Suspect terrorists go away for good

[Maxi]

I don't get it, then. If I am supposed to read the post as a whole, but part of that "whole" is a baseless accusation and mirepresentation of the fact, then the rest of the message is invalidated because it is tanted by your lie.

So now it is not, "...Saddam still kept the entire country in one peace, no civil war nor different tribal chiefs batteling for control over different areas of the country..." but now it is, "there are a lot of bad people without power."

For one, I don't see how those comments correspond.

Second, I proved you wrong on your first comment about "no cival wars or regional unrest" by reminding you about the Kurds.

But the kurds never did start a civil war, nor did they do anything else violent-like. In afghanistan there is now clashing between tribes, some even control parts of afghanistan. And Iraq is free now? what bullshit is that? there's a ****ing war going on in that country. I can see why people are pissed. Even though saddam sucked, he still maintained some sort of peace in the country. You can't argue about that.

 

[Raziaar]

Since Iraq HAD a dictator incharge, which was an asshole that just bullshitted the people, took all their money and stuff.
But saddam still kept the entire country in one peace, no civil war nor different tribal chiefs batteling for control over different areas of the country, like what is now happening in afghanistan.

Wow, so you are in favor of executing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Sadadm's own people, just to keep the country so called 'stable' and poor?

And yet you think the 'accidental' deaths of thousands of civilians is worse? Wow man. You need to readjust your priorities on life, if you'd rather have a stable country with hundreds of thousands of executions every year, or a less stable country with far less, and the chance to become more wealthy as time goes on without the stranglehold saddam had on it.


Saddam had a policy of ethnic cleansing, and you're fine with that as long as the country is stable? That would be like supporting hitler!

"Well hey, millions of homosexuals, jews, gypsies, etc are being executed, but at least Germany is being united, so that's good!"


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2956129.stm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32552

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3024989.stm

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6539723^25777,00.html

 

[Maxi]

Wow, so you are in favor of executing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Sadadm's own people, just to keep the country so called 'stable' and poor?

And yet you think the 'accidental' deaths of thousands of civilians is worse? Wow man. You need to readjust your priorities on life, if you'd rather have a stable country with hundreds of thousands of executions every year, or a less stable country with far less, and the chance to become more wealthy as time goes on without the stranglehold saddam had on it.

When did I EVER say that saddam was good? I just said he atleast kept the country from total turmoil, civil war, no leader, death and misiry and food shortages everywhere. Atleast most Iraqis had a home, clean water and some form of healthcare.

Now there's a freeking war in the country, i'm not surprised that people are pissed off. I really think this whole regime change could have been done better than by a fullscale invasion.

 

[Raziaar]

I really think this whole regime change could have been done better than by a fullscale invasion.

What would you have suggested?

Hello Saddam, we would like for you to relinguish control of the country, giving over leadership to these people.

 

[Scoobnfl]

ya I can see how well you're re-building as we speak

the same was said in Germany after WWII and we're still there today.

The Afghans are better off than they were. Are you actually going to argue differently? Were they better off under the "lawful" rule of the taliban?

TIME fool, it will take time for them to establish themselves, stabilize their country, and help to rebuild their infrastructure and grow their economy.

Are you such an idiot that you thought that all of this would have occurred overnight? It will take years of committment.

here's a solution: STOP ARMING LUNATICS AND MADMEN!!

"In this three-year period the Soviet Union has been unable to subjugate Afghanistan. The Soviet forces are pitted against an extraordinary people who, in their determination to preserve the character of their ancient land, have organized an effective and still spreading country-wide resistance. The resistance of the Afghan freedom fighters is an example to all the world of the invincibility of the ideals we in this country hold most dear, the ideals of freedom and independence."

Ronald reagan, 1985, praising the Afghan Mujahaddin. These "freedom fighters" included prominent leaders of Al Qaeda, such as Osama Bin Laden, as well as many of the leaders for the Taliban.
source

Oh so don't arm them, do not help them fight off communist domination and aggression and allow them to suffer stalinist type persecution and religous oppression. How compassionate of you.

