terrorist kidnapings in iraq

[Mr-Ahmed]

a month ago terrorist began a series of kidnaps taking civilains and demanding the withdraw of the civilains country troopers from iraq some how its working .

they shouldn t give in to terrorist like that thier encourging them to do more kidnapings and violence.

[Spookshow]

You mean how "Militants press kidnap strategy" and "They will turn Austrailia into pools of blood"? Giving into terrorists and people who would rather take innocents hostage rather than fight the armed forces... There is no honor in war anymore. At least the we have never resulted to taking people hostage and demanding the other country give up or we behead them. To you people who say we oppress... Do you really want people like that in power?

[Metal69hed]

It's been working quite well really. I've heard recently that (could be a rumor) due to it's success of psychological effects against the civilians of their homelands that new groups have jumped on the boat. Seems now some of these groups are not in it for political reasons, but for the money and fame. Doesn't surprise me.

[HidesHisPastFromU]

Well only reason why people are being kidnapped in Irak is that the Irak people want other nations troops out of their country...

so they can rebuilt their land... and think about it they got oil and usa comes with rockets and destroys their country and then say we will stay in here for 1month (50 Years) and protect you (steal your food water oil and rape your children and womans and use your land as dumbyard)

so if that is only way that irak will be free then i say go for it...

an

[Spookshow]

At 7/26/04 05:50 AM, HidesHisPastFromU wrote: Well only reason why people are being kidnapped in Irak is that the Irak people want other nations troops out of their country...

It isn't the Iraqi people if you haven't noticed. Alot of the insurgents are foreigners.

so they can rebuilt their land...

We aren't rebuilding their land? So what about the new up to date schools, hospitals and roads?

:and think about it they got oil and usa comes with rockets and destroys their country and then say we will stay in here for 1month (50 Years)

When did we say that? We will stay there until the job is done.

and protect you (steal your food water oil and rape your children and womans and use your land as dumbyard)

We steal food? Ummm we have been donating food for the last 10 years at least. Water? So why are we repairing the aging, system with new equipment? I have NEVER heard such dribble in my entire life. We rape women and children? Ok... someone needs to put down the crack pipe. And last time I checked we were cleaning up and improving Iraq.

so if that is only way that irak will be free then i say go for it...

Can someone please get this person a TV or maybe ban him? I don't agree with just shutting someone up but, please have a VALID argument.

an

[antiklaus]

At 7/26/04 03:05 AM, Spookshow wrote: You mean how "Militants press kidnap strategy" and "They will turn Austrailia into pools of blood"? Giving into terrorists and people who would rather take innocents hostage rather than fight the armed forces... There is no honor in war anymore.

There is never honor in a modern war. Modern wars are fought between the 'haves' who have lethal arsenals of technology at their disposal, and the 'have nots' who resort to whatever means they can to achieve their goals.

You'll recall that in our bid for independence, America used a plethora of 'dishonorable' tactics to win, including sabotage, events staged to invoke terror, ambushes, guerilla warfare, and hiring pirates and mercenaries. We were the underdog then. Now we are the overdogs, and we call anyone who resorts to our former tactics as dishonorable, or even terrorists.

At least the we have never resulted to taking people hostage and demanding the other country give up or we behead them.

Actually that sort of behavior was common in the colonial period. The Native Americans didn't leave by choice. They were decapitated, kidnapped, and subject to germ warfare attacks. Other more brutal practices, such as 'collecting scrotums or breasts' were ubiquitous.

In our modern age, we are smart to never sully our hands directly (unless you count Abhu Ghraibe) with such tactics. It is much easier to train a country's militaries to do it to their civilian sector.
http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia109.htm

To you people who say we oppress... Do you really want people like that in power?

Since they use the same tactics directly that we use behind the scenes, at least they are more honest about it.

Personally, I think there are a few more options here than our brand of terror vs theirs.

[Metal69hed]

What the hell kind of journalists does Finland have for HidesHisPastFromU to come to such an assumption? Or maybe it's just that -- an assumption.

[antiklaus]

We aren't rebuilding their land? So what about the new up to date schools, hospitals and roads?

