Iraqi sniper video !!WARNING!!

[number9]

Incidentally, for all of those who think that the insurgents are scum (which they are) because they don't wear uniforms (which I find a strange point): what uniform would you have them wear?

They are not members of the Iraqi army (which have their own uniform) nor the Iraqi police force (which also have their own uniform). They are insurgents, aka guerilla fighters, which by very definition means they are not members of the state (i.e. Iraqi) armed forces; instead they are members of the civilian population that have taken up arms against their own government -- and, by proxy, the U.S. armed forces.

They do not wear uniforms because there is not one to wear.

 

[number9]

adweisbe there are no links to the data. My data comes from multiple field grade officers both in the Marines and the Army that are currently over there right now. These so called "Freedom Fighters" as you like to champion them as, are nothing but former Iraqi military soldiers and officers that do not want to let go of the absolute power they once had.

One of the biggest mistakes the Coalition Provisional Authority made was to disband the Iraqi army. Now we are paying for that decision.

If the Mass State Police were raping and murdering citizens of the state while having full absolute power over all the people were finally stopped by the U.S. Military and a handfull of ex-state police officers were sniping U.S. soldiers while no longer wearing uniforms, would you still call them freedom fighters?

If you lived in Country A and an army from Country B came in to your city, took it over, installed a government you didn't necessarily vote for and had members of your family die from either direct targeting (unlikely) or collateral damage from fights (likely), would you take up arms against Country B? I sure as hell would.

Funnily enough, the only insurgents that wear uniforms are the ones that are clever enough to steal Iraqi police uniforms. Then, they travel some place and kill everyone they find there.

 

[Admin]

If you lived in Country A and an army from Country B came in to your city, took it over, installed a government you didn't necessarily vote for and had members of your family die from either direct targeting (unlikely) or collateral damage from fights (likely), would you take up arms against Country B? I sure as hell would.

I'm not saying I wouldn't but you are acting like the majority of the country is doing this. This is not the case. You watch CNN and it's all they show, so people like you think only bad things are happening over there.

I'm happy for you that you find the uniform thing "Funny".

I'm starting to think you are one of those liberals that would rather have good men die to have a position that you don't support fail, rather than have it be successful for the opposing party...

 

[Martlet]

One of the biggest mistakes the Coalition Provisional Authority made was to disband the Iraqi army. Now we are paying for that decision.

Agreed, though I wouldn't say it was the "biggest".

If you lived in Country A and an army from Country B came in to your city, took it over, installed a government you didn't necessarily vote for and had members of your family die from either direct targeting (unlikely) or collateral damage from fights (likely), would you take up arms against Country B? I sure as hell would.

Funnily enough, the only insurgents that wear uniforms are the ones that are clever enough to steal Iraqi police uniforms. Then, they travel some place and kill everyone they find there.

Your argument is flawed. Why? You've left out numerous key facts that lay the groundwork for your scenario.

First, Country A had invaded another country, committed horrible atrocities, agreed to a cease-fire to avoid invasion, then violated the agreement over a dozen times.

Secondly, Country B didn't install a government that you didn't vote for. You voted for the new government at a higher rate than we vote for ours.

The "insurgents" are mostly made up of removed party members and foreign nationals. Are you suggesting that you'd understand if the Democrat Party took up arms against our elected government after their defeat in 2000? The Mexicans could come an help them, that would be ok as well?

 

[adweisbe]

adweisbe there are no links to the data. My data comes from multiple field grade officers both in the Marines and the Army that are currently over there right now. These so called "Freedom Fighters" as you like to champion them as, are nothing but former Iraqi military soldiers and officers that do not want to let go of the absolute power they once had.

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/political_poll.pdf

The term freedom fighter is not a value judgment.

Is it possible that the people you know who are on the ground in Iraq are not coming into contact with the cross section of the Iraqi public you believe does not exist? Perhaps they don't want to invite attention from the US military? Maybe the only time they see them express their opinion is through violence?

 

[Scrivener]

9/11? Pearl Harbor? were those not invasions on our country? if not please inform me as to what they could be called...dont be so naive...

There being NO placement of troops in either event, neither can be termed an invasion. Grasp the definition.

