NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.globalterroralert.com/pdf/0705/saudimartyrsiraq.pdf

A very interesting detailed portrait of some "insurgents" and homicide bombers from Saudi Arabia.

And this http://www.globalterroralert.com/pdf/0605/iraqmartyrs0605.pdf

is an even better breakdown of who is who.

This was obviosly faked by the Illuminati to give the US a better image.
All the insurgents are Iraqi's opposing the wrongful US occupation of their formerly freedom-loving country.

Did anyone actually doubt that foreigners were flooding into Iraq to 'fight the infidels' ('collaborating' Iraqis included)?

This was obviosly faked by the Illuminati to give the US a better image.
All the insurgents are Iraqi's opposing the wrongful US occupation of their formerly freedom-loving country.
That's even more interesting, IMO - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050706/ap_on_re_us/us_iraq_americans

The Americans against the Americans in Iraq! That's certainly one big conspiracy!

Did anyone actually doubt that foreigners were flooding into Iraq to 'fight the infidels' ('collaborating' Iraqis included)?

Yes, I've heard quite a few people doubt that any of the insurgents are foreigners. In fact, even on this forum, people have said, "you can't prove that any of the insurgents are foreigners".

Well, here they are.

Yes, I've heard quite a few people doubt that any of the insurgents are foreigners. In fact, even on this forum, people have said, "you can't prove that any of the insurgents are foreigners". Really! Wow. Dumbasses. I don't support the war, but I don't support the terrorists either, who are targeting US troops and Iraqi civilians alike. But come one...Osama called on all Muslims to go take jihad to Iraq...people really didn't think this would be the perfect opportunity to target the infidels? Let me tell you, if I was itching to be a martyr, that's where I'd be...

Yes, I've heard quite a few people doubt that any of the insurgents are foreigners. In fact, even on this forum, people have said, "you can't prove that any of the insurgents are foreigners".

Well, here they are.
The problem is: the same NS posters who are in denial will continue to be in denial and claim that those are biased propaganda pieces and will summarily dismiss them.

http://www.globalterroralert.com/pdf/0705/saudimartyrsiraq.pdf

A very interesting detailed portrait of some "insurgents" and homicide bombers from Saudi Arabia.

And this http://www.globalterroralert.com/pdf/0605/iraqmartyrs0605.pdf

is an even better breakdown of who is who.
The War on Terrorisim has always been a war of radical Saudi Wahabbist Islam against the US/Western democracies. The Saudi Government is playing both sides of the fence. You want to end terrorism? End ElSaud/Wahabbi rule.

The problem is: the same NS posters who are in denial will continue to be in denial and claim that those are biased propaganda pieces and will summarily dismiss them.
What difference does it make, really if the insurgents are Iraqis or not? (I mean, why deny it?)

The War on Terrorisim has always been a war on radical Saudi Wahabbist Islam. The Saudi Government is playing both sides of the fence. You want to end terrorism? End ElSaud/Wahabbi rule.
Clearly this is true...and yet there are so many ties to the Saudis that it can't really be an outright war...it seems to me though that all the US is doing is going after the 'henchman' while the mafia bosses thrive...perhaps an attack on Saudi Arabia itself would be too dangerous though...could you imagine the reaction if it was believed that the US was trying to 'capture' Mecca? *shudders* True or not, it would raise a shitstorm of fanaticism I don't think the US would care to deal with.

What difference does it make, really if the insurgents are Iraqis or not? (I mean, why deny it?)
Those who deny it try to say that the insurgency is a reaction by the Iraqi people to the "brutal" American occupation. They deny that any of the terrorists are actually foreign fighters who don't give a damn about destabilizing the fledgeling Iraqi democracy or killing innocent Iraqi civilians as long as they get to make life harder for the "infidel".

What difference does it make, really if the insurgents are Iraqis or not? (I mean, why deny it?)

I believe that some people find it more "credible" to say that the native Iraqis are fighting alone against US imperialism, etc.

If they hear that Saudis, et al, are showing up and running the insurgency and doing a substantial portion of the bombings, then it looks less like native patriots defending their homeland.

Less credible.

Given these numbers, it looks like Iraq is having the "roach motel" or "ant bait" effect.

People who want to jihad are strongly attracted to show up there, where they end up dead one way or another.

Well, yeah.

Iraq was and is a relatively secular country. Saudi Arabia has many of the religious nuts who blow themselves up.

What difference does it make, really if the insurgents are Iraqis or not? (I mean, why deny it?)
Because it allows those who are against the war (some are openly anti-American) to continue to denigrate the US/Bush/the troops/whatever with some self-important sense of moral superiority.

Also, it allows some to continue to deny that Islamic terrorism is a problem for the US.

Those who deny it try to say that the insurgency is a reaction by the Iraqi people to the "brutal" American occupation. They deny that any of the terrorists are actually foreign fighters who don't give a damn about destabilizing the fledgeling Iraqi democracy or killing innocent Iraqi civilians as long as they get to make life harder for the "infidel".
Ah. I see. Hmm. Well, clearly there are at least two groups of insurgents (in my mind). Foreigners waging a holy war, and Iraqis who are reacting to their living conditions right now (random searches of homes, humiliating treatments, perceptions of the 'occupation' and so forth). Really...the second group are the only ones who have any sort of leg to stand on, but they may just be doing more harm than good. The first group...it's another issue altogether, especially since Iraqis themselves are becoming targets for terror by fundamentalists. (True, the first group is probably doing the same, but for slightly different, more immediate reasons.)

The worst thing about guerilla warfare is that both sides target civilians who are 'collaborating' with one side or the other...usually wrongfully, and quite often the same civilians will be accused of supporting BOTH groups and harassed by both. Scary.

What difference does it make, really if the insurgents are Iraqis or not? (I mean, why deny it?)
It makes a difference because if the "insurgents" were truly Iraqis, a valid argument could be made that their actions are a Just form of reprisal against a military and intended to oust an oppressor - which is what the "Pull Out Now" side of the debate would like everyone to believe.

