Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Reaction to the Nick Berg outrage
Topic Started: May 12 2004, 12:50 AM (1,723 Views)
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
somerled
 
Similarly the Viet Cong did this to the Americans and Australians in Viet Nam, the ADF left, and the USA never got on top of the "insurgents" and left.

Similarly the Soviets had the same problems in Afganistan and eventually gave up and left - resulting in the Taliban taking hold. And before that the British empire failed to sort out the Afgans.

Whether he realizes it or not, this poster has stumbled close to the Bush Administration strategy for fighting the War on Terrorism, and probably doesn't even know it. Then again, maybe he does know it, and doesn't want to take the next logical step in the explanation of why these insurgencies succeeded.

Simply put, all these insurgencies had a great deal of secret support from foriegn powers. The only real exception are the 19th Century attempts by the British to exact some sort of control over the Afghani peoples.

The Viet Cong were supported and financed by the North Vietnamese (Russia and China); The Mujahideen in Afghanistan were supported and financed by the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Unless there are extreme instances of gross and wide spread atrocities like what France did to the Algerians, insurgents just don't rise up out of nothing - there is a foreign power funnelling funds and materials to the insurgents.

Part of stopping an insurgency where a foreign power is sponsoring the insurgents, is stopping the funds and materials from reach the insurgents. Stopping the funds and materials can be accomplished by interdicting the supply lines or destroying the source of the supply. But to stop the supplies from reaching the insurgents, first it must be determined where the supplies are originating.

In the case of Iraq, the suppplies are arriving by way of Syria and Iran. To combat the insurgents in Iraq, supplies form Syria and Iran must be stopped. It is illogical to conclude that one can interdict the supply lines due to the vast expanse of deserts, so the nations in question must be seriously considered as a target.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
somerled
May 15 2004, 03:54 AM
Re - Minuet's comment - still sounds like a Freudian Slip on her behalf to me - but if you people disagree or don't think so - then I'll accept that on this occasion.:shrug:
So if I have misinterpreted her response and the :wacko: hidden normative values behind it, then here's my appology.


Somerled, since you haven't produced "said" comment, no one can agree or disagree. Saying that people disagree says that the comment exists and that there are simply different interpretations. You haven't proven that the comment exists yet and therefore cannot comment on how people have responded to something they haven't seen.

BTW, I think you forgot the apology ....





Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Sgt. Jaggs
Member Avatar
How about a Voyager Movie
Dwayne
May 15 2004, 03:30 AM
somerled
 
Similarly the Viet Cong did this to the Americans and Australians in Viet Nam, the ADF left, and the USA never got on top of the "insurgents" and left.

Similarly the Soviets had the same problems in Afganistan and eventually gave up and left - resulting in the Taliban taking hold. And before that the British empire failed to sort out the Afgans.

Whether he realizes it or not, this poster has stumbled close to the Bush Administration strategy for fighting the War on Terrorism, and probably doesn't even know it. Then again, maybe he does know it, and doesn't want to take the next logical step in the explanation of why these insurgencies succeeded.

Simply put, all these insurgencies had a great deal of secret support from foriegn powers. The only real exception are the 19th Century attempts by the British to exact some sort of control over the Afghani peoples.

The Viet Cong were supported and financed by the North Vietnamese (Russia and China); The Mujahideen in Afghanistan were supported and financed by the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Unless there are extreme instances of gross and wide spread atrocities like what France did to the Algerians, insurgents just don't rise up out of nothing - there is a foreign power funnelling funds and materials to the insurgents.

Part of stopping an insurgency where a foreign power is sponsoring the insurgents, is stopping the funds and materials from reach the insurgents. Stopping the funds and materials can be accomplished by interdicting the supply lines or destroying the source of the supply. But to stop the supplies from reaching the insurgents, first it must be determined where the supplies are originating.

