Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: .::Tin Can::. on June 18, 2004, 07:55:55 pm
-
Well... just when you thought you had heard it all, guess what? That captured guy the terrorists had, has been decapitated. They found his body without his head, and his head stacked on top of his body, with a knife in his eye. :sigh:
Now, I dont know about the rest of you. In fact, maybe I do. But regardless, I am tired of dealing with terrorists. I am tired of having to listen to another American brutaly murdered and found in the desert. For christs sake... cmon! This is insane. This is madness.
The problem numero uno, is that people just dont want to fight terrorists. They dont have the stomach for it. They would rather talk their way through things and avoid confrontation. Most Liberals do, they dont wanna fight. They wanna be friends, have peace, not have to deal with this problem now. Well, you know why we have to kill all these terrorist sons a *****es? Because they want to kill us. There is no negotiable terms, lands to be disputed, claims to be redone. They just simply said they want to kill us, all of us, and so you know what we need to do? Kill them. Kill all of them. In fact here is a grand idea:
Capture a terrorist, knock him out, and put a nice and comfortable GPS on him. Let him go. Just, tell him to scurry along and not to cause any more trouble. After a certain distance, you follow him. You get everyone to follow this guy, and then when he finally stops somewhere, you blow it up. You dont screw around with the political rules, this is war, you just blow the building to ****. Put a few hundred pounds of C4 all around the base of it and just push the button. Either that, or turn some of the terrorists hiding spots into the largest coke bottles in the world, if you catch my drift. ;7
So, if anyone here wants to defend terrorists actions, what they do, why they exist, then please do. I can't see why anyone can defend someone who has an intent to kill others. Just a solid, one-minded idea: kill anyone that your religion or superior officer clearly states for you. So we as people need to stop ****ing around with these terrorists and just kill every, last, one. If the GPS idea doesnt work, shoot the bastard when you see him. You cant convert a terrorist to "not do it again. Just behave now, ya little scoundrel." No, its not possible. They are like roaches, vermin, who cant be dealt with, without the use of something to just get rid of them all.
This has been Tin Can, and his 2 and a half cents.
-
You are right, the gloves need to come off and we need to get to business, the "rest of the world" be damned.
While I echo these sentiments, all you've really done is start another flame war.
-
Don't they realize yet that doing this sort of thing doesn't make us fear them like they intend it to, it just pisses us off more?
-
Tin: Learn to post news links.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3820495.stm
-
I hate to say this, but I have to agree with Lib and Tin Can on this matter. :(
The army should not have to listen to the government when deciding how to do things. I guess humanity is still imprisoned in the eye for an eye deal. :sigh:
-
Better yet, shot at them with bullets soaked in pigs blood. Then when and if we get the bodies, lets bury them with pig waste products and/or parts.
-
Guys, its Saudi Arabia, possibly the most anti-Western nation on Earth. This is the country that gave us bin Laden, that gave us 15 of the 19 WTC hijackers, the biggest supporters of Islamic terrorism anywhere and the very defintion of Islamic fundamentalism. Don't act so surprised.
Relying on the Saudi government to stop terrorism is like relying on Rommel to stop Hitler.
-
Just give me a M24 with plenty of ammunition and let me clean house.
-
Saudi Arabia made a deal with the terrorists that they could do whatever the hell they want, just as long as they wouldnt do terrorist acts in Saudi Arabia, so they funded them and gave them all this weapons bull****, and now that the terrorists say "Well we dont like you either so we are going to kill all of you", Saudia Arabia is now "up in arms!" and is ready to take the plunge with us.
The problem with most politicians is that they want to deal with this idea later. Going to war with a nomadic terrorist organization is a big job, and people would rather wait until they strike again rather then deal with the threat now. So, hes right, gimme a gun, a bunch of angry people, let em loose and give em a terrorist hunting radar and we will just be ALL over em. ;7 (Even though that wouldnt be possible :ha:)
-
Not to put a damper on your militant bravado, but might I ask, what is a terrorist? It seems like a fair question to pose, especially considering the fact that you would like to exterminate the lot of 'em.
Any sane Westerns should be getting the hell out of Riyadh by now. The only ones who I can imagine staying are the ones who are beiong paid copious amounts of money to do so, on account of them being indispensible to some project or another within Saudi Arabia.
-
terrorist: A person who intentionaly and in an organised, well planned fashion, kills unarmed semi-random people from within group becose of hatered for them or to instill a sence of fear in the larger population. Generaly not under the direct controle of a nation.
-
You seem to be forgetting what happened to the Russians when they tried to put down Afghanistan.
They were out to **** these people over, yet they wound up in a very similar situation to what the US is in now in Iraq.
-
But when you think about comparing Russians to Americans, there is a VERY big technilogical gap inbetween those two countries, as well as economy... also, training and tactics will always be different. You cannot compare two completely different countries in the same situation... and at the moment, we have caught Russians selling weapons to terrorists, so, take them out too...
My definition of a Terrorist would be one who follows a principle to deliberately do harm to an organization, both its civil and military stature and basis. In this case, they want to kill all "infidels" intentionally, so, we need to step up and show us that these "infidels" are a hellova lot better equiped and trained then they are, and we are not going to have to put up with more brutal murders performed in the sake of "Allah!"
If you guys heard audio from these beheadings, they are just ranting and screaming and raving and laughing and just absolutely loving the fact that they killed an American, let alone the fact that two were jewish americans. (The latest one was not, however) The fact that someone can get so much pleasure from a gruesome death is unknown to me... its sickening and I think people like this should die miserably...
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
But when you think about comparing Russians to Americans, there is a VERY big technilogical gap inbetween those two countries, as well as economy... also, training and tactics will always be different. You cannot compare two completely different countries in the same situation... and at the moment, we have caught Russians selling weapons to terrorists, so, take them out too...
And the Americans were selling weapons to the Afghan "rebels" back then too.
When this happened, the technological gap wasnt quite as big as it is now either.
-
I only have one thing to say: I really hope we build a lot more Apaches so we can blast these ****** to bits.
