What a mess

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » August 19, 2003, 1:56 pm

Seriously, this is just getting ridiculous already

http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 19, 2003, 2:04 pm

Did you expect anything less? Did you really expect them to just roll over or come walking put with their hands up? Look at the history of the region, look at how the Soviet Union struggled in Afghanistan for goodness sake!

Anyone who thought this situation was over when Bush claimed it was, is a fucking ignorant moron.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » August 19, 2003, 2:14 pm

They attached the UN HQ though... I guess they associate the US's actions with the UN.

Marb

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » August 19, 2003, 2:23 pm

This is only the beginning. It's going to get way worse IMO.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 19, 2003, 2:30 pm

The attacks are getting more frequent and more organized. Yes, this is just the beginning. This whole situation should never have happened. America is stuck in the quicksand now. We'll have a good 5 years of this before Americans wake up and want the troops pulled out and brought back home.

This is costing us billion and billions of dollars too.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 19, 2003, 2:42 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:The attacks are getting more frequent and more organized. Yes, this is just the beginning. This whole situation should never have happened. America is stuck in the quicksand now. We'll have a good 5 years of this before Americans wake up and want the troops pulled out and brought back home.

This is costing us billion and billions of dollars too.

Well at least the oil is cheap

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 19, 2003, 2:59 pm

yeah good thing gas prices are up 20 cents in the last month to reflect that....

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 19, 2003, 3:08 pm

Voronwë wrote:yeah good thing gas prices are up 20 cents in the last month to reflect that....

I know those damn Oil companies. It was called sarcasim

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 19, 2003, 3:16 pm

Marbus wrote:They attached the UN HQ though... I guess they associate the US's actions with the UN.

the UN's been sanctioning Iraq into poverty since the early 90s.

800 lb. laser guided bomb dropped by an F-18 = operation iraqi freedom

truck bomb = ruthless and unforgivable terrorist violence.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » August 19, 2003, 3:30 pm

I bet it was a reporter that bombed them.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 19, 2003, 3:52 pm

Friends of mine that have come back from duty say that the whole situation is being slanted by the western media.

It's hard to get a clear picture of the people's mood there by watching TV.

Not exactly a fog of war, but a fog of truth told by those with agendas.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 19, 2003, 3:55 pm

Well let me break this down for you oh slow one.

"the UN's been sanctioning Iraq into poverty since the early 90s"

They attacked another country and lost,Right? They signed a treaty and they never followed through with it,Right? The U.N didnt place them into poverty the Iraq Govt. did.

"800 lb. laser guided bomb dropped by an F-18 = operation iraqi freedom"

The key phrase in your statement is Laser Guided Bomb meaning well placed on a target of military origon. Now sometimes shit happens but hey thats war.

This one shows me how stupid you are

"truck bomb = ruthless and unforgivable terrorist violence"

Hell yes it does, Bomb the UN thats a great fucking idea, Bomb the hand that is feeding you right now, Oh and by the way kill a few of your own people yee hawwww now who is the trigger happy cowboy?

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » August 19, 2003, 4:04 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Friends of mine that have come back from duty say that the whole situation is being slanted by the western media.

It's hard to get a clear picture of the people's mood there by watching TV.

Not exactly a fog of war, but a fog of truth told by those with agendas.

What's the real situation like? It's a serious question, not a smartass reply. I'm really curious what soldiers are feeling when they return home.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 19, 2003, 4:21 pm

One of my friends was really tired. He's right at the maximum age for being activated and just had a son a month before being sent off.

He mentioned that most of the stuff you hear on the news is coming from one town and for the most part other areas were quiet.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » August 19, 2003, 4:22 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Friends of mine that have come back from duty say that the whole situation is being slanted by the western media.

It's hard to get a clear picture of the people's mood there by watching TV.

Not exactly a fog of war, but a fog of truth told by those with agendas.

I definitely believe that. I hate the media. They are by and large more interested in getting a big story out than getting the facts straight, and telling the WHOLE story.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » August 19, 2003, 4:59 pm

Kyoukan,
The difference between terrorism and military action is the target. I certainly felt bad for our troops that were killed by a car bomb during the Iraq war. I also think the Iraqi's who came up to our soldiers dressed as civilians did so with little regard for the safety of their own population (who would from that point on be more likely targets of unintended hostilities from now cautious soldiers). But that was not an act of terrorism. That was the act of a group of citizens of Iraq defending their country from an invading foriegn army. (Note: while I supported and continue to support our actions there, that support is support for an US/Brittish army invading the country of Iraq with the purpose of dismantling its government).

Taking that same truck and ramming it into a UN building is terrorism. The UN is not even the enemy of Iraq and (as you should know) did not sanction our invasion.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 19, 2003, 5:07 pm

One to two negative stories a day in an ENTIRE country.

