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
Mentally disabled women used to kill in Iraq
Topic Started: Feb 1 2008, 01:41 PM (638 Views)
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Yo-Yo
Feb 2 2008, 10:26 PM
somerled
Feb 2 2008, 09:49 PM
Yo-Yo
Feb 3 2008, 12:35 PM
A few points. First the US already has jamming technology which they use in their patrols though it is still not full proof.

Second, I believe your statement to be impractical, we are talking about a country. Do you know how many public gathering places there a in Baghdad alone? Try just counting mosques to start with, the more on to schools, markets, parks, etc.

To cover all that you have to jam and block cell phone and radio all over. In other words you would be denying all Iraqis cellphone and radio communication. Is this what you are advocating?

Most of the attacks are soft targets , ie public gatherings , so what the USA mililtary do to protect themselves when on patrol is of no value , and anyway , soldiers are a legitimate target for the insurgents , and for al Quaeda and if some of them are killed that is a cost of being an occupying army who is not welcome.

The effective range of mobile base stations is very limited, so selectively turning off base stations near known public gathering places will mean this will work and be effective.

You're missing the issue of prevention. The US can equip their vehicles with jamming equipment because they know that they are targets. For the communal places, you don't. You only know that some will be targets but don't know which or when. There are too many to cover unless, again, you want to deny communications almost all Iraqis.

Of course he wants to deny communications to all Iraqis.

That would give him another excuse to villify the US. After all that would be collective punishment and we all know that is not allowed. :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Minuet
Feb 3 2008, 01:39 PM
Yo-Yo
Feb 2 2008, 10:26 PM
somerled
Feb 2 2008, 09:49 PM
Yo-Yo
Feb 3 2008, 12:35 PM
A few points. First the US already has jamming technology which they use in their patrols though it is still not full proof.

Second, I believe your statement to be impractical, we are talking about a country. Do you know how many public gathering places there a in Baghdad alone? Try just counting mosques to start with, the more on to schools, markets, parks, etc.

To cover all that you have to jam and block cell phone and radio all over. In other words you would be denying all Iraqis cellphone and radio communication. Is this what you are advocating?

Most of the attacks are soft targets , ie public gatherings , so what the USA mililtary do to protect themselves when on patrol is of no value , and anyway , soldiers are a legitimate target for the insurgents , and for al Quaeda and if some of them are killed that is a cost of being an occupying army who is not welcome.

The effective range of mobile base stations is very limited, so selectively turning off base stations near known public gathering places will mean this will work and be effective.

You're missing the issue of prevention. The US can equip their vehicles with jamming equipment because they know that they are targets. For the communal places, you don't. You only know that some will be targets but don't know which or when. There are too many to cover unless, again, you want to deny communications almost all Iraqis.

Of course he wants to deny communications to all Iraqis.

That would give him another excuse to villify the US. After all that would be collective punishment and we all know that is not allowed. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: If you had any knowledge of telecommunications engineering you would not make such a stupid statement.

It would not be necessary to deny telecomms by the Iraqi mobile phone network to all Iraqis through out all Iraq.
Turning off mobile phone base (repeater) stations in locations where people gather will only deny mobile phone coverage in restricted areas that surround these locations. (Their handset will not detect a base station signal and so will not be able use mobile phones there).

I suggest before you say something else that is stupid and uninformed , that you find out a little about how the mobile phone network actually works and why base (repeater) stations are necessary in cellular networks.

I could explain this to you in great detail , but wont , as I regard that exercise as a poinltless in your case.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
somerled
Feb 3 2008, 12:35 AM
ds9074
Feb 3 2008, 12:50 AM
somerled
Feb 2 2008, 12:55 PM
8247
Feb 2 2008, 08:28 PM
^^

I can't think of a better reason to keep killing them on sight...Other than them using kids for the same thing, or beheading people who don't follow their beliefs.

For these women, and the kids those cowards used, I hope there is a special place in Heaven for them.

For the scum that made them do it, I hope there is an especially hot place in hell for them...And, I hope its an American soldier who sends them there.