-
Apaches? You're nuts. They keep getting shot down. The Russians had the same problem with Hinds.
-
Read the article.
Personally I think they should all die by either WP (white phosphorus) grenades or napalm.
-
Ok, reading through this, I must say anybody who says 'kill them all' needs to wake up...
THERE IS NO way to stop crime in cities or crimes against humanity. (terrorists)
They are all people, stupid, stupid people. They will always find a way to get more weapons and kill more and more... They cannot ALL be killed nor can they be stoped. All we are doing is killing people that are killing people which ends up killing more people.
This whole war is an perfect example of humanities primitive and stupid traits... They have always been here, it's just now as we get more smarter, we have learned to kill more people.
What do we do??
Well as I said, if you lke it or not, we are on are way to one of the biggest Holocaust in history, that could either unite the world or destroy it completely. What do you think humanity is going to chose??
-
Originally posted by Thorn
And the Americans were selling weapons to the Afghan "rebels" back then too.
When this happened, the technological gap wasnt quite as big as it is now either.
Of course, all the leftover American and Soviet tech in Iraq and Afghanistan do seem to be working pretty well for them, isn't it?
-
I just watched Swordfish again...
"If they bomb a church, we bomb ten. If they kill Americans, we use a tactical nuke on a city."
-
So says Gabriel Shear, ex-Mossadi agent :D:D
To quote some US senator, I am outraged at the outrage. People die all the time, for all sorts of reasons. Famine, diesease, war. For religion, for nationality, for profit, for ideology. The fact that this specific person happened to be born on US land, and the fact that he was beheaded instead of dying a less grizly death, thats pretty irrelevant. I don't hear anyone mourning the thousands of dead that die every day for lack of food, water or medicine. They all had families and dreams and aspirations etc etc. Are we going to make a thread for every person that dies from an unjust cause?
-
Rictor, he was killed for no other reason that because he was American.
He wasn't killed for profit or by lack of food or water.
While all deaths are tragic, the fact that the victim was killed because he was in a particular demographic group to make a political statement is what makes this particular death so horrible.
Deaths by famine would drop dramatically if the world would drop it's stupid sanctions against Geneered foodstuffs. I mean we've technically been eating Geneered food for thousands of years anyway.
-
they want terror?..
drop a nuke on their front doorstep, and see how brave they are...
-
So much for rationality. I stand by my "the planet has 10 years" statement... although it's more like 9 years now.
-
We live insane times right now.
-
Seriously, I didn't expect anything else. It was bound to happen again sooner or later. :blah:
-
unarmed civilians, no less..
-
Wow, an American in a flashpoint gets captured and beheaded. There's a ****ing suprise.
Quite frankly if your a dumb enough (or greedy enough) **** to be anywhere near the middle east with caucasian skin and a western accent you take full responsibility for what happens to you.
Originally posted by Turnsky
they want terror?..
drop a nuke on their front doorstep, and see how brave they are...
That's probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard, not only would it achieve absolutely nothing worthwhile, it'd probably compound the situation and bring on a third world war.
-
For the last few months the US has been telling its citizens to leave Saudi, yet people are surprised when something like this happens. And all you boyos shouting lets nuke the bastards should really keep up with events, Saudi authorities killed the guys who did this yesterday.
-
Let's kill mankind so no-one can get killed anymore!!!! yay!!!
:doubt:
-
Originally posted by 01010
That's probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard, not only would it achieve absolutely nothing worthwhile, it'd probably compound the situation and bring on a third world war.
yeah, i know.. stupid.. :p
actually, i was more or less thinking of capturing their leaders, using good ol-fashoned espionage to root them out, and bring them to trial under their OWN law.. by their own people..
because, 'innocent' iraqi civilians are being killed in the crossfire..
'cause murder is murder, no matter what the religion.
-
It amazes me, in this particular instance. For example, if America said it would start executing it's Prisoners in Guatamano Bay by electric chair, live, on prime time TV, until the Terrorists gave up. I bet you there would be no indecision in the worlds reaction whatsoever.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
It amazes me, in this particular instance. For example, if America said it would start executing it's Prisoners in Guatamano Bay by electric chair, live, on prime time TV, until the Terrorists gave up. I bet you there would be no indecision in the worlds reaction whatsoever.
What do you mean by 'no indecision'? Because if you mean what I think you mean you couldn't be more wrong about it.
-
Well, what do you think I mean then?
-
Originally posted by Flipside
It amazes me, in this particular instance. For example, if America said it would start executing it's Prisoners in Guatamano Bay by electric chair, live, on prime time TV, until the Terrorists gave up. I bet you there would be no indecision in the worlds reaction whatsoever.
With pigs stuff somehow involved. Muslims hate/can't be around pigs.
-
To be honest HS, I don't think that would matter, these people aren't Muslims, they don't even follow the most basic tenets of the Muslim faith.
They hide, like cowards, behind Islam, just as many of their counterparts do the same with Christianity or Judaism. This serves only to smear the ideals that those religions are trying to adopt these days. Most holy books have 'smite the unbeliever' in them at some point, it's easy for anyone who has no religion, but a lot of manipulation, to use that for anythng they so wish.
Edit : Please note, I'm not suggesting that America SHOULD do this, I haven't said that, what I am saying is that the world would be disgusted if they did, and yet are far more inclined to forgive the same thing in the opposite direction.
2nd Edit : http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040619/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_kidnapped_american&cid=540&ncid=716
-
I find it deplorable that people can at the same time complain about what happened to this man and advocate the same thing for those who did it or are suspected or doing it, or have been convicted of nothing as in the case of 99% of the people at guantanamo. People here who advocate this sort of thing are no better than the people who killed this man. Same also for the people who cry racism when an american is killed, but say nothing when some arabs are killed by americans, nothing more than racists themselves.
Btw, this guy wasnt killed just because he was an american, he was killed because he was a technician on apache helicopters.
Al-Qaeda, the statement says, had killed Mr Johnson because of "what Muslims have suffered from American Apache helicopters and their rockets".