Oh, sorry about bombing your place to oblivion. Here... have a school, I'm sure it will make your loss of little Ahkmed Jr no biggie.

and think about it they got oil and usa comes with rockets and destroys their country and then say we will stay in here for 1month (50 Years)

When did we say that? We will stay there until the job is done.

yeah, but which job, milking them of their oil resources?

and protect you (steal your food water oil and rape your children and womans and use your land as dumbyard)

We steal food? Ummm we have been donating food for the last 10 years at least. Water? So why are we repairing the aging, system with new equipment? I have NEVER heard such dribble in my entire life. We rape women and children? Ok... someone needs to put down the crack pipe. And last time I checked we were cleaning up and improving Iraq.

He cites some serious charges that you choose to ignore. Primarily because the stories don't make the mainstream media. But I have seen enough photos and reports leak out that I am at least willing to admit the process in Iraq is not all the rosy picture you paint. Independent food supplies were bombed, water processing facilities were bombed, and rapes did occur. I wont say they are the rule, but these things are happening. And our installed leader in Iraq has been guilty of the same types of atrocities against his people as Saddam.

Note: we are cleaning up and improving Iraq. We are converting it into a subsideary of the US oil companies. And if I were a native of the country, that would gall the heck out of me.

so if that is only way that irak will be free then i say go for it...

Can someone please get this person a TV or maybe ban him? I don't agree with just shutting someone up but, please have a VALID argument.

an

just because his view doesnt mesh with yours is no reason to ban him.

[Metal69hed]

Where the hell do you get your information from antiklaus?

[Spookshow]

I understand bad things happen during war but has it EVER been perfect? War is hell, get over it. We have done more harm than good. At least we didn't pull a Clinton and bomb them once a month from the air. People like you need to look at the more positive things. We already covered the attacking of civilians in other threads. Just like how people decry the shooting of children who pick up weapons. It seems some of the world will never open your eyes. I chose to ignore? I covered all his arguments.

[little-bald-kid]

I hear war was pretty good when we used swords and shields.

The biggest wars had only 1000 casualties or so.

[Metal69hed]

That's because the population was much smaller.

[Spookshow]

First Crusade: 200,000? (One site claims 70,000 in ONE battle alone)

[antiklaus]

At 7/26/04 06:37 AM, little_bald_kid wrote: I hear war was pretty good when we used swords and shields.

Good? I don't know, but it certainly was more honorable, and there was a direct repercussion on a person who entered into the war. Nothing video-gaming-console-ish - just you looking into the eyes of your foe.

People need this personal connection to the consequence of war.

It should never be easy to kill another human being. It should challenge you and your beliefs as much as your physical self. And you should leave it a different person.

For some modern soldiers, this IS the case, but far too often, there is no such distinction made. The enemy is dehumanized. Dealing death becomes too easy.

The biggest wars had only 1000 casualties or so.

Thats an overgeneralization, but in general, you are somewhat close. There were a few notable exceptions.

[RedSkunk]

War has never been honorable. Before, you sent your slaves and surfs to die, cannon fodder. Or you go to another civilization, rape, pillage and burn. pff.

[Grimbaldous]

At 7/26/04 01:32 PM, antiklaus wrote:

At 7/26/04 06:37 AM, little_bald_kid wrote: I hear war was pretty good when we used swords and shields.

Good? I don't know, but it certainly was more honorable, and there was a direct repercussion on a person who entered into the war. Nothing video-gaming-console-ish - just you looking into the eyes of your foe.

This is all a bunch of romanticized bull shit. War was never honorable for the soldiers, maybe the generals, but not the majority of those who did the fighting. The video game console ish stuff if called better technology. It makes it more likely for our soldiers to survive.

People need this personal connection to the consequence of war.

It should never be easy to kill another human being. It should challenge you and your beliefs as much as your physical self. And you should leave it a different person.

For some modern soldiers, this IS the case, but far too often, there is no such distinction made. The enemy is dehumanized. Dealing death becomes too easy.

Obviously you are pulling things out of your ass. This is a bunch of pseudo-intellectual crap that means nothing. Go hug a tree hippy

[Camarohusky]

At 7/26/04 03:05 AM, Spookshow wrote: There is no honor in war anymore. At least the we have never resulted to taking people hostage and demanding the other country give up or we behead them.

Hmmm... Well, I think I'd have to say that if the tables were turned, we would be doing exactly what they are.