What really led to this was the Church commission, and their hamstringing of the CIA, and its prevention of the CIA from assassinating people like Bin Laden, Mullah Omar etc.... If we would have been able to perform the full spectrum of operations required it would have been a very different outcome. But we listened to those who have no capacity for understanding such necessities and paid for it in the long run.

free???? who's the current Prime Minister of Iraq? dont know? here's a clue: Iyad Allawi: cia sponsored terrorist and murderer. He's another saddam in the making ..free! LoL what a crock

you're a fan of the Geneva convention right? They were spies as the geneva convention very loosely defines them, and according to the geneva convention spies are able to be executed.

Honetly more of this needs to occurr in Iraq with the insurgents/terrorists what ever you want to call them today, execution upon capturing them.

what's there to say? you pulled out when the shit hit the fan ..a good example on how public opinion withdrew the troops

a stellar example of how lies and misrepresentations in the media resulted in the allowing 58,000+ men to have died in vain.

it's actually a very excellent example on why not to listen to the whining vaginas.

who cares? I dont play partisan bs games ..it's all the same to me, regardless of who's at the helm

that's convenient.

You want to bring up Cambodia and our not doing anything to prevent it, yet you oppose action to begin with. You're a blatant hypocrite with 0 credibility.

What about Taiwan and Carters voiding of the mutual defense pact and turning his back on the millions of Taiwanese that now fear invasion by China. yet another example of the left selling out the freedom and security of people to avoid that which may be difficult.


See Capt. You can not have security by wishing for it, men have to stand guard to provide it for us, and despite the word freedom having the word free in it, it does not come free, it doesn't just happen, it comes at a heavy price, it's cost is one paid in blood and measured in lives lost.

 

[Maxi]

What would you have suggested?

Hello Saddam, we would like for you to relinguish control of the country, giving over leadership to these people.

I don't know... i'm not a political expert of any kind... But I do know that if you want to change a regime, and you want to do it smoothly you don't invade the country...

Besides, getting rid of saddam wasn't even the goal of the "coalition" early on. It was that he had weapons of massdestruction, which he didn't, all those satelite photos were BS.

Anyway, i'm going to quite while i'm ahead. I don't want this to escalate into a flame war or something, getting either of us banned.

 

[Raziaar]

I don't know... i'm not a political expert of any kind... But I do know that if you want to change a regime, and you want to do it smoothly you don't invade the country...

Besides, getting rid of saddam wasn't even the goal of the "coalition" early on. It was that he had weapons of massdestruction, which he didn't, all those satelite photos were BS.

Anyway, i'm going to quite while i'm ahead. I don't want this to escalate into a flame war or something, getting either of us banned.

Well, I don't really resort to pure flames, its usually based on debating.

If there's one thing I can tell you, a regime change in a country like Iraq can 'never' go over smoothly. Ever. You have people like Saddam who want a full, complete stranglehold on the country.

I guess the only way to have a 'smooth' nonviolent regime change, would be in the case of what we have in the states. We had people who didn't like the result, but we certainly don't see people on our streets blowing each other up and firing at the police any more than normal.

But... Iraq is not, was not a democracy, and you'd find it impossible to rid Saddam from his position except by force. Even if saddam surrendered the country as he got older, he would have given it to somebody, one of his sons perhaps or most trusted general, that would have been just as cruel if not more so.


And I realize that the original goal was weapons of mass destruction. We admit that our intelligence was wrong on that matter. However, that shouldn't trivialize the fact that Saddam has been removed. A cruel, mass murdering dictator has been removed. It has pitted the country in a state of turmoil, but it was to be expected. Nobody thought that things would immediately be better, and you'd of had to been a fool to believe that.

These things take time. Iraq is not going to be in this turmoiled state forever. Things will stabalize. Once the terrorists who keep trying to attack the infrastructure that the troops and iraqi workers are trying to reconstruct and build are killed off, then things will start to stabalize. These things take time.

I can never invade a country in any of my strategy games like Rome Total War, etc, and expect things to go smoothly. But in the end, over time, they always balance out into a more efficient, better country.