From the bbc article, you guys should read more than the headlines before you start shooting your mouths off. If you want to look for examples of people being killed just because they were westerners, theres been plenty in the last months, including an irishman and a german. Where are the threads complaining about their killings, or do beheaded americans only count?
Oh aye, maybe before you start shouting bomb them all you might want to take into account that this happened in Saudi Arabia, on whom you're heavily dependant for oil.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
It amazes me, in this particular instance. For example, if America said it would start executing it's Prisoners in Guatamano Bay by electric chair, live, on prime time TV, until the Terrorists gave up. I bet you there would be no indecision in the worlds reaction whatsoever.
****... as long as it doesn't cut into Friday night DS9...
-
I guess you guys didnt really read into this did you?
He was planning on leaving for Ireland with his wife due to the warning to go. He worked there in the Middle East, it was his job, and so when he had planned to leave they nabbed him and beheaded him. Quite frankly, killing someone is bad enough, but slicing off their heads and then jabbing a knife in their eyes is just too medieval gruesome for me. We have evolved past a state of being barbarians, running and screaming at the joyous sounds of death and killing. For christs sake, as long as "infidels" are around there will always be terrorists, but taking out an extremely large number of them would help to thin their ideas that "Hey, maybe if I did this I might get killed so I probably shouldnt..."
-
It's funny how you people seem to think killing folk who consider themselves martyrs is going to stop other like 'em...
-
indeed.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I guess you guys didnt really read into this did you?
He was planning on leaving for Ireland with his wife due to the warning to go. He worked there in the Middle East, it was his job, and so when he had planned to leave they nabbed him and beheaded him.
I think the main point here is where he was at the time of the abduction, I dont think the terrorist were to interested in his future career plans, and I seriously doubt they grabbed him because he was leaving, as you seem to be impling.
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Quite frankly, killing someone is bad enough, but slicing off their heads and then jabbing a knife in their eyes is just too medieval gruesome for me. We have evolved past a state of being barbarians, running and screaming at the joyous sounds of death and killing. For christs sake, as long as "infidels" are around there will always be terrorists, but taking out an extremely large number of them would help to thin their ideas that "Hey, maybe if I did this I might get killed so I probably shouldnt..."
And how do you propose taking out large numbers of them without creating even larger numbers of more terrorists? Look at Fallujah, the US went in to take revenge for 4 dead mercenaries and ended up creating a little Islamic mini-state after killing near a thousand, enraging most of the world and having to withdraw in defeat. All very well to say lets take out a large number of them and everything will be ok, but thats what the US said it was going to do three years ago and unless I'm mistaken theres been a hell of a lot more terrorist attacks in that three year period than there was in the three before.
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
We have evolved past a state of being barbarians, running and screaming at the joyous sounds of death and killing.
Thats what you see, this is what they see:
(http://www.albasrah.net/images/iraqi-pow/dead-iraqi1.jpg)
http://www.albasrah.net/images/iraqi-pow/iraqi-pow1.htm
-
According to British magazine S2 that comes with the Sunday Express newspaper if things keep going the way they are we are going to have a huge Third World War that may use nuclear weapons.
I agree and the only way to stop it is to show those terrorists and rogue states that the USA and UK aren't going to put up with it. The reason why those terrorists and rogue states start commiting attacks or build up weapons that we know will be used is because we are essentially letting them do it.
We should be going out there and wherever we find a terrorist cell we crush it before anything can happen, and the business with the hostage, what's one life compared to another atrocity like 9/11 etc?
I think that the USA and the UK should adopt a new zero-tolerence policy on terrorism wherever we find it.
And also, when has terrorism solved any problems, it creates more.
-
Originally posted by ARothers
I think that the USA and the UK should adopt a new zero-tolerence policy on terrorism wherever we find it.
And also, when has terrorism solved any problems, it creates more.
Funny that, so has policing the world to change it to suit the way we think it should be.
Things were more straightforward in medieval times. A country could have a war between north and south in an attempt to overthrow whatever ruler they had. If one side one then life went on, every day people carried on their same old lives. The neighbouring country wouldn't give a damn.
Then, suddenly, everyone starts messing around in other peoples business because they think it should be done differently. Don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying such things as internal genecide is a good thing or something I'd like to see - but I also think it'd be a lot easier for the average farmer if he could just farm without having to care who was in charge.
These days, war happens to everyone - not just the soldiers.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Thats what you see, this is what they see:
(http://www.albasrah.net/images/iraqi-pow/dead-iraqi1.jpg)
http://www.albasrah.net/images/iraqi-pow/iraqi-pow1.htm
Exactly. Some people are just pretentious.
Humans are the most vicious animals ever to exist. Period.
Every animal can kill for their own survival. But humans are the only creatures that can and will kill eachother for just about anything.
-
Non-interference is the prime directive.
-
Here is a couple of problems with "shooting terrorists on sight":
1.) You usually can't spot terrorists right away. They often can blend right in with the innocents. So do we just go ahead and wipe all the innocent people out too?
2.) It also depends on who you consider to be terrorists. A lot of people around the world most likely consider Bush to be a terrorist, so do we go and execute him on the spot? Also some Republicans in the state of Oregon called a teachers union a "terrorist organization", so do we go and wipe them out too? And what if those same Republicans said that all the millions of anti-war (the ones who marched all across the world to oppose the Iraq invasion by the New Evil Empire) are terrorists, so do we go and kill them all as well?
-
Tempting.......
Seriously though, my problem with it is this. It seems to be permanently escalalated into a Political thing. A man get's kidnapped, held against his will and then videoed having his head hacked off for being American. That's it. End of story. We can dress this up in 'Right and Wrong' and 'Desperate people', 'current situation' etc etc, and it won't add up to ****.
When I saw the pictures of Americans torturing Iraqis I was disgusted and appaled. There was no possible Political or Social motivation or justification to it. Exactly as in the case of this beheading.
