Basra Attack.

GhostValkyrie

GhostValkyrie

Newbie
Joined
Oct 5, 2003
Messages
2,319
Reaction score
0
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4667742/?GT1=3256

I hope those of you who sympathise with the insurgents are proud of this.
Please, don't dismiss this as anything less than terrorism. These men wear civilian clothing, don't face the military face to face, and are attacking their own countrymen. As much as it would anger me, I could understand attacking Coalition forces, but these monsters have been attacking Aid Workers, Police Officers, and killing and using School Children for human shields. This really is disgusting.

Oh, and they aren't a holding up their end of the Cease fire agreement, as is obvious, nor the Peace Plan.
 
GV, whilst this is a terrible thing, don't say:
"I hope those of you who sympathise with the insurgents are proud of this."
That makes it sound as if they support, condone and were partly responsible for this.
 
el Chi, I've seen some people on here who have sympathized with Al Queda and insurgents. When you call an insurgent a freedom fighter and turn your head when they do wrong, you do indeed condone their actions. Now, not to say you condone such actions, but there are those on these boards who apparently don't give a damn.
 
I had a problem with "I hope... you... are proud of this."
You can understand someone's viewpoint but you don't have to agree with it.
If someone says: "I can understand why these people are fighting against the Americans because they see them as an invasion force, not a liberating one." It is not the same as saying: "I think these attacks are a good thing, and I am happy (proud that) they did this."
 
Ummm...you apparently did read my post correctly. I said I could understand them attaking us, but what I can't stand is them attacking Aid Workers, using Children for shields, and bombing Police Officers. The only people in these groups that carry guns are the Police. This isn't about them seeing us as an attacking force, these are terrorists. You want to shoot at armed Marines - I don't like it, but go ahead, they have guns and the image can be misconstrude as invading enemies. You want to hide behind children, mutilate Aid workers and the like, you're a terrorists. And when I say you I don't mean you, el Chi, I mean these monsters in Iraq.
 
GhostValkyrie said:
I said I could understand them attaking us, but what I can't stand is them attacking Aid Workers, using Children for shields, and bombing Police Officers.
Click to expand...
You're right - that's absolutely abhorrent.
 
Bah, why I don't understand the people of this world. Even if uneducated you think they would have more sence than this....
 
Heheh, I know that we both have *Slightly* different views one some things Ghost but I think we both see the plain obvious in the same light. :)
 
Now as I understand it the ceasefire was with the insurgents in Fallujah and as has been noted Basra has been pretty clear of trouble so far so I don't think you can stretch the ceasefire there ( no trouble to ceasefire )
Secondly there are so many insurgent groups it's going to hard to hold a ceasefire in place.
Thirdly what peace plan ? I havent heard of a coherent peace plan for Iraq ( palestine and gaze sure but again that has no real bearing on iraq ) and the simple fact is ( not debating right or wrong ) the "Coalition forces" simply don't have the man power to keep the whole country properly policed.

Obviously that's not to say the actions of those in Basra were correct or right.
 
It's civil war. The Coalition just happens to be around.

When you have a country full of insane ppl, leave the insanest man on the power. the Hussein family was ruthless, animals as many say, to its people. Yopu know what I think?
Without him, the ****ing country is blowing up. He kept the leash on the others.

When a dog bites you, you bring your bigger, meaner dog agaisnt it. But maybe he was that mean because if he didn't, he would be slaughtered by his companions.

Now the companions don't have a meaner dog, and they see that they can get the things they couldn't when the meanner dog was in charge. And they fight between each others for power.

And now as the Coalition went there, they want it out. And they'll get the Coalition out, that you can be sure of. Even taht they say "they'll come out in the specified date b4", the situation has changed, they should stay more, but they can't.
 
Hot Soup said:
Now as I understand it the ceasefire was with the insurgents in Fallujah and as has been noted Basra has been pretty clear of trouble so far so I don't think you can stretch the ceasefire there ( no trouble to ceasefire )

"Coalition forces" simply don't have the man power to keep the whole country properly policed.
Click to expand...

If you read the entire article, you'll see lower that insurgents have brought the ceasefire in Fallujah to halt.

That tends to happen when your enemies don't wear uniforms, and cross the border into the country.

I would love for my forces to be pulled out as Lil' Timmy would, but we all know it fall quickly, and Iran would be all over it...In fact, Countries would possibly (likely) even war eachother over it.
 
What makes you say the people of Iraq are insane?