However, in that the "insurgents" are actulally foreginers illegally in Iraq using unjust tactics against civillian and military targets alike to destabilize the new Iraqi government and inflict casualties on the US, it can be shown that the US presence is basically the only chance the new Iraqi government has at ganing enough foothold to set up their own defense against radicals.

Also, when it can be shown that there is a continuing Foregin Aggression that intentionally targets non-combatants (unlike the US) questions arise as to how to deal with the external threat... like how best to eliminate the House of Saud & Wahabbisim all together.

perhaps an attack on Saudi Arabia itself would be too dangerous though...could you imagine the reaction if it was believed that the US was trying to 'capture' Mecca? *shudders* True or not, it would raise a shitstorm of fanaticism I don't think the US would care to deal with.
Very, very true. But not only that. You can guarantee that if the US went into Saudi Arabia to weed out radical Wahabism, the Wahabis would instantly hole up in Mecca and Medina and turn the whole thing into a "US vs Islam" holy PR war. They would be firing mortars and rockets at US troops on the outside and if the US troops DARED to fight back, the US would be crucified in the world media even more than it already is...and would probably end up starting a regional or even supra-regional war akin to WWIII.

Iraqis who are reacting to their living conditions right now (random searches of homes, humiliating treatments, perceptions of the 'occupation' and so forth).
You're forgetting the minority Baathist Sunnis (it's the Sunni's right? my brain is *pfft*) and remnants of Saddam's Republican Guard who are pissed that they are no longer in power and are fighting the US and the new Iraqi gov't in hopes of destabilizing the new gov't and somehow be able to seize power again.

Clearly this is true...and yet there are so many ties to the Saudis that it can't really be an outright war...it seems to me though that all the US is doing is going after the 'henchman' while the mafia bosses thrive...perhaps an attack on Saudi Arabia itself would be too dangerous though...could you imagine the reaction if it was believed that the US was trying to 'capture' Mecca? *shudders* True or not, it would raise a shitstorm of fanaticism I don't think the US would care to deal with.
Unfortunately. :(

Maybe we can come up with the US Army, Mecca Division, made up of Muslim volunteers whose sole purpose is to secure Mecca from Defilement while we pound the rest of Saudi into rubble.

Very, very true. But not only that. You can guarantee that if the US went into Saudi Arabia to weed out radical Wahabism, the Wahabis would instantly hole up in Mecca and Medina and turn the whole thing into a "US vs Islam" holy PR war. They would be firing mortars and rockets at US troops on the outside and if the US troops DARED to fight back, the US would be crucified in the world media even more than it already is...and would probably end up starting a regional or even supra-regional war akin to WWIII.
I absolutely agree it could get to that point. Just imagine the reverse...a Saudi attack on Vatican City! But then again, the Christian church doesn't have just one major holy place like the Muslims (yes yes, I know there are more, but Christianity has no equivalent to the haj), so that example doesn't quite compare. Even moderate Muslims would probably turn their hands against you.

I absolutely agree it could get to that point. Just imagine the reverse...a Saudi attack on Vatican City!
That won't happen just like the US won't go into SA after the Wahabis. The Muslim radicals are smarter than a lot of people give them credit for. They know that if they went after Vatican City, the majority of the world would turn against them just like the majority of the world would turn against the US (including the few that aren't already anti-US) if we went after SA.

The Wahabis are fighting a PR war more than anything else. Right now, they're winning. They would instantly lose any advantage they have if they blatantly went after a Christian/Catholic holy center/site.

The insurgency is both pissed off Iraqi's and muslims drawn there from other countries.

But but it begs the question, if there are so many Saudi terrorists and many of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, as is Bin Laden, why are the streets of Saudi not being scoured? I don't suggest the US should invade Saudi but the Saudis should be doing more than token raids against fundamentalists which is what they appear to be doing from the news. The Saudi Royal family should also stop funding the fundamentalist schools that produce the terrorists.

http://www.globalterroralert.com/pdf/0705/saudimartyrsiraq.pdf

A very interesting detailed portrait of some "insurgents" and homicide bombers from Saudi Arabia.



I've been saying this for years: the Saudis are trouble. The country is a breeding ground for terrorists (bin Laden, most of the 9/11 hijackers), yet they profess to be our friends. They indirectly fund terrorists by bribing terrorist organizations into not attacking their own country. We should really find another source of oil and boycott the Saudis, because they're no good at all.

I mean seriously folks it DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY ARE FOREIGN OR NOT. A wise man once said the job of being a free country is to share that with the world. It does not matter who is who. Whoever is a threat to democracy is an insurgent whether or not he is foreign. These terrorist are just as bad as Timothy McVeigh or any other US homegrown serial killer. Whether or not they are foreign makes no difference. We must fight for whats right or we will be destroyed as shown on 9/11. I dont care if you are a republican or democrat we need to do whats right. And leaving those IRAQI people(yes they are people to) out in the cold is wrong. The Democrats say they are the Working Man's party. Well I'll tell you one thing. If we dont stop these terrorists and insurgents there will be no working man. IF WE DON"T STOP THESE MEN MANY WILL DIE! THOSE IN THE WTC were innocent people and because we didn't take care of the terrorists back in the 90's we were attacked. WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE FOREIGN DOES NOT MATTER. WE ARE NOT IN A WAR WITH IRAQ! WE ARE IN A WAR WITH THOSE WHO THREATEN FREEDOM. All i can say is fight for whats right or innocent people maybe even YOU may die and i dont know about everyone else here. But I am not going to take that risk.

The insurgency is both pissed off Iraqi's and muslims drawn there from other countries.

But but it begs the question, if there are so many Saudi terrorists and many of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, as is Bin Laden, why are the streets of Saudi not being scoured? I don't suggest the US should invade Saudi but the Saudis should be doing more than token raids against fundamentalists which is what they appear to be doing from the news. The Saudi Royal family should also stop funding the fundamentalist schools that produce the terrorists.

If you're a conservative Sunni, or Wahhabi, you're going to follow the Zangi idea of founding and funding madrassas.

Madrassas, by the way, according to Zangi (the man who invented them), is to train men for only one purpose - to engage in and believe in violent jihad in order to expand Dar al-Islam by force.