 

[Scoobnfl]

When did I EVER say that saddam was good? I just said he atleast kept the country from total turmoil, civil war, no leader, death and misiry and food shortages everywhere. Atleast most Iraqis had a home, clean water and some form of healthcare.

Now there's a freeking war in the country, i'm not surprised that people are pissed off. I really think this whole regime change could have been done better than by a fullscale invasion.

You are a fool. No murder and misery under Sadam?

There was no civil war, because Sadam beat them down and murdered them by the thousands. He put total fear into their hearts and minds, he tortured thousands of people to death. (not just took ridiculous humiliating pictures of them) Sadam had rape rooms where thousands of women were raped, some of them to death while their husbands and children were forced to watch. Thousands of children were imprisoned under threat of death to keep their families in line. He gassed the Kurds in 88 killing thousands of them in one day.

There were uprisings and they were crushed. That was part of the reason for establishing the no fly zones after gulf war 1. And the establishment of that no fly zone allowed the Kurds to become almost Autonomous with very little adherence to anything that Baghdad had to say.

Now for the problems we face in Iraq right now, every jihadi fawk wipe in the ME is streaming into there to fight the USA, cuz every scumsucking cockroach bitten child molesting radical cleric has convinced these uneducated heathenous dirtbags that we're Satan and it is okay to shove dynamite up their ass and blow themselves up and into heaven where 72 virgins await them That in a nutshell is who we're fighting. A bunch of poor uneducated trash that believe by killing themselves fightin us they will get the ass in heaven that they can't get here on earth.

 

[KoreBolteR]

You are a fool. No murder and misery under Sadam?

There was no civil war, because Sadam beat them down and murdered them by the thousands. He put total fear into their hearts and minds, he tortured thousands of people to death. (not just took ridiculous humiliating pictures of them) Sadam had rape rooms where thousands of women were raped, some of them to death while their husbands and children were forced to watch. Thousands of children were imprisoned under threat of death to keep their families in line. He gassed the Kurds in 88 killing thousands of them in one day.

There were uprisings and they were crushed. That was part of the reason for establishing the no fly zones after gulf war 1. And the establishment of that no fly zone allowed the Kurds to become almost Autonomous with very little adherence to anything that Baghdad had to say.

Now for the problems we face in Iraq right now, every jihadi fawk wipe in the ME is streaming into there to fight the USA, cuz every scumsucking cockroach bitten child molesting radical cleric has convinced these uneducated heathenous dirtbags that we're Satan and it is okay to shove dynamite up their ass and blow themselves up and into heaven where 72 virgins await them That in a nutshell is who we're fighting. A bunch of poor uneducated trash that believe by killing themselves fightin us they will get the ass in heaven that they can't get here on earth.

well said :cheers:

the terrorist leader are twisting the religion by telling the recruiters/members that if they blow themselves up theylle go to heaven and get "personally" thanked by god.

ive never heard so much bs in my life.

 

[Maxi]

Now for the problems we face in Iraq right now, every jihadi fawk wipe in the ME is streaming into there to fight the USA, cuz every scumsucking cockroach bitten child molesting radical cleric has convinced these uneducated heathenous dirtbags that we're Satan and it is okay to shove dynamite up their ass and blow themselves up and into heaven where 72 virgins await them That in a nutshell is who we're fighting. A bunch of poor uneducated trash that believe by killing themselves fightin us they will get the ass in heaven that they can't get here on earth.

I'm just forced to comment on this...

I'm glad you think that way, really I am.

I'd educate myself a bit more if I were you. Most Iraqis aren't terrorists, some iraqis hate the us and saddam equally, some iraqis hate saddam and love the us, some hate the us and love saddam. It's not black or white as bush wants you to belive, it's grey, and purple, and even pink in some areas.

well said :cheers:

the terrorist leader are twisting the religion by telling the recruiters/members that if they blow themselves up theylle go to heaven and get "personally" thanked by god.

ive never heard so much bs in my life.

That only applies to some religious cults, like the shiia muslims, they have created a religion devoted to their teroristic cause.

