How?

How can the CIA release statements saying that the US troops and allies inside of Iraq are likely to be victims of "terrorist attacks" inside of Iraq?

news.yahoo.com...

Or is this just another clever way of the government to brainwash the American public to be more anti-muslim and anti- everything that is not jewish related in the Middle East?

Let's be serious, this is war... the whole point of war is to kill more people than they kill you.

Is Iraq just supposed to welcome the US troops in open arms without putting up some kind of fight? Of course American troops are going to die once the war starts, but is it war or "terrorist attacks"

If it's terrorist attacks as the CIA says, then US troops are terrorists too... plain and simple with no bias. I know a lot of you going to disagree but let's recap:

IT'S WAR!

US plans to drop dozens of bombs, but is that terrorist attacks? Of course not. Why? Because we're America, we can do anything because we're the worlds bullies.

American troops are going to look like saviors when they send 40 bullets to someone's head, but when a Iraqi Muslim sends one bullet to a American soldier in self-defense he's called a terrorist, even though it's a rule of war to just...kill...

[Edited on 3-9-2003 by Illmatic67]

[Edited on 3-9-2003 by Illmatic67]

Umm, how do you make the link clickable?

link

good topic illumatic. very interesting.


i guess we should keep it simple..

1)terrorists attacked us first so we are after them and they are still after us
2)Iraq hasnt disarmed....after the gulf war they said they would... now we have that and 1441. remember the gulf war was started by them. this next war can be prevented if they just comply. we cant have them building there sh*t because saddam wouldnt hesitate to put it in the hands of a "terrorist" and then have them bring that sh*t to america. after 9/11 .. america is no longer safe. its not about muslims.. its about those who want to harm america. most the time those are muslims.

i mean hell... we have mulsims in our military forces. do they have "christians" in thier forces?? dont think so. so how can you say this is specifically and directly a war against muslims?

Illmatic,

First of all, I am not anti-muslim/islam. If you read some of my posts I am of the opinion that the cabal is likely focusing on the Arab nations, but not for the reasons you seem to think.

Having said that, it is however hard to justify not persuing a terrorist organization and those who harbor them when the terrorists gleefully strap high explosives to thier bodies with the express intent to blow themselves up and take as many men women and children with them that they possibly can.

Not exactly doing themselves any favors are they?

[Edited on 9-3-2003 by dragonrider]

I'm not saying this war is against Muslims even though I believe and the keyword here is 'I' that Islam does play a role in this war, maybe a small one but still.

Let's say Saddam complies tomorrow, do you honestly think this war will be over, just like that?

the terrorists gleefully strap high explosives to thier bodies with the express intent to blow themselves up

that's how THEY do it, that's how they fight, right? Don't get me wrong, I'm totally against suicide bombings but we find it strange here because our troops dont do it or our government never practices it.

To us that's terrorist attacks, to them in the Middle East, US dropping 100 bombs is terrorist attacks, and it should be.

At least their not living in a sick society where something like abortion is legal, but that's a whole different topic.

Originally posted by Illmatic67
I'm not saying this war is against Muslims even though I believe and the keyword here is 'I' that Islam does play a role in this war, maybe a small one but still.

okay... i would agree with you there.

Originally posted by Illmatic67
Let's say Saddam complies tomorrow, do you honestly think this war will be over, just like that?

LIke how? Realy quick? yeah if its shown and proven he has totally complied. That means he brings in ALL the wmds he has and the u.s. knows he has into a parking lot and have them blown up. If he totally complied we would know.


now i think this post would urge us to better define a "terrorist" so we all could understand the difference.

On Saddam and terrorism, there's some food for thought - with links - here
www.thememoryhole.com...

Originally posted by Illmatic67

the terrorists gleefully strap high explosives to thier bodies with the express intent to blow themselves up

that's how THEY do it, that's how they fight, right? Don't get me wrong, I'm totally against suicide bombings but we find it strange here because our troops dont do it or our government never practices it.

To us that's terrorist attacks, to them in the Middle East, US dropping 100 bombs is terrorist attacks, and it should be.

At least their not living in a sick society where something like abortion is legal, but that's a whole different topic.

why are those bombs dropped in the first place?

the truth of the matter is that if the "terrorists" just didnt do thier sh*t and left others alone and wouldnt harm anyone like they do now... the u.s.a. wouldnt do anything either. no danger no trouble. that simple.
but thats not whats happening. what we have is these groups of people who cant stand america and think we are the great satan and are told by thier god that they need to destroy the infidels. so thats what they are trying to do. america doesnt have that idea or creed. we dont believe in the desctruction of ANYONE. sure we are not perfect and we do some repugnant sh*t... but we are not basing our lives on the destruction of others.. generally its all about self defense... you screw with us its on.

[Edited on 9-3-2003 by krossfyter]

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally against suicide bombings but we find it strange here because our troops dont do it or our government never practices it. Posted by Illamtic67

To us that's terrorist attacks, to them in the Middle East, US dropping 100 bombs is terrorist attacks, and it should be. Posted by Illmatic67

You hit on something there. The US is not used to a war of this type against terrorists. We have experienced WTC, and we are still kind of in shock about that.

But, Israel, who has far more experience in this kind of war, is very used to such things happening on a daily basis in thier country.

The US is going to attempt to do the politically correct, publicly acceptable thing and attempt to prevent needless civilian causualties. This is obviously a very respectful and admirable thing to do. BUT, the enemy knows this, and is going to capitalize on it, and it will ultimately lead to massive US causualties. Eventually, after enough body bags are filled, we will likely come to the same conclusion that the Israelis have.

