.


Bagdad Bob indeed.


Thats EXCATLY what I was thinking. 35 Marines my @ss....

[Roktiken]

Yeah right, like a platoon of heavily armed US Marines will just lay down like that and the rest of their company wouldn't come rescue them.

No chance that's true.


Bagdad Bob indeed.

I believe it's possible, but weather or not it's true is another thing all together.

I would have my doubts however that if a gorup of US Soldiers/Marines were outgunned, outnumberd, and isolated from friendly forces and surrounded that they would try to break out especially if insurgent forces had wounded and killed a number of them before hand.

It's not out of the realm of possibility.

[mr.x]

Apparently you do not know too many US Marines, Roktiken

[Nordic Fire]

The Islamic extremism that exsists on nearly every continent of the world is just a US fabrication to sell weapons.
Uhhuh? And Christian extremism exists on every - not just nearly every - continent of the world. What's your point? I'm sure that even we have a few Islamic and Christian nutcases over here in the frozen wastes.

In most parts of the world, Islamic extremism is not a problem. A much more serious problem are the fear-mongering right-wing politicos who present themselves as an answer to a problem that does not exist in order to crack down on our civil rights and to sell more guns.

[Undo]

The Islamic extremism that exsists on nearly every continent of the world is just a US fabrication to sell weapons.
Uhhuh? And Christian extremism exists on every - not just nearly every - continent of the world. What's your point? I'm sure that even we have a few Islamic and Christian nutcases over here in the frozen wastes.

In most parts of the world, Islamic extremism is not a problem. A much more serious problem are the fear-mongering right-wing politicos who present themselves as an answer to a problem that does not exist in order to crack down on our civil rights and to sell more guns.

When was the last time that christian extremists killed a school full of children or set off a suicide bomb? Ignorant comparison.

[ronin2172]

The Islamic extremism that exsists on nearly every continent of the world is just a US fabrication to sell weapons.
Uhhuh? And Christian extremism exists on every - not just nearly every - continent of the world. What's your point? I'm sure that even we have a few Islamic and Christian nutcases over here in the frozen wastes.

In most parts of the world, Islamic extremism is not a problem. A much more serious problem are the fear-mongering right-wing politicos who present themselves as an answer to a problem that does not exist in order to crack down on our civil rights and to sell more guns.

When was the last time that christian extremists killed a school full of children or set off a suicide bomb? Ignorant comparison.
You ever hear of Jim Jones and Jonestown or David koresh? Granted they didn't kill anyone but their own followers, but it goes to show a christian extermeist has the potential to be dangerous. It is also interesting to note that many members of the clan (KKK) consider themselves to be good christians and consider themselves to do be doing god's work (and we know what they have done in the past). Also you might want to read up on some of the things that have been happening in other parts of the world....there have been plenty of incidents where muslims have been beaten, killed, tortured and the like by christians. Not that this makes one religion more evil than the other...both r equally capable...so it's not that much of an ignorant comparison.

[moughoun]

The Islamic extremism that exsists on nearly every continent of the world is just a US fabrication to sell weapons.
Uhhuh? And Christian extremism exists on every - not just nearly every - continent of the world. What's your point? I'm sure that even we have a few Islamic and Christian nutcases over here in the frozen wastes.

In most parts of the world, Islamic extremism is not a problem. A much more serious problem are the fear-mongering right-wing politicos who present themselves as an answer to a problem that does not exist in order to crack down on our civil rights and to sell more guns.

When was the last time that christian extremists killed a school full of children or set off a suicide bomb? Ignorant comparison.
You ever hear of Jim Jones and Jonestown or David koresh? Granted they didn't kill anyone but their own followers, but it goes to show a christian extermeist has the potential to be dangerous. It is also interesting to note that many members of the clan (KKK) consider themselves to be good christians and consider themselves to do be doing god's work (and we know what they have done in the past). Also you might want to read up on some of the things that have been happening in other parts of the world....there have been plenty of incidents where muslims have been beaten, killed, tortured and the like by christians. Not that this makes one religion more evil than the other...both r equally capable...so it's not that much of an ignorant comparison.
to back up Ronin's point, the Dayak's in Indoneasia, are Christen's mostly, they are also head hunter's guess what they did in the trouble's in Indoneasia a few year's ago

[usa320]

So, everybody inside Fallujah who shoots back at the US troops is a "terrorist

YES.