[bombkangaroo]

At 7/26/04 06:25 AM, antiklaus wrote: Oh, sorry about bombing your place to oblivion. Here... have a school, I'm sure it will make your loss of little Ahkmed Jr no biggie.

you cannot honestly think that is anyone's opinion of the situation.
of course the example you used fails to include the possibility that little ahmed will be killed by his own government for political dissidence, or worse yet he will dissapear in the middleof the night never to be heard form again because there is a slight suspicion that he or a relative doesn't like saddam and wishes to do something about it. or maybe one of the female family members would have been in a position where they would refuse the advances of uday hussein, then they'd really be fucked.

the casualties caused in the war are terrible, but saddam was guilty of far worse. to return to your example, you cannot say beyond any doubt that ahmed would have been better off if the war had not happened.

i will reiterate, nobody thinks that what we are doing for the iraqis is in any way going to set right that which has gone wrong, only a moron would suggest such idiocy.
the fact remains though, that what is being doen to help them is good, and is benefiting the iraqi people.

yeah, but which job, milking them of their oil resources?

yeah, because we've started drilling oil, and completely ignored the civilian infrastructure.

come on, even you must know that we haven't touched their oil.
there is thepossibility that part of the motivation to go to war was to secure a friendly oil producing nation in the region, but that is hardly the same as going in to rape their land.

He cites some serious charges that you choose to ignore. Primarily because the stories don't make the mainstream media. But I have seen enough photos and reports leak out that I am at least willing to admit the process in Iraq is not all the rosy picture you paint. Independent food supplies were bombed, water processing facilities were bombed, and rapes did occur. I wont say they are the rule, but these things are happening. And our installed leader in Iraq has been guilty of the same types of atrocities against his people as Saddam.

i'd rather like to see some sources for these.
especially the claim that "our installed leader in Iraq has been guilty of the same types of atrocities against his people as Saddam.".

Note: we are cleaning up and improving Iraq. We are converting it into a subsideary of the US oil companies. And if I were a native of the country, that would gall the heck out of me.

you realise of course that the iraqi government could throw out every single american, and any american companies operating within their territorial jurisdiction?
you could argue about the installation of a puppet regime, but the fact remains that american oil companies have no power over iraq.

just because his view doesnt mesh with yours is no reason to ban him.

you're right there, but i think the fact that the guy is either trolling or completely out of his mind are failry good reasons.

[bombkangaroo]

At 7/27/04 01:58 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/26/04 03:05 AM, Spookshow wrote: There is no honor in war anymore. At least the we have never resulted to taking people hostage and demanding the other country give up or we behead them.

Hmmm... Well, I think I'd have to say that if the tables were turned, we would be doing exactly what they are.

what is it with people romanticising the idea of war?

this may sound callous, although i thoroughly believe that that is the correct attitude for war, but war is not about fighting fair, it is about winning.

we have treaties like the geneva convention so that people will, hopefully, stick to fighting enemy combatants. they are mutual agreements that protect the rights of the citizens of countries that abide by those terms.(in theory)

although those agreements were designed with conventional warfare in mind, some things go wrong when you have people who don't play by the rules.

i'd say those soldiers fighting insurgents and terrorists who dress as civilians should be recognised as "honourable", for they are at great risk of both losing their lives, and inadvertently doing wrong in their battles.
they have to act in accordance with agreements like the geneva convention, and try to fight their enemies. i'd call that a noble effort.
however, i will not look badly on a soldier who kills an innocent by accident, as they will have to live with that for the rest of their lives, along with the many other experiences of war.

[Spookshow]

At 7/27/04 03:27 PM, bombkangaroo wrote:

Hmmm... Well, I think I'd have to say that if the tables were turned, we would be doing exactly what they are.

what is it with people romanticising the idea of war?

Not romanticising just saying, people should not use women and children.

this may sound callous, although i thoroughly believe that that is the correct attitude for war, but war is not about fighting fair, it is about winning.

Granted, but what do you really win if you give up your humanity?

we have treaties like the geneva convention so that people will, hopefully, stick to fighting enemy combatants. they are mutual agreements that protect the rights of the citizens of countries that abide by those terms.(in theory)

But, when terrorists and insurgents do NOT respect those treaties, all that is null and void.

although those agreements were designed with conventional warfare in mind, some things go wrong when you have people who don't play by the rules.