What has been commited here is a cold blooded crime against someone for their nationality. Just as cold blooded, if not more so, than what happened at Abu Ghraib. It should be judged in precisely the same manner.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Just as cold blooded, if not more so, than what happened at Abu Ghraib.
In Abu Ghraib the ones doing the torture should've known better. From the Al-Qaida you can expect that but from American military personell, no. In my view it's worse that Americans degrade themselves to the level of Al-Qaida itself then that Al-Qaida doing that ****.
-
A lot of these higher ranked terrorists were educated quite well, though I must admit, I don't know whether this current man is one of them. And these people claim to follow the teachings of the Quoran, which strictly forbids this kind of behaviour.
I won't try to justify America's behaviour in Abu Ghraib, there is no justifiction. But if we are all willing to accept that many members of Al Quaida are bloodlusting savages, and not intelligent people who are using internal power and media manipulation to a massive degree, they will continue to advance and grow.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
It amazes me, in this particular instance. For example, if America said it would start executing it's Prisoners in Guatamano Bay by electric chair, live, on prime time TV, until the Terrorists gave up. I bet you there would be no indecision in the worlds reaction whatsoever.
Of course, because "America is the focus of evil in the modern world".[/sarcasm]
Abu Ghraib
The Guards at Abu Grahib should have known better, true. The problem is what they did, while revolting, did not result in any permanent consequences to the victims.
There were permanent consequences for the beheaded and his family. He's dead and his family has lost both father and husband and the primary source of income for the family.
That is why it's considered worse than what happened at AG.
-
Hurrah for Christian forgiveness
Why is what happened to the prisoners, including the dead ones, of less consequence? Are they and their families of less worth?
Lib, you never cease to amaze me. I know this will lead to a locking, but I have to say it - you are a racist and a bigot
-
bigot -- a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
-
If that was aimed at me, then yes - I am intolerant of racists amd the idea that one human life is worth more than another
-
If an american got attacked and eaten by a bear while hiking in the woods, would Canada get invaded for harboring terrorist bears?
-
There are so many replies to Aspa's post that would be fun, but would lock this thread so quickly....
-
Nahhh... It's the old God Given right to arm bears :) Or was that bear arms?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The Guards at Abu Grahib should have known better, true. The problem is what they did, while revolting, did not result in any permanent consequences to the victims.
See that picture up there I posted Libby, that guy is dead, beaten to death. I think that counts as a permanent consequence. Prime example of the racism I mentioned above, you think an american dying is much more serious than an Iraqi dying.
-
No, I just don't think Lib knew that people had died at Abu Ghraib to be honest. The humiliation was bad enough, in some cultures, ancient japanese for example, certain kinds of humiliation were worse than death, they became 'non-people', people would commit suicide rather out of dishonour. Some cultures are still like that.
But I think Liberator is angry, and rightly so, just as you are justifiably angry at the horrors of Abu Ghraib. The hard part, and I mean the really hard part, is how to see past that anger and start to diminish it. At the moment, that is not going to happen, the wound is too fresh.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
No, I just don't think Lib knew that people had died at Abu Ghraib to be honest.
That would be the entire point. Iraqi dies who gives a ****, Yank dies kill em all. Racism.
-
The guards at Abu Ghraib were just friggin idiots. Everyone is against them, including me, but if I was to choose between being tortured or having your head cut off then I would much rather take the torture.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
The guards at Abu Ghraib were just friggin idiots. Everyone is against them, including me, but if I was to choose between being tortured or having your head cut off then I would much rather take the torture.
BDSM your kinda thing huh?
-
Ahem, well, actually I wouldn't, but I certainly hope I never have to make that choice ;)
What concerns me is America's attempts to get it's immunity to War-crimes tribunal extended so that the Abu Ghraib incident can't be properly investigated by anyone but the US. That action, whether well intentioned or not, would generate a lot of suspicion and mistrust :(
-
meh- it's part of war. if anyone expected this thing to come off without incidents like Abu Ghraib or the beheadings, they're just being naive. it happens. it's wrong but it happens. civilians die in war. just the way it is.
if i was in any position to advise the US though, i would suggest starting a quieter approach to taking out its terrorist enemies. if we keep bombing cities and killing civilians, we're going to piss off an entire continent. if we kill the terrorist leaders and the media blasts it all over the news 24 hours a day, we're just going to create a ****load of martyrs. the us should just start looking into ways to making some of these terrorists silently disappear, whether they kill them or not.
-
Was more than just the actions of a few guards, read the armys own report into it:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2004/800-mp-bde.htm
Good articles on this site too
http://www.sftt.org/
The guy who runs this site was the man who brought it out into the open.
-
http://www.sftt.org/PDF/article06112004a.pdf
I think that particular document says it all really :(
-
Then lets flip the situation around and put OUR people in Al Quida prisons. Now, as you can imagine, things would probably be a lot worse, and of course we as Americans would do our most pathetic best at trying to "negotiate for a release" first, before taking any rash action.
Now we put the situation in our perspective, where we have prisons where we make prisoners run around with underwear on, and people call this "OMGWTFBBQ EVIIIIIIIIIIIL". There will always be a batch of sour soldiers who probably either A) Dont follow orders or B) Take the rules into their own hands. This is war, and they are prisoners. They are the enemy.
Some things that the media just LOVES to do, since it is so god damned biased, refuses to view and then playback Sadaam's torture chambers, or death camps he has located all over the place. Now, the media ALL showed what Hitlers camps were like when we got there, recorded it, played it back for everyone to see, and now Nazism is viewed as a horrendous evil. But now since we have such a Liberal media, and since half of them didnt think Sadaam was "that bad, we can deal with him peacefully" then they wont show the camps! An invitation was sent out to view his torture facilities and only about 4 or 5 reporters showed up!
Now, I dont know about you, but it seems that bad news makes it in the papers more then good news does. Liberals love bad news and anything that would make this war look like a tremendous failiure. Anything well-placed would be viewed as something to be cut out and just left to be discovered on ones own.