Anywhere you see a madrassa, you see boys being trained to hate everything that is not Islamic. IMHO, it would be worth it to bomb these schools where we find them, as soon as class is in session.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have the largest numbers of these schools - funded by Saudi Arabia and mentored and run by Wahabbi clerics.

Yes, we're stupid not to round these people up and kill them right now. Very stupid.

If Iraq does succeed in establishing a functioning democracy with rule of law, freedom of religion and freedom of expression it may serve as encouragement to the smart arabs in the region who see that the future isn't in repressive theocracy but in modern styles of government and civilization. That terrifies the wahabbi and the house of saud. The best way to fight that threat is to make Iraq work and use it to incite democratic revolutions throughout the Arab world.

If Iraq does succeed in establishing a functioning democracy with rule of law, freedom of religion and freedom of expression it may serve as encouragement to the smart arabs in the region who see that the future isn't in repressive theocracy but in modern styles of government and civilization. That terrifies the wahabbi and the house of saud. The best way to fight that threat is to make Iraq work and use it to incite democratic revolutions throughout the Arab world.
Not only that, but you can bet that a large number of the smart Arabs who want nothing to do with theocratic rule would be sneaking into Iraq to make better lives for themselves and their families. That would lend even more creedence to the idea of democratic states in the region.

If Iraq does succeed in establishing a functioning democracy with rule of law, freedom of religion and freedom of expression it may serve as encouragement to the smart arabs in the region who see that the future isn't in repressive theocracy but in modern styles of government and civilization. That terrifies the wahabbi and the house of saud. The best way to fight that threat is to make Iraq work and use it to incite democratic revolutions throughout the Arab world.
I dont think Iraq will be getting true freedom of religion for some time. If you expect to see people in Iraq sacrificing goats to Scrwagle (IE: Insert random diety here) within the next generation, well...your being rather silly. I imagine they will accept Christians, Jews and Orthodox people, because they, at least, worship a similar God.

I dont think Iraq will be getting true freedom of religion for some time. If you expect to see people in Iraq sacrificing goats to Scrwagle (IE: Insert random diety here) within the next generation, well...your being rather silly. I imagine they will accept Christians, Jews and Orthodox people, because they, at least, worship a similar God.
I imagine a few of the other major religions (i.e. Buddhism) would be allowed there as well. Remember that Buddhism was alive and well and had a long history in Afghanistan before the Taliban came in and destroyed everything.

Besides...having at least *some* freedom of religion is better than *no* freedom of religion. Give them time.

If you're a conservative Sunni, or Wahhabi, you're going to follow the Zangi idea of founding and funding madrassas.

Madrassas, by the way, according to Zangi (the man who invented them), is to train men for only one purpose - to engage in and believe in violent jihad in order to expand Dar al-Islam by force.

Anywhere you see a madrassa, you see boys being trained to hate everything that is not Islamic. IMHO, it would be worth it to bomb these schools where we find them, as soon as class is in session.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have the largest numbers of these schools - funded by Saudi Arabia and mentored and run by Wahabbi clerics.

Yes, we're stupid not to round these people up and kill them right now. Very stupid.
How do you verify which madrassas are teaching violent jihad? You know that people won't accept the bombing of a school if you can't prove that the school is actually a military recruiting and training facility. It's not like the madrassa will advertize their hatred for all to see. When someone visits the school from outside the Islamic world they won't be teaching "Death to America", they'll teach "respect the people of the book (as long as they submit)" that day.

Blow up one of those madrassas and watch the appologists run around screaming about the massacre of schoolkids.

How do you verify which madrassas are teaching violent jihad?

It's standard practice. You will note that neither Sufis nor Shi'is have madrassas. And most moderate Sunnis would never set foot in one.

No, according to historical precept, they have only one purpose.

homicide bombers

doesn't it disturb you at all to take part in orwellian manipulations of language like this?

In fact, even on this forum, people have said, "you can't prove that any of the insurgents are foreigners".

names and links, please

It's standard practice. You will note that neither Sufis nor Shi'is have madrassas. And most moderate Sunnis would never set foot in one.

No, according to historical precept, they have only one purpose.
Try to tell people that after a bunch of moderate muslims cry out about bombing simple religious schools. You need to collect proof or else the USA will be viewed as worse than al quaeda.

It's standard practice. You will note that neither Sufis nor Shi'is have madrassas. And most moderate Sunnis would never set foot in one.

No, according to historical precept, they have only one purpose.
Here in Russia we call all Islamic schools medrese, i.e. madrassa. They exist under the auspices of the Grand Mufti, and most of those schools do not teach anything resembling violent jihad. Chechnya is another case, but most of the terrorists haven't had any Islamic education at all.

doesn't it disturb you at all to take part in orwellian manipulations of language like this?

Doesn't it disturb you to use the term "suicide bomber" to imply that somehow, no one other than the bomber is being killed?

names and links, please
Try Zeppistan and Stephistan (who have since quit NS). Among others.

Here in Russia we call all Islamic schools medrese, i.e. madrassa. They exist under the auspices of the Grand Mufti, and most of those schools do not teach anything resembling violent jihad. Chechnya is another case, but most of the terrorists haven't had any Islamic education at all.

Russia may call all Islamic schools by that name, but the various branches of Islam do not.

Madrassas, in their classic and conservative form, as found in every madrassa in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, teach a doctrine of complete committment to holy war in order to expand Dar al-Islam by force.

They start by teaching the boys to hate.

Try Zeppistan and Stephistan (who have since quit NS). Among others.

they claimed that there weren't any foreigners in the iraqi resistance? bullshit.

Clearly this is true...and yet there are so many ties to the Saudis that it can't really be an outright war...it seems to me though that all the US is doing is going after the 'henchman' while the mafia bosses thrive...perhaps an attack on Saudi Arabia itself would be too dangerous though...could you imagine the reaction if it was believed that the US was trying to 'capture' Mecca? *shudders* True or not, it would raise a shitstorm of fanaticism I don't think the US would care to deal with.

not without evacuating Israelis first and relocating them to, oh, Canary Island.

hehe

Try Zeppistan and Stephistan (who have since quit NS). Among others.
Not as quit as we thought...

