Iraq attacks kill 9 U.S. troops

Cycloptichorn wrote:

really? It seems to me that typing on the keyboard isn't the same thing as fighting.

I fought for my country both as a USAF TACP and worked as a contractor before contractring was cool. Tell me boy, where and when did you serve?

Quote:

Really tough guys don't need guns, btw. Only weak people do. You may want to change your avatar to match the image you try and project online, b/c it's kind of silly at the moment.

Cycloptichorn

Now thats an "idiotic statment"

I don't recall ever portraying a "tough guy" image. Perhaps you can quote me and show me... Or are you simply making **** up because you are intellectually bankrupt and don't want to discuss the topics?


You don't know me so what does that say about you and your attempt at internet Machismo here? Should I call you weak and a wanna be tough guy for "calling me out"? I mean should the Good Reverend get upset that some yellow bellied liberal out in Berkley does not like my avatar? I mean how tough is it to attack someone's "toughness" on the interweb especially when your target never talked about his supposed toughness?


Please you are pathetic. I am an have always been willing to discuss any topic with anyone but it seems that round here certain tools want to make it all about how big the Good Reverend's cod piece is.


Get a life man. get a life.

No, some of us are fighting them here. Others are bitching and whining every step of the way trying to impead this struggle.

As to fighting them over there vs. here argument you are wrong too. IF I have a beach house in Hawaii along with the one I have in Long Beach Island (one is 14+ hours away the other (lbi) is 1.5 hours away) which one do you think I will use more?

Reverend HellH0und wrote:

Please you are pathetic. I am an have always been willing to discuss any topic with anyone but it seems that round here certain tools want to make it all about how big the Good Reverend's cod piece is.

Sounds like that's the topic you wish to discuss, not others on this forum, as you keep bringing it up.

There have been 3,697 coalition deaths -- 3,422 Americans, two Australians, 148 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, seven Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 32 Italians, one Kazakh, three Latvian, 19 Poles, two Romanians, five Salvadoran, four Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians -- in the war in Iraq as of May 21, 2007, according to a CNN count.

The list below is the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, sailors and Coast Guardsmen whose deaths have been reported by their country's governments. The list also includes seven employees of the U.S. Defense Department.

At least 25,378 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon.

This may involve a preselected or delayed (timed) attack on an adversary, taking advantage of the passage of time to develop a strategic opportunity or to exploit a future vulnerability. In a preselected attack, the operation has a latent effect on the adversary.

Dookiestix wrote:

Reverend HellH0und wrote:

Please you are pathetic. I am an have always been willing to discuss any topic with anyone but it seems that round here certain tools want to make it all about how big the Good Reverend's cod piece is.

Sounds like that's the topic you wish to discuss, not others on this forum, as you keep bringing it up.

And you continue.


Please by all means discuss Cycles attempt at defining "asynchronous warfare".

Apparently I hit a nerve.

People who talk about themselves in the third person are generally fools, Rev. You don't seem like a fool about half the time... so why continue with the foolishness?

Quote:

No, some of us are fighting them here. Others are bitching and whining every step of the way trying to impead this struggle.

Yeah, tough guy, you're fighting right at this moment. Actually, no, you're not. You're typing on the keyboard. So don't pretend that you're doing anything to help any cause - at the moment.

You speak of 'intellectual bankruptness,' but you don't address the topics yourself with every post, but have taken many personal jabs at those you disagree with. But let's move past that, and go back to the topic:

As to fighting them over there vs. here argument you are wrong too. IF I have a beach house in Hawaii along with the one I have in Long Beach Island (one is 14+ hours away the other (lbi) is 1.5 hours away) which one do you think I will use more?

They aren't prohibited from fighting us here by us fighting them there. In fact, they have grown stronger by fighting us there. We've trained them and given them new recruits and more money. There really isn't any reason that they couldn't try to fight us here anytime they wished, certainly not because our army is bogged down in Iraq.

And this is because it isn't an army vs. another army, but an army vs. a bunch of terrorists. The goals and tactics are different. We don't prevent them from attacking by attacking them.

You don't seem to understand how terrorism works, and have some fantasy that a muslim army is going to invade America... is this true?

Cycloptichorn

no **** but we fight them until they re-evaluate thier cost to kill ratio....

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You don't seem to understand how terrorism works, and have some fantasy that a muslim army is going to invade America... is this true?

Cycloptichorn

Now you are attributing positions and points I have not made. Try again

Rev, you misunderstood the point of asynchronous warfare and why I brought it up.

From your defintion:

Quote:

This may involve a preselected or delayed (timed) attack on an adversary, taking advantage of the passage of time to develop a strategic opportunity or to exploit a future vulnerability. In a preselected attack, the operation has a latent effect on the adversary.