PeachE couldnt have said it better then I did: This is war, and things happen, and if you dont think so you are rather small-minded and naive.
EDIT: Opening that last article causes my Mozilla Exporer to crash...
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Now we put the situation in our perspective, where we have prisons where we make prisoners run around with underwear on, and people call this "OMGWTFBBQ EVIIIIIIIIIIIL".
You're just a naive little boy eh? I'm really sorry I have to do this but if this is the only damn way to let you see what is really going on.
WARNING! BLOOD IN THESE PICS:
One (http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/abughraib2.jpg)
Two (http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/abughraib3.jpg)
CONTAINS GAY SEXUAL ACT:
Three (http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/torture5.jpg)
the rest have no blood etc:
(http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/new-toture4.jpg)
(http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/new-toture2.jpg)
(http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/dead-iraqi2.jpg)
(http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/dead-iraqi1.jpg)
(http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/abuse1.jpg) (http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/abuse4.jpg)
(http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/torture2.jpg)
(http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/iraqiprisonerdead-thumb.gif)
The Army has photographs that show a detainee with wires attached to his genitals.
And to think that the US government isn't showing all pictures must mean that this wasn't even the worst of it all.
-
i bet you all know this already but...i don't care what happened to anyone in this... "war on terror?" whatever... what i say is this ignore them...sooner or later they'll get bored...if they decide to get our attention by oh i don't know...use biochem on a city... attempt to talk to the terrorist....track dudes postion and blow his ass up/send troops to his house.... well whatever....don't really care anyways...
Edit: i should really read what post...oh well.
-
Guys, could you consider linking to images like the ones above... on the one hand it conveys a lot of power in an image but at heart we're a gaming forum, I don't really want to imagine some niave 12 year old surfing through it infront of their parents - only to run accross that kind of thing plastered on the screen. Doesn't exactly convey the right image...
Just please take that into consideration :)
-
those images started whole thing, so if american citizen is killed in Saudi Arabia. they can only blame USA soldiers who did those things to Iraq Prisoners. I don't have anything against USA but that is just....
but then again it was only another little reason to AQ
kill americans
Does that hate never stop?. I really hope it's stops somehow
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Guys, could you consider linking to images like the ones above... on the one hand it conveys a lot of power in an image but at heart we're a gaming forum, I don't really want to imagine some niave 12 year old surfing through it infront of their parents - only to run accross that kind of thing plastered on the screen. Doesn't exactly convey the right image...
Just please take that into consideration :)
Sorry, but some people here needed a serious reality check.
-
Oh I agree, but a little caution with what's posted would be... prudent.
-
Semi-relevant tidbits of info. I haven't tried to confirm the validity of these reports, FYI.
[q]Anyone remember this??
It was 1987!
At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration. There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning! He was being drilled by a senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?"
Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir."
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't that just a little excessive?"
"No, sir," continued Ollie.
"No? And why not?" the senator asked.
"Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir."
"Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.
"By a terrorist, sir" Ollie answered.
"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"
"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir" Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. "Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked..
"Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of", Ollie answered.
"And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator.
"Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."
The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.
By the way, that senator was Al Gore[/q]
[q]Terrorist pilot Mohammed Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners." However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released.
Thus Mohammed Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airline into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports.[/q]
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Oh I agree, but a little caution with what's posted would be... prudent.
If I'm cautious the whole 'reality check' shock effect goes out of the window :p
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Semi-relevant tidbits of info. I haven't tried to confirm the validity of these reports, FYI.
You should have, Oliver North never made those remarks and the Mohammed Atta who blew up the bus was a different person than the one connected with sept 11th.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.htm
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/atta.htm
Check your facts in future.
-
Well it seems the bastards got another... this time a Korean.
Just wait and see what America does when a nuke goes off in her borders. The world has yet to see our wraith. We're, for the most part, attempting to play by the rules. If a nuke does find its way here... God help whoever did it or so much had a finger in helping. Just remember what America's doctrined response is.
-
Originally posted by Gank
You should have, Oliver North never made those remarks
he made those remarks but he didn't mention Osama bin Laden. he named Abu Nidal. and the interviewer wasn't Al Gore. i believe it was John Nields.
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Ok, reading through this, I must say anybody who says 'kill them all' needs to wake up...
THERE IS NO way to stop crime in cities or crimes against humanity. (terrorists)
They are all people, stupid, stupid people. They will always find a way to get more weapons and kill more and more... They cannot ALL be killed nor can they be stoped. All we are doing is killing people that are killing people which ends up killing more people.
This whole war is an perfect example of humanities primitive and stupid traits... They have always been here, it's just now as we get more smarter, we have learned to kill more people.
What do we do??
Well as I said, if you lke it or not, we are on are way to one of the biggest Holocaust in history, that could either unite the world or destroy it completely. What do you think humanity is going to chose??
wtf, since when did u become mr prophet?
killing them all is a better goal than not, or killing a few, because if u ask me, that would lead to alot more death, and mostly innocent deth at that. I think that if someone is killed, because they are killing others for little or no reason, then it is in the end, a much more acceptable outcome than where a person is killed for no reason, only because they are not liked for reasons they cant control.
In addition though, i wonder if anyone has literaly sat down and talked to a radical about why they do these things and what they want. I mean i havent heard of that yet, anybody just asking those questions. I would like to do that if i could sit in a room with such a person, without the risk of being imediately disemboweled.
But, has anyone tried this yet? I would like to know the results, and what was said if so.
-
that was my very humble opinion, ok...
and I agree with every word of it
Plus you didn't get what I was saying, I don't think we should not try to kill them. I'm simply saying that the outcome of this war may not be pretty...
and there is nothing we can do about it.
-
Originally posted by Krackers87
In addition though, i wonder if anyone has literaly sat down and talked to a radical about why they do these things and what they want. I mean i havent heard of that yet, anybody just asking those questions. I would like to do that if i could sit in a room with such a person, without the risk of being imediately disemboweled.