 

[Scoobnfl]

I'd educate myself a bit more if I were you. Most Iraqis aren't terrorists, some iraqis hate the us and saddam equally, some iraqis hate saddam and love the us, some hate the us and love saddam. It's not black or white as bush wants you to belive, it's grey, and purple, and even pink in some areas.

I'd learn to read a bit better, or at least try some comprehension improvement techniques. And I'm thrilled that you were forced, compelled sounds better, to reply.

I never said that most Iraqis are terrorists. I said that the threat we're facing over there is from all of the dumbass Jihadi fawkwipes from across the ME. They left Afghanistan and returned home to Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran which not too coincidentally border Iraq.

True some love us, the kurds, some hate us and sadam equally Shia, and some hate us and love Sadam, Sunni's.

The shia hate us cuz we're not muslims, the kurds like us cuz we helped provide them security, and the sunnis hate us because they no longer have their boot on the throats of their fellow countrymen thanks to us. It might not be black and white, but it's pretty easy to understand.

 

[bliink]

True some love us, the kurds, some hate us and sadam equally Shia, and some hate us and love Sadam, Sunni's.

The shia hate us cuz we're not muslims, the kurds like us cuz we helped provide them security, and the sunnis hate us because they no longer have their boot on the throats of their fellow countrymen thanks to us. It might not be black and white, but it's pretty easy to understand.

You should admit that was a sweeping generalisation

 

[Raziaar]

I'm just forced to comment on this...

I'm glad you think that way, really I am.

I'd educate myself a bit more if I were you. Most Iraqis aren't terrorists, some iraqis hate the us and saddam equally, some iraqis hate saddam and love the us, some hate the us and love saddam. It's not black or white as bush wants you to belive, it's grey, and purple, and even pink in some areas.



That only applies to some religious cults, like the shiia muslims, they have created a religion devoted to their teroristic cause.

The Iraqi's are grateful for the united states ousting Saddam. They just dislike us for staying as long as we have so far, but both sides agree that we can't pull out just yet for the best interest of Iraq.

 

[Maxi]

The Iraqi's are grateful for the united states ousting Saddam. They just dislike us for staying as long as we have so far, but both sides agree that we can't pull out just yet for the best interest of Iraq.

You really do think that a few milloin people all have the same views on the us and that the only reason they have for attacking us forces in iraq is because you have stayed too long. I'd like to point out a few things

1) There have been attacks on us forces by rebels since the begining of the campaign

2) It's not that black and white

 

[Raziaar]

You really do think that a few milloin people all have the same views on the us and that the only reason they have for attacking us forces in iraq is because you have stayed too long. I'd like to point out a few things

1) There have been attacks on us forces by rebels since the begining of the campaign

2) It's not that black and white

I realize its not just black and white. And I know that there are some iraqi's that hate us. But why should I care about the opinions of the Iraqi's who preferred it when Saddam was in power? They weren't the ones being threatened or murdered.

I care about the Iraqi's who were victims of Saddam, and their families. I want them to have a better country than they had under the regime of saddam. Schools, electricity, cleaner water, more wealth from their buisnesses.

 

[Maxi]

I realize its not just black and white. And I know that there are some iraqi's that hate us. But why should I care about the opinions of the Iraqi's who preferred it when Saddam was in power? They weren't the ones being threatened or murdered.

I care about the Iraqi's who were victims of Saddam, and their families. I want them to have a better country than they had under the regime of saddam. Schools, electricity, cleaner water, more wealth from their buisnesses.

There were iraqis who werent being thretend that much (hell everyone was, even the ones close to saddam) but they did their duties because if they wouldn't, they'd all be killed or tortuered and someone else would do what they were supposed to do. It's definately MUCH more complex, it's not just good guys badguys, rich guys, poor guys.

 

[Raziaar]

There were iraqis who werent being thretend that much (hell everyone was, even the ones close to saddam) but they did their duties because if they wouldn't, they'd all be killed or tortuered and someone else would do what they were supposed to do. It's definately MUCH more complex, it's not just good guys badguys, rich guys, poor guys.