Those of you who think that diplomacy is the answer...How do you talk to people like this, and why would you want to?

I don't think shooting suspects on sight is the answer.

Unfortunately this is a mess that is the USA's making , and so long as the USA has troops there, this kind of thing will keep on happening ,and the victims wont be predominantly american soldiers , it will continue to be innocent Iraqi civilians who happen to be in wrong place at the wrong time.

That said , there are easy and practical technological solutions to remote detonated bombs that can easily be implimented right now.

This isnt a mess that is the USA's making. It is al-Qaeda and the Islamist terrorists who have created the problem.

Imagine where Iraq could be today if there had been no terrorist attacks, kidnappings etc after the fall of Saddam. It could have been well on its way to being one of the most prosperous and democratic nations in the region.

The USA has not tried to prevent it from reaching that goal of being stable and prosperous. That is the goal the US shares for that country. Its the terrorists who are scared of a stable, prosperous, democratic and pro-western Iraq. Its the terrorists who are so scared by the idea that they will stop at nothing, including this use of disabled women, in an attempt to derail it.

As for "easy and practical" technological solutions... I think that if they existed as a viable option and were really so easy and pratical then the most technologically advanced nation on the planet - the US - would have used them.

8247
 
Those of you who think that diplomacy is the answer...How do you talk to people like this, and why would you want to?

You dont talk to the people involved in the terrorism but you do need diplomacy and political development to isolate the terrorists.

What happened in Northern Ireland shows why you would want to use diplomacy because ultimately diplomacy and negotiation is the only acceptable answer to the overall problem.

I completely disagree , had the USA not invaded Iraq in the first place, then Iraq would not NOW be the problem it is now, and al Quaeda would not be there.

In fact , the middle east would now be a very much more stable region.

So the fact the al Quaeda s now using suciide bombers , and also in the latest case , shanghying intellectually disabled peoiple to be bomb vest carriers (and essentially murdering them when they the bombs they are unwittenly wearing are remotely detonated) still does not take the ultimate blame away from the USA.

al Quaeda is there because the USA is there .... that is FACT.
al Quaeda was not active in Iraq before the invasion ... FACT.

Its true al-Qaeda are active in Iraq now whereas they werent before the overthrow of Saddam, but that doesnt change the FACT that the USA has not created the problem of terrorism there - the terrorists have.

Its also FACT that al-Qaeda have really just replaced one sort of brutality under Saddam with another sort. Yet this time the Iraqis have a chance of defeating that brutality and taking charge of their own destiny.

I personally didnt agree with the invasion of Iraq. The case given was flimsy (bordering on false), there were arguably other priorities for our military capacity and money.

I also however disagree with those who a) seem to blame the USA for all of Iraqs problems b) look at Saddams regime through rose-tinted glasses. You wonder whether they actually want a democratic Iraq to fail just so they can be proved right.

I remember here just after the troops went in there was a split here between those who had previously been against the war. Some said that although they didnt agree with it, now the troops were in thats history - the important thing is that we suceed. Others went so far as to call on our troops to mutiny and fail in their mission.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
somerled
Feb 3 2008, 02:44 AM
I could explain this to you in great detail , but wont , as I regard that exercise as a poinltless in your case.

If she's interested then she could always google it herself. :P
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Yo-Yo
Member Avatar
Captain
somerled
Feb 3 2008, 04:44 AM
Minuet
Feb 3 2008, 01:39 PM
Yo-Yo
Feb 2 2008, 10:26 PM
somerled
Feb 2 2008, 09:49 PM
Yo-Yo
Feb 3 2008, 12:35 PM
A few points. First the US already has jamming technology which they use in their patrols though it is still not full proof.

Second, I believe your statement to be impractical, we are talking about a country. Do you know how many public gathering places there a in Baghdad alone? Try just counting mosques to start with, the more on to schools, markets, parks, etc.

To cover all that you have to jam and block cell phone and radio all over. In other words you would be denying all Iraqis cellphone and radio communication. Is this what you are advocating?

