Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
TeldeIndus
Earl
Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Documents Show US Army Seized Wives As Tactic Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 20:30 |
Originally posted by Anujkhamar
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
Holding wives for ransom and not torturing them is a good deal more civilized than sawing innocents' heads off on TV in the name of Allah and blowing women and children up in cafes. And no, Leonidas, it won't lead to America adopting the terrorists' tactics, sorry to ruin your hopes!
|
i get where your coming from, just thought that it might as well be stated that they don't exactly "saw" off the heads, as that would be haram. It should just be a clean swipe, otherwise its the duty of every other muslim to declare a jihad on the killer (along those lines.....)
|
|
We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
|
|
Leonidas
Tsar
Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 20:35 |
Byzantine Emperor wrote:
"And no, Leonidas, it won't lead to America adopting the terrorists' tactics, sorry to ruin your hopes!"
my point is you have already started adopting them.
"Holding wives for ransom and not torturing them is a good deal more
civilized than sawing innocents' heads off on TV in the name of Allah
and blowing women and children up in cafes"
So holding wives for ransom is civilised then?
USA fights with less rules than smaller 'weaker' powers, what a
shame you cant be a moral leader aswell as a military leader. As for "not torturing", well i think we have all seen pictures what your brave soldiers are capabale of.
You will leave iraq with you tails between your legs and the smart
americans are goin to try and forget it ever happened . The self
rightious blind will always call it a victory but blame the politics of
it all.
|
|
Byzantine Emperor
Arch Duke
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios
Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 21:04 |
Originally posted by Kalevipoeg
You created the bloody "terrorist freedom fighters" and wine how you have to use dirty tactics towards them or they won't go away, boohoo. If you can't fight fair as the leading democracy on the Globe, then stay home the next time you plan attacking random countries. Leave the blooy women alone atleast.
|
Talk about "boo-hooing" because holding wives for ransom is adopted as a tactic, it sure is a lot less violent and unfair as compared to what the "freedom fighters" are doing. If you think the terrorists are such good fighters, I would maintain that they are not. Their rag-tag banditry, suicide bombings, and random beheadings would probably make the great Muslim military men of history (Saladin, Mehmed II, etc.) condemn them and say that it is no wonder that the glory days of the Muslim world are long gone.
Do you really think that the most powerful fighting force on the planet (that of America) would really be losing anything to the terrorists if all its actions weren't hamstrung by the leftist media, rogue lawyer groups (ACLU), and Democratic sob-sisters in Congress? I sure don't.
Originally posted by Leonidas
USA fights with less rules than smaller 'weaker' powers, what a shame you cant be a moral leader aswell as a military leader. As for "not torturing", well i think we have all seen pictures what your brave soldiers are capabale of.
You will leave iraq with you tails between your legs and the smart americans are goin to try and forget it ever happened . The self rightious blind will always call it a victory but blame the politics of it all. |
Well, when the rogue nations and Hitlerite leaders in the world start nuking and destroying the sophisticated European democracies, if there is anyone left, they will surely be whining and crying to America to beat the upstarts back into submission.
|
|
|
Mila
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4030
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 21:07 |
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
Their rag-tag banditry, suicide bombings, and
random beheadings would probably make the great Muslim military men of
history (Saladin, Mehmed II, etc.) condemn them and say that it is no
wonder that the glory days of the Muslim world are long
gone. |
Brilliant! I'd have stopped at "condemn them", but that's fine. You get the "Byzantine Allowance" for a jab or two.
But brilliant means of condemning terrorism. I'll be using that.
|
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">
|
|
Leonidas
Tsar
Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 22:20 |
Byzantine Emperor wrote:
"Talk about "boo-hooing" because holding wives for ransom is adopted as
a tactic, it sure is a lot less violent and unfair as compared to what
the "freedom fighters" are doing. "
Yeah right, there wouldnt be any freedom fighters if you werent there
in the first place, you created the mess, it wasnt there waiting for
you.
"Do you really think that the most powerful fighting force on the planet
(that of America) would really be losing anything to the terrorists if
all its actions weren't hamstrung by the leftist media, rogue lawyer
groups (ACLU), and Democratic sob-sisters in Congress? I sure don't"
Dam that media! and real men dont cry..What your talking about, is
using the unrestraint tactics the russians used in chechenia. Yes it
would help you win the false war in iraq with such methods, but there
wont be much left. You could win,
by destroying the very country your suppose to be 'liberating'.
