If one of them succeeds, is it an act of war?

[Uncle Sparky]

As far as I know, there are no US laws forbidding US citizens from arming themselves and selling their services to foreign nations, individuals, groups or corporations. What is the difference between an American mercenary selling their services to a corrupt government, say Zimbabwe and an Iranian selling their services to the anti-coalition forces ?

Isn't Soldier of Fortune still available in American supermarkets ? ... and isn't Iraq crawling with "private security contractors" ? ...and isn't Haliburton a big supplier of same private security contractors ?

[notyoueither]

Actually, Sparky, you can lose your American citizenship under some circumstances by serving foreign powers.

[notyoueither]

... and I believe that applies to native born Americans.

[problem_child]

Originally posted by Lonestar


All true. But Sadr's was closed down because he's a trouble maker. Embeeded reporters are there for their own safety...a soldier and Marine is not going to put a lot of thought into it if some jackass peeps out a window with some big and black looking a block away. The Number of Journalists dead...I'm sure you know how confusing urban warfare is. Al-jeezera is group that passively supports terrorists.

LOL!

Define "Troublemaker", is that anybody who doesn't buckle down and Obey the New Ruler?

"The press is controlled for it's own safety." Yup, sounds like the kind of statement anti-democrats come out with alot.

"Al-jeezera is group that passively supports terrorists. " This, I can't even compute. I suspect that it would be considered too mindlessly glib even for the tastes of your average government operatnik invited on to the National State News Services to critisize some foreign media organization that has been deemed unfriendly.

[notyoueither]

I suppose it is pure luck that their camera crews are at the scene of many bombings as they happen then, yes?

[problem_child]

Another one of your cRaZy CoNsPiraCY theories eh, nye.

[The Mad Monk]

How very Qweeg.

[notyoueither]

I don't see what is so hard to see. Would anyone say I was a crackpot if I said that NBC, CBS, or ABC 'supported' the US?

The difference is in tactics and what one finds acceptable as a means to gain the political ends of any given group that decides to employ those means.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by problem_child


LOL!

Define "Troublemaker", is that anybody who doesn't buckle down and Obey the New Ruler?

I would say a group that arms it's members and gives them a carte blanche to attack Coalition qualifies.

"The press is controlled for it's own safety." Yup, sounds like the kind of statement anti-democrats come out with alot.

Well, Every.Single. Journalist killed in this war was not an embedded reporter. And it was an embedded reporter who got that Marine-capping a dude tape out, which seems to me a total LACK of control of the press on the American side.

Certainly, this has led me to conclude that US Military censors barely glance at the tapes in question, and let the news crews put out what they feel is appropriate.

"Al-jeezera is group that passively supports terrorists. " This, I can't even compute. I suspect that it would be considered too mindlessly glib even for the tastes of your average government operatnik invited on to the National State News Services to critisize some foreign media organization that has been deemed unfriendly.

Or it could be the AJ crews that hang around at bomb sites before they happen, and not tell anyone. Or maybe their completer williness to show tapes of Americans screwing up, but the fact they won't show tapes of the Insurgents beheading hostages. Why is that? It couldn't be because they want to stir up anti-American sentiment, could it?

[problem_child]

All good points.


NOT!

sorry, couldn't resist

I would say a group that arms it's members and gives them a carte blanche to attack Coalition qualifies.

I agree. Good thing Sadr didn't necessarily have to 'arm his followers' (guns are as awash in Iraq as they are in the US). Good thing Sadr also instructed his followers to obey cease fires (later broken by forces that didn't want Sadr's brigades sitting around, peacefully weilding political power, what with the elections due and everything). I could be wrong, the main point is that your statement is unsubstantiated.

Well, Every.Single. Journalist killed in this war was not an embedded reporter. And it was an embedded reporter who got that Marine-capping a dude tape out, which seems to me a total LACK of control of the press on the American side.

Some pretty suspicious killings of journalists by American forces exclusively (just like back in Yugo eh?). Seems the US army has a thing against journalists they don't control running around reporting stuff. As for the reporter that took that reasonably defensible picture of an American soldier executing an injured Iraqi fighter... please, don't litter the debate with your straw men. Same goes to the American military censors.