Most of the attacks are soft targets , ie public gatherings , so what the USA mililtary do to protect themselves when on patrol is of no value , and anyway , soldiers are a legitimate target for the insurgents , and for al Quaeda and if some of them are killed that is a cost of being an occupying army who is not welcome.

The effective range of mobile base stations is very limited, so selectively turning off base stations near known public gathering places will mean this will work and be effective.

You're missing the issue of prevention. The US can equip their vehicles with jamming equipment because they know that they are targets. For the communal places, you don't. You only know that some will be targets but don't know which or when. There are too many to cover unless, again, you want to deny communications almost all Iraqis.

Of course he wants to deny communications to all Iraqis.

That would give him another excuse to villify the US. After all that would be collective punishment and we all know that is not allowed. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: If you had any knowledge of telecommunications engineering you would not make such a stupid statement.

It would not be necessary to deny telecomms by the Iraqi mobile phone network to all Iraqis through out all Iraq.
Turning off mobile phone base (repeater) stations in locations where people gather will only deny mobile phone coverage in restricted areas that surround these locations. (Their handset will not detect a base station signal and so will not be able use mobile phones there).

I suggest before you say something else that is stupid and uninformed , that you find out a little about how the mobile phone network actually works and why base (repeater) stations are necessary in cellular networks.

I could explain this to you in great detail , but wont , as I regard that exercise as a poinltless in your case.

Surprising that you are so quick to insult Min when again for the apparent second time you have apparently missed the point in my posts.

Baghdad does not have 2 or 3 communal locations. Like any normal city it has thousands all over from markets, mosques, public centers, schools, etc.. As I had explained above, US soldiers can equip their vehicles because they know that they will be targeted. But for all these public areas no know which on or when. So to protect them all you would have to deny cellphone and radio communication to all of them. That would essentially cover the whole city. I.e. all Iraqis in Baghdad. Now if you were to expand that model in order to protect all Iraqi cities, towns and villages what would that add up to...?

Though multiple cellphone towers are required to cover a city. Each one is not so small in coverage that shutting one down would only darken a market place and not a larger surrounding area.

Another issue is that cell phone coverage is not so "cellular" where towers cover defined 'cells' in a city. Rather the coverage of these towers intentionally overlap which means shutting down a town may not stop reception in a public area. Other towers that over lap my need to be shut down as well which means again, you are starting to affect large parts of the city. Again multiply that by all the public place in one city alone and i'm sure you can do the math.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
somerled
Feb 3 2008, 04:44 AM
Minuet
Feb 3 2008, 01:39 PM
Yo-Yo
Feb 2 2008, 10:26 PM
somerled
Feb 2 2008, 09:49 PM
Yo-Yo
Feb 3 2008, 12:35 PM
A few points. First the US already has jamming technology which they use in their patrols though it is still not full proof.

Second, I believe your statement to be impractical, we are talking about a country. Do you know how many public gathering places there a in Baghdad alone? Try just counting mosques to start with, the more on to schools, markets, parks, etc.

To cover all that you have to jam and block cell phone and radio all over. In other words you would be denying all Iraqis cellphone and radio communication. Is this what you are advocating?

Most of the attacks are soft targets , ie public gatherings , so what the USA mililtary do to protect themselves when on patrol is of no value , and anyway , soldiers are a legitimate target for the insurgents , and for al Quaeda and if some of them are killed that is a cost of being an occupying army who is not welcome.

The effective range of mobile base stations is very limited, so selectively turning off base stations near known public gathering places will mean this will work and be effective.

You're missing the issue of prevention. The US can equip their vehicles with jamming equipment because they know that they are targets. For the communal places, you don't. You only know that some will be targets but don't know which or when. There are too many to cover unless, again, you want to deny communications almost all Iraqis.

Of course he wants to deny communications to all Iraqis.

That would give him another excuse to villify the US. After all that would be collective punishment and we all know that is not allowed. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: If you had any knowledge of telecommunications engineering you would not make such a stupid statement.

It would not be necessary to deny telecomms by the Iraqi mobile phone network to all Iraqis through out all Iraq.
Turning off mobile phone base (repeater) stations in locations where people gather will only deny mobile phone coverage in restricted areas that surround these locations. (Their handset will not detect a base station signal and so will not be able use mobile phones there).

