THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

You are making the mistake of underestimating the resolve, means, and will of the opponent. I do not do this.

I don't think you know the first thing about guerrila warfare, Tico. But that's okay with me; it's not my job to teach you.

Quote:

You need to realize these ARE bloodthirsty savages. They are not guerrillas. You should learn the distinction.

Bloodthirsty savages would kill indiscriminately, and as much as possible. There is no evidence that either has happened in Iraq.

The thing is, you don't want to actually believe that the insurgents are people. It's so much easier for you to categorize them as 'animals' and 'savages' because then it's okay to kill them, right? You need to wake the f*ck up Tico, seriously.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
What do you think is motivating them?

The dream of Dar al-Islaam, and/or the dream of an Iraq without Saddam OR the Americans.

That, and Revenge. Many of the insurgents have dead relatives from US bombs and bullets. Amazing what that will do to a man's psyche.

Of course some of these people will hate the Americans. Some Japanese people still hate Americans for what we did to them, too. Some older Americans still hate the "Japs" as well. But these aren't the opinions worthy of policy steering. Others with less prejudiced minds can see the bigger picture. As Ican suggests, they can see that resistance brings misery.

Many here have suggested that fighting an undefeatable opponent is absolute foolishness... So the US should pack up our tents and go home. Yet, at the same time you deny the Iraqis ability to see the same logic. Could a greater case not be made that the United States is the undefeatable enemy?

You, yourself have lost family to Islamic terrorists. Yet you, yourself are able to set aside your grief and consider the bigger picture (wrongly IMHO, but that's beside the point. I do respect your ability to not just react with hatred). What makes you think that Iraqis aren't capable of the same cognizant thought? On a level playing field, surely our actions are more defensible than the insurgent's (arguments to the contrary are obscene, in the face of shock-value beheadings Idea

). It is foolish to argue that Iraqis will only hate Americans when their actions are only necessary because of the insurgency. Give the Iraqis a little more credit and you are forced to admit that many will turn on the insurgents themselves as they are at least as responsible for the carnage.

Those who cannot see the futility in the fight must be rooted out and destroyed. They are the true enemy of the Iraqi people and the world. To those who will fight to the death opposing democracy I say good riddance I will shed no tears for them. There is no honor in intentionally targeting innocents for murder. Practitioners of these deeds are enemies of the human race and should be exterminated accordingly.

(Note to any and all idiots that are incapable of understanding the importance of intent [if there are any present]: Please spare me the "America kills innocents too" crap. If intended targets and collateral damage were the same thing: every army of every side of every war that ever took place in a populated area could be considered murderers. Please leave that crap in the philosophy forums where it belongs.)

0 Replies

Quote:

Many here have suggested that fighting an undefeatable opponent is absolute foolishness... So the US should pack up our tents and go home. Yet, at the same time you deny the Iraqis ability to see the same logic. Could a greater case not be made that the United States is the undefeatable enemy?

No, I don't think you can make that case, especially not to the people in question.

Why? Of COURSE they will never defeat our military. But, they can BLEED us dry, the same way they did to Russia, to make it too expensvie politically and financially to keep the war going - the same way the Vietnamese did.

THAT is the objective, not to defeat us, but to cause so much pain that the other side pulls out. They know that if they hide amongst the populace (a significant percentage of whom support them) we will never be able to stomp them out, because we only swell their numbers by killing them, and innocents, in the process. If we REALLY get bloodthirsty, then you'll find Muslims from other countries POURING in to fight us.

Therefore; we are in between a rock and a hard place. The best way to beat the insurgents is to turn the iraqi people against them.

Quote:

It is foolish to argue that Iraqis will only hate Americans when their actions are only necessary because of the insurgency. Give the Iraqis a little more credit and you are forced to admit that many will turn on the insurgents themselves as they are at least as responsible for the carnage.

The problem is, if only a small percentage of the population supports the insurgents (let's say 10%), that's still MILLIONS of people willing to hide, feed, arm, and give information to them. We are hugely outnumbered....