Certainly, this has led me to conclude that US Military censors barely glance at the tapes in question, and let the news crews put out what they feel is appropriate.

Job done then.

Or it could be the AJ crews that hang around at bomb sites before they happen, and not tell anyone. Or maybe their completer williness to show tapes of Americans screwing up, but the fact they won't show tapes of the Insurgents beheading hostages. Why is that? It couldn't be because they want to stir up anti-American sentiment, could it?

Who told you AJs people were hanging around bomb-sites before the bombs happened, the Pentagon? As far as them not showing 'Insurgents' beheading people (clever linking of all America opposing fighters in Iraq with terrorism by the way), it could just be taste and decency. I've watched one of them things and I regret it, they're pretty hard to take. Does CNN broadcaste the beheadings?

[child of Thor]

REF: the thread title.

I'd call it more an act of complete desperation. blowing yourself up - its not exactly something that comes naturaly is it? I mean what would it take for you to be able to do the same - what would push you to do it?
Maybe if you didnt have a military to defend you against a percieved enemy...........

I find it very hard to occupy that mind space.

[problem_child]

Originally posted by child of Thor
REF: the thread title.

I'd call it more an act of complete desperation. blowing yourself up - its not exactly something that comes naturaly is it? I mean what would it take for you to be able to do the same - what would push you to do it?
Maybe if you didnt have a military to defend you against a percieved enemy...........

I find it very hard to occupy that mind space.

I think the thread starter is talking in the context of Iran backing organizations to facilitate such attacks. In which case one nation to another, act of war?

As for the human-weapons themselves, well, being young and full of passion and ideology helps, as would a belief in a all pervading diety who happens to share the politics of the personalities under whose sway you have fallen, and the absolute certainty that seventy virgins await you in eternal paradise thereafter.

Mind you, alot of that could just as easily be replaced with a big fuggov dollop of seething rage.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
It is one of the most democratic regimes in the Middle East.

Even one is infinately greater then zero.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by problem_child

I agree. Good thing Sadr didn't necessarily have to 'arm his followers' (guns are as awash in Iraq as they are in the US). Good thing Sadr also instructed his followers to obey cease fires (later broken by forces that didn't want Sadr's brigades sitting around, peacefully weilding political power, what with the elections due and everything). I could be wrong, the main point is that your statement is unsubstantiated.

For small arms, maybe not. But Sadr did control cities and harras provisional government employees. He did move into that Mosque in Karbala specifically to force the US to act. He was a troublemaker.

Some pretty suspicious killings of journalists by American forces exclusively (just like back in Yugo eh?). Seems the US army has a thing against journalists they don't control running around reporting stuff.

Or they're fighting in urban combat with the "shoot at anyone who hefts something large and black at you." ROE. Happened in other wars.

As for the reporter that took that reasonably defensible picture of an American soldier executing an injured Iraqi fighter... please, don't litter the debate with your straw men. Same goes to the American military censors.

But it's relevent. You're implying that the American military is trying to control the news. We're spinning, there's a difference.

Who told you AJs people were hanging around bomb-sites before the bombs happened, the Pentagon?

I observed it myself, you Jackass. My entire job in the Navy is to collect signals. A good way to guesstimate where insurgents are going to bomb next is to track AJ crew's comms.

As far as them not showing 'Insurgents' beheading people (clever linking of all America opposing fighters in Iraq with terrorism by the way), it could just be taste and decency. I've watched one of them things and I regret it, they're pretty hard to take. Does CNN broadcaste the beheadings?

CNN broadcasts some of it. But, unlike CNN, AJ doesn't even mention it. Also, AJ is more than willing to show graphic tapes of injured Iraqis and Coalition soldiers getting capped, but not hostages being beheaded. How is running a tape of an american soldier getting his lower jaw blown off somehow yes disgusting than the beheading of civilian aid workers? It isn't, trust me. The difference is that AJ is playing to the market, and doing what it can to undermine the process in Iraq.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lonestar
How about stirring up the Indians under Tecumseh?

The Indians didn't need stirring up. They have very legitmate grievences.