As for the absurd assertion that there never has been and never could be an invasion, the asserter clearly has no grasp of U.S. history. The British landed troops during the Revolutionary War (which may not count, our still being a colony at the time); they did it again in the War of 1812, including the capture of Washington, D.C. and the burning of the White House; there was also the IJA invasion of the Aleutians as the feint for Midway.

And "never" is a loooooooooooong time....

pps...scrivener...when you graduated with a 3.9 gpa and a bachelors degree in english and successfully made the deans list 6 semesters in a row you reserve the right to use punctuation however you feel approproate...thanx pal

IF you possess those those qualifications, you know how to punctuate and why. Since you don't, you either don't have said qualifications or are too slothful and inconsiderate to use them. You have no "rights" to "reserve" on the matter.

And I'm not your "pal."

 

[Admin]

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/political_poll.pdf

The term freedom fighter is not a value judgment.

Is it possible that the people you know who are on the ground in Iraq are not coming into contact with the cross section of the Iraqi public you believe does not exist?

What section is this?

 

[adweisbe]

The section that supports the insurgents, the section that wants an Islamic state where people are not as free as us. The section that isn't sure about democracy or may not want it at all for reasons rational or irrational, valid or not valid.

 

[Admin]

Is this not the definition of Democracy?

Democracy (literally "rule by the people", from the Greek δῆμος demos, "people," and κράτος kratos, "rule") is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization in which all the citizens have an equal vote or voice in shaping policy.

The polls you showed overwhelmingly show that most people want the right to vote.

Breaking down the way the government is run is a totally different thing. I know full well that depending on which part of Iraq you go to you will have a different position on how they want the government to work.

 

[matt1956]

I'm still not to the point where I can bring myself to watch....

agreed.

I have seen one of these in the past... not sure if it is the same one or not..

But it does fill you with an overwhelming rage and hate for them mother effers.

 

[number9]

I'm not saying I wouldn't but you are acting like the majority of the country is doing this. This is not the case. You watch CNN and it's all they show, so people like you think only bad things are happening over there.

No, it is not a majority of the country that want it, but it's a minority doing it all across the country that makes it so successful for them.

I'm happy for you that you find the uniform thing "Funny".

I mean it funny as in ironic, because it is a tragedy.

I'm starting to think you are one of those liberals that would rather have good men die to have a position that you don't support fail, rather than have it be successful for the opposing party...

I am a person with common sense. We went in to find the WMD... there weren't any. That's fine. We went in to topple Saddam... now we have him in prison. That's fine. Then we said we'd bring democracy to Iraq... and that isn't going so well.

Iraqis are killing each other at massive rates. They are also killing our troops. We are babysitting a civil war, and we should leave. If they want their country to go to hell in a handbasket, so be it. They are no longer a threat as there are clearly no WMDs there (and it is doubtful there ever were). If we want to be in the business of regime change, fine. But that's not what we're doing there. We're watching two factions if Iraqis (Sunnis and Shi'ites) slaughter each other. And our troops are dying to prevent them from doing it.

But jesus christ, don't paint me with the "Because you don't support the war, you are really supporting the other side"! I don't want to see a single U.S. soldier die anywhere, much less in a hellhole like Iraq. They are not a threat to us. Let them all kill each other, and we'll stay out of it.

 

[Admin]

But jesus christ, don't paint me with the "Because you don't support the war, you are really supporting the other side"! I don't want to see a single U.S. soldier die anywhere, much less in a hellhole like Iraq. They are not a threat to us. Let them all kill each other, and we'll stay out of it.

I apologize for the comment.

 

[number9]

Agreed, though I wouldn't say it was the "biggest".

Your argument is flawed. Why? You've left out numerous key facts that lay the groundwork for your scenario.

First, Country A had invaded another country, committed horrible atrocities, agreed to a cease-fire to avoid invasion, then violated the agreement over a dozen times.

And we accomplished all of those goals. We kicked their asses when they went into Kuwait. And we toppled Saddam. Now what?

Secondly, Country B didn't install a government that you didn't vote for. You voted for the new government at a higher rate than we vote for ours.

The majority voted for it, sure. But the minority didn't. And those are the ones that are shooting at us.

The "insurgents" are mostly made up of removed party members and foreign nationals. Are you suggesting that you'd understand if the Democrat Party took up arms against our elected government after their defeat in 2000? The Mexicans could come an help them, that would be ok as well?