I suggest before you say something else that is stupid and uninformed , that you find out a little about how the mobile phone network actually works and why base (repeater) stations are necessary in cellular networks.

I could explain this to you in great detail , but wont , as I regard that exercise as a poinltless in your case.

Yo-Yo made the comment about denying communications. I only stated why it would serve your interest to do so.

If you have a problem with the logistics then explain yourself to Yo-Yo.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
RTW
Feb 4 2008, 03:02 AM
somerled
Feb 3 2008, 02:44 AM
I could explain this to you in great detail , but wont , as I regard that exercise as a poinltless in your case.

If she's interested then she could always google it herself. :P

Yes she could (she could probably locate on line lecture notes that will tell her something there), or she could visit a library and borrow a book.

I don't expect her to take univrersity courses on telecommunications engineerung (which I did as part of my Bachelor of Compiuter Engineering = subjects at 100 and 200 level, a couple at 300 level and also an advanced 400 level subject).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Yo-Yo
Feb 4 2008, 03:32 AM
somerled
Feb 3 2008, 04:44 AM
Minuet
Feb 3 2008, 01:39 PM
Yo-Yo
Feb 2 2008, 10:26 PM
somerled
Feb 2 2008, 09:49 PM
Yo-Yo
Feb 3 2008, 12:35 PM
A few points. First the US already has jamming technology which they use in their patrols though it is still not full proof.

Second, I believe your statement to be impractical, we are talking about a country. Do you know how many public gathering places there a in Baghdad alone? Try just counting mosques to start with, the more on to schools, markets, parks, etc.

To cover all that you have to jam and block cell phone and radio all over. In other words you would be denying all Iraqis cellphone and radio communication. Is this what you are advocating?

Most of the attacks are soft targets , ie public gatherings , so what the USA mililtary do to protect themselves when on patrol is of no value , and anyway , soldiers are a legitimate target for the insurgents , and for al Quaeda and if some of them are killed that is a cost of being an occupying army who is not welcome.

The effective range of mobile base stations is very limited, so selectively turning off base stations near known public gathering places will mean this will work and be effective.

You're missing the issue of prevention. The US can equip their vehicles with jamming equipment because they know that they are targets. For the communal places, you don't. You only know that some will be targets but don't know which or when. There are too many to cover unless, again, you want to deny communications almost all Iraqis.

Of course he wants to deny communications to all Iraqis.

That would give him another excuse to villify the US. After all that would be collective punishment and we all know that is not allowed. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: If you had any knowledge of telecommunications engineering you would not make such a stupid statement.

It would not be necessary to deny telecomms by the Iraqi mobile phone network to all Iraqis through out all Iraq.
Turning off mobile phone base (repeater) stations in locations where people gather will only deny mobile phone coverage in restricted areas that surround these locations. (Their handset will not detect a base station signal and so will not be able use mobile phones there).

I suggest before you say something else that is stupid and uninformed , that you find out a little about how the mobile phone network actually works and why base (repeater) stations are necessary in cellular networks.

I could explain this to you in great detail , but wont , as I regard that exercise as a poinltless in your case.

Surprising that you are so quick to insult Min when again for the apparent second time you have apparently missed the point in my posts.

Baghdad does not have 2 or 3 communal locations. Like any normal city it has thousands all over from markets, mosques, public centers, schools, etc.. As I had explained above, US soldiers can equip their vehicles because they know that they will be targeted. But for all these public areas no know which on or when. So to protect them all you would have to deny cellphone and radio communication to all of them. That would essentially cover the whole city. I.e. all Iraqis in Baghdad. Now if you were to expand that model in order to protect all Iraqi cities, towns and villages what would that add up to...?

Though multiple cellphone towers are required to cover a city. Each one is not so small in coverage that shutting one down would only darken a market place and not a larger surrounding area.

