Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!

[ReBirth 0]

Very nice! Hopefully this is a trigger to get them to start cleaning their own house more aggressively over there.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20051110/ap_on_re_mi_ea/jordan_explosion_73

[Gawain 0]

Jordan has one of the cleaner houses in the region and has likely been on al Qaeda's "to do" list for some time.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[ReBirth 0]

From the government, yes, but not necessarily the citizenry. Plus this bombing apparently even pissed off the Palestinians.

[crwtom 0]

Quote

Very nice!

Yeah, it falls in nicely with the Bush plan for the region:

"Spreading the Spirit of the New Iraq to its Neighbors"

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

Jordan has one of the cleaner houses in the region

Which is pretty sad when you consider what appears below in boldface text …


Atrocity in Amman
The Wall Street Journal
November 10, 2005; Page A16

Yesterday's bombings of three luxury hotels in the Jordanian capital of Amman seem to bear al Qaeda's signature: coordinated, nearly simultaneous suicide attacks against politically and economically significant targets, extracting a large toll in lives and an even greater toll in fear. Westerners will now think twice before visiting Amman, previously considered among the safer and more accommodating destinations in the Arab world.

It's remarkable that Jordan did not suffer a major terrorist atrocity sooner. Jordanian authorities have been generally effective in foiling terrorist plots, including an April 2004 attempt to destroy targets in Amman (the U.S. Embassy among them) with massive quantities of sulfuric acid. Had the attempt succeeded, casualties could have run into the thousands.

If yesterday's attacks illustrate anything, it is that all Arab countries -- not just Iraq -- are threatened by jihadist violence, which is one good reason they should lend greater support to Iraq's embattled democratic leaders. Previously, the governments of Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have sought a middle course, affecting a pro-American foreign policy while using state-run media to feed anti-American flames and praise the Iraqi "resistance." That will no longer do.

As for Jordan, the MEMRI media research institute reports that a Jordanian TV station last month aired a series, timed for Ramadan and originally produced by Hezbollah, which tells the story of the Jews, using the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as its primary source. The Protocols, of course, are among the most enduring anti-Semitic tracts.

Any country that suffers a terrorist attack as grievous as yesterday's deserves sympathy and assistance. But Jordan needs to think carefully about its own part in fostering the culture of hatred in which al Qaeda thrives.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113158815641793153.html


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[billvon 3,120]

>Any country that suffers a terrorist attack as grievous as yesterday's
> deserves sympathy and assistance. But Jordan needs to think
> carefully about its own part in fostering the culture of hatred in which
> al Qaeda thrives.

I agree. Larger countries that suffer terrorist attacks might do well to consider such issues as well.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

From the government, yes, but not necessarily the citizenry. Plus this bombing apparently even pissed off the Palestinians.

That's primarily because a couple dozen Palestinians were killed in the blasts too. Yes, Jordan is in a position to reexamine some of the Iraqi exiles living there too.

Quote

"Oh my God, oh my God. Is it possible that Arabs are killing Arabs, Muslims killing Muslims? For what did they do that?" screamed 35-year-old Najah Akhras, who lost two nieces in the attack. Similar thoughts were heard over and over throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Come on gang, Arabs killing Arabs is just now making news to them?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Broke 0]

These terrorists are possibly as bad as the american military with respect to collaterol damage.

Divot your source for all things Hillbilly.
Anvil Brother 84
SCR 14192

[markd_nscr986 0]

***These terrorists are possibly as bad as the american military with respect to collaterol damage.


Ohhh..........that is such an intelligent and insightful comment

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[Gawain 0]

Quote

These terrorists are possibly as bad as the american military with respect to collaterol damage.

Okay, I'll play your game, you make this statement based on what? I mean, I've been getting quite a bit of training in preparation to go to Iraq and to date, I've been on zero field problems where my goal was to strap explosives to myself, walk into a hotel, restaurant, police station or school and blow myself up, killing dozens of women and children.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Quote

Quote

These terrorists are possibly as bad as the american military with respect to collaterol damage.

Okay, I'll play your game, you make this statement based on what? I mean, I've been getting quite a bit of training in preparation to go to Iraq and to date, I've been on zero field problems where my goal was to strap explosives to myself, walk into a hotel, restaurant, police station or school and blow myself up, killing dozens of women and children.