Steph: Xanaz
Zep: Lecherous Monkeyballs

Doesn't it disturb you to use the term "suicide bomber" to imply that somehow, no one other than the bomber is being killed?

it does no such thing. all bombers aim to either kill people or destroy infrastructure. the thing that differentiates these bombers is that they blow themselves up too. hence the difference between them and other bombers is that they commit suicide in the course of their bombing. ergo, the only term that makes any sense at all is 'suicide bombers'.

they claimed that there weren't any foreigners in the iraqi resistance? bullshit.

No, they claimed that you couldn't prove that ANY of the insurgents were foreign. That's not bullshit.

Not as quit as we thought...

Steph: Xanaz
Zep: Lecherous Monkeyballs

Yay. I chatted with Steph the other day.

So, go ask them.

*Edit: isn't it "Leperous Monkeyballs"?

it does no such thing. all bombers aim to either kill people or destroy infrastructure. the thing that differentiates these bombers is that they blow themselves up too. hence the difference between them and other bombers is that they commit suicide in the course of their bombing. ergo, the only term that makes any sense at all is 'suicide bombers'.
To me it seems kind of petty to argue whether they should be called "sucicide bombers" or "homicide bombers" when we have a perfectly good term that applies to them and their supporters. Vermin. Vermin are animals that contribute nothing and only cause problems. Vermin exist only to be exterminated. I think this accurately describes the terrorists.

Russia may call all Islamic schools by that name, but the various branches of Islam do not.

Madrassas, in their classic and conservative form, as found in every madrassa in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, teach a doctrine of complete committment to holy war in order to expand Dar al-Islam by force.

They start by teaching the boys to hate.
Erm... 'madrassa' is Arabic for 'school', am I wrong? And why do you mention the extremist schools such 'young', born in the Twentieth entury, countries as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as examples of classic and conservative madrassas?

The Wahhabi strain of Islam is a form of Salafism restricted to Saudi Arabia, although the SA does the best it can to export it. And Pakistan is full of extreme Deobandi madrassas owing to the fact that Deoband is just across the border in India.

Both of that trends in Islam are from the 19th Century, IIRC. Not very classic and conservative, I'd venture to say.

Erm... 'madrassa' is Arabic for 'school', am I wrong? And why do you mention the extremist schools such 'young', born in the Twentieth entury, countries as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as examples of classic and conservative madrassas?

The Wahhabi strain of Islam is a form of Salafism restricted to Saudi Arabia, although the SA does the best it can to export it. And Pakistan is full of extreme Deobandi madrassas owing to the fact that Deoband is just across the border in India.

Both of that trends in Islam are from the 19th Century, IIRC. Not very classic and conservative, I'd venture to say.

The trend is from the 11th Century, as written by Zangi. The 19th Century was a revival of sorts.

Shi'is and Sufis do not have madrassas. So although the word may mean "school", the purpose of a madrassa is different.

To me it seems kind of petty to argue whether they should be called "sucicide bombers" or "homicide bombers" when we have a perfectly good term that applies to them and their supporters. Vermin. Vermin are animals that contribute nothing and only cause problems. Vermin exist only to be exterminated. I think this accurately describes the terrorists.

neither regular bombing nor suicide bombing is necessarily an act of terrorism, unless all acts of violence or property destruction are defined as terrorism.

i prefer my language to convey rather than conceal information.

The trend is from the 11th Century, as written by Zangi. The 19th Century was a revival of sorts.

Shi'is and Sufis do not have madrassas. So although the word may mean "school", the purpose of a madrassa is different.
Our Sunnis in Tatarstan, Bashkortostan and other constituent republics of Russia have madrassas, and only a tiny number of them goes mental and traves to Chechya or Iraq in order to slay a couple of infidels. How would you call Islamic schools in Indonesia, Malaysia, or Russia, if not madrassas? Jews hav yeshivas, Muslims have madrassas.

neither regular bombing nor suicide bombing is necessarily an act of terrorism
Are you serious?!? :eek:

"Suicide (homicide) bombing" is a perfect example of terrorism...always. They only way it wouldn't be terrorism is if some jackass went off into a field somewhere, completely away from people and property, and blew themselves up...but that would be pointless.

Our Sunnis in Tatarstan, Bashkortostan and other constituent republics of Russia have madrassas, and only a tiny number of them goes mental and traves to Chechya or Iraq in order to slay a couple of infidels. How would you call Islamic schools in Indonesia, Malaysia, or Russia, if not madrassas? Jews hav yeshivas, Muslims have madrassas.

Malaysia and Indonesia have similar radical curriculum problems.

Maybe what we should do is monitor and restrict what they teach.

neither regular bombing nor suicide bombing is necessarily an act of terrorism, unless all acts of violence or property destruction are defined as terrorism.

i prefer my language to convey rather than conceal information.
The vermin I'm talking about are the ones who jump onto Israeli busses and kill working people, the ones who take over Russian schools and kill schoolchildren, and the ones who blow themselves up in Iraqi Shiite mosques to kill people at worship. Those aren't acts of terrorism perpetrated by animals who should be hunted down and exterminated along with those who support them?

Are you serious?!? :eek:

"Suicide (homicide) bombing" is a perfect example of terrorism...always.
...
You cannot count kamikazes as terrorists, I suppose.

Are you serious?!? :eek:

"Suicide (homicide) bombing" is a perfect example of terrorism...always. They only way it wouldn't be terrorism is if some jackass went off into a field somewhere, completely away from people and property, and blew themselves up...but that would be pointless.
Devil's advocate here. How about a soldier about to be captured by the enemy pulling the pins from his grenades and blowing himself up along with his would-be captors? Is that still terrorism?

Are you serious?!? :eek:

"Suicide (homicide) bombing" is a perfect example of terrorism...always. They only way it wouldn't be terrorism is if some jackass went off into a field somewhere, completely away from people and property, and blew themselves up...but that would be pointless.

under any non-silly definition, attacking a military target is not terrorism. why would blowing yourself up in the process make it terrorism?

and does this mean that a wounded soldier in a position about to be overrun that takes out some explosives (a grenade, for example) in order to "take a few of the bastards with him" instantly becomes a terrorist?

