PDA

View Full Version : Iraq Insurgents Threaten to Burn Hostages



aserecuba
04-09-2004, 09:53 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040409/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_kidnappings_22


yes chant "God is great" while threathening to burn hostages and cut their throaths. sh** like this makes me sick.

DarkFalcon
04-09-2004, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by aserecuba
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040409/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_kidnappings_22


yes chant "God is great" while threathening to burn hostages and cut their throaths. sh** like this makes me sick.

This is what you get when your so politically correct. Why don't they napalm the ****ers next time they congregate celebrating around a destroyed American Humvee? I'd say anyone celebrating the death and destruction of American soldiers and equipment is proof enought that their the enemy.

Woden
04-09-2004, 10:36 AM
The military needs to start going medevil on people like this.

Like that town where those Americans were killed and dragged through the streets, they should have killed everyone involved, evacuated the town and burned it to the ground.

aserecuba
04-09-2004, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Woden
The military needs to start going medevil on people like this.

Like that town where those Americans were killed and dragged through the streets, they should have killed everyone involved, evacuated the town and burned it to the ground.
bump

TranceNRG
04-09-2004, 01:25 PM
maybe it's jus' a scare tactic.
I mean you dun wanna post a video w/ happy hostages dancing around and ask for what you want.
when you have hostages you have to sound scary to scare the government, you can say hostages will be fine but make sure you do this.



P.S. I'm in no way trying to defend those people, just some thoughts

Ragnarok
04-09-2004, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Woden
The military needs to start going medevil on people like this.

Like that town where those Americans were killed and dragged through the streets, they should have killed everyone involved, evacuated the town and burned it to the ground.

That was in Somalia. If that happens, yeah, I say evacuate the town of US troops, and blow the hell out of it.

Now that we're into Iraq, I don't understand why we aren't returning the insurgent's kindness with some daisy cutters. I think the military ought to go in mass force over that route and just mow down everything.

BigKazWSM747
04-09-2004, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by DarkFalcon
This is what you get when your so politically correct. Why don't they napalm the ****ers next time they congregate celebrating around a destroyed American Humvee? I'd say anyone celebrating the death and destruction of American soldiers and equipment is proof enought that their the enemy.

should we then kill all anti-war protesters since they are not "supporting" the effort in Iraq and it proves they are the "enemy"?

aserecuba
04-09-2004, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by TranceNRG
maybe it's jus' a scare tactic.
I mean you dun wanna post a video w/ happy hostages dancing around and ask for what you want.
when you have hostages you have to sound scary to scare the government, you can say hostages will be fine but make sure you do this.



P.S. I'm in no way trying to defend those people, just some thoughts
scare tactics? did you really say that? you think they are just gonna set them free if the government doesnt give in to his demands. dont think they will probably get their throats slashed and burned alive.

Ragnarok
04-09-2004, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by TranceNRG
maybe it's jus' a scare tactic.
I mean you dun wanna post a video w/ happy hostages dancing around and ask for what you want.
when you have hostages you have to sound scary to scare the government, you can say hostages will be fine but make sure you do this.



P.S. I'm in no way trying to defend those people, just some thoughts

Daniel Pearle got his head cut off. That wasn't for show. He's dead now. I have seen sick videos of hostages getting fingers cut-off/blown off. I don't know if you actually read what happened with the security detail in that Humvee. Two grenades were thrown in, killing the occupants. One of the bodies was dragged out while a guy jumped up and down on it. Two other bodies were tied behind a truck and dragged for 2 miles to a bridge where their mutilated bodies were hung from the bridge. One guy climbed up on a ladder and began beating one of the bodies with a stick chanting something.

Bull**** this is just for show. It's cruel, inhumane, and should be stopped. Preferable with high caliber bullets (because that's all they understand), and some mega ton bombs.

BigKazWSM747
04-09-2004, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Ragnarok
That was in Somalia. If that happens, yeah, I say evacuate the town of US troops, and blow the hell out of it.

Now that we're into Iraq, I don't understand why we aren't returning the insurgent's kindness with some daisy cutters. I think the military ought to go in mass force over that route and just mow down everything.

You would think that by now people would learn how ineffective these tactics are in crushing public opposition. The US did this in Vietnam, trying to bomb the Vietcong into submission. The constant air raids on Hannoi, however, did not quench the Vietcong resolve, and in fact I would say it strengthened their hatred against the Americans. The Soviets tried a similar method when they invaded Afghanistan and I've heard numerous times on this board how proud so many were that the Soviets "got their ass handed to them by a 3rd world country." Another example, when we were on the winning side but just to demonstrate, was the Kosovo conflict. While we were bombing Belgrade the extremely unpopular Milosevik (sp?) popularity ratings sky rocketed, where under traditional jingoist logic you would assume that they would dispose of the tyrant. However, popular opinion while sometimes despising its rulers end up supporting them because...well frankly they don't like seeing the cities destroyed for the "greater good".