In Israel, terrorists generally attack "soft" civilian targets, and avoid military targets. They strike, inflict massive civilian death and injury, and then fade into another arab civilian area to blend in with the locals.

After hundreds and thousands of civilians have been killed, Israel decided to take the gloves off and fight fire with fire. Thats when they started using tactics like invading entire villages, buring them to the ground, dislocating entire populations, ect. On the face, yes, that is an inhumane thing to do. However, when you are constantly being attacked with massive civilian losses, and the terrorists hide in a civilian population that financially and politically backs the terrorists, it does make a kind of sense.

However, it isnt that simple: The terrorists wouldnt enjoy the support of these same civilian groups were it not for the Israeli incursions into thier areas. But, this is intentional on the part of the terrorists in order to keep bad feelings afloat against the Israelis.

In other words, the terrorists hit, kill civilians, and intentionally lead the Israelis back to arab civilians, to place blame on the Israelis. Rather cowardly if you ask me.

but im sure that doesnt help you understand the difference between a "terrorist" and a soilder.


i mean hell if a certain group just dropped bombs on any house or home why cant they be called terrorists in the pure definition of the word?


good question.

wow i think dragonrider answered the question well.

Yesterday's warfare is only tomorrow's terrorism. You See???????????????

dragonrider - could you back up the 100,000's of civilian casualties that have been inflicted on Israel?

In the current intifada from 2000, there have been ~700 Israeli casualties and ~1900 Palestinian casualties.

It is accepted by Israel that more Palestinian civilians have been killed than Israeli civilians... here is an Israeli site trying to spin that in a positive light...

www.ict.org.il...

Although note that this takes the number of non-combatants as Israel sees it, in general the palestinian side quotes a much higher percentage of non-combatants...

jerusalem.indymedia.org...

I don't think either side comes out of those statistics very well, but then Palestinian terrorist organisations shouldn't be expected to... the Israeli army on the other hand could well be expected to take more care in avoiding civilian casualties...

PS Terrorist - someone who intentionally targets civilians, in the hope of inciting fear in their target community.

PPS I'm still not sure if you can exempt military personel from that definition if they're acting on orders from above. What do you think?

dragonrider - could you back up the 100,000's of civilian casualties that have been inflicted on Israel? Posted by Dom

Actually I said there were hundreds OR thousands... I actually do not know the total number of casualties, although I am sure it is at least into the thousands. I apologize if there was a misunderstanding.


It is accepted by Israel that more Palestinian civilians have been killed than Israeli civilians... here is an Israeli site trying to spin that in a positive light... Posted by Dom

Although note that this takes the number of non-combatants as Israel sees it, in general the palestinian side quotes a much higher percentage of non-combatants... Posted by Dom

I understand what you are saying, IE, that there is a disproportionate number of Palestinian civilian casualties to Israeli civilian casualties. That certainly puts forth the image that Israel is not interested in preventing needless civilian deaths.

I don't disagree with the Israeli point of view. Yes, in a perfect world, it would be nice to single out the terrorists and kill them, leaving the innocent civilians alive. However, the terrorists take actions to ensure that this is impossible. They do this specifically to continually stir opposition and resentment and hatred against the Israelis.

Also, it seems that you are making a point regarding the higher number of Palestinian losses to Israeli losses. Again, I agree with the Israeli point of view on this: If you are a superpower of any type, and have been under attack for as long as Israel has, you are NOT interested in only inflicting the same amount of losses that you suffer... if you maintain a common ratio of loss, YOU ARE ON THE LOOSING END OF THINGS. It is obvious after 40+ years of this nonsense, that the Palestinians DO NOT respect negotiations, and look at "equal" reprisals as weakness... the only way to severly curtail Palestinian terrorism is to strike with the maximum effect possible.

Consider the fact that the most common form of attack now is the suicide bomber. When an individual decides to blow him or herself up with the hopes of killing as many civilians as possible, several other things are happening that the US media hasn't reported: first, the bombers families have all debts expunged, and are given a relative fortune. All future needs for the family are promised to be met. In addition, the bomber is made a martyr whose death is blamed on the Israelis (some good PR work to make that happen, but it does! Blame someones death on the enemy because they volunteered to blow themselves up).

Because of this deep rooted financial support structure for suicide bombers, and the knowledge that a bombers family will be set for life, the Israelis have turned to acting against the families of known bombers. On the face of it, it seems like a very unconscionable thing to do, to destroy a families home and intentionally displace them (they DO NOT murder the families). Again, considering other factors, I do not disagree with these actions. It is likely the only course of action likely to dissuade future bombers knowing that your family will be reprised upon after your death.

I think it's unfair to claim that suicide bombers are blowing themselves up for money. There are plenty of other reasons that these people would give you (were they still around). Not least the continuing occupation of their land by Israel, and the enforced poverty under which they live (70% of Palestinians live on less than $2 a day, 25% of Palestinian children under-5 are anaemic).

news.bbc.co.uk...

It is also easy to see that civilians killed during "demolition missions" in which the Israeli army destroy militants homes could indeed have been avoided. This action is illegal under international law...

The Israeli's don't currently seem to be interested in a peaceful settlement, and until they are, things will not get better for either side...

Between this:

Illmatic,

In response to your question, what is the difference...

Very simple... The US forces are training to engage enemy combatants.

The terrorists are training to engage unarmed civilians, preferably women and children with no combat experience so that they may die much easier, and in a much more grotesque way so as to attract massive media attention, thereby advancing whatever goals they may have.