But, has anyone tried this yet? I would like to know the results, and what was said if so.
most of the ones you find online are fake, but there have been a number of such interviews.
here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html)'s one i found in a quick google. bin laden and john miller, may 1998. pretty sure it's legit.
-
Originally posted by PeachE
he made those remarks but he didn't mention Osama bin Laden. he named Abu Nidal. and the interviewer wasn't Al Gore. i believe it was John Nields.
So he didnt make those remarks then :rolleyes:
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
I'm simply saying that the outcome of this war may not be pretty...
and there is nothing we can do about it.
:nod: For as long as the US needs middle eastern oil its going to have to fight middle eastern radicals who dont want the US interfering in its business. Bout time people started realising this is a war for oil, not terror.
Originally posted by Falcon X
Just wait and see what America does when a nuke goes off in her borders. The world has yet to see our wraith.
You know a wraith is a ghost right?
-
You know what he meant you bugger.
-
Aye but ya cant let something like that go.
-
Maybe, but please don't make a simple typo into an insult on his intelligence.
-
Originally posted by Gank
So he didnt make those remarks then :rolleyes:
he did actually. only one of the lines and the interviewer was changed. you make it sound like the dialogue never took place at all.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Aye but ya cant let something like that go.
I could mention your lovely grammar mistakes, but why do that?
-
The funny thing is, by going and worrying about this, you are all doing exactly what the terrorists want you to do.
(Worrying about the beheading, not the grammar)
-
I'd disagree with that. If it effects how I live my life, than you would be correct, but I'm not going to stay home tomorrow because of this.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
The funny thing is, by going and worrying about this, you are all doing exactly what the terrorists want you to do.
(Worrying about the beheading, not the grammar)
Good point, but only to those who want to nuke 'em
But, not true to the people who want to just get rid of the terrorist, which I doubt will ever happen.
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
I'd disagree with that. If it effects how I live my life, than you would be correct, but I'm not going to stay home tomorrow because of this.
tru story. somhow, i'm just not that worried that i'm gonna be kidnapped and beheaded tomorrow on my way to work.
-
The point is that if you live in Baghdad, the chance is much higher. I'm waiting for June 30. The first Iraqi should be beheaded sometime around then and the terrorists will lose their support.
-
Originally posted by Gank
You should have, Oliver North never made those remarks and the Mohammed Atta who blew up the bus was a different person than the one connected with sept 11th.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.htm
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/atta.htm
Check your facts in future.
Ahh, good to know. Thanks for the clarifications. I normally would have checked such things, but I was rushed at the time - sorry.
On the other hand, I wouldn't trust anything a site says that manages to weasel past Google's pop-up blocker and display 2 pop-ups. But their information is verified on other news sites, so I guess it's legit.
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
I could mention your lovely grammar mistakes, but why do that?
In the context of what you were saying, your mistake was quite funny.
Originally posted by PeachE
he did actually. only one of the lines and the interviewer was changed. you make it sound like the dialogue never took place at all.
The remarks sandwich posted were never made, they're made up. He said similar things about Abu Nidal but that transcript up there never happened. Read the link I posted too, Oliver North himself issued a statement saying the transcript is bogus. :rolleyes:
-
k - coo' . for whatever reason i thought i remembered seeing a different version of the "transcript", but meh. bad memory.
:rolleyes: @ Gank
-
Not nerve-gassing fallujah in response to this is what's supposed to make us better than them. There shouldn't be a response at all, other than possibly capturing those responsible. Anything else won't work short term or long term.
This is coming from the person who recommending nerve-gassing Fallujah when Nick Berg was executed.
Don't mistake this for me being sympathetic to the terrorist cells, unlike a few people around here who know who they are.
-
It is this which concerns me most of all, this simple fact that we unwittingly give these people carte blanche to be savages simply by expecting them to be. By deliberately fulfilling every American stereotype of 'Evil Arab' vocally and visually a relatively small number have people have almost managed to pit one half of the planet against the other.
That's my opinion at least, and as long as we judge terrorists any less harshly than we would judge the Americans then how can we say we are judging them equally?
-
Originally posted by ionia23
There shouldn't be a response at all, other than possibly capturing those responsible.
Those people were shot dead before this thread was started.
Originally posted by ionia23
Don't mistake this for me being sympathetic to the terrorist cells, unlike a few people around here who know who they are.
Dont mistake not supporting one side as supporting the other, the world isnt as black and white as you yanks seem to see it.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Dont mistake not supporting one side as supporting the other, the world isnt as black and white as you yanks seem to see it.
Don't get me started on Ireland's wonderful political track record.
-
What the hell has that got to do with anything? Talk away about Irish politics if you feel you're capable of it, which I seriously doubt.
Btw I presume you're talking about the North here, which is part of the UK:rolleyes:
-
Irish politics (at least the part that I'm semi-familiar with) don't make sense. When you boil it down, you have Christians fighting Christians. Wasn't it some dude around 2000 years ago named Jesus who said, - referring to the theory that He was casting out demons through the use of demonic powers - that "a house divided against itself shall not stand"?
Ergo, it don't make sense. :p
-
Can't the Anglicans just realize their religion is a sham and move on. I mean, it was established in order to let Henry V (err, that was him, right) get a divorce. Not the best founding upon which to establish a religion (well, sect) I found imagine. At least Jesus had some ideas, this guy just didn't want to go through the trouble of offing his wife.
Repent sinners, repent! :lol: :lol:
-
...could we kill this thread...ty...
-
I'm pretty sure there was people like Martin Luther talking about something like Protestantism before Henry VIII decided that a male heir was more important than annoying the Catholic Church. That said, he had a point - one does need a strong dynasty to rule well when one is an early-modern king.
-
I think Henry thought of it first ;)
And Henry 8th was a very clever man, do you know how much money he stopped flowing out of the country to Italy? ;)
-
No Luther did, because he was upset over how corrupt the Church had become. Henry just jumped on it as a way of getting another wife. He wasnt all that clever either, just a ruthless bastard.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Irish politics (at least the part that I'm semi-familiar with) don't make sense. When you boil it down, you have Christians fighting Christians. Wasn't it some dude around 2000 years ago named Jesus who said, - referring to the theory that He was casting out demons through the use of demonic powers - that "a house divided against itself shall not stand"?