We terrorize with different methods as we are for more advanced.

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

These terrorists are possibly as bad as the american military with respect to collaterol damage.

Okay, I'll play your game, you make this statement based on what? I mean, I've been getting quite a bit of training in preparation to go to Iraq and to date, I've been on zero field problems where my goal was to strap explosives to myself, walk into a hotel, restaurant, police station or school and blow myself up, killing dozens of women and children.

We terrorize with different methods as we are for more advanced.

Do share what you know about our methods. As I said, I have not been training in what people would call terror. So you must know something I don't.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,120]

>As I said, I have not been training in what people would call terror.

Well, right. We call it shock and awe. Same basic idea; destroy the morale of the enemy. We use much more advanced methods (i.e. white phosphorous instead of Sarin, claymores instead of IED's, guided munitions instead of suicide bombers) but the objective is the same - scare the piss out of the enemy, and if that fails, kill them.

This is not some political photo-op over in Iraq, where no one gets hurt and everyone follows the rules. We are at war, and that means hurting the enemy more than he hurts us. Whoever is better at that, wins. We employ exactly as many morals in this process as we can afford to. To our credit, we usually try to do the right thing when we have the opportunity to do so. But you can bet your bottom dollar that if we were actually at risk of losing this war, we'd be using every trick in our military arsenal to win, and that would include chemical and nuclear weapons, torture, public executions, and anything else we could think of. And if that ever came to pass, and a US soldier drove his Bradley into an enemy fortification, killing himself and taking out ten enemy soldiers - we'd call him a hero.

We should be thankful that we are very far from that sort of desperation. Our enemy is not.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>As I said, I have not been training in what people would call terror.

Well, right. We call it shock and awe. Same basic idea; destroy the morale of the enemy. We use much more advanced methods (i.e. white phosphorous instead of Sarin, claymores instead of IED's, guided munitions instead of suicide bombers) but the objective is the same - scare the piss out of the enemy, and if that fails, kill them.

Wrong. Shock and awe is designed to destroy the enemy's ability to fight, and then destroy them. We do NOT use the same basic methods of terror as the insugents. Claymores are ambush/defensive command detonated weapons which are employed by our army, against another army. We are not employing claymores against insurgents in the heart of Baghdad. Guided munitions are used on entrenched/enforced enemy positions, not in hotels or hospitals. In unrestricted warfare, we do not try to scare the enemy first. We kill them first, and allow them quarter if they surrender.

Quote

This is not some political photo-op over in Iraq, where no one gets hurt and everyone follows the rules. We are at war, and that means hurting the enemy more than he hurts us. Whoever is better at that, wins. We employ exactly as many morals in this process as we can afford to. To our credit, we usually try to do the right thing when we have the opportunity to do so. But you can bet your bottom dollar that if we were actually at risk of losing this war, we'd be using every trick in our military arsenal to win, and that would include chemical and nuclear weapons, torture, public executions, and anything else we could think of. And if that ever came to pass, and a US soldier drove his Bradley into an enemy fortification, killing himself and taking out ten enemy soldiers - we'd call him a hero.

We should be thankful that we are very far from that sort of desperation. Our enemy is not.

You're mixing the doctrines of opposing armies and insurgents against an occupying force, Bill and it doesn't match.

Again, this has nothing to do with what I have stated. A (presumed) non-participant is comparing the tactics and results of terrorists to the tactics of the US and coalition forces. I have stated otherwise, and the "opposition" has been waxing on about Bush and lending credibility to these statements. It's insane.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,120]

>Wrong. Shock and awe is designed to destroy the enemy's ability
>to fight, and then destroy them.

Not ability - morale. It does not destroy their ability to fight, but rather their will to fight. From a March 2003 news article on the subject:

--------------
The battle plan is based on a concept developed at the National Defense University. It's called "Shock and Awe" and it focuses on the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight rather than the physical destruction of his military forces.

"We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," says Harlan Ullman, one of the authors of the Shock and Awe concept which relies on large numbers of precision guided weapons.
--------------

>We do NOT use the same basic methods of terror as the insugents.

I didn't say we used the same methods; I said we pursue the same objective, which is to reduce the enemy's desire to fight. We use guided weapons; they use IED's. Note those are different methods.