Thankyou USA for world 'leadership' and global liberation!.
"Well, when the rogue nations and Hitlerite leaders in the world
start nuking and destroying the sophisticated European democracies"
former USA allies and regimes built up and supported by short
sighted USA policies. Build them up when it suites you, and knock them
down when they misbhave or get too strong. Good plan , atleast someone is making a profit on the way up and on the way down.
" if
there is anyone left, they will surely be whining and crying to America
to beat the upstarts back into submission."
here we can see a great attitude "beat the upstarts back into submission", trust me that line of thinking can lose a war
How convenient for you to mix up the local forces who are fighting a
rather effective guerrilla war with fundamentalist who dont give a sh*t
about the local people. You point to the worst of them and say hey we
are better than that. You then ignore why many local people, who had nothing to do with 9/11 or who were never a threat to the USA, are now fighting your forces. Look at how your ignoring or excusing what your forces have done and how they have behaved, in their country. Why are you over there agian?
|
|
Byzantine Emperor
Arch Duke
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios
Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 22:36 |
Originally posted by Leonidas
Why are you over there agian? |
Glossing over your CNNesque editorial (you should be Wolf Blitzer's co-anchor), I will proceed to the final line. I really am not sure why American troops are in Iraq anymore. Quite frankly, I think the focus should be on Afghanistan or wherever bin Laden is supposed to be. Although I do believe Saddam was an evil dictator and deserved to be overthrown, we should have concentrated on the perpetrators of 9/11 with military force. I was never bought and sold on the Iraq war and I do feel that it is going terribly. I do not stick up for Bush in this; however, I will stick up for the American troops. We are there, it is a mess, and I feel sorry for them and their families.
|
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jan-2006 at 00:12 |
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
Do you really think that the most powerful fighting force on the
planet (that of America) would really be losing anything to the
terrorists if all its actions weren't hamstrung by the leftist media,
rogue lawyer groups (ACLU), and Democratic sob-sisters in Congress? I
sure don't.
|
The most Powerful fighting force on the planet? You mean China, no I
suppose you can't they have no Congress. India then, they have a
Congress Party, but no, pakistan is as strong as India. Do you mean
russia? or Israel?
Oh wait! you mean America. But they aren't strong at all.
Firstly, they haven't won a war in 50 years.
Secondly, They have only won one war against a equal opponent in 200 years.
Should I list the strength of the US army?
Unassited Victories:
Japan
Mexico
Ignoring the miget countries.
Defeats (often assisted):
Vietnam
Lebanon
Somalia
Korea (well Draw, but only to the brillance of Inchon)
Canada (Lets not forget October 13 1814)
Soon to be Iraq, and Afghanistan as well.
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
Glossing over your CNNesque editorial
|
I'm sorry, you think CNN is left wing? You are so far out of touch with the world you may as well be living on mars.
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
I think the focus should be on Afghanistan
|
"Afghanistan is where super powers go to die" - George Tenet (correct spelling?)
If you can't beat Iraq, the Afghans will humilate you. Right now
america has very few troops in Afghanistan and it is still taking more
casulties per capita than in Iraq.
|
|
Leonidas
Tsar
Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jan-2006 at 01:46 |
Byzantine Emperor wrote:
"Glossing over your CNNesque editorial (you should
be Wolf Blitzer's co-anchor), I will proceed to the final line"
You are giving your media way to much credit.
The debate in your media generally follows your governments rational. The
boundaries have never been extended to are we right or wrong rather than how long should
we stay in Iraq,
or have we contributed to terrorism with our behavoiur/policies rather than how we can fight terrorism better. The subtle moving and limiting of the boundaries of the US media debate means the debate is won no matter what the outcome is.
Your media and the western media are all party to this consensus building
appraoch.
" I really am not sure why American troops are in Iraq
anymore."
