are things as simple as good and evil?

[markthestab]

although i hate them i can respect some of the insurgency in iraq for attack military targets in a brave way, ie ambush on convoy with rpgs etc

i cant respect, sympathise or find any common ground with anyone who thinks its acceptable to detonate explosives with the main goal of killing and maiming innocent people, these people are too far gone, thier idiology is completly nuts, and i can only see it in terms of good and evil

good-(britain)-attacking armed people, keeping people safe, patroling the streets bringing secuirity and rebuilding the city, wearing berets and looking approachable winning the battle of hearts and minds, living off compo and stealing kit off each other

good but missguided and ever so slighty dodgy-(america) attempting to kill armed people but not clearly identifying targets before shooting and consequently blowing the shit out of anything that moves good or bad sometimes british forces sometimes innocents.

wearing more kit than a british soldier owns, including kevlar, helmet and mirrored glasses just to take away that last little bit of humanity

hiding inside a huge city run by a huge corporation where arcade machines, pool tables and fast food are on tap at the US taxpayers expence whilst average iraqi struggles for the bare minmum and theres no money to build the essentials

bad-islamic c@#t often from abroad who kidnap people and lop their heads off, plant car bombs aimed at murdering hundreds of innocents in the hope of stirring up civil war, destroy and sabotage the water, electricity and oil supplies of iraqis who just want to experiance a normal life

[cosmo]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=45203

[Wee Willy Winkie]

bloody hell, that article shows its gone past AK's, car bombs and RPG's now. Of course it could be false. W.W.W

[Mr Mojo Risin]

thats one hell of a shit storm if it is right but im inclined to think its a load of shite to be honest.

[markthestab]

what a load of crap

would be big newsif it was true not on some obscure website

[Bliartheliar]

I know I will get a lot of neative feedback for saying this, but I actually have respect for the insugency - by that I mean Iraqi and other Muslims who flock to Iraq to attack military targets.

I DO NOT MEAN THOSE WHO USE TERRORISM AND WHO ATTACK CIVILAN'S OR KIDNAP PEOPLE

Churchill payed homage to Rommel after the end of WW2 - Rommel was one of Hitlers commanders, but he fought for Germany and not Nazism. He was a soldier, not a cold blooded killer.

The same could be said to any angry Muslims around the world, who chooses to fight for what he sees as Western agression and who refuses to adopt terrorism as his tactic.

When people here of Muslim extremists, they gut instinct is to think of Bin Laden and terrorists. The role of Bin Laden was to radicalise Muslims to rise up against western influence, etc, etc. Radicals are not neccessary terrorists - infact the majority are peaceful, a smaller number are more extreme (ie: they take up arms) but only tiny minority choose to commit terrorist atrocities. The fact that terrorism involves spectacular attacks, causing fear and panic throughout society means that they pack a punch out of all proportion to thier size. However, terrorism can work both ways - it may inspire others to go out and do the same, but equally terrorism and cause outrage amongst the Muslim world.

We have seen that in England these past few days - a minority (a few thousand at most) symptahise with the attackers while a even samller minority (hundreds) support thier methods or are prepared to follow suit. However hundreds of thousands here and millions accross the globe condem them, therefore terrorism can work against the likes of OBL.

There are undoubtably millions of Muslims who (rightly) believe that thier way of life, traditions and customs are under threat form globalistion. Therefore they do somehing about it. They speak out against western advancement (eg: they may support a boycott of McDonalds for example). They fight back politically and through writing and teaching. This is one form of 'jihad' against the west, but it is peaceful. These people are not idiots. They know that Islam is not under threat from a 'zionist-christian' allience.

Then agian there are many Muslims who believe that it is there duty to protect the Islamic world from military agression. Weve seen it in Afghanistan, Iraq (during the Gulf War when they offered assistance to Saudi Arabia against Saddam) and Iraq post 2003. Therefore these angy Muslim men travel to Iraq, arm themselves with RPGs and Aks and fight against US and allied military targets. Simply put it, they are basically the Islamic army that in reality does not exist - they fight to protect thier 'brothers' when they are under threat. Yet, they do not interpret the Koran in the way the extremists do. They believe that it is illegal to attack civilians, while thye follwo the common doctrine that in war, any opposing military target is legal. They are practising 'jihad' of the sword. They only come together to fight off what they see as Amercan, British, Soviet, Socialist expansion. Yet when the threat goes, they go back to thier normal lives. They are basically jsut soldiers. They do not use terrorism, or murder. They are in thier words Mujahiddeen. I have respect for them becasue they risk thier lives (they dont use suicide tactics) to fight for what they believe in. They are taught what are essectially the true teachings of Mohammed - that miliatry action is justified to defend Islam from military agression. Thier fight is with armies alone.

The extremely small minority, however, believe that Islam is directly under threat from a crusader allience. They spend thier time listening to rants about 'Western atrocities'. They are told, and believe that atacking cvilian targets is jsutified. They believe that 'infidels' derserve to die. They are extremist Muslims. Wherever for politcal or personal purposes, they use terrorism to terrorise civilian populations and to manipulate politics. Ovcourse, these poeple need to be killed and captured, they can not be turned. These are the people who cary out attacks such as Madrid, Bali, London and who kill Iraqi civilians. They have been misguided to the point that they believe any rhetoric that people live OBL or Abu Hamza throw at them.

What I am basically trying to point out is that the targets of the war on terror are terrorists themselves. they need to be killed or captured. However, for whatever reason, Washington ignores this and calls everybody a terrorist or terrorist sympathiser. al Qaeda is a brand name for a phenonemon of extremists and thier recruits.

To win the war on terror we need to work with the moderates - the clerics, political and other religious leaders to convince them that although the war was unjustified, the US and British intentions in Iraq are now good. Then all the efforts and resources can be put into hunting down and killing/capturing known extremists and preventing the further recruiting of disilusioned muslims. Basically, we need to work with the majority of Muslimns to kill the minority. The war in Iraq was a blow to that. All that done was create a common enemy for all Muslims although the extremists and radicals do not support each other.

[Bliartheliar]

That above link is bollocks. Hysteria spread by the media - exactly what the terrorists want. While poeple here were shit scared about nukes, smallpox, anthrax and dirty bombs, we were hit with the reality - simple bombs. Its this ind of shit that results in unnecessary wars.

Fear leads to anger
Anger leads to hate
Hate gives politicians reasons for wars

(done in a yoda voice it sounds better)

[sneaky beaky]

Bliartheliar
Thank you for your views of which I can sympathise - but not agree with.
At least you had the gumption to put them, in writing, on MF.
People like "cosmo" choose to just point us to a web site.
That is fine for you surfers but I don't find it acceptable on MF. It just means you are too lazy to use the keyboard!
A few comments about what the web site was about, would have saved me about 15 minutes of activity - that I could have done without.

Any of you guys out there who care to listen:
A post with just a web site is not a post.! It also seems to be creeping in too often on all the threads.!
Sneaky

[Bliartheliar]

By the way, I completely agree with Markthestab. The Brits are doing a fine job, the Americans are trying too but are just a bunch of f@#k ups, the terrorists are complete and utter atrocious. The Iraqis are just unfortunate and it is a shame they are forced to go through all this for the Wests 'security.'

But its not just terrorists, Brits and Americans out there.

[dalo]

Heres a good quote from a 2nd Lt in the royal marines, "All they are is an untrained rabble" Once i heard this, I beleived it. The majority of attacks within iraq are from people who have came into the country to "defend the faith" these people with Jihad stamped on there passport are nothing more than untrained slobs who are trying to do "their part" by putting together a car bomb from a few 150mm shells in some baghdad slum. I have no respect for these people, When i say these people i mean the people responsible for murdering untold scores of iraqi people in a restaurant, or the people who put together a car bomb whats's checkout time is in the middle of a crowd of young police voulenteers who are just trying to bring some sanity to the madness by putting food on their familys table. These terrorists who have came into iraq from other countrys to join in the I.E.D madness arent caring about how many iraqi people they are slaying because all they care about is using iraqi soil as their own personnel battleground against the coalition, and evidently its iraqi blood that is being spilled.

[Wee Willy Winkie]

i would have to agree with the view on the differences between the British and American forces at work.
*During the actual assault and approach to Baghdad, the Americans wanted to be the first there, carving one path through the country and believing it was done. What they did not think of is the villages either side of this route that had not been checked and cleared leading to multiple attacks on the supply route and logistics of the operation. On the other hand, the British forces took their time but at least they ensured all villages and cities on their advance were secured.
*Secondly, the appearance of the soldiers from each force differed greatly whilst patrolling. The British wear berets, webbing, combat jackets (most of the time with sleeves rolled up), and although still alert, weapon pointing to the ground. However, the Americans don helmets, kevlar body armour and other manners of protection and most of the footage i have seen they are constantly aiming their weapon at people who are close, even if just sweeping over. This difference causes very different reactions from the public of Iraq. Feeling isolated from the U.S. and scared, the British actually know a thing or two in public relations (such as giving out sweets) bringing them closer to the people. You could say the Americans are in a more dangerous zone, but at times there is no need and this doesn't do much to bring them closer to the populace.
Feel better now thought i had enough of essays for a while when i finished school !!
W.W.W

[Bliartheliar]

At the end of the day, a terrorist is somebody who uses terrorism - ie: attacking civilians and waging terror for political purposes.

Not everybody in Iraq is a terrorist. There are some people who are fed up with the occupation and want it too end. Its a war between two sides. All the terrorists are are the equivilent of the SS in WW2.

Was every one who went to fight in Afghanistan against the Soviets a terrorist? Ovcourse not. There were probably some, but the majority attacked Soviet military targets. Just replace Afghanistan and Soviet with Iraq and American.

There are over a dozen provences in Iraq. Every single one has daily attacks there. Only a few have terrorism taking place there.

Imagine a Saudi going about with his daily life. He attends the Mosque and listens to the teachings of the Koran and Mohammed. He agrees that civilians are innocent, he would never kill anyone unarmed, he would never attack US targets. He condems Bin Laden and terror attacks. But then he sees images of US troops moving into Iraq - ok, maybe Saddam is a threat. He is happy that Saddam is toppled. But he expects the US to withdraw quickly. Insteady the situation grows worse. He sees daily images of Iraqis being killed and the occupation is continuing. No WMDs have been found and the intelligence for the war proves to be faulty. But then Bush wins a second term. Blair wins the election. Yet Iraq has grown unstable and the occupation continues. The Saudi is young and fit. He believes that the US intends to stay in Iraq and keep it. Democracy means capitalism and globalisation. He talks to his firends and they all share the same beliefs. However, they still rfuse to accept terrorism but believe that it there duty to rescue Iraq from the occupiers. They see news reports of Muslims 'doing thier duty' - attacking American tanks. They form a group and agree that they should do thier duty. They travel to Iraq, meet others and arm themselves. they go out into the street and fire an RPG at an American Abrahms tank. They are not terrorists. They have volunteered to defend thier brothers just as any Brit or American volunteers to defend his country. Once the occupation ends, they will go home themselves. They will change thier viewpoint of the US as that we no longer be the enemy. they will cotinue to denounce terrorists.

However, imagine a different Saudi - young, uneducated, illiterate, unhappy. He listens to rants from extremist clerics and is inspired by Bin Laden. He believes that Islam is under attack, and therefore every Muslim is under threat. He is shown pictures of dead Chechnyans, Bosnians, Afghans and Iraqis. He is told the US is responsible. He becomes increasingly angry. He speaks out in small groups against US 'atrocities' and the clerics see his enthusiasim to kill the infidels and the kufr. They tell him that all infidels deserve to die, that they are all part of an allience. They train him in simple techniques and ship him off to Iraq. In Iraq he is passed to an extremist group and shown more propaganda. They tape a bomb vest to him and handcuff him to the steering wheel, jsut incase. He goes with another recruit to the area around the target. Only one man needs to die, so the other recruit gets out, leaving the man on his own. Direclty ahead he sees a line of Iraqis who he believes, in his misguided mind, are traitors to Islam simply because they are going about thier daily lives instead of fighting against the US. He drives straight into the crowd, believing that he is going to paradise. As a result, 50 civilains die. That is a terrorist. He has volutneered to kill anyone who supports the US, military or civilian. His supporters will continue to recruit and kill long after the occupation has ended.

I dont want anyone to be harmed. I support our troops. But the reality is that our troops have not got immunity from attack. They are doing a great job and mean well. But not everyone sees it that way. Its simple reality - if you kill someone with a criminal record you are not immune from prosecution. You have stepped out of line. Simple fact is, many Msulims in the Middle East believe that the US has stepped out of line by invading Iraq.

The common enemy is the extremists. 1500 American dead, 80 Brits and 30,000+ Iraqis is the price for having people like Bush and Blair in charge.

200 dead in Bali, 191 in Madrid, 3000 in NYC, 1000's in Iraq, 52+ in London - thats the price for having poeple like OBL in this world.

Ive said something wrong recently - Bush and Blair are responsible for fueling terrorism. Thats wrong and I apologise. Bush and Blair are responsible for fueling anger. Extremist clerics and terrorists make concisuos decisions to attack civilians, so they alone are responsible for terrorism.

f@#k hell, I cant stop once ive started. Ill go and cool down with a pint. Maybe ill write a book one day.

[Mr Mojo Risin]

pardon my ignorance, but do british forces not get issued with body armour, or are they in some situations ordered to not wear them as part of the whole 'hearts and minds' scenarios?

[dalo]

British forces dont need them, their Abs and pectorals do the job just fine, havent you seen the booty biff sit ups?

[dalo]

Bliar I think bush and blair arent entirely responsible, i mean anti western movements have been going on way beyond their times in office, for example first bombing of trade centre, and pan am flight 103. Also ive heard that the chechnians arent really fond of us old brits and the yanks, and they are into the whole "Allah Arkbar" scene, why is this, i have never found out why.