I agree it is hard to respond but our soldiers are doing the best they can.

i'd say those soldiers fighting insurgents and terrorists who dress as civilians should be recognised as "honourable", for they are at great risk of both losing their lives, and inadvertently doing wrong in their battles.

THANK YOU! People need to stop saying, "why'd they shoot X?" Well if that person wouldn't have run across a free fire zone, or picked up the AK-47...

they have to act in accordance with agreements like the geneva convention, and try to fight their enemies. i'd call that a noble effort.

Again, thanks :)

however, i will not look badly on a soldier who kills an innocent by accident, as they will have to live with that for the rest of their lives, along with the many other experiences of war.

They do things everyday that most of us here could not, and for that I respect them.

[witeshark]

A lot of good reading here. But I think the initial thought was that nations must not give in to threats and kidnappings. But it's too bad that people can be such barbaric fucks

[Grimbaldous]

The Phillipines have just given in to the demands of terrorists and pulled out early. All they are doing are telling the sick bastards that the kidnapping works so now we can expect more of the same to continue

[Gunter45]

At 7/28/04 12:57 AM, Grimbaldous wrote: The Phillipines have just given in to the demands of terrorists and pulled out early. All they are doing are telling the sick bastards that the kidnapping works so now we can expect more of the same to continue

Agreed. When you give in to terrorism, then it doesn't give you an edge, it gives the terrorists the edge. You have to draw the line somewhere, and I think kidnapping is a pretty bold line to cross.

As far as using women and children in combat, the US, while it does not send children, does employ female soldiers, but I'm just arguing semantics here, I know what you're trying to say and I completely agree. War has changed a lot since two armies lined up and butchered each other, but most of the advances, such as guerrila warfare and sabotage, are aimed at targeting enemy combatants, the leaders of those combatants, or the combatants' supplies. There is no shame in killing the enemy when he isn't ready, that's his own damn fault, but targeting civilians, or putting civilians in harm's way is never a course of action that can be condoned in a combat situation.

[Spookshow]

At 7/28/04 01:09 AM, Gunter45 wrote:
Agreed. When you give in to terrorism, then it doesn't give you an edge, it gives the terrorists the edge. You have to draw the line somewhere, and I think kidnapping is a pretty bold line to cross.

They are threatening Austrailia and Japan I think now. Who do you think will be next?

As far as using women and children in combat, the US, while it does not send children, does employ female soldiers, but I'm just arguing semantics here, I know what you're trying to say and I completely agree. War has changed a lot since two armies lined up and butchered each other, but most of the advances, such as guerrila warfare and sabotage, are aimed at targeting enemy combatants, the leaders of those combatants, or the combatants' supplies. There is no shame in killing the enemy when he isn't ready, that's his own damn fault, but targeting civilians, or putting civilians in harm's way is never a course of action that can be condoned in a combat situation.

I was talking about cases like:

Where a pregnant female ran from a car screaming and the guy in the car blew it up killing several people. Also look at incidents where they use children for propaganda reasons. But a child in harms way, then he gets shot, and the say: "THE US COMMITS WAR CRIMES!!!"

[Gunter45]

Yeah, I think we're saying the same thing. My talking about women in the military was merely arguing semantics, but I also said that targeting civilians or putting them in harm's way was wrong. I completely agree in any case.

[Spookshow]

Women can do alot of the things we can do but better :P One thing is until we improve tanks and apcs, women should'nt be allowed in them.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/28/04 01:35 AM, Spookshow wrote: Women can do alot of the things we can do but better :P One thing is until we improve tanks and apcs, women should'nt be allowed in them.

Why's that?

[Metal69hed]

I thought women weren't supposed to fight in combat anyways?

[Camarohusky]

At 7/28/04 03:48 AM, Metal69hed wrote: I thought women weren't supposed to fight in combat anyways?

Cause I think all of us men know that women cannot fight...

[Mr-Ahmed]

At 7/28/04 03:54 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/28/04 03:48 AM, Metal69hed wrote: I thought women weren't supposed to fight in combat anyways?

Cause I think all of us men know that women cannot fight...

today fighting doesn t need pysical stragth just point your weapon at the target and shoot thats it .
i belive women can be a part in any modern war and important part too.