> A (presumed) non-participant is comparing the tactics and results
>of terrorists to the tactics of the US and coalition forces.

No. I am saying we are NOT using the same tactics because we can afford to use more 'moral' tactics than they can. We have the superior force and are in no danger of losing. If it were our country being invaded, and you blew yourself up defending it, you would be honored as a hero, not condemned as a terrorist.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Wrong. Shock and awe is designed to destroy the enemy's ability
>to fight, and then destroy them.

Not ability - morale. It does not destroy their ability to fight, but rather their will to fight. From a March 2003 news article on the subject:

--------------
The battle plan is based on a concept developed at the National Defense University. It's called "Shock and Awe" and it focuses on the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight rather than the physical destruction of his military forces.

"We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," says Harlan Ullman, one of the authors of the Shock and Awe concept which relies on large numbers of precision guided weapons.
--------------

To achieve that objective, Bill, the US forces must still destroy significant enemy forces in order for the remaining enemy forces to cease in their efforts.

Quote

>We do NOT use the same basic methods of terror as the insugents.

I didn't say we used the same methods; I said we pursue the same objective, which is to reduce the enemy's desire to fight. We use guided weapons; they use IED's. Note those are different methods.

We're talking about two different things here. You're talking about methods and objectives in a conventional warfare setting. I'm talking about the tactics we're using right now.

Quote

> A (presumed) non-participant is comparing the tactics and results
>of terrorists to the tactics of the US and coalition forces.

No. I am saying we are NOT using the same tactics because we can afford to use more 'moral' tactics than they can. We have the superior force and are in no danger of losing. If it were our country being invaded, and you blew yourself up defending it, you would be honored as a hero, not condemned as a terrorist.

The problem with your pretty picture here Bill, is that these asses blowing themselves up, are not Iraqis, they are foreigners. They are not defending a country or even an ideal, they are brainwashed freaks seeking their own accent to "paradise". Iraqi nationals have been typically attached to local militias which are not causing nearly the havoc that the insurgents are. It's not the same comparison.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,120]

>To achieve that objective, Bill, the US forces must still destroy
>significant enemy forces in order for the remaining enemy forces to
>cease in their efforts.

We seem to have destroyed nearly all the identifiable enemy forces, yet fighting continues to escalate. So there may be a flaw there.

>The problem with your pretty picture here Bill, is that these asses
>blowing themselves up, are not Iraqis, they are foreigners.

Yes, that's the party line, one that makes it easy to justify action against them. After all, if they are not defending their home, but rather just coming into Iraq to fight, then a) they have no more 'right' to be there than we do and b) we are sucking them away from other potential targets.

Well, as recent events have shown, there are apparently plenty of foreign terrorists left that have _not_ gotten sucked into Iraq. And there's no real evidence that most of the fighters in Iraq are foreign, either:

-------------------------------------------------------
posted September 23, 2005 at 10:30 a.m.

The 'myth' of Iraq's foreign fighters

Report by US think tank says only '4 to 10' percent of insurgents are foreigners.

By Tom Regan

The US and Iraqi governments have vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, and most of them don't come from Saudi Arabia, according to a new report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS). According to a piece in The Guardian, this means the US and Iraq "feed the myth" that foreign fighters are the backbone of the insurgency. While the foreign fighters may stoke the insurgency flames, they make up only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.

The CSIS study also disputes media reports that Saudis are the largest group of foreign fighters. CSIS says "Algerians are the largest group (20 percent), followed by Syrians (18 percent), Yemenis (17 percent), Sudanese (15 percent), Egyptians (13 percent), Saudis (12 percent) and those from other states (5 percent)." CSIS gathered the information for its study from intelligence sources in the Gulf region.

[1969912 0]

Gawain,

As you prepare to go to war, remember that the vast majority of Americans are 100% with you. Wish I could go. Don't let anyone's comments cause you to go there less than 100% prepared. You guys are all heroes. God Bless, Good Luck, Kick Ass, and send back some good stories.

Jim

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

The problem with your pretty picture here Bill, is that these asses blowing themselves up, are not Iraqis, they are foreigners.

So are the US and UK troops. All the foreigners should go home. ALL of them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TheAnvil 0]

Idyllic in nature; infeasible in execution.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[SpeedRacer 1]

I think it is important to point out though that the majority of civilian deaths in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein were at the hand of the insurgents, not the coalition. And deliberate civilian deaths are what the definition of terrorism is all about.