This is exactly what the enemy is doing/has done, and is a classic strategy for a weaker opponent to fight a stronger one.

Our attacks in Iraq, against AQ elements there, do not prevent them from carrying out attacks here in America. At all. There is little doubt amongst any members of the intelligence community, that AQ has agents here in America already. Fighting in Iraq doesn't stop them from going forward with any of their plans at all. How could it?

That's the point of asynchronous warfare; you can't fight it with an army, it won't do any good. What we're doing and have done in Iraq doesn't make us one hair safer than we were before, and actually makes us far less safe, as it arms AQ further, gives them training and recruits, and far more money.

Cycloptichorn

This idiotic comment.

Asynchronous warfare means that fighting them there does not prevent them from fighting us here. They aren't pinned down. The Iraq war doesn't cost them money and lose them troops. Quite the opposite, in fact.

So it's a ridiculous thing to say, really.

Cycloptichorn

reverend hellh0und wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:

Reverend HellH0und wrote:

Please you are pathetic. I am an have always been willing to discuss any topic with anyone but it seems that round here certain tools want to make it all about how big the Good Reverend's cod piece is.

Sounds like that's the topic you wish to discuss, not others on this forum, as you keep bringing it up.

And you continue.


Please by all means discuss Cycles attempt at defining "asynchronous warfare".

Your narciccism belies anything you hope to accomplish (whatever the hell that is).

Asymmetrical warfare is a weak opponent seeking offsets against a stronger foe. So far, the numbers speak for themselves, thanks to ehBeth's post, and they continue. Your delusional and narcissistic state of mind is putting our military in an even more untenable position, where more will die for oil. Our "enemy" isn't afraid to die. This is what you dont get. They WANT to die.

I'd be embarrassed, too, if I was actually speaking from a first person perspective while rattling off what you've said as a newbie.

Quote:

no **** but we fight them until they re-evaluate thier cost to kill ratio....

Um, they are winning this ratio. They have evaluated it, and it's going well for them.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

no **** but we fight them until they re-evaluate thier cost to kill ratio....

Um, they are winning this ratio. They have evaluated it, and it's going well for them.

Cycloptichorn

Really? How many did we kill, how many did they kill?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

no **** but we fight them until they re-evaluate thier cost to kill ratio....

Um, they are winning this ratio. They have evaluated it, and it's going well for them.

Cycloptichorn

Really? How many did we kill, how many did they kill?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

no **** but we fight them until they re-evaluate thier cost to kill ratio....

Um, they are winning this ratio. They have evaluated it, and it's going well for them.

Cycloptichorn

Really? How many did we kill, how many did they kill?

In fact, AQ is better trained, financed, and more numerous thanks to Iraq - not less.

Quote:

In fact, AQ is better trained, financed, and more numerous thanks to Iraq - not less.

You can back that up somehow? or, just throwing around facts you pull out of your buttocks?

Quote:

In fact, AQ is better trained, financed, and more numerous thanks to Iraq - not less.

You can back that up somehow? or, just throwing around facts you pull out of your buttocks?

WAR ON TERRORISM
Money from Iraq flows to al Qaeda
The CIA has stepped up its effort to find Osama bin Laden and said it has tracked a greater flow of al Qaeda resources from Iraq into Pakistan.
BY GREG MILLER
Los Angeles Times Service

WASHINGTON --
A major CIA effort launched last year to hunt down Osama bin Laden has produced no significant leads on his whereabouts, but has helped track an alarming increase in the movement of al Qaeda operatives and money into Pakistan's tribal territories, according to senior U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the operation.

In one of the most troubling trends, U.S. officials said that al Qaeda's command base in Pakistan is increasingly being funded by cash coming out of Iraq, where the terrorist network's operatives are raising substantial sums from donations to the anti-American insurgency as well as from kidnappings of wealthy Iraqis and other criminal activity.

The influx of money has bolstered al Qaeda's leadership ranks at a time when the core command is regrouping and reasserting influence over its far-flung network. The trend also signals a reversal in the traditional flow of al Qaeda funds, with the network's leadership surviving to a large extent on money coming in from its most profitable franchise, rather than distributing funds from headquarters to distant cells.

Quote:

In fact, AQ is better trained, financed, and more numerous thanks to Iraq - not less.

You can back that up somehow? or, just throwing around facts you pull out of your buttocks?

WASHINGTON -- The CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, officials said yesterday.

A classified report from the agency says Iraqi and foreign fighters are developing a broad range of skills, from car bombings and assassinations to coordinated conventional attacks on police and military targets, officials said.

boston.com