Picking up the Detroit Free Press and not paying attention to the country as a whole, makes us sound much worse off than Iraq. It is all a matter of scale.

As for troopies and how they feel, half will whine regardless of the situation or decade and the other half will speak of honor.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 19, 2003, 5:21 pm

why the Iraqi rebels would want to bomb a UN building that was against there invasion and not go for something american instead is beyond me

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 19, 2003, 5:29 pm

Because they are trying to instill terror and doubt. That's what 'terrorist' means, pretty much.

I said it when we started this campaign. Ten years.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » August 19, 2003, 5:29 pm

No, i'm sorry...the difference between terrorism and military action is that one has the endorsement of a sovereign power.

You can't clarify with target. There are plenty of military actions that target civilians for maximum damage in order to force surrender.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 19, 2003, 5:34 pm

There are plenty of military actions that target civilians for maximum damage in order to force surrender.
_________________

Plenty? I can think of a few (in the Western context of war). Not enough to be "plenty".

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 19, 2003, 7:20 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:Kyoukan,
The difference between terrorism and military action is the target.

there's a lot of dead people in Iraq that would probably disagree with you if they were still, you know, alive.

but if you want to get technical about it, the UN is still technically at war with Saddam's Iraq, so this was a pretty choice military target for the remnants of his military.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 19, 2003, 8:34 pm

Friends of mine that have come back from duty say that the whole situation is being slanted by the western media.

I talked to a guy who is down there clearing mines, not a military personel but a volunteer. Can't remember the name of the organization he works for though.. He is British btw. Anyway, he gave me a few comments about how bad it truly is, and this was before the last waves of attacks. He made several comments about how American soldiers basicly walk around like they own the place, they take whatever they want etc. I am sure this doesn't mean all American soldiers steal, but he said he himself had seen multiple situatons when it happened. He also said a few choice words about how the situation is getting worse and worse by the day.

So, tell me.. what is slanted? Is Fox News' Bush-worshipping slanted? Is CNN's attempts to be slightly more objective slanted? Or are the newsmedia of every other country I check slanted?

There have been several stories that have been hushed down quite a bit. Of course, if some of the stories about abuse came out in the US the glorious Bush might lose some support...

He mentioned that most of the stuff you hear on the news is coming from one town and for the most part other areas were quiet.

Not one town, but one area yes. The triangle which had a majority of Saddam supporters. Although, with the brainfarts who keep going after Iran they will soon have pissed off the rest of the country as well..

The whole situation is a fucking mess, and one that anyone with some knowledge of history knew would happen in advance. But I am willing to bet quite a bit that Bush' support would have been less if the average American had been aware of it..

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 19, 2003, 9:12 pm

I'm not here trying to say the picture is rosier that it's portrayed.

I'm saying you can't be certain about what "is" portrayed.

You've got a people who have been under the boot of tyrants for a long time.

Everytime these people have spoken up they're shot or gassed.

Given this gun-shy culture, and the twist of politics on every side, how exactly are we, 3000 miles away, dependant on the media supposed to know the truth?

I remain uncertain.

Hammerstalker PE · Post by **Hammerstalker PE** » August 20, 2003, 3:33 am

Hrmm the UN is technically still at war with Iraq? Where the hell did you get that idea? Did the UN declare war on Iraq? I seem to remember that the UN didn't support the UK/USA invasion of Iraq to begin with. In fact they were dead set against it.

Oh and Kyoukan I really can't believe that your hatred of the USA is so deep seeded that you can't even tell the difference between a military target and a civilian one. Really brave and honorable to blow up an office building with mostly civilians in it.

Oh and Truant I guess the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center was trying to force surrender. Give me a break these targets were selected for the relative ease and to kill Americans period.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » August 20, 2003, 4:18 am

Hammer, I in no way said the attack on the WTC was a military action attempting to force surrender.

Hammerstalker PE · Post by **Hammerstalker PE** » August 20, 2003, 9:07 am

Truant unless I missed something you were responding to Aaemdar.

Aaeamdar said:

Kyoukan,
The difference between terrorism and military action is the target.

To which you replied.

No, i'm sorry...the difference between terrorism and military action is that one has the endorsement of a sovereign power.

You can't clarify with target. There are plenty of military actions that target civilians for maximum damage in order to force surrender.

Terrorists are faceless nameless cowards that have no country, no army and operate with no rules or regulations. They specifically target civillians and only occasionally target the military.