UNLESS we can get the Iraqi people to work AGAINST the insurgency. We're not doing that at all right now.

On another note,

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/12/iraq.main/index.html

Quote:

Fighting flares in 4 Iraqi cities
U.S. troops push into south Falluja
Friday, November 12, 2004 Posted: 12:25 PM EST (1725 GMT)

FALLUJA, Iraq (CNN) -- As U.S. soldiers advanced into southern Falluja on Friday, violence and combat intensified across Iraq with battles flaring in Mosul, Baquba and Baghdad.

We have Fallujah, they move somewhere else. We kill them, they recruit more. This is going to get a lot worse unless we change tactics.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Occom Bill I do not condone the hacking off of someones head - regardless of who they are. I can empathise with their objective at hand - to get America out of their country. That doesn't mean I agree with ALL of their actions.

My opinions on this situation are based on first hand experience of a not too dissimilar situation - not some **** that I get spoon fed from an obviously biased media.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You are making the mistake of underestimating the resolve, means, and will of the opponent. I do not do this.

I don't think you know the first thing about guerrila warfare, Tico. But that's okay with me; it's not my job to teach you.

I acknowledge I've not attended any of your guerrilla training camps, Cyclops, but that doesn't mean I can't put forth a distinction:

Guerrilla warfare is the weapon of the weak, just as terrorism is, but guerrillas fight military personnel anforces, not civilians. Terrorists fight civilians, primarily, and will also fight military if forced to.

0 Replies

No need to attend a camp - any reading of Sun-tzu's or (more popukar, I suppose) Clausewitz's writings will give an idea .... e.g. about how wrong you are with "Guerrilla warfare is the weapon of the weak".

0 Replies

Quote:

Guerrilla warfare is the weapon of the weak, just as terrorism is, but guerrillas fight military personnel anforces, not civilians. Terrorists fight civilians, primarily, and will also fight military if forced to.

Your definition is great when we are sitting around typing on our computers. You have to realize that on the ground, everything gets pretty damn muddy in real life.

A good analogy would be a soldier; they don't WANT to kill innocent people, per se, but in some cases it's better safe than sorry, in some cases they do it for fun(because let's face it, some soldiers are jerks just like everyone else), in some cases it's a mistake.

I believe they see all Americans as part of an occupying force whose intention is to turn their country into a little America. This is not acceptable, and in realizing that it's not just the soldiers who are busy doing that job of transforming Iraq, they open up the possibility of targets greatly.

You're getting all pissy and calling them 'animals' because they won't play by your, frankly, arbitrary rules. Too damn bad - that's the reality of the situation. You can call them whatever you like, it won't change the situation.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

You're getting all pissy and calling them 'animals' because they won't play by your, frankly, arbitrary rules. Too damn bad - that's the reality of the situation. You can call them whatever you like, it won't change the situation.

It won't change the fact that they are bloodthirsty terrorists that deserve your contempt and not your pity.

And since they won't play by "our rules," -- which aren't arbitrary by the way -- we're going to try and kill all your precious "guerillas." Too damn bad - that's the reality of the situation.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

No need to attend a camp - any reading of Sun-tzu's or (more popukar, I suppose) Clausewitz's writings will give an idea .... e.g. about how wrong you are with "Guerrilla warfare is the weapon of the weak".

Walter, if it were not a weapon of the weak, they wouldn't need to resort to such tactics.

0 Replies

"guerrilla warfare is a form of warfare by which the strategically weaker side assumes the tactical offensive in selected forms, times and places. Guerrilla warfare is the weapon of the weak"

Walter Laqueur, Guerrilla Warfare, a Historical and Critical Study (Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London, 1977), p. 392.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Revel -- I am so glad the Dems have you. Please, please don't ever jump that ship, although they may not want you either (feeling sad for a monster like Arafat who not only murders women and children but hates his own people and now you're quoting Aljazeera -- terrorists each and everyone).

You're disgusted by "your own people" but you admire Aljazeera enough to quote them and feel sad for Arafat.

That says volumes. Unbelievable as it may be.

I said that I felt sorry for Arafat because he was under house arrest for so long at the end of his life.