Every report that I've seen on the subject has shown that foreign fighters make up a very small (like, less than 10%) count of the insurgents. Mostly it's Iraqis that hate a) us b) Sunnis c) Shitties d) Kurds

And seeing as the Democratic party nor Mexico didn't cross our borders and bomb our cities, your argument is a little silly.

 

[number9]

I apologize for the comment.

I accept your apology. The problem is that it's a tactic used by many, and used often. It kind of sucks.

I don't want U.S. soldiers to die in another country that doesn't want them there and is no threat to us. That's the bottom line. If we want to curb human rights abuses, go to Sudan. If we want to take on a nuclear threat, let's go to North Korea. But we are dying there babysitting a civil war. There is no other way to put it.

 

[adweisbe]

I think figure 3 shows that many people do not want a democracy. They all want the right to vote, but not a democracy

They are feeling that something is happening they have a right to resist to that I can only explain using a talmudic concept.

When forced into a position where you have to make a choice and no matter what choice you make you will be sinning, if the sins are "equal" then you should choose the sin that allows you to sit and do nothing rather than the sin that requires you to actively do something.

When giving Iraq a new government we are in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation in terms of giving them what the majority wants. The disenfranchised feel that in this situation there should be a minimal changes as possible from what they already know in the government and there is no way we can give them that without breaking up Iraq into separate countries/governments. They are being forced to sign a new democratic social contract and they don't want to sign it for a variety of reasons some of them illegitimate (racism, genocide, greed, power hungry).

The democrats in 2000 were running for control of the USA, a country whose social contract was established hundreds of years ago.

 

[MrsWildweasel]

I accept your apology. The problem is that it's a tactic used by many, and used often. It kind of sucks.

I don't want U.S. soldiers to die in another country that doesn't want them there and is no threat to us. That's the bottom line. If we want to curb human rights abuses, go to Sudan. If we want to take on a nuclear threat, let's go to North Korea. But we are dying there babysitting a civil war. There is no other way to put it.

Alot of the Iraqi's DO WANT US there. This comes from soldiers on the ground and not CNN news or the likes.

 

[Martlet]

And we accomplished all of those goals. We kicked their asses when they went into Kuwait. And we toppled Saddam. Now what?

The majority voted for it, sure. But the minority didn't. And those are the ones that are shooting at us.

Every report that I've seen on the subject has shown that foreign fighters make up a very small (like, less than 10%) count of the insurgents. Mostly it's Iraqis that hate a) us b) Sunnis c) Shitties d) Kurds

And seeing as the Democratic party nor Mexico didn't cross our borders and bomb our cities, your argument is a little silly.

You tell me, "now what". You're suggesting we bail from Iraq now that we've toppled Saddam? Your argument was they were fighting because we installed a government they didn't vote for, when that statement is false. Very false. So what's you're argument now?

Every report that I've seen on the subject has shown that foreign fighters make up a very small (like, less than 10%) count of the insurgents. Mostly it's Iraqis that hate a) us b) Sunnis c) Shitties d) Kurds

Led by Al Qaeda, a foreign terrorist group. They fight us because they hate us. Fine. They hate the government they voted for as well? More Iraqis are killed by the "insurgents" than US troops.

The majority voted for it, sure. But the minority didn't. And those are the ones that are shooting at us. And seeing as the Democratic party nor Mexico didn't cross our borders and bomb our cities, your argument is a little silly.

Not silly at all. You claimed, falsely, that the insurgency was made up of Iraqis fighting against a government they didn't vote for. That's a lie. They did vote for it. Then you legitimized their attacks using this false information. Following your logic, and using your words, the minority who didn't vote for this government is justified in rising up against it. Using that logic, would you support an armed uprising of Democrats aided by Mexico because a Republican government was installed in 2000 that you didn't vote for?

 

[Admin]

They all want the right to vote, but not a democracy

I wonder how they defined a democracy in this poll. I listed the definition of democracy... How the goverment is run is one thing, but a democracy by definition is the right to vote on goverment issues and vote for elected officials.

 

[MrsWildweasel]

It's also funny how the Iraqi people came out in droves, even with the threat of death etc, they still wanted that right.