Terrorists don't care what anyones political beliefs are or their religion. If you are an American you are a target, if you are British you are a target. They paint with a fucking big brush. Now imagine if the USA or Britian used the same mentality? Hrmm bye bye Iraq. Genocide would be the result.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » August 20, 2003, 9:57 am

How can you call any attack by Iraqis within the borders of an *occupied* Iraq an act of terrorism?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 20, 2003, 10:20 am

The same way we can call the bombing of a US federal building inside an occupied US by a citizen of the US a terrorist act. Or the mail bombings by the Unibomber. Or the sniper shootings in DC. All acts of terrorism and people are getting the death sentence for committing them.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 20, 2003, 10:27 am

Forthe wrote:How can you call any attack by Iraqis within the borders of an *occupied* Iraq an act of terrorism?

Because the people who did this do not represent the desires of the many, but I think Kilmoll summed it up well.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » August 20, 2003, 10:42 am

Well here is another thread that Kyoukan will disappear from because her opinion was exposed as uninformed and stupid, like the author.

Kindly point out your source that states the UN is at war with Saddams Iraq.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 20, 2003, 10:48 am

Atokal wrote:Well here is another thread that Kyoukan will disappear from because her opinion was exposed as uninformed and stupid, like the author.

Kindly point out your source that states the UN is at war with Saddams Iraq.

I saw it in MADD magazine.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 20, 2003, 10:52 am

my opinion of the target choice is that it was chosen to generate media attention, which it has done, and as a result embarrass the United States

Yes on the one hand UN sanctions have contributed to a massive economic collapse in Iraq, but more because of Hussein than the UN.

The UN is actually one of the largest employers in Iraq, and from what i've heard, most people there are very receptive to the UNs operation.

Whoever perpetrated this act, whether they were Saddam loyalists or simply Anti-American terrorists, chose this target because it was one that they knew would generate a lot of media attention. And they were right.

Atokal, i have no idea what you are asking when you seem to be implying that the UN and Saddam's Iraq were not at odds. While there may not have been a formal declaration of war (the UN doesnt declare war), the UN was very much at odds with that administration. So i really don't understand what point you are trying to make.

One, perhaps unanticipated, consequence of the war on Iraq is that apparently a large number of Al-Queda as well as other Islamist terrorists have moved into Iraq to step up operations against the US.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » August 20, 2003, 11:05 am

kyoukan wrote: but if you want to get technical about it, the UN is still technically at war with Saddam's Iraq, so this was a pretty choice military target for the remnants of his military.

Voro, while I agree that the economic sanctions issued by the UN would definately put Saddams Iraq at odds with the UN it is by no means a state of war. Kyoukan's post above states the opposite. Her claiming that the choice of target had any military significance is patently stupid as the UN does not have a military or a standing army.

Cheers

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 20, 2003, 11:06 am

If you are an American you are a target, if you are British you are a target. They paint with a fucking big brush. Now imagine if the USA or Britian used the same mentality?

Unfortunately, some Americans are very much the same way. It hasn't exactly become easier to be a foreigner in the US, and quite a few people see every non-American person (or hell, even quite a few American citizens) as dangerous and a threat. It is especially not easy being of middle eastern decent now, but even I as a Scandinavian have felt some of it.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 20, 2003, 11:07 am

there are many people who would describe the UN's actions with respect to Iraq over the last 11 years as "economic warfare". I am sure just about everybody loyal to the former regime there would.

seems to be a semantics issue anyway.

I tend to think that it wasn't even Iraqis who conducted this action, but that's just me in my desk chair surfing the net.

Hammerstalker PE · Post by **Hammerstalker PE** » August 20, 2003, 11:15 am

Voro the UN voted against military action against Iraq. Your post though well thought out doesn't diminish the fact that Terrorists don't give a fuck who they kill so long as they get one or two Americans in the act. They don't care whether it is military or not.

Now Truant said the target doesn't determine if it is a terrorist act. I totally disagree with that statement. When the USA or UK forces kill civillians it is an accident. When Terrorists kill civillians it is premeditated, calculated and acted out. They do not give a shit if they kill some of their own so long as they kill Americans and or British citizens.

Again I ask if the USA used the same criteria for determining a target how many Iraqis would be alive today? The answer is probably none.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 20, 2003, 12:29 pm

The problem is that it doesn't really matter who is behind the bombing. Read an interview today with a Norwegian who is down there working for Unicef, and he said the Iraqi that works with him are mad at two groups:

1. The people who performed the bombing.
2. The Americans for not making things safe.

#2 there is the important part.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 20, 2003, 12:39 pm

Hammerstalker PE wrote:Voro the UN voted against military action against Iraq. Your post though well thought out doesn't diminish the fact that Terrorists don't give a fuck who they kill so long as they get one or two Americans in the act. They don't care whether it is military or not.

you don't even know who did this bombing.

if it was Al-Queda their motives are clearly different from Saddam Loyalists, as well as if it is Saudi Islamist militias. The end results may be the same, but there is a lot more complexity to the issue than a polarized war of Terrorists vs. Americans. THough that is exactly the propaganda setup you will see out of our government for years to come.