Devil's advocate here. How about a soldier about to be captured by the enemy pulling the pins from his grenades and blowing himself up along with his would-be captors? Is that still terrorism?
Hmmm. Good point.

Malaysia and Indonesia have similar radical curriculum problems.

Maybe what we should do is monitor and restrict what they teach.
Here in Russia the Government controls mosques and madrassas pretty well, that's a tradition left from the times of the Soviet Union. To let clerics teach whatever they like is too risky.

Are you serious?!? :eek:

"Suicide (homicide) bombing" is a perfect example of terrorism...always. They only way it wouldn't be terrorism is if some jackass went off into a field somewhere, completely away from people and property, and blew themselves up...but that would be pointless.

no, Texpunditistan, it's perfectly fine to strap a bomb to yourself, dress up in civilian clothes, drive into the middle of a busy marketplace full of unsuspecting civilians, and blow yourself up, taking 10 or 20 people with you. nothing at all is wrong with that.

we accidentally hit a few civilians with a bomb -- probably because terrorists/insurgents are hiding among them, using them for cover -- and the whole world bitches at us. And we don't hit civilians on purpose.

One of them targets (intent is a damning factor here, imo) and kills 10-20 civilians, but he has excuses made for him or his act is overlooked. or it's somehow America's fault.
makes perfect sense.

Here in Russia the Government controls mosques and madrassas pretty well, that's a tradition left from the times of the Soviet Union. To let clerics teach whatever they like is too risky.

That sounds very smart to me.

The vermin I'm talking about are the ones who jump onto Israeli busses and kill working people, the ones who take over Russian schools and kill schoolchildren, and the ones who blow themselves up in Iraqi Shiite mosques to kill people at worship. Those aren't acts of terrorism perpetrated by animals who should be hunted down and exterminated along with those who support them?

No, not quite. Those are acts of terrorism perpetrated by human beings who should be hunted down and brought to Justice along with those who support them.

Don't be so quick to deal out judgements of life and death, DCD. That road risks one becoming the thing that fuels their hate.

The vermin I'm talking about are the ones who jump onto Israeli busses and kill working people, the ones who take over Russian schools and kill schoolchildren, and the ones who blow themselves up in Iraqi Shiite mosques to kill people at worship. Those aren't acts of terrorism perpetrated by animals who should be hunted down and exterminated along with those who support them?

it is not the act of suicide bombing that makes those actions terrorism. it wouldn't be any less terroristic if they did it with an ak-47 and then ran away.

Are you serious?!? :eek:

"Suicide (homicide) bombing" is a perfect example of terrorism...always. They only way it wouldn't be terrorism is if some jackass went off into a field somewhere, completely away from people and property, and blew themselves up...but that would be pointless.

Hate to burst some bubbles, but the difference between terrorist bombing, and Guerilla bombings isn't the method, it's the targets. A Suicide bomber who detonates in a military cantonment is fighting/dying as a warrior. A suicide bomber who detonates on a city bus is a piece of shit terrorist.
Same if you go to the other end of the spectrum: (deliberately) Firing a Hellfire at a fortified enemy position is warfare, doing the same to a marketplace full of women, villagers, and kids, (where the enemy is not present) is a crime. One way to turn American (and my) sentiment against the War in total, is to begin dropping ordnance on civilian concentrations with no regard for military value as a means of "Terrorizing" the populace. In 1943, with no guided munition technology, this was moderately acceptable. In 2005, it's criminal behaviour.


[to another poster who suggested we bomb Madrassas...]
Bombing Madrassas is bad policy, it's indiscriminate killing of civilians on the off-chance you might snag an enemy operative. You wanna turn the whole thing into a Vietnam-style clusterfuck? that's the number one way to do it-not only would it piss off the entire world (and justifiably, I might add), but you'll also piss off the American People. There are some tactics you simply do not engage in if you're the United States.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...and the women just wish they'd both go to hell and leave them and the children out of it!

Any one who targets civilians, women, children, men, elders, whatever...are scum. Call them terrorists, freedom fighters...I could never support people who would DELIBERATELY harm non-combatants.

Devil's advocate here. How about a soldier about to be captured by the enemy pulling the pins from his grenades and blowing himself up along with his would-be captors? Is that still terrorism?
Alright, y'all got me there. I concede your's, Olantia's and Free Soviet's points. I need more caffeine. :p

The problem is, though, that the majority of suicide bombers don't target legitimate military targets. They target civilians in order to instill terror in the general population.

No, not quite. Those are acts of terrorism perpetrated by human beings who should be hunted down and brought to Justice along with those who support them.

Don't be so quick to deal out judgements of life and death, DCD. That road risks one becoming the thing that fuels their hate.
This is a war on terrorism. In war you try to kill your enemies. We don't send the average infantry troops our with truncheons, mace, tazers and handcuffs. We send them out with rifles, bayonettes, and grenades. If the enemy surrenders, you lock him up, but you don't count on him surrendering. You shoot him when you see him.

it is not the act of suicide bombing that makes those actions terrorism. it wouldn't be any less terroristic if they did it with an ak-47 and then ran away.
Which would still make them vermin. One word that covers a whole list of assholish deeds. What could be better?

Which would still make them vermin. One word that covers a whole list of assholish deeds. What could be better?
Yes. Let's compare terrorists(mostly muslims) to vermin...like, say RATS! YEAH! RATS! No one has used THAT one before, have they? That should get us ALL sorts of good press! ;)

That road risks one becoming the thing that fuels their hate.
I'm already the thing that fuels their hate. I'm not muslim, I don't beleive that Islam or muslims should have any kind of privelaged place. I deny that their god exists. I drink alcohol and eat pork and will do so in public. I will protect the rights of a gay couple to live freely. All those things make me their enemy. The only difference is that I'm on the side of liberty, and I'm on the side that will win.