Zarqawi DOES lead foreign terrorists, and it is clear that he DOES NOT give a shit about defending Iraq or its people. The Iraqi nationalist insurgents are a separate group, and it has been reported that the two groups often fight one another.

Taking all of these facts into account, we once again see that the hardcore party-line lefties and righties are both full of shit.



maybe an aerosol-based laxative would do the trick.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

The problem with your pretty picture here Bill, is that these asses blowing themselves up, are not Iraqis, they are foreigners.

Well...they are foreigners...but the are Iraqis.

Four Iraqis Carried Out Bombings

Quote

They are not defending a country or even an ideal

They think they are defending "the muslim holy land" which is more important to them than a country.

[Wopelao 0]

Quote

Quote

From the government, yes, but not necessarily the citizenry. Plus this bombing apparently even pissed off the Palestinians.

That's primarily because a couple dozen Palestinians were killed in the blasts too. Yes, Jordan is in a position to reexamine some of the Iraqi exiles living there too.

Quote

"Oh my God, oh my God. Is it possible that Arabs are killing Arabs, Muslims killing Muslims? For what did they do that?" screamed 35-year-old Najah Akhras, who lost two nieces in the attack. Similar thoughts were heard over and over throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Come on gang, Arabs killing Arabs is just now making news to them?

Yes, sasly but yes.

Edited for spelling

[crwtom 0]

Quote

I think it is important to point out though that the majority of civilian deaths in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein were at the hand of the insurgents, not the coalition.

Aside from your exclusion of civilian deaths during the war (before
and during the fall od Saddam) this is a pretty silly comparison
also otherwise. The greater issue are the responsibilities that the
coalition has towards the Iraqi population.

Anything from international law, Geneva conventions, human
decency, and Powell's 'pottery barn rule' say that if you occupy a
country it is you who is resposibility for upholding public order and
securing the safety of inhabitants.

The US and coalition have done an abismal job at this. People die
not only because of terror attacks but by a common crime homicide
rate that is going through the roof. Public order and saftey is a
disaster, a wild west mentality has become prevalent, and it is not
getting any better.

Here a quick overview

It is hard to say what part of the responsibility rests on the military.
But there are several political decisions and omissions that are
directly related to this fuck-up. For example
- disbanoning Iraqi army and security forces (most of whom have
been rehiredyears later anyway)
- US troop numbers that fell dramatically short of being able of
uplholding public order
- the lack of any real plans and strategies to restore public order
- a horridly prepared political process for restoring normalcy that
got off the ground way too late and is still plaqued will delays,
assassiniation, and may other sicknesses.
- a pre-war rethoric and politics that (falsly) tied the Iraq war to a
war on islamic terrorism combined with a language of "crusades"
and unapologetic unilateralism. That makes the war an easy sell
as a christian jihad of some sort and is, for all practical purposes,
an invitation to dance for all extremisms groups too hard to resist.
(whether they were previously enganged in terrorism or not).
- etc etc

The bottom line: The US and coaltion have made decisions in
obvious disregard of public safety of the Iraqi people and are
thus in violation of international law and human decency
Though they are likely never to be held reposibility the carnage
among Iraqi's resulting from the invasion and these decisions
will continue for quite a while.

Daily death rates among civilians are still notably higher than those
under the Saddam regime even more than two years after the
invasion.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[Wopelao 0]

Quote

I think it is important to point out though that the majority of civilian deaths in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein were at the hand of the insurgents, not the coalition. And deliberate civilian deaths are what the definition of terrorism is all about.

Zarqawi DOES lead foreign terrorists, and it is clear that he DOES NOT give a shit about defending Iraq or its people. The Iraqi nationalist insurgents are a separate group, and it has been reported that the two groups often fight one another.

Taking all of these facts into account, we once again see that the hardcore party-line lefties and righties are both full of shit.



maybe an aerosol-based laxative would do the trick.

Nah, it's more important to take things out of context, make sure all insurgents killed are named "innocent civilians", and spin things and make us look like we are trained with the objective, and sole purpose to kill everything that moves and is not part of the coalition.

Gawain, just keep your bubble clear and be on your toes (trust you guts) no matter where you are located. Good luck!