Ergo, it don't make sense. :p
Doesnt make sense when you boil it down into religious terms, but then the church really has very little to do with the conflict. The prodestant-catholic schism only came into play halfway through the whole thing and then was only used as atool to divide and conquer. Actual religious differences have very little to do with the fight.
-
On this subject :-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040623/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716
They didn't torture anyone at Abu Ghraib, they haven't even got involved..... It's too far now, once could be considered as fury for Abu Ghraib, twice was a bit much, but a third time? With someone from a country that has done nothing to harm Iraq? Stupid, and way way too far.
-
Good lord. Tell me people aren't still crying about Abu Gharib. Most fraternity inductees go through worse tortures than that.
-
Except less people die in Fraternity Inductions ;)
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Good lord. Tell me people aren't still crying about Abu Gharib. Most fraternity inductees go through worse tortures than that.
You are truly ignorant and naive... :ick:
Several dead and several severly injured.
Humiliation is one thing, inflicting physical harm that causes lasting effects or even death (which happens to be quite lasting) is another.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
You are truly ignorant and naive... :ick:
Several dead and several severly injured.
Humiliation is one thing, inflicting physical harm that causes lasting effects or even death (which happens to be quite lasting) is another.
I'm neither ignorant nor naive, but thanks for the observation.
Well, I suppose if a few more hostages get beheaded then we'll be even, yes?
-
Why is it assumed that what was reported is the worst of the lot? Thats ****ing naive, no? Or is the "a few bad apples" line still being used? The photos that were/are making all the front pages are very, very unlikely to be the worst of it...
-
God, that sounds fucking wild!
*wants to know what fraternity Ionia is with
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
God, that sounds fucking wild!
*wants to know what fraternity Ionia is with
I avoided those. Way too much 'man-love' for me.
-
So if you can't handle man love, then why should the Iraqis?
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
So if you can't handle man love, then why should the Iraqis?
Pissed is one thing. Hacking off the heads of civilians in response is another.
-
Ahh, okay. So a militant group decides to do their revenge and attention grabber thing, abducting a few coalition citizens and behead them, so that makes it all cool for us to go about torturing and sodomizing captured militants as we please. Makes perfect sense now, thanks.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Ahh, okay. So a militant group decides to do their revenge and attention grabber thing, abducting a few coalition citizens and behead them, so that makes it all cool for us to go about torturing and sodomizing captured militants as we please. Makes perfect sense now, thanks.
*bows*
Always a pleasure.
-
Iona, some of the ones that were tortured were petty shoplifters. Seriously, do they deserve it? Does ANYONE deserve it? Your talking about it as if it was a minor offense. It was murder and inflicting lasting bodily harm.
I'm not justifying the beheading... in the least. But that doesn't mean American military personell should do it. They have a moral obligation to uphold the western morals at the very least. And not like the extremist enforce them upon the enemy. They are no different then terrorists in my eyes.
May I ask your attention for this: THIS (http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/abughraib2.jpg)
And as Rictor said, this is probably just the mildest foto's because they are facing up to 20 years (IIRC) in jail. They wouldn't get that for 'fraternity pranks'.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
I'm not justifying the beheading... in the least. But that doesn't mean American military personell should do it. They have a moral obligation to uphold the western morals at the very least. And not like the extremist enforce them upon the enemy. They are no different then terrorists in my eyes.
Oh, you're not? Really. Then explain what 'they are no different than the terrorists in my eyes' means. You don't see a group of hooded GI's dragging some poor sod out of his store saying 'Disarm in 24 hours or we're cutting this guy's head off', and then doing it anyway so the 'enemy' knows we mean business.
Wouldn't that be interesting.....I think I'd move to Antartica.
If we're going to be bringing out the 'shock' pictures I'm all for it. You can't show me a thing I haven't seen before, and far worse.
See, of course they're petty shoplifters. They always are when the Americans are involved. Always. That could be Bin Laden in that little picture you included and people would still claim "oh...it's just an innocent farmer, oh bad USA, bad USA". What so-and-so did or didn't do to get incarcerated doesn't mean a damn to me. What DOES is the behavior of the guards...
Doesn't matter whether that guy was a looter or taking potshots at passing soliders while hiding out in a mosque because they know we won't blow it up. Those soldiers were wrong in every way imagineable. I'd like to see them sentenced to Abu Gharib after the 'handover' and let the Iraqis handle it as they see fit. But to call them terrorists? That's just more liberal-with-a-bazooka bull****.
War brings out the worst in people. That's it. As noble as we like to describe WWII, nobody talks about Dresden. Not even my history class when I was in school.
The soldiers are busted and looking forward to a nice stay in military prison, which is just about the worst place you could possibly be. They undermined the war effort, regardless of that whole 'following orders' defense crap, which will make them targets. They'll pay dearly for what they did. Even the President admonished them for it. Of course, that was pure politics I've no doubt, but nonetheless...
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Oh, you're not? Really. Then explain what 'they are no different than the terrorists in my eyes' means. You don't see a group of hooded GI's dragging some poor sod out of his store saying 'Disarm in 24 hours or we're cutting this guy's head off', and then doing it anyway so the 'enemy' knows we mean business.
[/b]
No, the american soldiers had a MUCH better reason. Spite.
:rolleyes:
Wouldn't that be interesting.....I think I'd move to Antartica.
Might actually be a good idea :p
If we're going to be bringing out the 'shock' pictures I'm all for it. You can't show me a thing I haven't seen before, and far worse.
That might be, but you are still ignoring the fact that they wer American SOLDIERS. Not some ignorant group of terrorist. Yet they lowered themselves to the same level.
See, of course they're petty shoplifters. They always are when the Americans are involved. Always. That could be Bin Laden in that little picture you included and people would still claim "oh...it's just an innocent farmer, oh bad USA, bad USA". What so-and-so did or didn't do to get incarcerated doesn't mean a damn to me. What DOES is the behavior of the guards...