As for Arafat hating his own people, well a lot of those same people are in mourning for a man that you claim hated them.

I have to go alternative sources to get news about Iraqis or Palestinians. Alajzeera happens to be a Arabic source. Just because it is Arabic does not mean that that it is automatically an untrustworthy source of news.

As for being "dems" if my views become too radical for me to fit in then I will jump ship.

Lastly; your opinion of me matters not. What I am talking about is more than just people talking on an internet message board. People in the world are dying and we are the ones killing them. That matters to me.

0 Replies

Quote:

It won't change the fact that they are bloodthirsty terrorists that deserve your contempt and not your pity.

And since they won't play by "our rules," -- which aren't arbitrary by the way -- we're going to try and kill all your precious "guerillas." Too damn bad - that's the reality of the situation.

Do you see what you have done here? You are losing your ability to be objective.

My 'precious guerillas?' Do you even understand the concept of looking at a situation without emotion? I don't support the guerrilas in Iraq. You are implying that I do because I keep poking holes in your poorly-thought out arguments against them.

Quote:

It won't change the fact that they are bloodthirsty terrorists that deserve your contempt and not your pity.

Assertion of opinion, not fact. Look the difference up.

Quote:

And since they won't play by "our rules," -- which aren't arbitrary by the way -- we're going to try and kill all your precious "guerillas." Too damn bad - that's the reality of the situation.

Oh, I fully realize that that is the 'reality' of the situation. It just isn't going to work.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Guerilla Warfare can in a sense be labelled the tactic of the weak, they are weakened in the sense that they don't possess the same capabilities as the Regular armies they tend to fight. Look at it this way, if all you have is an AK47 are you seriously going to try and take a stand against an Abrhams(?) Tank?. Your fighting people with Air Support, Armoured Vehicles, Tanks, evn small advantages such as night vision goggles, body armour - to make the fight more even, you must adopt the tactics of Guerilla warfare. If you don't, there'll be nobody left to carry on the campaign after you've all been wasted in a couple of days by a much stronger regular army.

Its common sense.

0 Replies

Revel - here's another "alternative" source you'd most likely be interested in...memri.org.

They espouse all the hate-filled causes you seem so willing to champion. You'll fit in very nicely there.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

I said that I felt sorry for Arafat because he was under house arrest for so long at the end of his life...

You feel sorry for him because he spent years on house arrest? Rolling Eyes

Yasir Arafat, the Murderer of Munich should have been executed decades ago. At the very least he should have died rotting away in a jail cell... not house arrest. You do know he was behind the 1972 Murders of 11 Israelis(some Olympic athletes for crying out loud) and a German Policeman, don't you? You have a strange way of distributing your sympathies. That piece of sh!t isn't worthy.

revel wrote:

What I am talking about is more than just people talking on an internet message board. People in the world are dying and we are the ones killing them. That matters to me.

Yeah, right. You feel sorry for a murderous terrorist because he was forced to live on his compound, while stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from the people he supposedly murders for but at the same time you condemn the actions of the brave soldiers who pursue such murderers in other theatres. What kind of morality is that?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
It won't change the fact that they are bloodthirsty terrorists that deserve your contempt and not your pity.

And since they won't play by "our rules," -- which aren't arbitrary by the way -- we're going to try and kill all your precious "guerillas." Too damn bad - that's the reality of the situation.

Do you see what you have done here? You are losing your ability to be objective.

My 'precious guerillas?' Do you even understand the concept of looking at a situation without emotion? I don't support the guerrilas in Iraq. You are implying that I do because I keep poking holes in your poorly-thought out arguments against them.

"You're getting all pissy and calling them 'animals' because they won't play by your, frankly, arbitrary rules. Too damn bad - that's the reality of the situation. You can call them whatever you like, it won't change the situation."

Note what you wrote to which I was responding? Why in your view is my use of the sentence you used, emotional, if yours isn't?

I haven't lost my objectivity. I'm pointing out that you appear to identify with these thugs, much as gav does.