This is a war on terrorism. In war you try to kill your enemies.
Whatever happened to the War on Drugs...why were there no troops in that one? :D

Yes. Let's compare terrorists(mostly muslims) to vermin...like, say RATS! YEAH! RATS! No one has used THAT one before, have they? That should get us ALL sorts of good press! ;)
That's the whole point. I don't want to give them any of the respect due to an actual person. I want to treat them like, well, not rats. Rats are kind of cool. I have some sympathy for rats. Maybe cockroaches.

I'm already the thing that fuels their hate. I'm not muslim, I don't beleive that Islam or muslims should have any kind of privelaged place. I deny that their god exists. I drink alcohol and eat pork and will do so in public. I will protect the rights of a gay couple to live freely. All those things make me their enemy. The only difference is that I'm on the side of liberty, and I'm on the side that will win.
*pictures a US flag waving in the breeze behind you while the Star Spangled Banner swells in volume during your speech*

Are we on Candid Camera or something?

That's the whole point. I don't want to give them any of the respect due to an actual person. I want to treat them like, well, not rats. Rats are kind of cool. I have some sympathy for rats. Maybe cockroaches.
MUCH more apt comparison. *thumbs up*

That's the whole point. I don't want to give them any of the respect due to an actual person. I want to treat them like, well, not rats. Rats are kind of cool. I have some sympathy for rats. Maybe cockroaches.
Ah. Dehumanize the enemy. I guess that makes it easier to hate them and kill them. Oddly similar to the tactics used to 'prep' these (often young, impressionable) terrorists to commit atrocities :(

Whatever happened to the War on Drugs...why were there no troops in that one? :D
There were. I was a prisoner of war for a while in that one. I've seen a man shot in that one. I was one of the insurgents in the war on drugs.

EDIT: I'm just glad I didn't serve on the Columbian front.

Ah. Dehumanize the enemy. I guess that makes it easier to hate them and kill them. :(
Exactly. Why compromise with someone who only offers you two choices, convert and live exactly as I do or die.

MUCH more apt comparison. *thumbs up*
You realise they are one of the few living things that would survive a nuclear holocaust? Not a pretty analogy that...

You realise they are one of the few living things that would survive a nuclear holocaust? Not a pretty analogy that...
Why use nukes when you can just step on them? ;)

Exactly. Why compromise with someone who only offers you two choices, convert and live exactly as I do or die.
They might argue that you are giving them the same two choices.

They might argue that you are giving them the same two choices.
Nope. See even if we make every muslim country exactly like the US the muslims would still be able to observe their religion. Eat the foods they want, avoid those they don't want, etc. Their rights would still be protected.

Under Sharia I would have no rights as an atheist. I could be killed or enslaved at their whim.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9201704&postcount=73

I added a sentence to this post I'd like you to read.

Nope. See even if we make every muslim country exactly like the US the muslims would still be able to observe their religion. Eat the foods they want, avoid those they don't want, etc. Their rights would still be protected. Ah. But would they really? Would the US allow the sort of fundamentalism that the Muslims who perpetrate terrorism desire? Would they allow these people to reject Western culture and vote in a fundamentalist, religious government? If this is truly what they want, you are in fact NOT giving them a choice. It's either the US vision of Islam, or nothing. They feel threatened culturally and they lash out.

Under Sharia I would have no rights as an atheist. I could be killed or enslaved at their whim. Well now that depends. Shar'ia law is not one type of system alone. There are many forms of Shar'ia law. Some more fundamentalist and intolerant than others. Muslim nations were remarkable tolerant to other religions historically than many Christian nations were. Saudi Shar'ia would most certainly be different than Indonesian Shar'ia, or Egytian Shar'ia or Uzbek Shar'ia...

...but we are mostly talking about Muslims from one particular sect, though they may be of diverse ethnic backgrounds. I still believe that they are right in assuming that they would have to 'convert' (to Western ideals) or die.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9201704&postcount=73

I added a sentence to this post I'd like you to read.

Ah. But would they really? Would the US allow the sort of fundamentalism that the Muslims who perpetrate terrorism desire? Would they allow these people to reject Western culture and vote in a fundamentalist, religious government? If this is truly what they want, you are in fact NOT giving them a choice. It's either the US vision of Islam, or nothing. They feel threatened culturally and they lash out.

Well now that depends. Shar'ia law is not one type of system alone. There are many forms of Shar'ia law. Some more fundamentalist and intolerant than others. Muslim nations were remarkable tolerant to other religions historically than many Christian nations were. Saudi Shar'ia would most certainly be different than Indonesian Shar'ia, or Egytian Shar'ia or Uzbek Shar'ia...

...but we are mostly talking about Muslims from one particular sect, though they may be of diverse ethnic backgrounds. I still believe that they are right in assuming that they would have to 'convert' (to Western ideals) or die.
in response to your earlier modified post: Yeah, dehumanizing the enemy is effective. What matters is who you view as your enemy. They view civilians as their enemies. We view those who would kill our civilians as our enemies.

A very observant muslim could still thrive in the USA. He wouldn't be prevented from living the life he chose. No version of Sharia offers any protection to an atheist.

A very observant muslim could still thrive in the USA. He wouldn't be prevented from living the life he chose. No version of Sharia offers any protection to an atheist.
Actually, under Shar'ia, there is no automatic provision against those who are not of the Muslim faith EXCEPT that they must not proselytize their faith to Muslims.

The only point I'm trying to make (because I don't support Shar'ia)is that the fundamentalists will always want Shar'ia law to be the ONLY law...but most Muslims themselves resist that. It may be a PART of the law, but it is very rarely fully supported as the complete judicial code.

Actually, under Shar'ia, there is no automatic provision against those who are not of the Muslim faith EXCEPT that they must not proselytize their faith to Muslims.
I'm going to have to go back and check my sources on that. I recall reading that Sharia offered dhimmi (protected second class citizen) status only to monotheists like Christians and Jews, and in some cases it was extended to Hindus.

I'm going to have to go back and check my sources on that. I recall reading that Sharia offered dhimmi (protected second class citizen) status only to monotheists like Christians and Jews, and in some cases it was extended to Hindus.
Hard to say, since Shar'ia law is also based on cultural norms, and not necessarily completely on holy texts. No one likes us atheists anyhow.