And so how does that help your argument? That's exactly what I have been saying. Saddam was a cruel and torturous dictator, and he didn't treat his people well... and the 'stability' you speak of, was not stability. It was fear of death in the civilian populace. I don't see how you can defend that.

 

[Maxi]

And so how does that help your argument? That's exactly what I have been saying. Saddam was a cruel and torturous dictator, and he didn't treat his people well... and the 'stability' you speak of, was not stability. It was fear of death in the civilian populace. I don't see how you can defend that.

My argument was that it was more stable when saddam was in power, then it is now.

 

[Raziaar]

My argument was that it was more stable when saddam was in power, then it is now.

But at what cost? You defend Saddam and his ruling methods. They're evil methods.

 

[Edcrab]

Yep, and despite that most people wanted him in power because they preferred his dictatorship over the chaos that we've unleashed. Bah.

I don't think anyone, for whatever reason, should be held indefinitely. For example, I despise the IRA, but I wouldn't approve of holding a suspected member for years just because he might be a terrorist. Saddam, for example, did just what the West are currently considering- sentences without trial. Oh, the irony...

 

[Absinthe]

I only scanned over the posts just now. I'll read them in detail later.

But I did notice a surprising (actually, not too surprising) amount of remarks about cowardice from Scoob.

Shock. Horror.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

hypocrite ..shellback is immune to such criticism?

Immune to criticism but not to long hard days. I dozed off for a bit LOL.

Yor last question, "And that made it right."

No but it didn't make the war wrong.

 

[CptStern]

the same was said in Germany after WWII and we're still there today.

The Afghans are better off than they were. Are you actually going to argue differently? Were they better off under the "lawful" rule of the taliban?

are you sure?

dead sure?

absolutely positive?

TIME fool, it will take time for them to establish themselves, stabilize their country, and help to rebuild their infrastructure and grow their economy.

just like in afghanistan? (see above)

Are you such an idiot that you thought that all of this would have occurred overnight? It will take years of committment.

how many soldiers have to die before americans cry "enough"?

Oh so don't arm them, do not help them fight off communist domination and aggression and allow them to suffer stalinist type persecution and religous oppression. How compassionate of you.

your government praised them as "freedom fighters" but now that you're the target they're "terrorists" ..how convienent
well that's what happens when you arm tyrants and fanatics ...sooner or later they look to take out the bigger fish ...you're just as bad if not worse

What really led to this was the Church commission, and their hamstringing of the CIA, and its prevention of the CIA from assassinating people like Bin Laden, Mullah Omar etc.... If we would have been able to perform the full spectrum of operations required it would have been a very different outcome. But we listened to those who have no capacity for understanding such necessities and paid for it in the long run.

so in other words you should have done what you did with iraq ...pay some terrorist to screw with saddam and hand you lies about his WMD capabilities so that you have an excuse to invade ..pretty shrewd if you ask ..fascist but shrewd

you're a fan of the Geneva convention right? They were spies as the geneva convention very loosely defines them, and according to the geneva convention spies are able to be executed.

but I thought the geneva conventions dont apply to "enemy combatants" ...maybe we should apply the geneva conventions to the torture in the prisoners? ..cant have it both ways, skippy

Honetly more of this needs to occurr in Iraq with the insurgents/terrorists what ever you want to call them today, execution upon capturing them.

no charge judge or jury ..how unamerican of you ..you're a stain on humanity

a stellar example of how lies and misrepresentations in the media resulted in the allowing 58,000+ men to have died in vain.

"oh the evil media! they killed soldiers in vietnam!" :rolling:

it's actually a very excellent example on why not to listen to the whining vaginas.

ah the mark of a blathering bigoted idiot

 

[Raziaar]

"oh the evil media! they killed soldiers in vietnam!"

I don't think the media killed soldiers in vietnam, but it sure as hell may have affected them enough to make them do more poorly than they normally might have in combat.

Are you under the belief that morale does not affect a man's combat ability, stern? Do you believe the way the media and citizen populace portrayed and thought of the soldiers in vietnam didn't lower their morale?

I honestly don't think you do believe that... because only a stupid man could. Being villanized will do alot to lower a man's morale, and that lowered morale will significantly increase their chances of dying in combat. It's just a fact.

 

[Absinthe]

So what exactly should we do? Block out the media? Bar people from the truth of what happens in wars?

I do understand your point, Raziaar. But I think it's very important for people at home to know what is happening.

 

[Raziaar]

So what exactly should we do? Block out the media? Bar people from the truth of what happens in wars?

I do understand your point, Raziaar. But I think it's very important for people at home to know what is happening.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Scoobnfl]

You should admit that was a sweeping generalisation

undoubtedly, it was so much so that i didn't think it needed to be clarified, my apologies.

 

[Scoobnfl]

but I thought the geneva conventions dont apply to "enemy combatants" ...maybe we should apply the geneva conventions to the torture in the prisoners? ..cant have it both ways, skippy

i'm referring to the spies/terrorists/saboteurs in Iraq, not battlefield detainees.

reach, struggle, grasp....... you'll catch up.


the number of soldiers that die has nothing to do with when enough is enough, when the job is done we'll leave.

we lost more civilians on 9/11 than we have had killed in action thus far. on 9/11 we decided that we had had enough

 

[CptStern]

i'm referring to the spies/terrorists/saboteurs in Iraq, not battlefield detainees.

reach, struggle, grasp....... you'll catch up.

your condescending tone isnt quite up to par with your limited knowledge of the situation ....the geneva conventions doesnt apply here ...but you knew that riiiiiiight? :upstare:

the number of soldiers that die has nothing to do with when enough is enough, when the job is done we'll leave.

we lost more civilians on 9/11 than we have had killed in action thus far. on 9/11 we decided that we had had enough

enough of aiding and abeting with terrorists and madmen?


"The resistance of the Afghan freedom fighters is an example to all the world of the invincibility of the ideals we in this country hold most dear, the ideals of freedom and independence." - Ronald Reagan


"The freedom fighters of Nicaragua … are the moral equal of our Founding Fathers and the brave men and women of the French Resistance."
- Ronald Reagan addressing congress defending the contras



so are you going to just ignore every other point I've made ..it's a trend with you ..for every reply you make you drop 2-3 tough questions I've posed ...selective answers? why's that? the answers support my case?

 

[Scoobnfl]

your condescending tone isnt quite up to par with your limited knowledge of the situation ....the geneva conventions doesnt apply here ...but you knew that riiiiiiight? :upstare:

oh so it doesn't apply to the situation in Iraq regarding spies/terrorists/saboteurs, but it does apply to the battlefield detainees in Afghanistan. Pick and choose much?

enough of aiding and abeting with terrorists and madmen?


"The resistance of the Afghan freedom fighters is an example to all the world of the invincibility of the ideals we in this country hold most dear, the ideals of freedom and independence." - Ronald Reagan


"The freedom fighters of Nicaragua … are the moral equal of our Founding Fathers and the brave men and women of the French Resistance."
- Ronald Reagan addressing congress defending the contras



so are you going to just ignore every other point I've made ..it's a trend with you ..for every reply you make you drop 2-3 tough questions I've posed ...selective answers? why's that? the answers support my case?

I would have responded full earlier but I had some things to attend to.

As far as the Afghan freedom fighters, yes they were freedom fighters, at least the ones that were Afghans were, they were fighting for freedom from soviet oppression. The other, foreign fighters that were there were not freedom fighters, they were there fighting to kill the soviets, not for the freedom of the afghans, that is why after the soviets were defeated there was a civil war. The foreign fighters were fighting on the side of the islamic extremists the taliban which were largely pakstanis and were heavily influenced by radical clerics in pakistan and operatives from pakistani intelligence and members of the pakistani secret police. This fight was fought in hopes of establishing a state that would be run under the most perversa dn strictest code of Islamic law. They won and the Taliban took hold of 75% of the country while the rest of the world did nothing to help those that were fighting for their freedom and salvation of their country.




in regards to the Church commission and the ridiculous constraints it applied to the CIA, you wrote

so in other words you should have done what you did with iraq ...pay some terrorist to screw with saddam and hand you lies about his WMD capabilities so that you have an excuse to invade ..pretty shrewd if you ask ..fascist but shrewd

no that is not even close.