They are people just the same as you or me. You ought to be carefull with words so strong. Just an observation.....
 
marksmanHL2 :) said:
What makes you say the people of Iraq are insane?
They are people just the same as you or me. You ought to be carefull with words so strong. Just an observation.....
Click to expand...

No one is crazy. It was an example.

It's just a hot zone. Saddam did what he did b/c if he didn't, the whole country would come down onto hjim liek they're doing with the Coaliton.

There's hundreds of men in Iraq that wanted power, and to keep them on their places they had to be intimitated.

I do not condone Saddam's actions to the Iraqi ppl. they were ruthless & authoritary. But in the Middle East, who isn't?
 
Fair enough...

No offence was meant, I just get tired of the incredible amount of racism I see on the internet concerning the iraqi people and basically anyone that isnt a member of the Coalition forces. Its beggining to get to me.
 
I know a few people I would consider racists on these boards, but I don't think calling violent insurgents really counts. I mean, it's not like he said all Iraqis are insane or bad.
 
It's a win-win for the Coalition.

They get out. The country bursts into flames. The UN comes back in with peacekeepers....

They stay in. They settle their "loose ends". They get a brand new coutnry.
 
ComradeBadger said:
Sprafa. Saddam did not do what he did becuase he had to.
Click to expand...

Most definitly not. And I didn't meant that.

Although the majority of the things he did were quite unreasonable, I said that he did some things, as gasing the xiite uprise, that well, if he didn't, I don't think he would still be in power afterwards. That is, in his ruthless authoritary way, some things can be justified.

That's what I meant.
 
You mean the same peacekeepers who molested and burned refugees alive in South Africa? The same Peacekeepers who bombed hospitals in Somolia without apologizing? Hmmm...does sound win win.

The UN always gets what it wants in the end...
:x
 
lol MSNBC is controlled by the US government if anyone ever wanted to show up the truths behind the war, Cowardlin Powel would be there to give them a slap before you could say oil.
 
GhostValkyrie said:
You mean the same peacekeepers who molested and burned refugees alive in South Africa? The same Peacekeepers who bombed hospitals in Somolia without apologizing? Hmmm...does sound win win.

The UN always gets what it wants in the end...
:x
Click to expand...


You tend to see what you want to see in your enemies GV.
They do a hell of a better job then most (including the USA Armed Forces, they did a lot worse than any UN peacekeeping in every "peace maintenance" operation they were)
 
clarky003 said:
lol MSNBC is controlled by the US government if anyone ever wanted to show up the truths behind the war, Cowardlin Powel would be there to give them a slap before you could say oil.
Click to expand...

It probably is, but most of your major news network correspondents are left wing.
 
I think its almost a chicken and the egg proposition. Saddam was ruthless in order to keep competition at bay, and people were getting more and more radical as he got harsher and harsher.
In the end, I think what its going to take to help sort all of this out is time. The coalition hasn't been able to come close to getting the entire country up to speed yet, so Iraqis (average citizens, not the crazy ones) have doubts about whether they're actually trying. Once the country can start to get back on its feet (whenever that is) I think we'll see support really swing behind the coalition.
 
left wing.. :P u mean left in the dark. ,.. but no I agree not everyone is a pawn
 
Sprafa said:
You tend to see what you want to see in your enemies GV.
They do a hell of a better job then most (including the USA Armed Forces, they did a lot worse than any UN peacekeeping in every "peace maintenance" operation they were)
Click to expand...

As I was about to include, they do their job. I was only pointing out some things they've done, like how others point out the things some of our forces have done. Like the apparent rapes that happened in Iraq I heard about.
No Military is without bad apples, but I've met some people who believe the UN Peacekeepers are angels with guns. And I've met some who think that(even after the troop threw the grenade in his Officer's tent) US soldiers are all pro-American fighters.

Anyway - yes, the UN is very good at making peace.
 
I only trust Reuters.