 

[number9]

Alot of the Iraqi's DO WANT US there. This comes from soldiers on the ground and not CNN news or the likes.

I don't dispute that a lot of Iraqis want us there. The problem is that the amount of Iraqis that don't want us there, whether it be a lot of them or not many of them, killed 78 of our troops in the last month.

 

[number9]

You tell me, "now what". You're suggesting we bail from Iraq now that we've toppled Saddam? Your argument was they were fighting because we installed a government they didn't vote for, when that statement is false. Very false. So what's you're argument now?

The ones that are fighting us didn't vote for it. The ones that are fighting us don't want a democracy. They want the right to install a theocracy.

Led by Al Qaeda, a foreign terrorist group. They fight us because they hate us. Fine. They hate the government they voted for as well? More Iraqis are killed by the "insurgents" than US troops.

And what do you think galvanized Al Qaeda to jump into the issue in the first place? Because they "hate America"? No, because they saw a golden opportunity to capitalized on anti-US sentiment, i.e. the minority of Iraqis that don't want us there, to get them to turn on us. In the process, they have turned on themselves, and us too.

I don't disagree with the fact that Iraqis kill more Iraqis than we do. I agree 100% with it, and find it proof to the point that we are watching a civil war unfold in front of us.

Not silly at all. You claimed, falsely, that the insurgency was made up of Iraqis fighting against a government they didn't vote for. That's a lie. They did vote for it. Then you legitimized their attacks using this false information. Following your logic, and using your words, the minority who didn't vote for this government is justified in rising up against it. Using that logic, would you support an armed uprising of Democrats aided by Mexico because a Republican government was installed in 2000 that you didn't vote for?

It is silly because the Democrats weren't from another nation; they are an established political party of this country. The Coalition Provisional Authority was not an Iraqi institution, it was set up by us. We "paved the way" for them to have elections. Clearly, some people disapprove of this.

Look, I don't suppot armed uprisings against anyone; but that is not to say that I don't understand why they're doing it. But there is a monumental difference between saying "I know why they're doing it" and "I agree with it, more power to the little bastards".

If I was able to vote in the U.S. presidential election in 2000 and my party lost, I would have uprisen the best way that I know how -- writing to newspapers, writing to house & senate members, etc letting them know that I thought my country was on the razor's edge.

The U.S. didn't take a referendum of Iraqi citizens when they came in and setup the CPA. They didn't take a referendum when they handed power over to the Iraqi government they had setup, nor did that government take a referendum of the Iraqi people to see if anyone wanted a dictatorship. They simply made the decisions (decisions which I support and agree with). But, some people are clearly not happy with the decisions made, and the less we understand that the more peril we find ourselves in.

 

[JellyFish]

CNN is now exploiting this apparently. They won't run the footage of the WTC being destroyed, with all the people forced to jump to their deaths...but they are absolutely basking in the sight of US soldiers being killed by snipers.

Sickening a**h***s.

 

[number9]

CNN is now exploiting this apparently. They won't run the footage of the WTC being destroyed, with all the people forced to jump to their deaths...but they are absolutely basking in the sight of US soldiers being killed by snipers.

Sickening a**h***s.

I support CNN talking about the fact that the video exists, but I do not agree with them showing it (and certainly not repeatedly)

 

[MrsWildweasel]

Mainstream media has their own agenda, and they have NEVER shown any of the good that happens over there.

 

[number9]

Mainstream media has their own agenda, and they have NEVER shown any of the good that happens over there.

I think that "never" is perhaps a bit strong, but in truth, do you really think there is that much good out there? Apart from what's happening in the little provinces that AQ has no reason to operate in...

 

[MrsWildweasel]

Yeah, I do. As I said I will believe my son who was over there for a year, and will soon be home and any other servicemember. Alot of good has been done and is still being done.

 

[number9]

Yeah, I do. As I said I will believe my son who was over there for a year, and will soon be home and any other servicemember. Alot of good has been done and is still being done.

I don't doubt that good is being done, I just think it is far outweighed by the bad. That's how most people measure success -- doing good is fine, but if the bad stuff keeps happening (and it keeps getting worse) then does the end justify the means?

