uh duh?? Common fucking sense here man, I don't know how this doesn't make perfect sense to you (well, seeing as your personal logic defies normal logic, maybe I know why). If the US had NOT invaded: There would be NO insurgents fighting US forces because there are NO US FORCES TO FIGHT AGAINST. If the US had invaded (which seems to be the case): There ARE insurgents fighting US forces because the US forces are THERE. I hate having to capitalize words, but it seemed necessary in this case. If you can't understand that, you're possibly autistic. No offense to autistic people, he'd give you a bad rap. Also, this whole post is about as dumbed down as it can be. I just wanted to make sure you could wrap your mind around these ideas nice and good. Note that this is all from an American citizen who is forced to see "both sides of the story blah blah blah fox news blah blah".
Small problem there Squirl, it would appear that the US military are not going to co-operate and tell us how many civilains they've killed. But don't worry they say it's not important. Malin
If you knew your history then you'd know thats not as crazy as you seem to think it is......afterall Britain was the major superpower of the time. Think how different life would be now if Neville Chamberlain had had more backbone. Same way the French hate us because of Mers-el-Kebir amongst other things. (Mers-el-Kebir, 1940 the British sank the French Mediterrean fleet, which kinda proves how stupid war is) Malin
And go where? You believe that people should just up and leave their home if someone dares to invade their country? The instinct would be to defend your family, your freedom and therefore your country.
Please Remember Glas is Scottish. Scotland being the only place in the world no-one ever managed to successfully conquer or subdue. See Squirl perfect example, England had 2500 years of insurgency from Scotland and we're still suffering Click here to see an example of Scottish Insurgeny AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHH LOL only joking Glas Mal
Who on earth would want to conquer Scotland? And furthermore, who would want few million scottish refugees running around....
Everyone who has tried, and failed Finland, on the other hand, could be conquered with 10 men, a sheepskin jacket, a pair of snow shoes, and a rubber sheep to subdue the men-folk. As long as there were no Russians among the 10 of course
IMO your right about the russians. They would want the rubber sheep, and that would lead to bloodbath between finnish and russian.... btw, no need for snow shoes, it's summertime.
So you strongly believe you can defend your family against hi-tech air forces with some handguns? I believe that no fucking countries worth anything close to the ones I love. If some fanatic/drunk bastards' mind fucked up so much they go out to the street to play some battle, then it's time to leave the playground.
No, but you can inflict enough damage through terrorism/freedom fighting/insurgency to make them think again. I would never walk away from my family and friends. I would never force my parents, now getting elderly and unwell, in to fleeing. Where would you stop? If you dont meet them head-on, they would be forever on your tail and you could never settle, always afraid of what lies round the next corner. I only hope I never find myself depending on you for back-up in a fight
You should read http://www.iraqbodycount.net/databa...p?ts=1118889633 Location: Hillah, outside mayor's office Target: protesting former police commandos and recruits Weapon: 2 suicide bombers Deaths: 27 What US forces are the insurgents fighting against? Location: bodies found near Qaim Target: Shia pilgrims from south Iraq, returning from Syria Weapon: tortured, shot in head Deaths: 10 What US forces are the insurgents fighting against? Location: Muallimin, Tal Afar Target: home of Hasan Bagdash, Shiite community leader Weapon: 2 suicide car bombs Deaths: 33 What US forces are the insurgents fighting against? Location: Talibia neighbourhood near Sadr city, Baghdad Target: 'a restaurant popular with police' Weapon: 'explosive-ladden mini-van detonated by remote control' Deaths: 11 What US forces are the insurgents fighting against? Location: Saydia, southwestern Baghdad Target: Iraqi military convoy Weapon: roadside bomb Deaths: 2 What US forces are the insurgents fighting against? You fail to realize, even when it is right in front of your eyes, that the insurgents primarily kill Iraqi civilians. You incorrectly assume that the civilian deaths are caused by the US. The fact is that the insurgency kills those people. You incorrectly assume that the US is responsible for the terrorists in Iraq. The fact is that the insurgency's primary goal is to kill Iraqi civilians (unless you believe that a car bomb detonated near an Iraqi funeral is an accident). Let's see dictionary.com's definition of "emotional." "adj 1: determined or actuated by [highlight]emotion rather than reason[/highlight]" You are too easy to read, Glas. You have attacked every claim that I have made in this thread - except this one. I am giving you an opportunity to prove your correctness. Any person jumps at that opportunity. You do not want to look up those statistics because you know that you will be proven wrong. You know that the media is biased against the war. I know that there is absolutely nothing you can do to sidestep your defeat with this matter. Anything that you say, including your subsequent posts, will be futile unless it includes the insurgent death statistics. Do you understand? You can say anything, but it is all for nothing unless you can address this matter.
Proven wrong about what? This discussion is becoming insane! What does those figures, whatever amount they are, prove??? What is your point? Maybe if we get back to basics (cos I cant be bothered reading through this crap again) and you can say, quickly, why someone should be looking for those figures, and what exactly they will prove, then I might be tempted. I'm waiting with bated breath...
You are to prove that you are informed of both positive and negative aspects of the war by finding the insurgent casualties. You are to prove that the world's media is not biased against the war. You are dragging this out for one of two reasons: 1. You do not read my posts - a mark of ignorance on your part or... 2. You are trying to drag this out as long as possible in an attempt to delay your downfall when you cannot verify that you see the whole picture of the Iraq war.
Ah, one last spin: Out of the quotes I read here I've deduced Squirl's now placing his last hopes on his "adversaries" not finding out what insurgent casualties there are. Right? If these "adversaries" don't find them, Squirl has effectively "defeated" the forces of Evil that tried to scar the image of his government's perfect diplomacy and so and and so forth...? I wonder, what use would those numbers have? Does he think that if those numbers are found they can be put into relation to the ammount of civilian victims? How are you going to seperate the insurgent victims from the civilians anyway? A young boy throwing a rock at a tank, is he an insurgent? So, assuming numbers are found, Squirl will probably say: "Look at that, we killed n insurgents for every n/k civilian casualty". What's so fantastic about that? It's like saying killing somebody with a knife is less horrible than shooting him. It's completely irrelevant information. Why? For one because the ammount of killed insurgents is exponentially proportionate to the ammount of new insurgents. Secondly: once you've killed all insurgents you won't have dealth with the enemy. You'd leave behind a country where every family has lost a member to your forces. It would be the breeding spot for a whole new generation of terrorists. Instead of tiring the opponent, the opponent tires you. Then again, I've always had a hunch Squirl's a bit lost when it comes to common sense and logic. <Z>