TranceNRG
04-09-2004, 01:48 PM
ok ok calm down :D

I said MAYBE

I always look at ALL the possibilities rather than just one and sticking to it.

BigKazWSM747
04-09-2004, 01:50 PM
Another thing, a lot of you supported this war based upon humanitarian reasons (which is a fair enough statement) because of what a sick bastard Saddam is. A lot of what you are suggesting though are tactics that I'm sure Saddam would use with much glee.

aserecuba
04-09-2004, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
Another thing, a lot of you supported this war based upon humanitarian reasons (which is a fair enough statement) because of sick of a bastard Saddam is. A lot of what you are suggesting though are tactics that I'm sure Saddam would use with much glee.
well im starting to think that perhaps we made a mistake. we should have left that bastard in power. at least he knew how to control those savages with an iron fist. i have no pity now.

BigKazWSM747
04-09-2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by aserecuba
well im starting to think that perhaps we made a mistake. we should have left that bastard in power. at least he knew how to control those savages with an iron fist. i have no pity now.

So you would have left Saddam in power?

aserecuba
04-09-2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
So you would have left Saddam in power?
they deserve it.

Jimineye
04-09-2004, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
should we then kill all anti-war protesters since they are not "supporting" the effort in Iraq and it proves they are the "enemy"?


That is totally different. How do you equate anti-war protestors to people celebrating U.S deaths? There is no connection there.

BigKazWSM747
04-09-2004, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
That is totally different. How do you equate anti-war protestors to people celebrating U.S deaths? There is no connection there.

Surely in a few anti-war rallies their are such people that are celebrating the death of US troops, so why not just fry the whole kit and caboodle? There were a lot of people like that in the anti-war Vietnam protests, although I doubt you could say they comprised the majority of the protesters. But then you know- those people engaging in the rallies who don't intend such things should know what people they are with and so they should accept any tyrannical supression of their right to assembly (note the sarcasm).

Jimineye
04-09-2004, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
Surely in a few anti-war rallies their are such people that are celebrating the death of US troops, so why not just fry the whole kit and caboodle? There were a lot of people like that in the anti-war Vietnam protests, although I doubt you could say they comprised the majority of the protesters. But then you know- those people engaging in the rallies who don't intend such things should know what people they are with and so they should accept any tyrannical supression of their right to assembly (note the sarcasm).


There is a difference between people anti-war, and those who celebrate the death of U.S troops, surely you must agree with that.

Now the people who are celebrating the troops death are obviously the enemy. The reason for this being is EVEN if you are against the war you still want to make sure your soldiers come home safely. You don't go around celebrating their deaths. If you celebrate the death of a soldier that is your own, then you are an enemy.

BigKazWSM747
04-09-2004, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
There is a difference between people anti-war, and those who celebrate the death of U.S troops, surely you must agree with that.

Now the people who are celebrating the troops death are obviously the enemy. The reason for this being is EVEN if you are against the war you still want to make sure your soldiers come home safely. You don't go around celebrating their deaths. If you celebrate the death of a soldier that is your own, then you are an enemy.

There is a difference in terms of what they are celebrating or protesting for/against. Fundamentally they are pretty similar, at least from the way a lot of people percieve it- they are against what we are doing right now.

I believe that freedom of expression gives you the right to celebrate whatever you please. Neo-Nazis can hold a rally expressing their opinions, should they all be arrested or killed based upon just holding a rally?

We celebrated the fall of Saddam, as did the iraqis, and surely a majority of us both will celebrate when he is brought to justice (most likely by execution). If your actions though are pretty shady such as beating a dead soldier's body with a pole, then I think that certainly is grounds for investigating them and detaining them. Obviously if they are openly celebrating the death of U.S. troops then you have reason to further investigate them because their actions, but I don't see that as giving you justification for just bombing the entire city or jailing everyone indefinitely without trial.

LordNeon
04-09-2004, 03:25 PM
I thought before that we should stay and do our best to clean up the mess, but I'm starting to think we actually should just head out.

Yes, it's going to look make us look either incompetent or weak or both, depending on who you talk to. But if the Iraqis really don't want us there, and aren't going to cooperate in the least, then we're wasting our time, and we'll either just lose big or lose much bigger.

jestros
04-09-2004, 03:31 PM
The problem is we didnt go in with a plan to get out. And I'm not sure we have a plan now, whats it been, 2 years?
Personally I think we need to kiss and make up with the UN, phase them in for the rebuilding, and phase or troops back home.

Jimineye
04-09-2004, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
I thought before that we should stay and do our best to clean up the mess, but I'm starting to think we actually should just head out.