Dig up the old rhetoric, and scratch out the word Communism, and replace it with Terrorism. I'm not saying the threat is not real. i'm just saying the politicized propaganda is an oversimplification used to garner public support for things that the populace does not really understand.

If you thought about Al Queda a minute you would know they have hit the UN several times over the last 10 years. Once in NYC 5 years before 9/11. They don't like the UN for a number of reasons.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 20, 2003, 1:01 pm

Battles against fanatics are never quick or easy. These people, however, cannot just be left alone. Their ideology is completely opposed to ours in pretty much every way.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 20, 2003, 1:06 pm

Battles against fanatics are never quick or easy. These people, however, cannot just be left alone. Their ideology is completely opposed to ours in pretty much every way.

Sounds like the exact same thing that Saddam or Osma would say about America.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 20, 2003, 1:18 pm

Sure they would say that, Fair. They would also be full of shit.

Unless you want to try and show the United States as forcing the muslim world to abandon thier chosen religion and ideals...

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 20, 2003, 1:24 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Sure they would say that, Fair. They would also be full of shit.

Unless you want to try and show the United States as forcing the muslim world to abandon thier chosen religion and ideals...

some would say the way we export our culture is forcing them to abandon their ideals. the way that we use female anatomy to manipulate peoples opinions of consumer goods for example.

that being said, i don't think that anything one may find distasteful about US entertainment is rationale for killing innocent civilians.

the fundamentalist thinking that is rampant in that region is a huge problem, and a huge security concern for the US.

Devising a truly effective strategy against it will be very difficult. More has to be done than winning the hearts and minds of the voters though. For example, much of Afghanistan is back in the control of warlords. Our military is working with warlords to catch Al Queda by night, and these warlords are going around town whipping women who don't wear their burkas by day.

i'm not trying to trash the actions of the US. I'm just not sure their strategy in the war on terror is one that will truly yield results. There was such a rush to attack Iraq, that they had to remove assets from Afghanistan, the true hotbed of terrorism.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 20, 2003, 1:54 pm

A lot of European countries complain about how they are becoming Americanized as well. When countries that are fairly similar to the US complain about it, of cours there will be people upset in Middle Eastern countries.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 20, 2003, 2:14 pm

Voronwë wrote:I'm just not sure their strategy in the war on terror is one that will truly yield results. There was such a rush to attack Iraq, that they had to remove assets from Afghanistan, the true hotbed of terrorism.

I'm 99.99% sure that it won't work. Especially considering that they are still getting massive amounts of funding from the Saudis.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 20, 2003, 2:32 pm

Sorry, gunpoint does not equal changing the television channel or turning aside when you pass a poster you don't like.

The US is not forcing any lifestyle on the Middle East. The fact that many there choose to live a western lifestyle ought to be a wakeup call to the leadership of the area.

Try and validate the argument if you like. The core problem is the Middle Eastern perception that lives < ideals. Any time that type of thinking is allowed to flourish you are going to have major trouble.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 20, 2003, 2:36 pm

i agree, but it is something the US is guitly of from time to time as well.

ideals > human life.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 20, 2003, 2:46 pm

Hmmm, the only truly widespread application of that ideal I can think of is the type of patriotism many folks were showing during the world wars.

I would say that's a bit different than what is happening in the middle east, but then I am obviously not totally objective, either

Truant · Post by **Truant** » August 20, 2003, 5:08 pm

(sorry to bring this back, but I hate being misunderstood)

Hammer, I'm really not sure what you are trying to argue. Yes, I was responding to Dar's comment that the difference between terrorism and military action is the choice of target. My response said (now paraphrased though in more words than previous because I guess I wasn't clear):

All through history, there have been military actions targeting innocent civilians, no different than terrorism. And thus, the choice of target is not a clear distinction between the two. The only clear distinction between the two is that a military action is enacted, and supported by a sovereign power. Which of course, terrorism is not. (excluding under the table financial support or harboring by certain nations, don't equate those as the same)

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 20, 2003, 5:48 pm

Atokal wrote:Well here is another thread that Kyoukan will disappear from because her opinion was exposed as uninformed and stupid, like the author.

Kindly point out your source that states the UN is at war with Saddams Iraq.

The UN security council never lifted its formal hostilities on Saddam Hussein after the gulf war. The cease fire that led to economic santions was just temporary. The security council is most definitely technically at war with Iraq until they state otherwise. Just because the UNSC or the USA doesn't formally "declare war" on another country like they used to do in the 1930s and 40s doesn't mean that they are not at war. Bullshit technicalities might work on you because you are a moron but I'm not as fucking stupid as you are.

Regardless of that, Iraq is quite obviously still at war with the UN. People don't load trucks up with explosives, drive into a building and detonate it because they want to make a political statement. They do it because they want to kill people.