To find weapons of mass destruction, they didnt. To find a connection with
Osama they didnt, but hell they sure opened it up for him. Theve destroyed the
security, infrastructure and standard of living, cant get out without replacing
what the destroyed.Yet many americans are complety suprised that most
Iraqi's dont want them there.
"I do not stick up for Bush in this; however, I
will stick up for the American troops. We are there, it is a mess, and I
feel sorry for them and their families."
Yet you follow his logic, and his logic put your troops in harms way. When a US
soldier dies; he dies becuase the republican hawks put him in range of
the islamic bullet with no clear advantage or game plan to be fought
for. What
else can you expect if your trrops are on someone else's land
uninvited. It is not
becuase Iraqi's are 'terrorist' or 'upstarts' that dont know their
place. That
is just a misguided and flawed argument.
Edited by Leonidas
|
|
Byzantine Emperor
Arch Duke
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios
Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jan-2006 at 22:10 |
Originally posted by Leonidas
Yet you follow his logic, and his logic put your troops in harms way. When a US soldier dies; he dies becuase the republican hawks put him in range of the islamic bullet with no clear advantage or game plan to be fought for. What else can you expect if your trrops are on someone else's land uninvited. It is not becuase Iraqi's are 'terrorist' or 'upstarts' that dont know their place. That is just a misguided and flawed argument.
|
Well of course George Bush sent the troops to Iraq; I am not denying something as obvious as that. They didn't just pick up and go there out of their own volition. Apart from who sent them there, I will still stand up for the troops and my sympathy is with them, not the President and not the "warhawk" Republicans (I think these so-called Republicans are too much of pansies to be called warhawks).
|
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 02:19 |
I think that the best way to support the troops is to bring them back
to america and save their lives and the lives of the Iraqis
|
|
Leonidas
Tsar
Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 04:04 |
my point exactly
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 12:01 |
That's a terrible idea, it would just create another Afghanistan, and invite military adventurism by Iran. Even if you disagree with the war, I'd hope you'd be able to see that leaving Iraq broken and unfinished would be catastrophic.
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
Yiannis
Sultan
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 12:42 |
Originally posted by Genghis
leaving Iraq broken and unfinished would be catastrophic. |
I tend to agree with that, but I'm utterly unconvinced that the US current administration is able to do so!
There should be legal consequesnes to those who started this ridiculus war. And I mean both Bush and Blair, apart for Sadam Hussein.
|
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics
Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
|
|
Mortaza
Tsar
Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 13:55 |
dont understand...whats the problem?
The KGB once kid-naped the family members of terrorists, killed them, and sent the terrorists the body parts. As a result, kidnaped Soviet citizens were released (this happened in lebanon). I'm not saying thats right (in fact I"ll say itm it's pretty sick) but its a proven method to go after their familys.
If we dont harm them I dont see the problem. In their minds we would harm their family and thats what counts.
well most disgusting thing about this is that,
most probably after 2 years, americans will make a film shows that an american woman kill 2352345324 terrorist by herself, and show world how big heroes she is.
I wish easy war for USA army against house-wife, it is realy difficult job for might american armies, good luck.
Disgusting asholes. cant take their man, but attack woman and childs. Errrr. sorry brave and good american soldiers.
Democracy? human right? I think, no american accept this type of human rights and democracy in his country, but well np for iraqians.
I hope none of you is enough stupid, USA army take this women, and only feed them.
Well, when the rogue nations and Hitlerite leaders in the world start nuking and destroying the sophisticated European democracies, if there is anyone left, they will surely be whining and crying to America to beat the upstarts back into submission.
Rogue nation? you mean usa? by the way, your nation is only nation nuked.
|
|
morticia
Sultan
Retired AE Editor
Joined: 09-Aug-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2077
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 15:57 |
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
Oh yeah, I knew this topic would be a liberal love-fest as soon as I saw it! Everyone line up and take your pot-shot at America and don't forget to say that the American military is worse than the "resistance fighters" (terrorists)! /sarcasm
Holding wives for ransom and not torturing them is a good deal more civilized than sawing innocents' heads off on TV in the name of Allah and blowing women and children up in cafes. And no, Leonidas, it won't lead to America adopting the terrorists' tactics, sorry to ruin your hopes! |
I agree that it's a whole lot better than public beheadings and suicide bombings! Besides, that's a tactic used in the U.S. as well. I have several criminal attorney colleagues who say in most drug related cases, the wives are taken into custody as well in order to get the accused husbands to fully cooperated in exchange for the wife's release. Even in some of those cases, the accused husband does not cooperate and the wives ultimately testify against the husbands in exchange for a lighter sentence. But, at least their "heads" are still attached to their bodies!
