| 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: |
| Reaction to the Nick Berg outrage | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 12 2004, 12:50 AM (1,723 Views) | |
| Dwayne | May 15 2004, 03:30 AM Post #121 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
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 | May 15 2004, 05:56 AM Post #122 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
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 | May 15 2004, 09:10 AM Post #123 |
|
How about a Voyager Movie
|
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 | May 15 2004, 10:14 AM Post #124 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
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: 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 | May 15 2004, 10:42 AM Post #125 |
|
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 | May 15 2004, 10:51 AM Post #126 |
|
Apparently we look like this now
|
^^^^^^ :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | May 15 2004, 12:27 PM Post #127 |
|
Admiral
|
Me wishes we could all get along better. Still, it's a great Board.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | May 15 2004, 12:45 PM Post #128 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
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 | May 15 2004, 12:54 PM Post #129 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
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 | May 15 2004, 04:40 PM Post #130 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
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 | May 15 2004, 08:55 PM Post #131 |
|
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 | May 15 2004, 09:00 PM Post #132 |
|
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 | May 15 2004, 09:11 PM Post #133 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
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 | May 15 2004, 09:17 PM Post #134 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
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 | May 16 2004, 03:01 AM Post #135 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Ah! Ruling Sister is watching and the thought police are listening - be warned all . Queen M.I hope you will apply the same rule to other posters as well. So - who censors the censors ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Sign-up Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


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?

9:12 AM Jul 11