We looked for the WMDs, got rid of Saddam, let them try to build a democracy... and for what? All we have proved is that Iraq is home to a bunch of non-secular idiots who are a) not necessarily representative of the general population b) prone to violence and c) can't live with their muslim brethren if they're a different sect.

I just honest-to-god don't see what we possibly have to stay for. Are we going to be Iraq's domestic police force forever? It is quite clear they can't handle the security situation themselves... should we let our troops be blown up to "fix" it? If we are in the business of regime change and quashing civil rights abuses, send a Marine bridage to Sudan and do some good. Iraq is bullshit, now.

 

[MRJ]

This is a religious war.....

Unfortunately, for our brave patriots in uniform this war isn't just about Iraq and Afghanistan...It's about Muslims forcing the people of the world to abide by Islamic law, and compelling (through as violent means necessary) the infidels (everyone else) to embrace Islam or die. We need to understand that the Qur'an calls for the spread of Islam. France, Germany and Italy have been colonized, and England is well on the way. The reason our so called allies (the barbarians with the oil) never truly condemn the jihadis - no matter how reprehensible their actions - is simply because the Qur'an requires all good Muslims to fight the infidels. So, deep down inside, they’re rooting for the Jihadis. Yup, even the ones that are here taking full advantage of our colleges and universities. When interviewed they say the act was sensless, BUT... followed by an excuse or a reason why the U.S. deserved it. Our problem isn't Iraq - It's Islam. And it's been going on since Allah put quill to parchment. This is just the most recent chapter. The press decides that this conflict is limited to a few groups of Islamic radicals, and Pres. Bush calls Islam the religion of peace – If that’s true, how come it's unsafe for Westerners (non-Muslims) to travel in Islamic countries? The liberal news and PC government may pretend this isn't about religion - but our enemies never do.

 

[number9]

You make a lot of generalizations, but this one:

Bush calls Islam the religion of peace – If that’s true, how come it's unsafe for Westerners (non-Muslims) to travel in Islamic countries?

is the most obviously false. I spent the last 3 years of my life living in a >95% Muslim country, and I had exactly 0 problems. I have skin the color of virgin snow, so it's not like anyone mistook me for a Muslim. The problem isn't that Islamic nations are attacking us, the problem is that Islamic nutjobs are attacking us. We need to get rid of them, irrespective of what country they come from.

Anyway, have you read the old testament recently? It says my town can gather to beat my insolent child, that touching the skin of a pig makes me unclean, and that I can sell my eldest daughter into slavery. It says this because it was written about 2,000 years ago, like the Koran was. Incidentally, the Koran doesn't consider us infidels; they consider Jews and Christians "people of the book", too. They even have an Arabic word for people like that, the word is "dhimmi". It literally means "someone of a non-Islamic religion that we allow to live in our town". Of course, the very notion that you need permission to do so is kind of offensive, but again... this stuff is from a long-ass time ago.

 

[MRJ]

US state Department Travel Warnings

Current Travel Warnings
Travel Warnings are issued when the State Department recommends that Americans avoid a certain country. The countries listed below are currently on that list. In addition to this list, the State Department issues Consular Information Sheets for every country of the world with information on such matters as the health conditions, crime, unusual currency or entry requirements, any areas of instability, and the location of the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate in the subject country.

Congo, Democratic Republic of the 10/20/2006
Yemen 10/13/2006
Iran 10/10/2006
Sudan 10/05/2006
Uzbekistan 10/04/2006
Lebanon 09/28/2006
Syria 09/14/2006
Chad 09/06/2006
Algeria 08/31/2006
Israel, the West Bank and Gaza 08/29/2006
Iraq 08/28/2006
Nigeria 08/24/2006
Sri Lanka 08/15/2006
Kenya 08/10/2006
East Timor 07/18/2006
Haiti 07/07/2006
Burundi 06/23/2006
Saudi Arabia 06/23/2006
Afghanistan 06/22/2006
Philippines 06/16/2006
Eritrea 06/05/2006
Somalia 06/05/2006
Nepal 05/11/2006
Central African Republic 04/20/2006
Pakistan 04/07/2006
Bosnia-Herzegovina 03/30/2006
Liberia 03/30/2006
Côte d'Ivoire 03/03/2006
Colombia 01/18/2006
Indonesia 11/18/2005
Zimbabwe 11/14/2005