Edited by morticia
|
"Morty
Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst
|
|
Byzantine Emperor
Arch Duke
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios
Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 21:42 |
Originally posted by Mortaza
well most disgusting thing about this is that,
most probably after 2 years, americans will make a film shows that an american woman kill 2352345324 terrorist by herself, and show world how big heroes she is.
I wish easy war for USA army against house-wife, it is realy difficult job for might american armies, good luck.
Disgusting asholes. cant take their man, but attack woman and childs. Errrr. sorry brave and good american soldiers.
Democracy? human right? I think, no american accept this type of human rights and democracy in his country, but well np for iraqians.
Rogue nation? you mean usa? by the way, your nation is only nation nuked.
|
Wow.
Originally posted by morticia
I agree that it's a whole lot better than public beheadings and suicide bombings! Besides, that's a tactic used in the U.S. as well. I have several criminal attorney colleagues who say in most drug related cases, the wives are taken into custody as well in order to get the accused husbands to fully cooperated in exchange for the wife's release. Even in some of those cases, the accused husband does not cooperate and the wives ultimately testify against the husbands in exchange for a lighter sentence. But, at least their "heads" are still attached to their bodies! |
Yes, very good point. Obviously the other people in here do not understand this!
|
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 21:58 |
Originally posted by Genghis
That's a terrible idea, it would just create another
Afghanistan, and invite military adventurism by Iran. Even if you
disagree with the war, I'd hope you'd be able to see that leaving Iraq
broken and unfinished would be catastrophic. |
As catastrophic as an american occupation? I doubt it. The sooner america has a embarrising retreat the better.
Originally posted by MORTICIA
I agree that it's a whole lot better than public beheadings and suicide bombings!
|
I don't. And are we taking about the suidcide bombings, of which a
predominate amount are fabricated or the ones that British SAS (no
doubt CIA as well) plant to create divisions in Iraq (remember the
incident when britian stormed the prision). And the beheadings, that
apparently occur on american news more frequently than anywhere else?
Please try not to get sucked in by Bushes propaganda machine
|
|
Byzantine Emperor
Arch Duke
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios
Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 22:08 |
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim
I don't. And are we taking about the suidcide bombings, of which a predominate amount are fabricated or the ones that British SAS (no doubt CIA as well) plant to create divisions in Iraq (remember the incident when britian stormed the prision). And the beheadings, that apparently occur on american news more frequently than anywhere else? Please try not to get sucked in by Bushes propaganda machine
|
If this entire statement isn't a load of propaganda, what is? Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the Arabic news network al-Jazeera regularly airs the beheading videos and uses them as anti-American/anti-Western World propaganda?
|
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 22:23 |
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim
As catastrophic as an american occupation? I doubt it. The sooner america has a embarrising retreat the better.
|
That's a completely unreasonable argument which prevents anyone from refuting it with a reasonable response.
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 22:42 |
Originally posted by Genghis
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim
As catastrophic as an american occupation? I doubt it. The sooner america has a embarrising retreat the better.
|
That's a completely unreasonable argument which prevents anyone from refuting it with a reasonable response. |
Yes thats probably true.
I consider that an american occupation to be worse than what would
happen if america suddenly pulled out for the following reasons.
America is a firepower heavy army. In order to reduce the number of
american casulties they usually go into a situation with emoumous
firepower, inflicting a huge amount of damage and death on the area on
or around their target. If insurgents are shooting from a house,
destroy the house etc. Also american weapons are Depleted Uranium.
Which means they will leave radioactive waste behind every time they
are used.
Many areas of Iraq are already autonomous after having signed treatys
with america (in the case of Moktadar I think) or not being important
enough for america to have a garrison there. The areas where americans
are, are already in complete chaos, I don't believe that a withdrawl of
america troops could create more chaos.
Edited by Omar al Hashim
|
|