And once in a while, I compare Al-Jazeera & CNN to get the facts from what they tell me fro myself.
 
it's not full-blown yet, but the civil war certainly looks to be on its way. this particular incident didn't involve 'freedom fighters' it seems, but whats the big deal with semantics and context on these forums, too many people don't seem to understand what a word really mean.

it's just the literal use of the word, many of the iraqis who are fighting the coalition are indeed freedom fighters, just like the various guerrilla groups in south and central america, just like the mujahidin in afghanistan and later the northern alliance, just like the tamil tigers, etc.. these are people who are fighting for their freedom. and no, they're not fighiting for what other people think their freedom should be, they're fighting for what they think their freedom should be.

are these groups terrorists? in almost every case, yes. are they freedom fighters? in almost every case, yes. the idea that these two concepts are somehow mutually exclusive is a falacy perpetrated by propagandists. but when people want to believe in cutand dry good and evil in the world, it's easy to convince them that the guerillas we support are freedom fighters, even when they do torture/murder civilians, but those we don't like are terrorists, especially when they torture/murder civilians, but even more especially when they torture/murder ours.

we, as a nation, seem to have gotten better about accepting military casualties. but when this war first started, many people i talked to that supported the war seem almost incredulous about US casualties. it was almost like they couldn't believe the audacity of the enemy, and they must be the lowest order of sub-human mosters to even think about hurting 'on of our boys'. words as control are especially effective with people like that.

should we act in our interests as a nation? sure. should we support some terrorist groups/freedom fighters and not others, following the above axiom? well, that's up for debate, but it's exactly what we have done (just look at central america). words are a tool, use them. but don't let others use them on you.
 
I think the "freedom fighter" idea is especially confusing in the situation of Iraq. Here the coalition wants the Iraqis to run their own nation as soon as possible, but are having trouble doing so since so many people calling themselves freedom fighters are making the country too turbulent. They hardly come across as what they claim to be, and instead seem more intent on being the leaders themselves.
 
I think its going to be the end of the American Forces if they entered ALLNAJAF city.

Over 17Million People are supporting ALLSADER.

Today Iranian Leader stated that if America entered Allnajaf city, they will help the Iraqis.

A realy Big war is coming. This is scary :(
 
Why these people go after Saudi Arabia of all places is beyond me...(I know their reasoning, but it still seems dumb). And they were lucky that car didn't make it all the way there.
Edit: Gorgon: It situations like these that we have to use negotiation, I don't think any one side is going to be stupid enough to want to spark something like that.
 
Err...reading further down the article I found this for those of you who lose interests due to the amount of reading.


"Saudi investigators subsequently discovered detailed plans for an attack in which an explosives-laden car was to be used to ram and destroy the front security gate of the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, clearing the way for a second, larger truck bomb to drive through the breach onto the embassy grounds, where it would be detonated."

:x

Maybe these freedom fighters are taking a wrong turn and ending up in Saudi Arabia? /sarcasm
 
Those plans are what can often be scary, even if the planners are a little optimistic. (I'd imagine that the first car would likely leave either a giant amount of debris or a crater, impeding the truck.)
 
My 83 Silvarado Blazer is quite versatile, not like a Humvee, but it's gotten it's way out of some monster ditches. If they were to have a truck like that, or even a decent old truck, they could easily make it through the debris and/or a crater.
 
That UK report is pretty much the same as the other ones posted..although there may be a discrepancy involving the size of a rocket attack in Fallujah.
 
GhostValkyrie said:
What, did you guys think MSNBC was making the attack up?
Click to expand...


no i didn't say that. but as i was writing that post i had just read posts from 3 or 4 of you saying how news sites may be unreliable.

i have a friend in the Royal Engineers and is currently posted in southern iraq near basra, so i'm feeling it too.
 
GhostValkyrie said:
It probably is, but most of your major news network correspondents are left wing.
Click to expand...

You know them all? You watch them all? Or are you merely wacking off again?

Please give it rest with your Redneck BS once and for all GV. A steady diet of cowboy films and uncooked red meat seems to have reduced your ability to rationalise down to dualities. All you ever spout is the same black and white dogma, again and again. It really gets tedious to see how limited your range is in these threads.

Just because the vast majority of people on these boards disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq, doesn't necessarily mean that they are pleased about the deaths of anyone there, whether those casualties are Aidworkers, Journalist, civilians or Soldiers. I find it astounding that you can't concieve of this notion, and shocking that you have the audacity to make such accusations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mr.Reak
Damn, British Army is HARDCORE
2 3
Replies
94
Views
4K
A.I.
A.I.
Sprafa
An enemy with many faces
Replies
8
Views
1K
Sprafa
Sprafa
N
US policy is State Terrorism
2
Replies
60
Views
4K
Mechagodzilla
Mechagodzilla
T
  • Locked
Let Freedom Ring - More Iraqis voted than Americans did!
2 3 4
Replies
154
Views
7K
bliink
bliink
hasan
Al Fallujah
2
Replies
74
Views
5K
FatCombine
FatCombine
Back
Top