Another issue is that cell phone coverage is not so "cellular" where towers cover defined 'cells' in a city. Rather the coverage of these towers intentionally overlap which means shutting down a town may not stop reception in a public area. Other towers that over lap my need to be shut down as well which means again, you are starting to affect large parts of the city. Again multiply that by all the public place in one city alone and i'm sure you can do the math.

Yes there iis overlap.

Areas in a city can be made dead zones wrt cellular networks very easily.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Yo-Yo
Member Avatar
Captain
somerled
Feb 3 2008, 07:13 PM
Yo-Yo
Feb 4 2008, 03:32 AM
somerled
Feb 3 2008, 04:44 AM
Minuet
Feb 3 2008, 01:39 PM
Yo-Yo
Feb 2 2008, 10:26 PM
somerled
Feb 2 2008, 09:49 PM
Yo-Yo
Feb 3 2008, 12:35 PM
A few points. First the US already has jamming technology which they use in their patrols though it is still not full proof.

Second, I believe your statement to be impractical, we are talking about a country. Do you know how many public gathering places there a in Baghdad alone? Try just counting mosques to start with, the more on to schools, markets, parks, etc.

To cover all that you have to jam and block cell phone and radio all over. In other words you would be denying all Iraqis cellphone and radio communication. Is this what you are advocating?

Most of the attacks are soft targets , ie public gatherings , so what the USA mililtary do to protect themselves when on patrol is of no value , and anyway , soldiers are a legitimate target for the insurgents , and for al Quaeda and if some of them are killed that is a cost of being an occupying army who is not welcome.

The effective range of mobile base stations is very limited, so selectively turning off base stations near known public gathering places will mean this will work and be effective.

You're missing the issue of prevention. The US can equip their vehicles with jamming equipment because they know that they are targets. For the communal places, you don't. You only know that some will be targets but don't know which or when. There are too many to cover unless, again, you want to deny communications almost all Iraqis.

Of course he wants to deny communications to all Iraqis.

That would give him another excuse to villify the US. After all that would be collective punishment and we all know that is not allowed. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: If you had any knowledge of telecommunications engineering you would not make such a stupid statement.

It would not be necessary to deny telecomms by the Iraqi mobile phone network to all Iraqis through out all Iraq.
Turning off mobile phone base (repeater) stations in locations where people gather will only deny mobile phone coverage in restricted areas that surround these locations. (Their handset will not detect a base station signal and so will not be able use mobile phones there).

I suggest before you say something else that is stupid and uninformed , that you find out a little about how the mobile phone network actually works and why base (repeater) stations are necessary in cellular networks.

I could explain this to you in great detail , but wont , as I regard that exercise as a poinltless in your case.

Surprising that you are so quick to insult Min when again for the apparent second time you have apparently missed the point in my posts.

Baghdad does not have 2 or 3 communal locations. Like any normal city it has thousands all over from markets, mosques, public centers, schools, etc.. As I had explained above, US soldiers can equip their vehicles because they know that they will be targeted. But for all these public areas no know which on or when. So to protect them all you would have to deny cellphone and radio communication to all of them. That would essentially cover the whole city. I.e. all Iraqis in Baghdad. Now if you were to expand that model in order to protect all Iraqi cities, towns and villages what would that add up to...?

Though multiple cellphone towers are required to cover a city. Each one is not so small in coverage that shutting one down would only darken a market place and not a larger surrounding area.

Another issue is that cell phone coverage is not so "cellular" where towers cover defined 'cells' in a city. Rather the coverage of these towers intentionally overlap which means shutting down a town may not stop reception in a public area. Other towers that over lap my need to be shut down as well which means again, you are starting to affect large parts of the city. Again multiply that by all the public place in one city alone and i'm sure you can do the math.

Yes there iis overlap.

Areas in a city can be made dead zones wrt cellular networks very easily.

Yes dead zone can be created, but tightly confined ones - not so easily in the least (maybe impossible in a practical sense). And again, the issue remains that any public place is a target, to make them all dark would essentially require making the entire city dark. This part of the reason why US and coalition forces have been unable to effectively protect Iraqi public places from remotely detonated explosives.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
somerled
Feb 3 2008, 07:06 PM
RTW
Feb 4 2008, 03:02 AM
somerled
Feb 3 2008, 02:44 AM
I could explain this to you in great detail , but wont , as I regard that exercise as a poinltless in your case.

If she's interested then she could always google it herself. :P

Yes she could (she could probably locate on line lecture notes that will tell her something there), or she could visit a library and borrow a book.

I don't expect her to take univrersity courses on telecommunications engineerung (which I did as part of my Bachelor of Compiuter Engineering = subjects at 100 and 200 level, a couple at 300 level and also an advanced 400 level subject).

I repeat

Quote:
 
Yo-Yo made the comment about denying communications. I only stated why it would serve your interest to do so.

If you have a problem with the logistics then explain yourself to Yo-Yo.


Your reading comprehension skills are deplorable.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Minuet
Feb 4 2008, 01:59 PM
somerled
Feb 3 2008, 07:06 PM
RTW
Feb 4 2008, 03:02 AM
somerled
Feb 3 2008, 02:44 AM
I could explain this to you in great detail , but wont , as I regard that exercise as a poinltless in your case.

If she's interested then she could always google it herself. :P

Yes she could (she could probably locate on line lecture notes that will tell her something there), or she could visit a library and borrow a book.

I don't expect her to take univrersity courses on telecommunications engineerung (which I did as part of my Bachelor of Compiuter Engineering = subjects at 100 and 200 level, a couple at 300 level and also an advanced 400 level subject).

I repeat

Quote:
 
Yo-Yo made the comment about denying communications. I only stated why it would serve your interest to do so.

If you have a problem with the logistics then explain yourself to Yo-Yo.


Your reading comprehension skills are deplorable.

:rolleyes: Is that the best you can do ?

Since you are still having a hissy fit , I will be letting you stew in your own juices as Ilve better things to do than playing your pathetic and vindictive little games.

You really are not worth my wasting my time on you.


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
somerled
Feb 4 2008, 07:15 AM
Minuet
Feb 4 2008, 01:59 PM
somerled
Feb 3 2008, 07:06 PM
RTW
Feb 4 2008, 03:02 AM
somerled
Feb 3 2008, 02:44 AM
I could explain this to you in great detail , but wont , as I regard that exercise as a poinltless in your case.

If she's interested then she could always google it herself. :P

Yes she could (she could probably locate on line lecture notes that will tell her something there), or she could visit a library and borrow a book.

I don't expect her to take univrersity courses on telecommunications engineerung (which I did as part of my Bachelor of Compiuter Engineering = subjects at 100 and 200 level, a couple at 300 level and also an advanced 400 level subject).

I repeat

Quote:
 
Yo-Yo made the comment about denying communications. I only stated why it would serve your interest to do so.

If you have a problem with the logistics then explain yourself to Yo-Yo.


Your reading comprehension skills are deplorable.

:rolleyes: Is that the best you can do ?

Since you are still having a hissy fit , I will be letting you stew in your own juices as Ilve better things to do than playing your pathetic and vindictive little games.

You really are not worth my wasting my time on you.

So why do you keep bothering. I am not having a hissy fit - but this comment certainly shows which one of us is getting emotional. :rolleyes:

Even Yo-Yo commented on your continuing to insult me rather then respond to his well thought out points.

Yo-Yo made the statement that you chose to insult me over. I made no statement of any kind about whether or not it was possible to do what you wanted. Yo-Yo stated it was impossible and then you said that if I had any knowledge of telecommunications I would not have made such a stupid statement.

You owe me an apology.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
Feb 2 2008, 07:35 PM
ds9074
Feb 3 2008, 12:50 AM
somerled
Feb 2 2008, 12:55 PM
8247
Feb 2 2008, 08:28 PM
^^

I can't think of a better reason to keep killing them on sight...Other than them using kids for the same thing, or beheading people who don't follow their beliefs.

For these women, and the kids those cowards used, I hope there is a special place in Heaven for them.

For the scum that made them do it, I hope there is an especially hot place in hell for them...And, I hope its an American soldier who sends them there.

Those of you who think that diplomacy is the answer...How do you talk to people like this, and why would you want to?