I would prefer that the CIA have the tools necessary, and the legal authority to kill the bin ladens, mullah omars, any pileoshitnian terrorist member or leader, etc.... of the world when they find them. Assassinating such scum would benefit the entire world, yet some panty waists feel that such action is abhorrent. I wonder how such sentiment can be justified when the failure to take such actions leads to WTC I, Khobar Towers, African embassy bombings, USS Cole, 9/11, Madrid train bombings, Bali night club bombing, the millenium plot, the dozens of terrorist acts perpetrated against Israel, the thousands of deaths of innocents at the hands of Islamic terrorists in places like India, East timor, Pakistan, Turkey, Morocco, etc............

Failure to confront and kill the terrorists wherever they are is gross negligence on the part of all free people.

 

[CptStern]

oh so it doesn't apply to the situation in Iraq regarding spies/terrorists/saboteurs, but it does apply to the battlefield detainees in Afghanistan. Pick and choose much?

*knock, knock* HELLO McFly!!

that was my point:

but I thought the geneva conventions dont apply to "enemy combatants" ...maybe we should apply the geneva conventions to the torture in the prisoners? ..cant have it both ways, skippy

As far as the Afghan freedom fighters, yes they were freedom fighters, at least the ones that were Afghans were, they were fighting for freedom from soviet oppression.

here let me re-write it for you:

"As far as the Iraqi freedom fighters, yes they were freedom fighters, at least the ones that were Iraqis were, they were fighting for freedom from US occupation"

The other, foreign fighters that were there were not freedom fighters, they were there fighting to kill the soviets, not for the freedom of the afghans, that is why after the soviets were defeated there was a civil war.

here let's try that again:

"The other, foreign fighters that were there were not freedom fighters, they were there fighting to kill the americans, not for the freedom of the iraqis, that is why after the americans leave there will be a civil war"

no that is not even close.

I'd say it was dead on

I would prefer that the CIA have the tools necessary, and the legal authority to kill the bin ladens, mullah omars, any pileoshitnian terrorist member or leader, etc.... of the world when they find them. Assassinating such scum would benefit the entire world, yet some panty waists feel that such action is abhorrent. ............

see ..what you dont realise is that the CIA does have that authority, they've been doing it for decades...google Iyad allawi, the Iraqi National Accord and the cia

I wonder how such sentiment can be justified when the failure to take such actions leads to WTC I, Khobar Towers, African embassy bombings, USS Cole, 9/11, Madrid train bombings, Bali night club bombing, the millenium plot....

again ..Who made WHO?

 

[Scoobnfl]

*knock, knock* HELLO McFly!!

that was my point:

yah, pick and choose when and where you want it to apply and apply it incorrectly.

effective point

*"As far as the Iraqi freedom fighters, yes they were freedom fighters, at least the ones that were Iraqis were, they were fighting for freedom from US occupation"

comparing the war in Iraq to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan superbly illustrates your blistering ignorance and inability to comprehend such events, their reasons, goals, etc.........

there really is no point in continuing this discussion with you as your wild, confused, and juvenile comparissons are boooooooring

 

[Maxi]

comparing the war in Iraq to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan superbly illustrates your blistering ignorance and inability to comprehend such events, their reasons, goals, etc.........

Well, imo the situation looks really simillar, both the soviet and the US invaded without any real reason.

And stop with the personal attacks, makes you seem stupid.

 

[bliink]

I'm noticing a few personal attacks scattered through this thread (from several people).

I'd recommend you all stop that and be a little more courteous.

 

[Scoobnfl]

Well, imo the situation looks really simillar, both the soviet and the US invaded without any real reason.

And stop with the personal attacks, makes you seem stupid.

[SNIP]


what coalition did the soviets invade with?

how many nations other than the USSR contributed troops to their venture into Afghanistan?

did they work with other nations to rebuild afghanistan?

and the list of dissimilarities goes on and on and on and on and on............................

they are not similar at all save for the fact that islamic extremists caused casualties in both wars in their religous zealotry.