Yes, it's going to look make us look either incompetent or weak or both, depending on who you talk to. But if the Iraqis really don't want us there, and aren't going to cooperate in the least, then we're wasting our time, and we'll either just lose big or lose much bigger.


I sort of agree with you here. I am for the war in Iraq though. It seems the only way to control those people over in Iraq is by using force. If we really want to control that region that's what needs to be done.

I sometimes wonder if it would be best to give them Sadam back, and let him torture them. It seems that's what the Iraqi's want.

supergarr
04-09-2004, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
I thought before that we should stay and do our best to clean up the mess, but I'm starting to think we actually should just head out.

Yes, it's going to look make us look either incompetent or weak or both, depending on who you talk to. But if the Iraqis really don't want us there, and aren't going to cooperate in the least, then we're wasting our time, and we'll either just lose big or lose much bigger.


no way, we cant do that now. After waltzing and destroying their cities, then to just pack up and leave without some kind of governing body? It'll be exactly like afghanistan, where our troops are still fighting on a daily basis. A lot of people have forgotten about afghanistan already.


Not to mention it will give terrorist organizations all the more reason to attack us.

Plus we're not just going to leave all that pretty little oil there are we?

BigKazWSM747
04-09-2004, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
I sort of agree with you here. I am for the war in Iraq though. It seems the only way to control those people over in Iraq is by using force. If we really want to control that region that's what needs to be done.

I sometimes wonder if it would be best to give them Sadam back, and let him torture them. It seems that's what the Iraqi's want.

The idea is not to make Iraq a pawn. If it was then we just would have put some dictatior in place and said no elections. We've killed around 10,000 Iraqi civilians, so that would partially explain the vast anti-americanism in some sectors of the country. Also I thought most of these disturbances were occuring in the sunni triangle, which has been the worst area since the beginning.

I doubt those rebelling want Saddam back, what they probably want is for America to leave so they can set up an Islamic state.

Jimineye
04-09-2004, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
The idea is not to make Iraq a pawn. If it was then we just would have put some dictatior in place and said no elections. We've killed around 10,000 Iraqi civilians, so that would partially explain the vast anti-americanism in some sectors of the country. Also I thought most of these disturbances were occuring in the sunni triangle, which has been the worst area since the beginning.

I doubt those rebelling want Saddam back, what they probably want is for America to leave so they can set up an Islamic state.


So what do you suggest would be the best way to handle this problem then?

My solution would be to start being more strict over there, and assert more control and power. That way they will know that their attacks will be met with an even harder attack by us. And once things have died down start having the Iraqi interim government start taking more control of the situation. Also help Iraq build it's military and police force, and start having them go into force the law.

LordNeon
04-09-2004, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
I doubt those rebelling want Saddam back, what they probably want is for America to leave so they can set up an Islamic state.

Which sounds like the ultimate defeat, really, doesn't it? We threw out one dictatorship and may end up having to let another one in.

The sad thing is, from a strictly selfish America-first perspective, it really probably was best to keep Saddam in power. I'd argue there's much more danger of terrorists setting up in an anarchic, weak state (like Afghanistan or Somalia) than there is in a "rogue" state with a strong dictatorship.

BigKazWSM747
04-09-2004, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
So what do you suggest would be the best way to handle this problem then?

My solution would be to start being more strict over there, and assert more control and power. That way they will know that their attacks will be met with an even harder attack by us. And once things have died down start having the Iraqi interim government start taking more control of the situation. Also help Iraq build it's military and police force, and start having them go into force the law.

I don't really know how to solve the problem (there will probably always be insurgents but you certianly can cut down on their ranks), but I can make some suggestions for going in the right direction.

1st- The United States publicly apologizes for any collateral damage that occurred in their hunt for terrorists/violent revolutionaries.

2nd- The U.S. apologizes to those innoncent fatally wounded in its raids and during the war. And to those who are dying and can not afford care offer them some sort of aid for their medical bills. I know that will make a lot of you balk, but to give an example. If you went after the people who killed your parents and you ended up shooting and wounding a lot of innocents (say you killed your parents' murderers in a public place) shouldn't you at least issue an apology and try to help them because your the one who brought about their suffering by being reckless (although in your eyes it was for a noble cause).

3rd- The U.S. turns more of the security task force over to the Iraqis in training.

4th- The U.S. appeals humbly (not a we will bury you if you don't support us appeal) to the religious leaders to try and stop the insurgents so peace is restored.

BigKazWSM747
04-09-2004, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Which sounds like the ultimate defeat, really, doesn't it? We threw out one dictatorship and may end up having to let another one in.

The sad thing is, from a strictly selfish America-first perspective, it really probably was best to keep Saddam in power. I'd argue there's much more danger of terrorists setting up in an anarchic, weak state (like Afghanistan or Somalia) than there is in a "rogue" state with a strong dictatorship.