I have an idea! Why don't Christians start becoming terrorist extremists and bombing random people and places? Wow, I wonder how anyone could ever come to that train of thought? Why would you EVER consider teaching young children to hate? It is beyond wrong. It is evil. Everyone complains about how Christians in general are not open minded. That isnt true. It's a bunch of hypocrasy. We may have done some messed up stuff in the past but we've changed, why can't they?

I'm going to have to go back and check my sources on that. I recall reading that Sharia offered dhimmi (protected second class citizen) status only to monotheists like Christians and Jews, and in some cases it was extended to Hindus.
As long as you pay Jizya (a submission tax), never build a new church, remove all religious identifications from your existing churches/person, and dress according to the standards of submission laid down by the Cleric in Charge.

My biggest gripe (besides the carnage they cause) is the fact that the posted Splody Dopes (like those in 9/11) are largely from VERY well-to-do Saudi families. These losers can't drink or get a girl, so they figure that blowing themselves up for 72 white raisins is a good way to get laid. These rich funless playboy assholes have access to more liquid cash than most small COUNTRIES and they can't see their way to at least giving it to poor muslims before offing other innocent people (muslims included) when they do themselves.

It's the height of arrogance to protest the largess of America when you come ftom $audi.

Ok, I just took a quick scan through the thread and it didn't look like anyone else pointed this out yet, which is somewhat mindboggling...

http://www.globalterroralert.com/pdf/0705/saudimartyrsiraq.pdf

A very interesting detailed portrait of some "insurgents" and homicide bombers from Saudi Arabia.

And this http://www.globalterroralert.com/pdf/0605/iraqmartyrs0605.pdf

is an even better breakdown of who is who.

That is a breakdown of who is who which only includes foreign fighters reported killed. Not a single Iraqi is included on that list. So... Saudis make up 55% of foreign feighters. Syrians make up 12.7% of foreign fighters.

But did you bother to take one second to look at the total number of foreign fighters that document reported killed in the entire last TWO YEARS?

300.

Do you have any idea how many insurgents have been killed in the last TWO YEARS? I've seen single DAYS where the military was reporting in the neighbourhood of 100 insurgents killed for christs sake. I think the estimates for the Fallujah offensive back in November alone were around 1600. Do you know what a miniscule percentage of the insurgency 300 fighters represents? And you come in here waving that and the profiles of a handful of Saudi Arabian suicide bombers nobody ever denied existed in the first place around like they're demonstrating some profound point about the foreign makeup of the insurgency? Are you kidding?

I have an idea! Why don't Christians start becoming terrorist extremists and bombing random people and places? Wow, I wonder how anyone could ever come to that train of thought? Why would you EVER consider teaching young children to hate? It is beyond wrong. It is evil. Everyone complains about how Christians in general are not open minded. That isnt true. It's a bunch of hypocrasy. We may have done some messed up stuff in the past but we've changed, why can't they?
Riiiiiiiight....because no Christian extremists exist?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/sinuhue/christiansnon-violent.gif

How about Christian violence against homosexuals? (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_gays.htm)

Or, Christian violence against those working in abortion clinics? (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_abortion.htm)

Or Christian violence against those 'Christ killers' (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_holocaust.htm)

Or Christian-Muslim violence that goes both ways in Indonesia? (http://www.contenderministries.org/articles/indonesia.php)

Fanatics abound in all religions. Don't pretend Christians are free of that. They may not have that fanatacism to the same extent as we are now seeing in Islam, but that does not mean Christian fanaticism is a 'thing of the past'.

That is a breakdown of who is who which only includes foreign fighters reported killed. Not a single Iraqi is included on that list. So... Saudis make up 55% of foreign feighters. Syrians make up 12.7% of foreign fighters.

Yeah, I noticed this too...I think most everyone did. WL says that some people have been insisting that there are no Iraqi insurgents, but I've never seen anyone make that claim.

However...good point...during this thread I started thinking that foreign fighters made up the majority of insurgents, which is not something this source says...so, I'm glad you brought this up. *shifts gears again*

At the handover of power the number of foreign fighters in the insurgency was estimated in the "low hundreds". That figure has been revised up to at least 1,000 and the overall figure for the number of insurgents is put at 16,000.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0628-02.htm

Estimated 1000 foreign fighters out of 16,000 total insurgents!!!???

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0628-02.htm
Estimated 1000 foreign fighters out of 16,000 total insurgents!!!???

1/16th is a pretty hefty proportion. (I'm not sure you could say 1/16 of the US Army is Asian {Legs?...})

But it historically it reminds me of the "Military Advisors" we sent to 'Nam before all hell broke loose... :rolleyes: If that 1000 is training the other 16,000 to be as indiscriminate as the other dead $audi $splody-dopes... :headbang:

I wouldn't be surprised if there were 16,000 Baathist leftovers wanting to regain power. I wouldn't even begrudge them their "right" to attack the US military or NeoIraq government installations/troops (and get killed for trying). But I draw the line at attacking civillians, engaging in atrocities like beheadings and other such crap. Stand up and fight. Or Nonviolently Resist, but the rest is bullshit.

Hey, come on folks, WL, Syniks, DC, Tex...someone want to look at these numbers? Does this not in fact validate the belief of those who think that Iraqis themselves are trying to get the US out?

Edit: Ok, Syniks has responded...

Hey, come on folks, WL, Syniks, DC, Tex...someone want to look at these numbers? Does this not in fact validate the belief of those who think that Iraqis themselves are trying to get the US out?
Simulposting strikes again. :D

See above.

regardless of their political affiliation, (and we don't really know if they are all Baathists or not), they are still mostly Iraqis, yes? I kind of thought this thread was trying to say that this was not true? WL?

Hey, come on folks, WL, Syniks, DC, Tex...someone want to look at these numbers? Does this not in fact validate the belief of those who think that Iraqis themselves are trying to get the US out?

Edit: Ok, Syniks has responded...
I think the actual number of foreign fighters is high, but obviously not the majority. I've heard interviews with journalists trying to get into Iraq via Syria prior to the US invasion who said that the vast majority of people in line for travel documents were scary, intense-looking arab men from Saudi Arabia. I'll bet they weren't going there to take pictures and write news copy.