:wtf: They were petty shoplifters. Even American sources confirmed this.
Unless you are one of those bigotted assholes that think that any Arab or Iraqi is automatically a terrorist. :rolleyes:
Doesn't matter whether that guy was a looter or taking potshots at passing soliders while hiding out in a mosque because they know we won't blow it up. Those soldiers were wrong in every way imagineable. I'd like to see them sentenced to Abu Gharib after the 'handover' and let the Iraqis handle it as they see fit. But to call them terrorists? That's just more liberal-with-a-bazooka bull****.
Ok, not terrorists because they didn't use it as a political move. They are any of the following; murderers, torturers, bigotted assholes, senseless killers, vengefull haters, etc etc.
Seriously, they are no better then terrorists. I'm not saying they are terrorists but sure as **** is that they aren't any better then them.
War brings out the worst in people. That's it. As noble as we like to describe WWII, nobody talks about Dresden. Not even my history class when I was in school.
I'm a history teacher and I do talk about it in my classes. I teach an entire topic about 'Attrocities of War'.
War brings out the worst in people? I don't give a ****. They're trained soldiers and should know how to act. Not torture and kill prisoners.
The soldiers are busted and looking forward to a nice stay in military prison, which is just about the worst place you could possibly be. They undermined the war effort, regardless of that whole 'following orders' defense crap, which will make them targets. They'll pay dearly for what they did. Even the President admonished them for it. Of course, that was pure politics I've no doubt, but nonetheless...
Uhuh, but this still is no excuse whatsoever. They are still no better then any other murderer, terrorist or anything similar.
-
ionia23, there is a tiny thing called BEING PISSED OFF AT BOTH SIDES!! Just to let you know...
And read her post carefully...
-
Originally posted by Tiara
No, the american soldiers had a MUCH better reason. Spite.
That might be, but you are still ignoring the fact that they wer American SOLDIERS. Not some ignorant group of terrorist. Yet they lowered themselves to the same level.
:wtf: They were petty shoplifters. Even American sources confirmed this.
Unless you are one of those bigotted assholes that think that any Arab or Iraqi is automatically a terrorist. :rolleyes:
Ok, not terrorists because they didn't use it as a political move. They are any of the following; murderers, torturers, bigotted assholes, senseless killers, vengefull haters, etc etc.
Seriously, they are no better then terrorists. I'm not saying they are terrorists but sure as **** is that they aren't any better then them.
I'm a history teacher and I do talk about it in my classes. I teach an entire topic about 'Attrocities of War'.
The real message is violence is wrong, period. I hear you loud and crystal clear. That I can agree with.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
ionia23, there is a tiny thing called BEING PISSED OFF AT BOTH SIDES!! Just to let you know...
And read her post carefully...
I did. I'm a bigot and violence is wrong. So what else is new?:lol:
-
er... drugs are bad? :nervous:
-
I can't tell if ionia is a really good troll, or a really bad one...
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
I can't tell if ionia is a really good troll, or a really bad one...
Neither, just a participant.
-
Kinda like a gimp then? :p
-
Originally posted by Gank
...but then the church really has very little to do with the conflict.
Ahh. See, shows you how much I know about Irish politics. At least (not aiming this at anyone in particular here) I don't stick my nose into a situation I have no idea about.
-
Kinda late, arent you sandwich?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Ahh. See, shows you how much I know about Irish politics. At least (not aiming this at anyone in particular here) I don't stick my nose into a situation I have no idea about.
Maybe you should read up on it, theres a lot of similarities between what the brits did here in the past and what you're doing to the palestinians at the minute.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Kinda late, arent you sandwich?
Yeah, whatever. Blame it on the server outages.
Originally posted by Gank
Maybe you should read up on it, theres a lot of similarities between what the brits did here in the past and what you're doing to the palestinians at the minute.
Maybe I will. The Brits, BTW, had the best anti-Muslim-terrorist policy ever, IMO. Wrap up the bodies in pigskin - they (Muslims) believe it keeps 'em out of paradise. I don't know why Israel doesn't do something similar.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Maybe I will. The Brits, BTW, had the best anti-Muslim-terrorist policy ever, IMO. Wrap up the bodies in pigskin - they (Muslims) believe it keeps 'em out of paradise. I don't know why Israel doesn't do something similar.
Probably because its complete and utter ****e, like the 77 virgin stuff.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm
Btw, the british have never been attacked by Islamic terrorists, unless you're counting the various Islamic states they occupied in the past, but then thats not terrorism. If you use the word too much and in the wrong situations it looses its meaning.
-
I'd read somewhere it was a Spetsnaz tactic in Afghanistan. I think.
EDIT - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/779072/posts (not a great reference, natch - I'll check if there's anything more concrete)
Like Gank said, I think the closest term you could use for any fighting the British army had with Muslims (or rather thos ein Muslim countries) could be considered rebellion / insurgency rather than terrorism. I think it's very difficult to call attacks on a 'fighting' army - i.e. one which is in a position of constant combat readiness - as terrorism instead of insurgency or guerilla warfare, because it's not targeting civillians.
So a roadside bomb aimed at US / UK troops in Iraq shouldn't be considered terrorism, but attacks on civillians such as car bombs, or kidnappings are.
(there's probably several groups operating and possibly co-operating in Iraq - former Baathist insurgents alongside the likes of Al-Queda - which have different aims and methods. i.e. roadside vs suicide bombs)
-
I think the definition loses meaning when live ammo is used - the objective is the same whether you say they're terrorists, civil uprisers, or solider - they still want to kill you and you want to kill them.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I'd read somewhere it was a Spetsnaz tactic in Afghanistan. I think.
Worked real well there didnt it. Its ****ing pathetic really, all thats going to happen is the clerics will say the Israelis cant stop anyone going to heaven and the show will go on.
Vyper, whaddya mean when live ammo is used, when are any of these terms used when live ammo is not used?