Well let's keep in mind, a lot of people call this a nation founded on christian principles (I don't really agree with that, but thats another matter). If we were conquered (or at some point previously in history) we were conquered then Muslims tossed out those in control and tried to build a nation suiting to their culture we wouldn't be very happy about that. Since the majority of this country is comprised of christians we will say they want a christian oriented state, which naturally the Muslims aren't very happy about. This situation is somewhat similar imo, although I think the objection to an islamic state is stronger due to fundamentalism.

Well an Islamic state in comparison to Saddam would bring more stability to the region, although it is a kind of stablity we might not like very much because of how pro-Israel we are.

Fender85
04-10-2004, 12:45 AM
Well guys, I'm not sure what the real solution is. I know that we can't just pack up and leave. That would be a HUGE disgrace to the over 600 Americans who have died to "liberate" Iraq. I don't see a good way of going about this really. The people don't understand that if they calm down then we will think that Iraq is stable and then we'll leave (for the most part. I'm sure we'll put a base or two in Iraq).

Personally I'd rather get back into Afghanistan. Our boys are hurting for troops over there since our country is pooling all of their resources into this Iraq ordeal. Iraq has and will be a lost cause, and I'd rather spend my time in the Army fighting terrorism at it's heart, not at the "suspected site of terrorist aid."

Was Saddam a bad guy? Yeah. Did he need to get kicked the hell out? Yeah. None the less it would've been a lot easier with the backing of the UN so that it isn't all resting on the US' shoulders. Plus the UN would've made a MUCH better partner than the "coalition" members that we have now. The Uzbekistan soldiers who just LEFT Kut because the militia showed up just sickens me.

And to whoever it was that mentioned turning over responsibilities to the Iraqi police, well good luck finding them. A lot of them have just abandoned their job after these recent attacks.

FatFat Bastard
04-10-2004, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by Fender85
Well guys, I'm not sure what the real solution is. I know that we can't just pack up and leave. That would be a HUGE disgrace to the over 600 Americans who have died to "liberate" Iraq. I don't see a good way of going about this really. The people don't understand that if they calm down then we will think that Iraq is stable and then we'll leave (for the most part. I'm sure we'll put a base or two in Iraq).

Personally I'd rather get back into Afghanistan. Our boys are hurting for troops over there since our country is pooling all of their resources into this Iraq ordeal. Iraq has and will be a lost cause, and I'd rather spend my time in the Army fighting terrorism at it's heart, not at the "suspected site of terrorist aid."

Was Saddam a bad guy? Yeah. Did he need to get kicked the hell out? Yeah. None the less it would've been a lot easier with the backing of the UN so that it isn't all resting on the US' shoulders. Plus the UN would've made a MUCH better partner than the "coalition" members that we have now. The Uzbekistan soldiers who just LEFT Kut because the militia showed up just sickens me.

And to whoever it was that mentioned turning over responsibilities to the Iraqi police, well good luck finding them. A lot of them have just abandoned their job after these recent attacks.

Maximum
that might happen in Iraq is
sunni-shi'i unite to fight USA

I think in worst case senario
USA can just move its operations to north Iraq wich is under kurdish control.
this would create a power vacume

they(crazy religiuos leaders) will turn against each other for control
civil war will start
and in about a mounth they will be ready
to have their original liberators back...

i don't think this is a complex plan
since shi'i and sunni will most likely never get a long in IRAQ for a long period of time.

Fender85
04-10-2004, 01:07 AM
The only problem with that is that we won't back down. We can't give them the morale boost by letting them push us out of central and southern Iraq, and we're sure as hell not going to leave just to come back and re-take the same cities that we took last year.

t0mmy
04-10-2004, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
Another thing, a lot of you supported this war based upon humanitarian reasons (which is a fair enough statement) because of what a sick bastard Saddam is. A lot of what you are suggesting though are tactics that I'm sure Saddam would use with much glee.

which is why i support Saddam Hussein now and the way he governed. Because i would do exactly what he did to these sick ****ers or perhaps even worse.

Saddam is a bastard yea, but he wasn't building WMDs. He had nothing to do with 9-11, he was only treating the citizens that way because LOOK HOW THEY ACT when someone as civilized as the US governs them. I was for this war, but really, what have we gained? Nothing.. We should have spent that money on domestic problems. We have our own concerns, this just adds to the grief.

BigKazWSM747
04-10-2004, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Fender85
And to whoever it was that mentioned turning over responsibilities to the Iraqi police, well good luck finding them. A lot of them have just abandoned their job after these recent attacks.

I don't know how many there are currently but roughly 200,000 are in training and haved been deployed yet because they are still in training.