Baghdad Violence (pic heavy)

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap
As the say, a picture is worth a thousand words- a video far more. The worth of keeping some ammo out of the hands of insurgents was far lower than the harm of having a bunch of civilians, even ones celebrating a burning US vehicle, killed, especially in front of the cameras.

Why? Who gives a **** if they hate us? There are two requirements to win recruits for an insurgency. First, potential recruits will need to hate the coalition in general and the US in particular, second they will have to believe that they can win and make a difference in the fight against the coalition in general and the US in particular. There is no shortage of dumb arses in Iraq who hate the US (although blowing up this Bradley obviously removed a bare handful of some of these), but I think there are far fewer who believe they can defeat the coalition militarily. Standing by and letting the crowd celebrate and unfurl a terrorist banner in front of a burning US armored vehicle in front of cameras will generate a hell of a lot more of the latter than killing the sobs will generate of the former.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Cool, we got two terrorists among the 35 who weren't! GO TEAM!

There are probably much better ways to destroy these vehicals without killing crowds.

Two? are you really that stupid? only the two ********* who had the banner were really terrorist sympathiser? jesus christ. If join up with a little happy social gathering around a burning jewish synagogue and two of the happy party goers unfurl a nazi swastika banner, should I be indignant if onlookers mistake me for a Nazi? The moment that banner appeared the 'party goers' around that bradley should've had the half a gram of sense required to realise that this was the wrong gang to chum with.


Secondly, I couldn't care less about whether we destroyed the already destroyed vehicle further or not. That should not have been the objective anyway. The point of the thing should've been to disrupt the terrorist's camera opp of showing how they were defeating the infidels.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Two? are you really that stupid? only the two ********* who had the banner were really terrorist sympathiser? jesus christ. If join up with a little happy social gathering around a burning jewish synagogue and two of the happy party goers unfurl a nazi swastika banner, should I be indignant if onlookers mistake me for a Nazi? The moment that banner appeared the 'party goers' around that bradley should've had the half a gram of sense required to realise that this was the wrong gang to chum with.

In a gathering among people who don't know each other (such as a protest), it's very difficult not to look in solidarity with people with whom you disagree. You can brand a whole anti-Sharon protest as "antisemitic" because a few loud *******s in the crowd chanted "Death to the Jews". Yeah, it probably means that each and every person there is an antisemite and should be dealt with accordingly

Secondly, I couldn't care less about whether we destroyed the already destroyed vehicle further or not. That should not have been the objective anyway. The point of the thing should've been to disrupt the terrorist's camera opp of showing how they were defeating the infidels.

So, instead of an obscure Camera-op that would have been watched by a few thousands Arabs (because TV wouldn't have aired such an ordinary happening), you had the whole world watch at the way you shoot rockets at civilians

It's good to see such cooperation with the terrorists, when you do their PR job for them

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Why? Who gives a **** if they hate us? ---

Anyone who wants to actually liberate Iraq, instead of having a guerilla war without end.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Two? are you really that stupid? only the two ********* who had the banner were really terrorist sympathiser?

---

been to disrupt the terrorist's camera opp of showing how they were defeating the infidels.

Destroying the invader's military vehicles in a partisan war is not terrorism. There are many kinds of opposers to USA in Iraq, so save the word terrorism for those who actually commit terror acts.

Waving a flag is not a crime that deserves instant capital punishment, no matter how much you hate that flag.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


Destroying the invader's military vehicles in a partisan war is not terrorism. There are many kinds of opposers to USA in Iraq, so save the word terrorism for those who actually commit terror acts.

Waving a flag is not a crime that deserves instant capital punishment, no matter how much you hate that flag.

Sorry but I'm not interested in turning Iraq into a policing situation. It's war until they have enough time to have their one shot at real democracy (HA!) in a few months and I want US troops out of there the moment that time arrives whether it looks like they will botch that one chance or not. I don't think the US had any business getting involved with the damn place in first place. So no, I don't want waving an enemy flag to be treated as a crime I wanted it treated as an act of war and the flag wavers treated as armed enemies at war. I don't want luvy-duvy-I-hope-they'll-love-us-now measures to be used where it will make the occupiers look weak and vulnerable. I understand they will hate us, almost all of them. So I see no reason to invite them to percieve weakness. And allowing them to pose for the cameras with a terrorist banner on one of our destroyed vehicles would be asking for exactly that to occur.

They hated us before, they hate us now they will hate us in the future

Just so long as they respect the US's military power until such time as we come to our senses and get the hell out of that worthless ****hole I couldn't care less.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


Anyone who wants to actually liberate Iraq, instead of having a guerilla war without end.

Liberate them? how on earth do you 'liberate' a country by occupying it indefinately? There's no point in making them like us because there is no point in our making plans to remain there indefinately. Let's prop things up long enough to get those early elections done and then it can be their baby.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Spiffor

In a gathering among people who don't know each other (such as a protest), it's very difficult not to look in solidarity with people with whom you disagree. You can brand a whole anti-Sharon protest as "antisemitic" because a few loud *******s in the crowd chanted "Death to the Jews". Yeah, it probably means that each and every person there is an antisemite and should be dealt with accordingly

Secondly, I couldn't care less about whether we destroyed the already destroyed vehicle further or not. That should not have been the objective anyway. The point of the thing should've been to disrupt the terrorist's camera opp of showing how they were defeating the infidels.

So, instead of an obscure Camera-op that would have been watched by a few thousands Arabs (because TV wouldn't have aired such an ordinary happening), you had the whole world watch at the way you shoot rockets at civilians

It's good to see such cooperation with the terrorists, when you do their PR job for them

TV airs burning US vehicles all the time and a burning US vehicle with a crowd of people perched on it waving a terrorist banner would have grabbed page one for sure.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Liberate them? how on earth do you 'liberate' a country by occupying it indefinately? There's no point in making them like us because there is no point in our making plans to remain there indefinately. Let's prop things up long enough to get those early elections done and then it can be their baby.

The name of the operation was "Iraqi Freedom", remember? So that must be the strategic goal. But I think you and I agree that US had no business there in the first place, so you should go after those who support the war.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


The name of the operation was "Iraqi Freedom", remember? So that must be the strategic goal. But I think you and I agree that US had no business there in the first place, so you should go after those who support the war.

I plan on 'going after' at least one of those who supported the war come a certain election day this november.

[Japher]

So that's either Bush, Kerry, or anyone in the Senate or House of Representatives...

[Geronimo]

exactly

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Japher
So that's either Bush, Kerry, or anyone in the Senate or House of Representatives...

Lemmings

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Dissident


good point. I suspect most of these people are not terrorists.

If they attack the U.S. military- they are not terrorist. Period.

Now the attacks on the police stations against men who haven't even signed up for the police force yet could be considered terrorism. Because those attacks are meant to terrorize the civilian populations. where as attacks against the U.S. military are designed to get the U.S. to withdraw.

Why wait for them to get training? This isn't terrorism, it's simply destroying the seeds before they sprout. Would bombing a bus on it's way to boot camp be terrorism?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Waving a flag is not a crime that deserves instant capital punishment, no matter how much you hate that flag.

Dancing around a burning vehicle about to be blown up however is.