[ShotOver]

So, everybody inside Fallujah who shoots back at the US troops is a "terrorist

YES.

Yeah, ****in oath. What kind of dumb**** question was that to ask in the first place.. really.

[Fliptape]

?


so the norwegians who fought the nazi imposed goverment in ww2 was terrorists?

I think you forget that the US invaded Iraq, and some iraqis are still fighting the US occupation, that dosent make then terrorists.

[Syncmaster]

Boring Scandinawians, they already forgot they were more than happy to enlist in German SS units in ww2... Not all of them, though.

I am wondering, are insurgents POWs when caught, are they under Geneva convention? You seem to call them with many diffferent names, but what's their official label? I realize "they" probably won't treat Marines like POW, but anyway, how is it done?

[FinnishMF]

Nazis called Frech freedomfighters terrorists too :)

[usa320]

Stop playing devils advocate you tool.

[Undo]

Nazis called Frech freedomfighters terrorists too :)

Yes. Didn't the Nazis also call the Finns, "friends"?

[Stavka]

Nazis called Frech freedomfighters terrorists too :)

Yes. Didn't the Nazis also call the Finns, "friends"?
Yes, up until the point when the Finns said. K fellas. Weve thwarted the Russian threat, so you can **** off now.

Oh and btw, didnt the Nazis call Russia "Our allies"? ;)

[FinnishMF]

Nazis called Frech freedomfighters terrorists too :)

Yes. Didn't the Nazis also call the Finns, "friends"?

Yes :| So ? what is your point ?

http://www.stanford.edu/~suky/WW2/axis.gif

:|

[Undo]

No offense intended, really. Just saying, "what's in a name"?

I think the insurgents are generally considered "terrorists" because of the kind of people they support (zarqawi) and the kinds of actions they undertake (beheadings, carbombing civilians, suicide bombs, etc.).

Personally, I would call them insurgents unless they are tied to one of the groups doing such things. I am sure there are a few of them that just want the US out.

[Stavka]

No offense intended, really. Just saying, "what's in a name"?

I think the insurgents are generally considered "terrorists" because of the kind of people they support (zarqawi) and the kinds of actions they undertake (beheadings, carbombing civilians, suicide bombs, etc.).

Personally, I would call them insurgents unless they are tied to one of the groups doing such things. I am sure there are a few of them that just want the US out.

Im sure pretty much all of them want the US out of there. And I second your post. Good one.

[FinnishMF]

No offense intended, really. Just saying, "what's in a name"?

I think the insurgents are generally considered "terrorists" because of the kind of people they support (zarqawi) and the kinds of actions they undertake (beheadings, carbombing civilians, suicide bombs, etc.).

Personally, I would call them insurgents unless they are tied to one of the groups doing such things. I am sure there are a few of them that just want the US out.

Im sure pretty much all of them want the US out of there. And I second your post. Good one.
Me too :hug:

[five-five-sixer]

My bull**** meter broke because of this thread.
Mine too...

[Sayeret]

In most parts of the world, Islamic extremism is not a problem. A much more serious problem are the fear-mongering right-wing politicos who present themselves as an answer to a problem that does not exist in order to crack down on our civil rights and to sell more guns.

Actually most conflicts going on in the world do involve Islamic extremists:

-Algerian Insurgency
-Assam
-Kashmir
-Free Aceh Movement
-Dayak
-Maluku
-Al-Aqsa Intifada
-Moro Islamic Liberation Front
-Chechnya
-Thailand Islamic Insurgency
-Afghanistan
-Kurdistan
-Iraq

[walford]

Once upon a time 'terrorist' had a specific meaning [and not simply the guys on the other side] but in this Age of Moral Relativism, we are expected to accept that there are no universal values. In some cultures, shooting children in the back is a part of their lifestyle and we are not justified in judging them for that -- much less doing something about it. We could be considered evil because we allow our women to...do anything.