And you do support the terrorists in Iraq. If you didn't support the terrorists in Iraq, you would not be defending them, you would not be insisting on calling them guerrillas, and you would not be trying to "poke holes" in my arguments against them. Since you are doing all of those things, you are absolutely supporting them.

You can't fool me into believing you are just trying to "understand the mind" of these terrorists. You are apologizing for their actions. You are trying to evoke empathy to their cause. And when I point that out to you, you try an divert that fact by claiming I'm losing objectivity and becoming emotional.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
It won't change the fact that they are bloodthirsty terrorists that deserve your contempt and not your pity.

Assertion of opinion, not fact. Look the difference up.

No, it's a fact. You just refuse to face it.

0 Replies

gav wrote:

Guerilla Warfare can in a sense be labelled the tactic of the weak, they are weakened in the sense that they don't possess the same capabilities as the Regular armies they tend to fight. Look at it this way, if all you have is an AK47 are you seriously going to try and take a stand against an Abrhams(?) Tank?. Your fighting people with Air Support, Armoured Vehicles, Tanks, evn small advantages such as night vision goggles, body armour - to make the fight more even, you must adopt the tactics of Guerilla warfare. If you don't, there'll be nobody left to carry on the campaign after you've all been wasted in a couple of days by a much stronger regular army.

Its common sense.

That doesn't make it right, gav. It doesn't make killing civilians the correct thing to do. That is what terrorists do. Terrorism is not admirable. It is a scourge.

0 Replies

Tico I was merely explaining the thinking behind guerilla warfare - read my post as written dont add in what isn't there!!

0 Replies

Tico,

Quote:

And you do support the terrorists in Iraq. If you didn't support the terrorists in Iraq, you would not be defending them, you would not be insisting on calling them guerrillas, and you would not be trying to "poke holes" in my arguments against them. Since you are doing all of those things, you are absolutely supporting them.

Stop acting like a damn fool....

There are many people who disagree with me on this board and yet retain the same level objectivity as I do, and also manage to avoid accusing me of 'supporting terrorists.'

If you can't understand the logic of trying to know the mind of your enemy, then there's no real point in talking to you any farther. I have no desire to sit around and debate world problems with someone who displays the black-and-white mentality of a 17 year old boy. Grow up.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

gav wrote:

Ah, sorry to burst your bubble - but it aint 1945!!!!. Look you just don't understand. These people are'nt intentionally going out to murder their own civilians.

Large numbers of arab civilians are getting murdered by ARs (i.e., Arab Resister) to satisfy some AR motive. Presumably, the ARs have decided that killing their own civilians unintentionally is justified by the AR objectives. What are their objectives? They imply their objectives are to kick out the US and avoid participating in a democracy. But that makes no sense, because as soon as they establish a democracy, the US will leave voluntarily. After the US leaves the ARs could then try to evolve their new democracy into whatever they subsequently choose. That way no arab civilians would unintentionally be killed by the ARs to accomplish AR objectives.

gav wrote:

Their own civilians (this is cold I know) are getting caught up in it. Now, who set up the Iraqi police force? Who set up the newly constructed Iraqi armed forces? Bingo!!! - we have an answer - AMERICA. These people are going to stand against everything America has a hand in. These fellow citizens who are now working at the behest of the American government (lets face it they are) have now become part of the American war machine- in lay mans terms they have become "legitimate targets". As have construction workers, because they are basically working at the behest of AMERICA. Can you not f**king see the common thread running through this!!!? And before you start your usual beheading rhetoric - look no further than Saudi Arabia, one of your bestest buddies!!

But resenting everything done at the behest of AMERICA is irrational. It is not in the ARs' own rational self-interest. It certainly is not in the rational self-interest of arab civilians. So it's time for the ARs to grow up, get their heads on straight, abandon their attempt to re-establish retarded 8th century culture, abandon their "f**king ... common thread running through this!!!?", and join the human race in improving and not destroying the human condition. OR, it's time for all the ARs to die. Crying or Very sad

By the way, Saudi Arabia is definitely not one of my "bestest buddies." They have a critical need to repair their culture, too.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know