In the case of Iraq, the suppplies are arriving by way of Syria and Iran. To combat the insurgents in Iraq, supplies form Syria and Iran must be stopped. It is illogical to conclude that on can interdict the supply lines due to the vast expanse of deserts, so the nations in question must be seriously considered as a target.

:huh: Is that accurate? Syria and Iran are supplying the insurgents? I thought they were supplied by Al-qaeda? Could it be that they are all collaborators?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
somerled
May 14 2004, 11:54 PM
Re - Minuet's comment - still sounds like a Freudian Slip on her behalf to me - but if you people disagree or don't think so - then I'll accept that on this occasion.:shrug:
So if I have misinterpreted her response and the :wacko: hidden normative values behind it, then here's my appology.

This is unbelievable! Are you still harping on the Freudian slip angle? We show you PROOF in the thread you referenced that she DID NOT advocate nuking the Palestinians and you still refuse to admit that you were wrong.

Once again, this is what she said:

Quote:
 
Posted: Apr 19 2004, 03:09 AM
If these people would just change thier charter to include Israel's right to exist and then come and negotiate in good faith then the killing on both sides could stop. Israel does not want to kill Arabs. If that was what they wanted they could have nuked the Palestinians out of existence long ago. They only want to defend thier borders, and they have every right to do so.
LINK

You still owe Minuet a real unconditional apology if you can't come up with REAL PROOF (quotes) that she said what you are accusing her of!!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
24thcenstfan

She's got as much of an appology as she's going to get. If she or you are are not satisfied with it , to be perfectly frank - I don't give a stuff.

Also - if you disagree with my observation then so be it.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
8247
Member Avatar
Apparently we look like this now
^^^^^^


:offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Me wishes we could all get along better. Still, it's a great Board. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Jagalom Shaarek
May 15 2004, 09:10 AM
Dwayne
May 15 2004, 03:30 AM
somerled
 
Similarly the Viet Cong did this to the Americans and Australians in Viet Nam, the ADF left, and the USA never got on top of the "insurgents" and left.

Similarly the Soviets had the same problems in Afganistan and eventually gave up and left - resulting in the Taliban taking hold. And before that the British empire failed to sort out the Afgans.

Whether he realizes it or not, this poster has stumbled close to the Bush Administration strategy for fighting the War on Terrorism, and probably doesn't even know it. Then again, maybe he does know it, and doesn't want to take the next logical step in the explanation of why these insurgencies succeeded.

Simply put, all these insurgencies had a great deal of secret support from foriegn powers. The only real exception are the 19th Century attempts by the British to exact some sort of control over the Afghani peoples.

The Viet Cong were supported and financed by the North Vietnamese (Russia and China); The Mujahideen in Afghanistan were supported and financed by the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Unless there are extreme instances of gross and wide spread atrocities like what France did to the Algerians, insurgents just don't rise up out of nothing - there is a foreign power funnelling funds and materials to the insurgents.

Part of stopping an insurgency where a foreign power is sponsoring the insurgents, is stopping the funds and materials from reach the insurgents. Stopping the funds and materials can be accomplished by interdicting the supply lines or destroying the source of the supply. But to stop the supplies from reaching the insurgents, first it must be determined where the supplies are originating.

In the case of Iraq, the suppplies are arriving by way of Syria and Iran. To combat the insurgents in Iraq, supplies form Syria and Iran must be stopped. It is illogical to conclude that on can interdict the supply lines due to the vast expanse of deserts, so the nations in question must be seriously considered as a target.

:huh: Is that accurate? Syria and Iran are supplying the insurgents? I thought they were supplied by Al-qaeda? Could it be that they are all collaborators?

There are many in the intelligence community that believe that Syria is funnelling funds and materials to the Sunni's in Fallujah and Iraq is funnelling funds and materials to the rebelous Shi'a cleric al-Sadr.

But yes, to one degree or another, they are all connected.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Quote:
 
The example you gave of Moscow is not really applicable - and no one in Iraq is currently engaged in Total War. Engaging in total warfare against the "insurgents" in Iraq would be huge mistake and is not the answer.


Let's see what has occured within Iraq's borders:

1. The Muslems have attacked civilian contracters trying to fix Iraq's infrastructure. This proves that civilians are targets.

2. The Muslems have executed captured civilians. This proves that they will willingly execute their prisoners.

3. The Muslems are using weapons of war such as RPGs, Heavy machine guns, morters, and mines.

I think the only reason that you don't think the Muslems are waging total war in Iraq is because they aren't launching air strikes or attacking our fleets with submarines. And while I would bet my bottom dollar that they would if they could, they could no more afford these weapons then I could.

So the question is, what else do they have to do before you think they are waging total war against us? Pull off a major attack on American soil? Oh... damn they already did that.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
somerled
May 15 2004, 11:42 AM
24thcenstfan

She's got as much of an appology as she's going to get. If she or you are are not satisfied with it , to be perfectly frank - I don't give a stuff.

Also - if you disagree with my observation then so be it.

Well Somerled, I am putting you on official notice. The next time you make an accusation that cannot be backed up the accusation is simply going to disappear. That's right. I am warning you in advance that I can and will use my administrative powers to eliminate your childish and boorish behaviour.

You are entitled to your opinions, but if you dare to post any more lies about others be prepared to pay the penalty.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
^^^

Censorship, Censorship!!!!

I couldn't resist.

Really, though, Somerled made a claim he could readily verify and has failed to sustatiate the claim after given nunmerous attempts.

I'd let the statement stand. If nothing else then as a tribute to his stupidity and the Australain educational system. And he says I was napping when they taught critical thought.

Argument 101: Somerled, you must verify your claims.

Minuet wins by defualt.

ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Somerled:

When are you going to adress my claim that Terrorism is niether a criminal act nor a military act and must be solved using new laws that can preempt terrorist activity.

The normal criminal justice system was not designed to deal with terrorosim.
The geneva convention was meant to adress the behavior of national forces.

New laws must be paased and the geneva convention must be modified to strip terrorist of any rightds while maintaining due process for the accused.

Adress it, or is it above your level of comprehension?

ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
ANOVA
May 15 2004, 09:55 PM
^^^

Censorship, Censorship!!!!

I couldn't resist.

Really, though, Somerled made a claim he could readily verify and has failed to sustatiate the claim after given nunmerous attempts.

I'd let the statement stand. If nothing else then as a tribute to his stupidity and the Australain educational system.  And he says I was napping when they taught critical thought.

Argument 101: Somerled, you must verify your claims.

Minuet wins by defualt.

ANOVA

:loling: :loling:

Just one correction - He couldn't readily verify anything because he fabricated a lie. I have never and would never advocate using nuclear weapons.

Oh, and you might retract your point about the Australian education system as Captain Proton_au is proof that it's not the education system that is responsible for Somerled's shortfalls.

As for censorship - just to clarify, if Somerled provides an immediate link to prove his claims he will not be censored. Anything removed will be saved and if proof of it's veracity can be provided the comments will be reposted. And this is only when he attacks an individual. His opinion - however unplesant as I may find it, will not be censored, only challenged as I have been doing up to this point.

Somerled - this approach has been discussed with Wichita. Stick to actual facts and not vindictive lies and you will not face any censorship. That is a promise.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 


Oh, and you might retract your point about the Australian education system as Captain Proton_au is proof that it's not the education system that is responsible for Somerled's shortfalls


I stand corrected and do hereby give an uneqivocal apology to Cpt.proton and all other well educated and thoughtful Austrailains.

'nuff said.

ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Ah! Ruling Sister is watching and the thought police are listening - be warned all . :hail: :hail: :hail: :hail: Queen M.

I hope you will apply the same rule to other posters as well.

So - who censors the censors ?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus