The ingenuity of the "insurgents"...

[kentuck]

They have posted on their websites "how to" make suicide bombs out of a vest that looks smaller than the protective vests that the troops wear. The explosion can kill and maim up to 30 meters. They can explode in all directions and can be detonated for most lethal effect.

Also, the roadside explosive devices are supposedly set off with the ring of a cell phone. They can ring the bomb at the moment they wish to detonate and this has been a devastating weapon against the American troops. Most of the debate about armoring the vehicles has been because of these weapons. They troops have reportedly used "jamming" devices to thwart the cell phones. This is only a recent idea. What will they think of next?

[rkc3]

1. I'm surprised they haven't set up back to back bombings within

the same attack site. You know, having one bomber blow himself up and then have a second blow himself up in the midst of the rescue ops.

The whole notion of terrorists is to strike terror into the hearts of their victims - a second suicide bomber within minutes of the first would surely do that.

The problem with the military is that they're not trained to deal with terrorists. There was a intelligence program right after the bombing of the Cole where several smart guys were told to behave like terrorists and go after the military. Their first incursion captured a Navy Admiral. Two days after they released him they captured him again.

It took about five minutes after his release for the government to shut down the operation.

The teams' leader said it was embarrasing for the military and wouldn't look good in international press for this exercise to continue. As a result, it requires a first hand assualt on a mess hall to learn anything from your mistakes.

[neweurope]

2. Please excuse me, but they aren't terrorists.

They are freedom fighters :)

War is the terror of the rich
terror is the war of the poor

[rkc3]

4. I think you know what I mean.

[Contrary1]

13. I used to think that way...

but once they started bombing their fellow country men,
my opinion changed. They may have started out being
freedom fighters, but in reality, they want something
very different for Iraqis.

[On the Road]

3. It's Still a Colonial Mentality

"Oh, those primitive natives. How can they be so clever when they're not even civilized?"

They're just like everyone else. Americans would do the same things under the same conditions. And that thought does not bode well for the situation in Iraq.

[Karenina]

5. The word "insurgent"

currently produces the same reaction me as the word "nigger."

[Lexingtonian]

11. 'Insurgent' is the word Lincoln used

in reference to Jefferson Davis in the only public address in which he ever referred to him, the Second Inaugural one: as "the insurgent leader". (He generally spoke of 'the Rebellion', 'the rebel leaders in Richmond', etc. with a deliberate vagueness/nonacknowledgement of their claimed status.)

Having no originality, these new Confederates take words said about their kind in the past and pin them on others. It's an amusing trick, but it fails in the long run.

[Grooner Five]

6. I guess I have a rare view

but I have a real problem with the way these people are intentionally targeting civilians in order to halt a Democratic election. "Freedom fighters" do not intentionally blow up children and old ladies to support their chaotic cause - thugs and criminals do. I understand that there have been many casualties as the result of American efforts, but I do not believe our soldiers intentionally target civilians in order to spread terror as any kind of official effort.

It appears that some folks on this forum are willing to go so far as to support these terrorists because they're opposing our difficult and bungled efforts in Iraq, but I just couldn't make that leap. I think they're a pack of scumbags, and will celebrate their demise if it means that some form of democracy can rise from the ashes in Iraq.

It is a huge mistake, IMO, to canonize these violent thugs. The underdog isn't always noble, or even the lesser of two evils.

[neweurope]

7. Oho! So "these people" are "intentionally targetting women and

children"?

Only "thugs and criminals" do? Well: Clusterbombs ARE intentionally killing women and children. Clusterbombs are not being used by Iraqis nor is white phosporus. Please get your facts together.

And I really do not like your choice of words: First you call Iraqis who are fighting US invaders "terrorists" and then you say that evidently people here are "supporting the terrorists" only because they see the facts for what they are. And you probably understand very well that "supporting terrorists" is a criminal offence. With this kind of arguing the Nazis dragged a lot of people off to the gallows...

You guess you have a "rare view"? Not SO rare I should think. The Bushistas at least share your point of view.

on edit: And they are not trying to stop "a democratic election" - they are trying to get foreign invaders out of their country. Quite legitimally.

[Grooner Five]

8. I disagree

I think your view is a little disingenuous. I was never very fond of this invasion (though I had no illusions about the monster Saddam was), and think we've opened up a terrible can of worms. But it looks to me like there are currently two choices for Iraq:

Foment democracy through blunt force, or concede to folks who are repulsive enough to target civilians with the intent of causing chaos and reinstalling a Baathist dictatorship - to the diminishing of other Iraqi ethnic minorities.

I can't see rewarding terrorism and abandoning our promise to the Iraqis (misguided as it may be). To do so would be a tragedy for the United States, and a boost to thugs, dictators, and the fundamentalist Islamists. Those are some very bad guys, and make Jesse Helms look tolerant by comparison.

We're stuck in Iraq, so I think we should make the best of it and do our finest to leave the country better than we found it. Right now there are two sides in that country - those that want democracy to take hold, and those who would rather retain power over a majority by force. Lets not pretend the latter is a better option based on blind allegiance to either the underdog or the pacifist movement.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lexingtonian]

12. Good luck with that p.o.v.

Look at South Vietnam, circa 1974. The game was lost politically, the question about military defeat and breakup of the puppet 'democracy' was only 'when?'. Look at Afghanistan now- it's an alliance of feudal warlords pretending to be a democracy as long as Western troops are active in the country and some amount of Western payoffs are made.

In Iraq the game is lost politically. We have the puppet regime, and some kind of electocratic manouver aka 'election' is going to 'legitimate' it- to the American voter, not to any Iraqi who has weaponry and designs on power. As for 'leaving the country in better shape than it was before'- check out what happened to Fallujah. And Saddam Hussein didn't kill people at an American clip of 60,000 people per year- he kept it to a mere 15,000. The Sunnis and Shia want Americans out by over 95-5 majorities. Kurds want Americans to stay by about 55-45, but only because they're able to expel Sunnis settled into Kurdistan under Saddam under American rule (no American help resettling these people is in evidence afaik).

Pride and Messianism are nice things to tout and insist on. Their results tend not to reflect well on their authors.

[Lithos]

14. I think you are being too simplistic

Yes, there are those who are fighting the US who are doing so because they are terrorists. But there are those who are attacking us because they view us as an occupying power. Their only affinity at this point with the terrorists is that their enemy is the terrorists enemy.

But the error seem to be slipping into is to treat them both as the same which will do nothing more than create terrorists. Add to that an administration which at times does seem focused on using Iraq to benefit a few well-favored global corporations (Halliburton, etc.), and the implementation of policies which are condescending towards the Iraqi people the US is off to a bad start. Add to that the mistakes of mass-bombing of civilians and the crimes at Abu Ghraib, then you've a situation where the US is not necessarily being a positive force for Iraq, no matter how good the intentions of the average US citizen.

It's very sad to hear that it's not the positive actions of the US which are turning a few Iraqi's off to the terrorists and resistance elements, but rather the mistakes these two groups have made.

While I'm not going to say Iraq is Vietnam, there is one similarity which we must acknowledge. We entered both situations under the guise of high-minded ideals (Vietnam - domino theory to stop the red menace; Iraq - stop a bad guy), but quickly found ourselves immersed in a war of Nationalism that we refused to recognize and adjust our reasoning. It's time the US realizes what war we are fighting and make the necessary accomodations before Iraq does become another Vietnam.

[jimshoes]

10. Hey grooner

There's one way to see if you're right about who's targeting whom. First hand if you're up to it.