I don't think shooting suspects on sight is the answer.

Unfortunately this is a mess that is the USA's making , and so long as the USA has troops there, this kind of thing will keep on happening ,and the victims wont be predominantly american soldiers , it will continue to be innocent Iraqi civilians who happen to be in wrong place at the wrong time.

That said , there are easy and practical technological solutions to remote detonated bombs that can easily be implimented right now.

This isnt a mess that is the USA's making. It is al-Qaeda and the Islamist terrorists who have created the problem.

Imagine where Iraq could be today if there had been no terrorist attacks, kidnappings etc after the fall of Saddam. It could have been well on its way to being one of the most prosperous and democratic nations in the region.

The USA has not tried to prevent it from reaching that goal of being stable and prosperous. That is the goal the US shares for that country. Its the terrorists who are scared of a stable, prosperous, democratic and pro-western Iraq. Its the terrorists who are so scared by the idea that they will stop at nothing, including this use of disabled women, in an attempt to derail it.

As for "easy and practical" technological solutions... I think that if they existed as a viable option and were really so easy and pratical then the most technologically advanced nation on the planet - the US - would have used them.

8247
 
Those of you who think that diplomacy is the answer...How do you talk to people like this, and why would you want to?

You dont talk to the people involved in the terrorism but you do need diplomacy and political development to isolate the terrorists.

What happened in Northern Ireland shows why you would want to use diplomacy because ultimately diplomacy and negotiation is the only acceptable answer to the overall problem.

I completely disagree , had the USA not invaded Iraq in the first place, then Iraq would not NOW be the problem it is now, and al Quaeda would not be there.

In fact , the middle east would now be a very much more stable region.

So the fact the al Quaeda s now using suciide bombers , and also in the latest case , shanghying intellectually disabled peoiple to be bomb vest carriers (and essentially murdering them when they the bombs they are unwittenly wearing are remotely detonated) still does not take the ultimate blame away from the USA.

al Quaeda is there because the USA is there .... that is FACT.
al Quaeda was not active in Iraq before the invasion ... FACT.

You really need to separate FACT from your opinion of what reaity is.

As for your condescending explanation of wireless telecommunications, is there any course you haven't taken?? :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Somerled, you make a lot of points buy saying such as "if knew as much as I do about (insert techinical jargon here), you wouldn't be saying such and such.". But then, when called out, you go off into the weeds changing the subject and posting abunch techno-babble from some website or another while never addressing the point. This is very weak in my opinion.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
somerled
Feb 2 2008, 07:35 PM
I completely disagree , had the USA not invaded Iraq in the first place, then Iraq would not NOW be the problem it is now, and al Quaeda would not be there.

In fact , the middle east would now be a very much more stable region.

Let's just say, for the sake of discussion, that you are right about the above quote (and I'm not agreeing that you are).

Even so, below doesn't follow:

Quote:
 


So the fact the al Quaeda s now using suciide bombers , and also in the latest case , shanghying intellectually disabled peoiple to be bomb vest carriers (and essentially murdering them when they the bombs they are unwittenly wearing are remotely detonated) still does not take the ultimate blame away from the USA.

al Quaeda is there because the USA is there .... that is FACT.
al Quaeda was not active in Iraq before the invasion ... FACT.

Here are some real facts:
FACT: al Qaeda, not the US, chose to use suicide bombers.
FACT: al Qaeda, not the US, chose to use mentally disabled people.
FACT: al Qaeda, not the US, chose detonate the bombs.
FACT: al Qaeda, not the US, chose to murder/injure those who died/were injured from the bombs.
FACT: As such, the ULTIMATE blame (as you put it) rests with al Qaeda, even IF you can pin any indirect responsibility on the US (and I'm not saying you can).

The logic you are trying to use is like blaming someone who left their door unlocked for their house being robbed. While the homeowner certainly didn't do a good job of protecting their house, they are certainly not responsible - the thief is. And, more accurately, your logic is more like guessing the homeowner left the door unlocked without verifying it first and then blaming the homeowner anyway.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus