Islamic Jihad said on Sunday it had sent a first wave of suicide bombers to Baghdad to help Iraqis fight U.S. and Brits

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Thraxen
So it's OK that the priveledged in the capitol have enough, but the rest of the country can just go to hell. Yes, the Iraqi government is so giving, that's why they are gunning people down for trying to get food now.

Not OK with ME. It is the way it is - war is like that - and HELL is COMING to Baghdad.

 

[LunarRay]

I lived and worked as a reporter in Dublin, Ireland in the early 70s. We had a few car bombs go off in Dublin in 1972 (I think that was the start of it in the Republic). So I know about living "under seige" (although nothing like in the North).

You pick the uncrowded movie matanees, you forget your crowded nightspots and do all your errands at once and use all 6 of your senses to stay out of trouble spots.

Of course, it would be much worse in Iraq. Knowing your city and keeping your ears open should alert you to avoid certain areas at certain times.

And you're welcome for the link. Google has all the links if you can get the keywords right. [/quote]

Ah you must have stayed at the Shellbourne... I went back to the old sod after the Service in '69 and again in '72 but the real battle (from my point of view) started in '80 Bobby Sands and all. We lived there.... well in Cork '81 & '81 on business.

I'll try to see if I can get the fingers to get the keyword sorted out..

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: HJD1
I lived and worked as a reporter in Dublin, Ireland in the early 70s. We had a few car bombs go off in Dublin in 1972 (I think that was the start of it in the Republic). So I know about living "under seige" (although nothing like in the North).

You pick the uncrowded movie matanees, you forget your crowded nightspots and do all your errands at once and use all 6 of your senses to stay out of trouble spots.

Of course, it would be much worse in Iraq. Knowing your city and keeping your ears open should alert you to avoid certain areas at certain times.

And you're welcome for the link. Google has all the links if you can get the keywords right.

Ah you must have stayed at the Shellbourne... I went back to the old sod after the Service in '69 and again in '72 but the real battle (from my point of view) started in '80 Bobby Sands and all. We lived there.... well in Cork '81 & '81 on business.

I'll try to see if I can get the fingers to get the keyword sorted out..

[/quote]I LIVED in Dublin for 3 years 1970-73, in a flat in Donnybrook. I had dinner in the Shellbourne (dressed as a Skinhead on a bet). The first time I was in Ireland - in 1969, I stayed at the Gresham (the whole "tour" - Ring of Kerry, dinner and stay in a castle, etc.).

Funny thing - although I am not Irish and am from Cali - after 3 years I had a full-on Irish brogue that stayed with me for years (moving there at age 18 might have been the reason).

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Listen to my clarification:

I gave the IRAQI Point-of-View

You do seem to do that alot.

 

[LunarRay]

I LIVED in Dublin for 3 years 1970-73, in a flat in Donnybrook. I had dinner in the Shellbourne (dressed as a Skinhead on a bet). The first time I was in Ireland - in 1969, I stayed at the Gresham (the whole "tour" - Ring of Kerry, dinner and stay in a castle, etc.).

Funny thing - although I am not Irish and am from Cali - after 3 years I had a full-on Irish brogue that stayed with me for years (moving there at age 18 might have been the reason).[/quote]



***************
Re: Artical you posted a (Reporter for the Al Jazeer)
I gleemed from that and a bit of other reading that in Iraq there exists two class of people. The peasant and the folks in power who are the ones with the money. The reading also suggested that the power folks don't hold sway over the religion leader (s). That the peasants will follow the religious leader into oblivion if commanded and tolerate the power folks as a necessary evil. If this is true. Then givin the attitude of the religious leader as anti US the peasant cares less about our liberation of them or the evil of Saddam.. the higher class peasant or merchant see an opportunity to usurp the power folk's power and move up. If this and the attitude toward us by other near by nations gets much worse we'll will be in deep do do...
This if true, must have been know by Bush et. al. If that is true how could he expect to win the hearts of the Iraqi people... Something is not adding up here and/or somebody is making a big mistake..

I live in Solana Beach and only have a yo dude accent... probably cuz I was born in NYC

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: apoppin
Listen to my clarification:

I gave the IRAQI Point-of-View

You do seem to do that alot.

That is because the US will BS.

Here is an example from a Blogger (Steve Perry):

It's amazing to watch withered old generals on the cable channels call the Iraqi reprisals "terrorism" when they know better, and firsthand. What is unfolding in Iraq is guerrilla war (or if you like, asymmetric fourth generation war) of a sort the U.S. knows well from Vietnam. Calling it terrorism is damage control for the most befuddled and intimidated of the folks at home--who, if they've managed to learn nothing else of much use from TV news in the past two years, certainly have learned that terrorists are bad.

I bet you didn't even know the name for Iraq's guerrilla war: The Changing Face Of War: Into the Fourth It keeps things "honest".