WL says that some people have been insisting that there are no Iraqi insurgents, but I've never seen anyone make that claim.

and i haven't seen any links forthcoming

and i haven't seen any links forthcoming
Well that's fine...I'm not demanding links. I'm just saying I don't think it's a widespread opinion that NO foreigners are insurgents in Iraq. So I'm not sure that argument needs to be made.

I think the actual number of foreign fighters is high, but obviously not the majority. I've heard interviews with journalists trying to get into Iraq via Syria prior to the US invasion who said that the vast majority of people in line for travel documents were scary, intense-looking arab men from Saudi Arabia. I'll bet they weren't going there to take pictures and write news copy.
Well, clearly Iraqis wouldn't be in line for travel documents :D

Answer my question puleez...

regardless of their political affiliation, (and we don't really know if they are all Baathists or not), they are still mostly Iraqis, yes? I kind of thought this thread was trying to say that this was not true? WL?

I'm just saying I don't think it's a widespread opinion that NO foreigners are insurgents in Iraq. So I'm not sure that argument needs to be made.

yeah, but wl claims it is. extraodrinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that. but perhaps he's going to take it back and apologize for making such ridiculous and trivially false claims.

yeah, but wl claims it is. extraodrinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that. but perhaps he's going to take it back and apologize for making such ridiculous and trivially false claims.
Now don't be like that. He doesn't ACTUALLY say that there are more foreign insurgents than domestic ones, and really, if he says he's come across someone claiming that there were NO foreign insurgents, I'm not going to get all crazy and call him a liar. I'm just wondering if he could clarify his point is all.

But since he's offline right now, I guess we'll have to wait!

regardless of their political affiliation, (and we don't really know if they are all Baathists or not), they are still mostly Iraqis, yes? I kind of thought this thread was trying to say that this was not true? WL?
Iraq — Population: 26,074,906 (July 2005 est.)
According to http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2119.html

Estimated Iraqi insurgents, 16,000.

Estimated Iraqis NOT predisposed to kill NeoIraqi/US troops 26,058,906.
Percentage of estimated "insurgent" Iraqis: .06%

We've got more criminal nutburgers per capita than that in the US... but since NeoIraq doesn't even hav a corrupt police force, much less an efficient one...

Not to stray from the topic, a few links that show maybe the foreign fighters aren't wanted:


http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:IO7Rff__0FYJ:www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php%3Farticle%3D719+%22foreign+insurgents%22+iraq&hl=en&start=19&ie=UTF-8

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:a-QRBLVoSxcJ:washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040712-102442-6919r.htm+%22foreign+insurgents%22+iraq&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

www.islamicart.com.... they have a point you know

Hey, come on folks, WL, Syniks, DC, Tex...someone want to look at these numbers? Does this not in fact validate the belief of those who think that Iraqis themselves are trying to get the US out?
I never said that Iraqis weren't trying to get the US out. What I said (a few pages back) is that the vast majority of Iraqi that are involved in the insurgency are minority Baathists and Republican Guard remnants that are pissed that they aren't in power anymore and are trying to destabilize the incoming democratic government in hopes of being able to seize power at a later time.

http://www.globalterroralert.com/pdf/0705/saudimartyrsiraq.pdf

A very interesting detailed portrait of some "insurgents" and homicide bombers from Saudi Arabia.

And this http://www.globalterroralert.com/pdf/0605/iraqmartyrs0605.pdf

is an even better breakdown of who is who.

Stop saying "homocide bomber." It makes you look like an addle headed FOX news viewer. All bombers are homocide bombers! A bomber who isn't a homocide bomber is called a demolition worker.

Do you really think that people are so likely to sympathize with terrorists if you let it be known that they're dying?

Are you so unsure of the rightness of your position that you can't allow that they possess even that amount of humanity?

Or is it that their dedication to their cause shames you into realizing the hypocrisy of your own as an armchair sargeant?

The term "suicide bomber" is not supposed to be a way do differentiate the bombers from all the other suicides that quietly kill themselves with drug overdoses or razor blades. It is supposed to differentiate them from other bombers such as the button pushers behind ICBM's or fighter pilots who send their explosives from a nice safe distance. Unless you're going to start calling our ground troops "homocide sentinels" our fighter pilots "homocide pilots" and our navy personel "homocide sailors" then it is time to stop talking like an idiot and give up the phrase "homocide bomber."

Yes, I've heard quite a few people doubt that any of the insurgents are foreigners. In fact, even on this forum, people have said, "you can't prove that any of the insurgents are foreigners".

Well, here they are.
I have been following the Iraq War threads since I first came to NS back in Feb. of last year, and I truly don't recall anyone suggesting that none of "the insurgents are foreigners".

The biggest differences of opinion have been over whether the "majority" of "insurgents" are Iraqi or from other countries. Those who generally support the War on Iraq appear to be the most vociferious in claiming that the majority of "insurgents" are NOT Iraqis.

The fact remains that the majority of "insurgents" are indeed Iraqi citizens.

I have been following the Iraq War threads since I first came to NS back in Feb. of last year, and I truly don't recall anyone suggesting that none of "the insurgents are foreigners".

The biggest differences of opinion have been over whether the "majority" of "insurgents" are Iraqi or from other countries. Those who generally support the War on Iraq appear to be the most vociferious in claiming that the majority of "insurgents" are NOT Iraqis.

The fact remains that the majority of "insurgents" are indeed Iraqi citizens.

Indeed. I have not seen such claims either. Perhaps I've not been tooling around on the boards as much as some of our forum regulars, but I've never seen any claim more specific than "The vast majority of insurgents/bombers are Iraqi." Or some such statement.

Oh...and "Homicide bomber"? What the heck is wrong with Suicide bomber? Its descriptive and accurate, hardly in need of a more "PC" label.

"Homicide" is murder, so "muder bomber...who happened to commit suicide in the process"? Would that suit you? Its a bit longer, so it doesn't roll off the tounge as well, but its a sight better than "Homicide bomber"...which forgets to mention that the idiot snuffed himself in the process. That's (literally) half the point of a suicide bombing after all.