Of course it should be remembered that our enemies have no conception of moral relativism. They are right. We are wrong. Period. To suggest to them that it is possible to live in peace with us under any circumstances is simply beyond comprehension.

But if there was a neutral definition of terrorism and the alternatives, it would be thus [from another thread]:

Warfare: a forcible means to change another government's policy [such as continuing to live in freedom or dominate the world].

Guerilla: a neutral term for someone who operates in small bands attacking troops, police, and government officials. They also attack infrastructure [rather than the civilians themselves] such as bridges, power plants, fuel storage, factories, etc. in order to distrupt civilian life. Guerillas may be trying to remove an occupying force or they may instead be trying to remove a democracy in order to install a dictatorship.

Groups that use guerilla tactics can concievably be negotiated with and allowed a voice in a future government.

Terrorist: deliberately targets civilians in order to demoralize them to the point that whatever policy that the terrorists oppose is seen as 'not worth it.' The more savage the manner of killing the civilians, the better. Targeting women and children is especially desirable. Freedom is never an objective for terrorists. If there is a plan at all, their aim is always to install a totalitarian society.

Terrorists cannot be negotiated with because for them it is a zero-sum game. Either they totally win or totally lose. They do not wish to become part of a civilized society. There is no living in peace with terrorists.

Terrorists can use guerilla tactics [targeting soldiers for example], but once guerillas begin to target civilians, they become terrorists and should be treated as such.

[lastdingo]

I don't like this terrorist definition; it doesn't match some terrorists of the past (IRA, RAF..).

But I'm sure that the insurgents in Iraq are mostly NOT terrorists, as well as some terrorists in Iraq are no insurgents because they are not from there at all.

Further, I do believe that some behaviour schemes of occupation soldiers can be interpreted as "terrorizing".

Overall, western soldiers should simply not be over there except as embassy personnel.


If you have to think about "proper" behaviour against terrorists, simply imagine that those Iraqis were U.S. citizens or that Iraq was the Canada.

Once you think that, you wouldn't like a lot of what's done by soldiers (beginning with this "haji" ****) as well as you wouldn't be tempted to call them all terrorists.
A lot of our disrespect originates in the cultural and geographic distance.

[dacanadianbomb]

I think all Finns, should first go and battle the K&K CO-OP mafia and then come back when you have finn-ished that :-)

[Phil642]

I don't like this terrorist definition; it doesn't match some terrorists of the past (IRA, RAF..).

But I'm sure that the insurgents in Iraq are mostly NOT terrorists, as well as some terrorists in Iraq are no insurgents because they are not from there at all.

Further, I do believe that some behaviour schemes of occupation soldiers can be interpreted as "terrorizing".

Overall, western soldiers should simply not be over there except as embassy personnel.


If you have to think about "proper" behaviour against terrorists, simply imagine that those Iraqis were U.S. citizens or that Iraq was the Canada.

Once you think that, you wouldn't like a lot of what's done by soldiers (beginning with this "haji" ****) as well as you wouldn't be tempted to call them all terrorists.
A lot of our disrespect originates in the cultural and geographic distance.

Well said!

[walford]

I don't like this terrorist definition; it doesn't match some terrorists of the past (IRA, RAF..).
RAF?

But I'm sure that the insurgents in Iraq are mostly NOT terrorists, as well as some terrorists in Iraq are no insurgents because they are not from there at all.
I personally do not use the term 'terrorist' anymore, because the mush-headed moral/cultural relativists have successfully taken away its meaning. Now I simply describe them by what they do/advocate.

Further, I do believe that some behaviour schemes of occupation soldiers can be interpreted as "terrorizing".
Such as?


Overall, western soldiers should simply not be over there except as embassy personnel.
Embassy personnel are prohibited from removing armed people who target civilians, infrastructure and gov't officials in order to install a dictatorship. Or perhaps you don't mind that.

If you have to think about "proper" behaviour against terrorists, simply imagine that those Iraqis were U.S. citizens or that Iraq was the Canada.
Proper 'behavior' against terrorists is to kill them.

Once you think that, you wouldn't like a lot of what's done by soldiers (beginning with this "haji" ****) as well as you wouldn't be tempted to call them all terrorists.
A lot of our disrespect originates in the cultural and geographic distance.
Yes, a great deal of cultural distance makes us fail to appreciate that when they kill or maim their women for being raped (http://www.8bm.com/diatribes/volume02/diatribes013/diatribes252-272/diatribes256.htm) for example, we must not judge them for that. We are just as bad. We don't allow our women to be members of the Augusta Country Club.

[OB Kenobi]

FALLUJAH, Iraq, Nov. 8 (Xinhuanet) -- Mosques in Iraq's restive city of Fallujah announced on Monday that the fighters inside the city have captured 35 US soldiers.

Loud speakers of the mosques blared out the news as US forces were trying to penetrate the rebel-held city, but the news could not be independently confirmed.

US troops and Iraqi special forces stormed into the western districts of Fallujah early Monday and seized the main city hospital and two key bridges over the Euphrates River.

US officials said there may be more fierce fighting to come if US forces try to enter downtown Fallujah on the east bank of the river.


Link (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-11/08/content_2191504.htm)

Xinhua is the Chinese Fox News.

[OB Kenobi]

Nazis called Frech freedomfighters terrorists too :)

Yes. Didn't the Nazis also call the Finns, "friends"?
Yes, up until the point when the Finns said. K fellas. Weve thwarted the Russian threat, so you can f*** off now.

Oh and btw, didnt the Nazis call Russia "Our allies"? ;)

Didn't Prescott Bush help fund the Third Reich, and made a fortune off of it? :P

[lastdingo]

I don't like this terrorist definition; it doesn't match some terrorists of the past (IRA, RAF..).
RAF?

Rote Armee Fraktion (Red Army Faction), German terrorists, ceased to exist in the 90's.

But I'm sure that the insurgents in Iraq are mostly NOT terrorists, as well as some terrorists in Iraq are no insurgents because they are not from there at all.
I personally do not use the term 'terrorist' anymore, because the mush-headed moral/cultural relativists have successfully taken away its meaning. Now I simply describe them by what they do/advocate.

Further, I do believe that some behaviour schemes of occupation soldiers can be interpreted as "terrorizing".
Such as?

Raids, Abu Ghreib, unpleasant behaviour at checkpoints, driving at high speed with a convoy through a city that happens to be on the MSR, searching for something in civilian's clothes, pushing someone on the ground (into the dirt, for example a father inf ront of his family+neighbours), bombarment of Falluja with JDAMs and other rough behaviour that's pretty normal for war but not compatible with arab sense of dignity.


Overall, western soldiers should simply not be over there except as embassy personnel.
Embassy personnel are prohibited from removing armed people who target civilians, infrastructure and gov't officials in order to install a dictatorship. Or perhaps you don't mind that.

There are dozens of dictatorships all around the world and we have good relations and trade with them, our soldiers shouldn't be in those countries and they aren't (at elast not as occupiers) - should be liek that in Iraq, too. Basically, this whole Iraq conflict is 180° versus the West's interests.


If you have to think about "proper" behaviour against terrorists, simply imagine that those Iraqis were U.S. citizens or that Iraq was the Canada.
Proper 'behavior' against terrorists is to kill them.
OK, imagine the U.S. gets to know that four terrorists meet in a New York Ghetto and Gangstas would open fire if the polices closes in. Would you think that a proper behaviour against these terrorists is to destroy theri block with a JDAM, in New York?


Once you think that, you wouldn't like a lot of what's done by soldiers (beginning with this "haji" ****) as well as you wouldn't be tempted to call them all terrorists.
A lot of our disrespect originates in the cultural and geographic distance.
Yes, a great deal of cultural distance makes us fail to appreciate that when they kill or maim their women for being raped (http://www.8bm.com/diatribes/volume02/diatribes013/diatribes252-272/diatribes256.htm) for example, we must not judge them for that. We are just as bad. We don't allow our women to be members of the Augusta Country Club.

Do you want to invade all countries with weird to brutal customs? BTW, was this a custom/law in Iraq anyway?
How many countries do you think should be invaded, and in which order, to get rid of brutal customs? How many troops would be necessary for that?
Do you want to mobilize as for World War 2 to better the world by invading some dozen, maybe hundred countries?
Are you willing to accept that your country will be invaded for whatever the others think is so bad about it?

[Pooga]

Further, I do believe that some behaviour schemes of occupation soldiers can be interpreted as "terrorizing"
Such as?

Raids, Abu Ghreib, unpleasant behaviour at checkpoints, driving at high speed with a convoy through a city that happens to be on the MSR, searching for something in civilian's clothes, pushing someone on the ground (into the dirt, for example a father inf ront of his family+neighbours), bombarment of Falluja with JDAMs and other rough behaviour that's pretty normal for war but not compatible with arab sense of dignity.

That's terrorism?

[moughoun]

Further, I do believe that some behaviour schemes of occupation soldiers can be interpreted as "terrorizing"
Such as?

Raids, Abu Ghreib, unpleasant behaviour at checkpoints, driving at high speed with a convoy through a city that happens to be on the MSR, searching for something in civilian's clothes, pushing someone on the ground (into the dirt, for example a father inf ront of his family+neighbours), bombarment of Falluja with JDAMs and other rough behaviour that's pretty normal for war but not compatible with arab sense of dignity.

That's terrorism?
I think he's serious. ....:|

[Undo]

Further, I do believe that some behaviour schemes of occupation soldiers can be interpreted as "terrorizing"
Such as?

Raids, Abu Ghreib, unpleasant behaviour at checkpoints, driving at high speed with a convoy through a city that happens to be on the MSR, searching for something in civilian's clothes, pushing someone on the ground (into the dirt, for example a father inf ront of his family+neighbours), bombarment of Falluja with JDAMs and other rough behaviour that's pretty normal for war but not compatible with arab sense of dignity.

That's terrorism?
I think he's serious. ....:|

I think he's off his nut....

[lastdingo]

Further, I do believe that some behaviour schemes of occupation soldiers can be interpreted as "terrorizing"
Such as?

Raids, Abu Ghreib, unpleasant behaviour at checkpoints, driving at high speed with a convoy through a city that happens to be on the MSR, searching for something in civilian's clothes, pushing someone on the ground (into the dirt, for example a father inf ront of his family+neighbours), bombardment of Falluja with JDAMs and other rough behaviour that's pretty normal for war but not compatible with arab sense of dignity.

That's terrorism?

OK, let's limit it to my language - in my language, this can be understood as "terrorisieren" which in turn can only be translated into english as "to terrorize" - that's what I wrote, I did NOT write "terrorism" or "terrorists".
Sometimes, it helps to read carefully what others wrote to avoid misunderstandings.

[Undo]

I really don't think war is compatable with any cultures sense of dignity.

I still think your perception cannot be reconciled with reality. Some things are scary and bad, and some things are terrorism. Cutting peoples heads off, for example.

[lastdingo]

I really don't think war is compatable with any cultures sense of dignity.

I still think your perception cannot be reconciled with reality. Some things are scary and bad, and some things are terrorism. Cutting peoples heads off, for example.

Cutting people's head off is somewhere just the same as a poison injection.
It's murder, for sure, but not terrorism at all. When it is used to terrorize people then it should be considered as terrorism - and the examples is Iraq fit this scheme.

The problem is that this killing is just a couple of examples while thousands (or more likely ten thousands, but I don't want to repeaat the six digit number) were killed there?

A lot of those killed were Iraqi civilians, killed by occupation soldiers. Let's settle that there were at least thousand such killings.

Isn't that thousand too much? Isn't it a reason for the Arabs to think that the americans (or more general, westerners) are bad people? Does this help us? Does this help in the world's fight against islamist-motivated terrorism?

Do you now get why I believe that no western soldiers should be/shouldn't have been in Iraq except as embassy personnel?

It does not only count how bad some of them are - to defeat islamo-terrorism, we need to erode their support and recruiting base - and we cannot do that when we help them with their propaganda.

And the simple fact that there are so much soldiers fighting against the insurgency with lack of respect ("haji", like "skinny" in Somalia and Starship Troopers / ignorance to customs) means that we feed the terrorists with propaganda becasue these soldiers fight an enemy the simple way - by physically. They're right now doing their share to lose the so-called 'war against terrorism' by playing their enemy's game.

Simple: Best the U.S. could do to help the islamo-terrorists is to indiscriminately bombard Falluja - that's why I called someone a "stupid asshole" in militaryphotos.net for writing "carpet bombing" in context with Falluja.

But many small things done by occupation soldiers add up to the equivalent of flattening Falluja. That's inevitable with these soldiers.
Americans emphasize force protection too much, have too much firepower available and are too disliked for their support of Israel (in the arab world).

I disagree with van Creveld about whether the strong can only lose today if he fights the weak in an insurgency - but the Americans have certainly one of the worst chance sets for winning. Too much power without enough fine tuning at work. Seems so to me, at least.

[Undo]

I really don't think war is compatable with any cultures sense of dignity.

I still think your perception cannot be reconciled with reality. Some things are scary and bad, and some things are terrorism. Cutting peoples heads off, for example.

Cutting people's head off is somewhere just the same as a poison injection.
It's murder, for sure, but not terrorism at all. When it is used to terrorize people then it should be considered as terrorism - and the examples is Iraq fit this scheme.

The problem is that this killing is just a couple of examples while thousands (or more likely ten thousands, but I don't want to repeaat the six digit number) were killed there?

A lot of those killed were Iraqi civilians, killed by occupation soldiers. Let's settle that there were at least thousand such killings.

Isn't that thousand too much? Isn't it a reason for the Arabs to think that the americans (or more general, westerners) are bad people? Does this help us? Does this help in the world's fight against islamist-motivated terrorism?

Do you now get why I believe that no western soldiers should be/shouldn't have been in Iraq except as embassy personnel?

It does not only count how bad some of them are - to defeat islamo-terrorism, we need to erode their support and recruiting base - and we cannot do that when we help them with their propaganda.

And the simple fact that there are so much soldiers fighting against the insurgency with lack of respect ("haji", like "skinny" in Somalia and Starship Troopers / ignorance to customs) means that we feed the terrorists with propaganda becasue these soldiers fight an enemy the simple way - by physically. They're right now doing their share to lose the so-called 'war against terrorism' by playing their enemy's game.

Simple: Best the U.S. could do to help the islamo-terrorists is to indiscriminately bombard Falluja - that's why I called someone a "stupid asshole" in militaryphotos.net for writing "carpet bombing" in context with Falluja.

But many small things done by occupation soldiers add up to the equivalent of flattening Falluja. That's inevitable with these soldiers.
Americans emphasize force protection too much, have too much firepower available and are too disliked for their support of Israel (in the arab world).

I disagree with van Creveld about whether the strong can only lose today if he fights the weak in an insurgency - but the Americans have certainly one of the worst chance sets for winning. Too much power without enough fine tuning at work. Seems so to me, at least.

Meh. You offer a lot of opinions that I consider ill-informed.

I won't enter into a debate about whether the reasons for the war were just or not, the fact is that now there is a war. War sucks. People die. I just don't like people offering up skewed, misguided and ignorant opinions about how US troops handle themselves in a fight. Do you think suicide bombers/car-bombers/random mortar and rocket attackers think about collateral damage? While US troops go to incredible lengths not to harm civilians. The flattening of Falluja is in the hands of the insurgents. Where ever they are, the US is going to use devestating force to deal with them. Maybe the army of your country would prefer to send in your soldiers armed with harsh words and sticks, but in the US military we go out of our way to kill our enemy without endangering the lives of our soldiers. If insurgents occupy a building and use it as a base of fire, the US is going to roll up an abrams and blast the building down rather than send troops into that situation. To do otherwise is folly.

I disagree with everything you seem to believe, but that is okay. You are trying to somehow rationalize why the insurgents fight, or why it is okay for them to murder people. The answer you seem to come up with is that the US is just as bad, etc.

For my part, I don't buy into that and I view that kind of attitude with contempt.

[lastdingo]

Read my previous post again. It doesn't matter how bad they are. All that the real terrorists need is the message that the westerners are bad, and that country is full of challenges to american soldiers to demonstrate that.

What you and many others simply don't seem to recognize is that it's not that important how bad the others are. They're bad, so what? So far, it seems to me that american-dominated media (especially strategypage.com) are the only ones that send the message that bad deeds of the others do backfire, while I experience a lot of other news that tell much more about backfiring U.S. actions. When islamist terrorists recruit, do you think it matters how bad the others are, how good or bad the westerners are? No, it matters how bad they think we are!
Stop fueling thier propaganda by waging war in Iraq, damnit!

It does also not matter whether there's a war for the question whether western soldiers should be there. Iraq won't invade any NATO country nor any other coutnry if those foreign soldiers left. The occupiers are free to leave, and it wouldn't hurt them much. Iraq wouldn't fall to the terrorists; it would either fall into shia's hands as it is determined to do anyway if it ever becomes democratic or it would have a full-scale civil war that would save a large chunk of the world oil reserves for later times (when oil is even more scarce).

[five-five-sixer]

a full-scale civil war that would save a large chunk of the world oil reserves for later times (when oil is even more scarce).
Until I read this I used to think your point is'no blood for oil' :lol:

Man, you're really simplifying things. But they aren't that simple. I agree that Coalition's military presence in Iraq leads to intensifying anti-western moods. But you can't predict an outcome of a civil war. To me, it's rather unlikely that the goverment can win without foreign support...

[GrimmyRX]

If insurgents occupy a building and use it as a base of fire, the US is going to roll up an abrams and blast the building down rather than send troops into that situation. To do otherwise is folly.

And if terrorists took over a building in downtown new york (like, totally took it over, and all the civilains left) would you be for rolling up in a Abrams and blasting the building down?

[Steel21]

Isnt Xinhua a Chinese state run media network? Its bassically the voice of the state.

Xinhua usually PRETEND to present a pacifist observer perspective, I suspect they do this so that they can continue to trade heavily with the US, garner military technology from Israel and constant supply of oil from the OPEC nations.

Back to the topic, its really hard to capture 35 of our guys.

We arent talking about maintenance troops here, we are talking about combat combined arms. You just cant isolate an element and make em surrender.

And I doubt any of our guys would even surrender if they have a round left after see what happened to all the hostages.........

TOTAL BS. :bash:

[lastdingo]

a full-scale civil war that would save a large chunk of the world oil reserves for later times (when oil is even more scarce).
Until I read this I used to think your point is'no blood for oil' :lol:

Man, you're really simplifying things. But they aren't that simple. I agree that Coalition's military presence in Iraq leads to intensifying anti-western moods. But you can't predict an outcome of a civil war. To me, it's rather unlikely that the goverment can win without foreign support...

I dindn't try to predict anything - except that they wouldn't produce much oil during times of trouble.

Basically, I don't see why that should touch our national security concerns. So what? Another civil war, a dictatorship likely, does that hurt us? There are so many in the world...
A safe harbor for terrorists? After we told them how easy it would be for us to remove them from power? I don't think so. And they've got a safe harbor in Somalia right now, you won't go there if anyhow avoidable for obvious reasons...

OK, I think I've made my statement. My belief is that Iraq is not one of the west's key interest zones. We like their oil, but we can get oil from many places and if it's scarce because they don't supply, then we're just more likely to adapt in time for the coming real scarcity and high-price phase.
Iraq is more likely to benefit terrorists as long as it's occupied.
So neither terrorism nor oil (nor honor) provide enough reason to stay there. The terror aspect and the casualties otherwise ar strong reasons why to leave that place.

[walford]

US troops tackle last Fallujah rebels amid Mosul offensive (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041114/wl_afp/iraq_041114190347&e=2)

Sun Nov 14, 2:03 PM ET

FALLUJAH, Iraq (AFP) - US troops tackled Fallujah's last tenacious insurgents but were still days away from completing major search operations, as the mutilated body of a Caucasian woman was found by marines...

...In the south of the city, where insurgents regrouped over the weekend, the butchered body of a blonde-haired Caucasian woman was found Sunday lying on a street.

"It is a female ... missing all four appendages, with a slashed throat and disemboweled, she has been dead for a while but only in this location for a day or two," said a Navy Corps hospital apprentice who had inspected the body.

Two foreign women have been abducted in Iraq and remain missing: Teresa Borcz, 54, a Pole, has blonde hair, and British aid worker Margaret Hassan, 59, has chestnut-coloured hair.

French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, meanwhile, said two French journalists kidnapped south of Baghdad nearly three months ago were thought to be in a "fairly safe" zone in Iraq...

With a convoy carrying aid for thirsty and hungry civilians in the rebel enclave still blocked by the military, US-led forces said that more than 1,200 insurgents had been killed in the assault launched late November 7.

Meanwhile, in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, the country's third largest, Iraqi and US troops moved in after days of unchecked lawlessness, with clashes erupting between rebels and security forces Sunday...

"It is probably going to be another four to five days of clearing house to house," said Colonel Mike Shupp. "There is not going to be a stone unturned in the city."

On Saturday, national security advisor Qassem Daoud announced that the so-called Operation Fajr (Dawn) was accomplished and "only the malignant pockets remain that we are dealing with through a clean-up operation."

He acknowledged, however, that Iraq's most wanted man, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose supporters had made Fallujah their base, and a top aide had slipped through their fingers.

But US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, on a trip to Panama, said that while US troops were present in much of the city, the mission was not over.

"Needless to say there still will be pockets of resistance and areas that will be difficult, so I don't mean to suggest that it is concluded. It's not, to be sure."

Despite being hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned, the insurgents in Fallujah have refused to surrender their stronghold without a fierce struggle...

...The Muslim relief agency said it fears civilians are dying of starvation and a lack of medical equipment. Of the city's 300,000 residents, as many as one-third were thought to have remained when the assault began.

"They are still in the hospital and they are trying to have the facility to distribute material in Fallujah but until now they have not been able to," said Ahmed Nasser, head of the Red Crescent's disaster management unit.

But Health Minister Alaeddin Abdul Sahib Adwan said the fears of a humanitarian crisis were groundless and that only a small number of civilians had been wounded in the week-long battle, although he admitted he was unable to obtain information about residents in the thick of the fighting.

"The ministry of health is coordinating with the Iraqi military and the multinational forces in evacuating the civilian casualties, but so far the number has been very small," Adwan told AFP.

"We have about 20 civilian casualties," he said.

A further 400 civilians who were not in need of treatment have also been transported out of the city over the past 48 hours, he added.

Meanwhile, with the insurgents growing bolder by the day in Mosul, 370 kilometres (230 miles) north of Baghdad, Iraqi and US troops moved in and appeared to be regaining control, an AFP correspondent there said.

Clashes took place between rebels and Iraqi security forces in the centre of Mosul, with the two sides exchanging automatic gunfire and rockets. They were particularly heavy close to the police headquarters in the Zanjali area.

The Iraqi National Guard had deployed in several districts, as well as alongside the river Tigris and in the west of the city, he said. Two police stations were retaken in the centre and the north.

Elsewhere, US helicopter and tank fire blasted a building harbouring suspected insurgents near the restive city of Baiji, also north of the Iraqi capital, killing several rebels, a US military spokesman said.

Medical sources in the city said they had received 13 Iraqi dead and 26 wounded following clashes in the city and two US air attacks, including the one in Baiji and another in nearby Siniyah.

In the restive city of Ramadi, six Iraqis were killed and five wounded during clashes between gunmen and US troops, medics said. Rebels had deployed in force in the city after the start of the assault on nearby Fallujah.