 

[Thraxen]

Calling it terrorism is damage control for the most befuddled and intimidated of the folks

That doesn't wash when Iraqi leaders have threatened to do the same here in the US...and trust me, they don't mean military targets. It would be utterly naive to think so.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Calling it terrorism is damage control for the most befuddled and intimidated of the folks

That doesn't wash when Iraqi leaders have threatened to do the same here in the US...and trust me, they don't mean military targets. It would be utterly naive to think so.

Doing it in ANOTHER country IS terrorism. Using guerilla techniques to defend YOUR homeland IS "asymmetric fourth generation war" (didn't you even bother with the link?). I guess you don't know about 'nam. Same deal.

 

[Thraxen]

Not my point.

Let me also add how I find it amusing that you are talking about rules of war changing in another thread, more or less criticizing the US for taking the position of shooting people who do not stop at checkpoints and then in this thread saying that this is a valid way to fight. If it is, then the US is taking the only valid position it can to fight back.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Thraxen
Not my point.

Please clarify.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Thraxen
Not my point.

Let me also add how I find it amusing that you are talking about rules of war changing in another thread, more or less criticizing the US for taking the position of shooting people who do not stop at checkpoints and then in this thread saying that this is a valid way to fight. If it is, then the US is taking the only valid position it can to fight back.

Save your wind. You are talking to pro-Saddam/anti-USA people. You can't reason with these pro-Saddam zealots. Remember they are siding with a brutal dictator against our country.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: Thraxen
Not my point.

Let me also add how I find it amusing that you are talking about rules of war changing in another thread, more or less criticizing the US for taking the position of shooting people who do not stop at checkpoints and then in this thread saying that this is a valid way to fight. If it is, then the US is taking the only valid position it can to fight back.

Save your wind. You are talking to pro-Saddam/anti-USA people. You can't reason with these pro-Saddam zealots.

That's no lie....I go back and forth between feeling sorry for them and wanting to kick them in the balls.

 

[Thraxen]

My point was that the quote from the article said calling it terrorism was merely "damage control"...well no it's not when they have threatened to do the same in the USA.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Thraxen
My point was that the quote from the article said calling it terrorism was merely "damage control"...well no it's not when they have threatened to do the same in the USA.

They would be happy to kill us all. People need to remember this.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: Thraxen
Not my point.

Let me also add how I find it amusing that you are talking about rules of war changing in another thread, more or less criticizing the US for taking the position of shooting people who do not stop at checkpoints and then in this thread saying that this is a valid way to fight. If it is, then the US is taking the only valid position it can to fight back.

Save your wind. You are talking to pro-Saddam/anti-USA people. You can't reason with these pro-Saddam zealots.

That's no lie....I go back and forth between feeling sorry for them and wanting to kick them in the balls.

I say kick.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Thraxen
Not my point.

Let me also add how I find it amusing that you are talking about rules of war changing in another thread, more or less criticizing the US for taking the position of shooting people who do not stop at checkpoints and then in this thread saying that this is a valid way to fight. If it is, then the US is taking the only valid position it can to fight back.

This is the clarification that I was asking for . . . thank-you! And I AGREE with you (!) that the Coalition IS taking the only valid position it can to fight back (i.e. shooting CIVILAINS - even a woman and a child - that approach without stopping).

My view is unchanged that the coalition is attempting to fight "honorably" according to the 3rd Generation Warfare. Now that the Iraqis have adopted the asymmetric fourth generation war the US is reverting to the way they also handled things in Vietnam (which in the LONG run led to lots of casualties on both sides and finally an outcry from the American public).

In response to your further clarification: "My point was that the quote from the article said calling it terrorism was merely "damage control"...well no it's not when they have threatened to do the same in the USA." Calling it terrorism IN Iraq is irresponsible - calling what the Iraqis threaten to do in the US IS terrorism. Same viewpoint from differing perspectives - and - semantics.

Save your wind. You are talking to pro-Saddam/anti-USA people. You can't reason with these pro-Saddam zealots.

If you are talking to me you are completely wrong (as usual) and it looks like you are getting kicked back pretty hard when you spew nonsense.

 

[AdmiralTiger]

::sighs:: morons have come to invade the "war and the middle east" forum group.... including this thread. I can understand the part about playing the "Devil's Advocate", but attacking someone for doing so is stupid. That's all I'm going to say.

 

[Alistar7]

how nice of all those terrorists to come to Saddam's aid, is that link to terrorism clear enough for you guys? Either way, beats wasting time and money chasing them around. Send my apologies about their cool little training camp we destroyed before you smoke them.....

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
how nice of all those terrorists to come to Saddam's aid, is that link to terrorism clear enough for you guys? Either way, beats wasting time and money chasing them around. Send my apologies about their cool little training camp we destroyed before you smoke them.....

Exactly. Now that verified terrorist organizations are pledging their support to Saddam things become much clearer. Saddam's payments to all those Palestian terrorists finally pay a dividend.