[Iraq] Now this sounds familiar

[Kurashima]

Saddam tried to initiate a similar "Holy War" in Gulf War 1

the bombing of Christian churches, solely to coincide with the beginning of Ramadan, begs the question "Are these murderous bastards really stupid enough to believe they can succeed in creating a holy war with the Christians when Hussein couldnt do it with 1000 missiles aimed at the Jews" ?

Theyre also seriously pushing the limit of my near pacifist personality. I think a few more of these, and ill just be wandering into the realms of "Kill em all, let their god sort them out", since if theyre doing this in the name of their god, who clearly has a markedly differing approach to doing things than the most of the world seems to pray to, id say drop a big **** off daisy cutter in Central Falluja, and let them know we are not just playing Soldiers here anymore".

[Dante Hicks]

Yeah because randomly killing thousands of civilians would really help maintain the moral superiority against these savages.

[JammyJim]

the actions of a few shouldnt lead to thousands being condemned.



hence the problem of terrorism.

[SilverSmoke]

According to a friend of mine, an Iraqi co-worker who lived in Bagdad during the first gulf war, Saddam and his regime was very tolerant towards other religions. In fact compared to most other surrounding muslim countries they are really low profile on that part. He literary told me that christians and muslims just lived next to eachother without any trace of a problem.

[Kurashima]

Id like to point out there are 750k christians who have lived happily in Iraq under Hussein without fear of attacks and murder. The toppling of Hussein has resulted in a massive upsurge in muslim fundamentalism and as a result these people are being displaced and fleeing the new , "Democratic" regime.

How many people do you need to kill to suppress an uprising of this nature? You cant reason with a fundamentalist, he doesnt understand compromise, he only understands a superior force and that when he dies, regardless of how, he will be a martyr. Thats all hes been taught.

So respond with superior force. And lots of it. So that those teaching the fundamentalists of the next generation arent around to continue the cycle.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

So respond with superior force. And lots of it. So that those teaching the fundamentalists of the next generation arent around to continue the cycle.

This is the worst perception of cause and effect I've ever seen

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by SilverSmoke

He literary told me that christians and muslims just lived next to eachother without any trace of a problem.

But this ignores the rather obvious point that Saddam didn't persecute Christians, in large measure; he persecuted Shias.

Lord, Tariq Aziz was from a Christian background, and he was on of the top people in the regime.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Phang

This is the worst perception of cause and effect I've ever seen

When you come up with a method to debate with a fundamentalist to get them to compromise, ill accept this as correct.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Id like to point out there are 750k christians who have lived happily in Iraq under Hussein without fear of attacks and murder.

Apart from the fact that they lived under a dictatorial regime and could be murdered or imprisoned at any time, of course.

Originally Posted by Kurashima

So respond with superior force. And lots of it. So that those teaching the fundamentalists of the next generation arent around to continue the cycle.

So you're essentially advocating some kind of religious genocide?


That will surely improve the situation!

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

When you come up with a method to debate with a fundamentalist to get them to compromise, ill accept this as correct.

what does that have to do with anything?

My point is that fundamentalism and any polarisation toward extremist views on a wide scale is the result of an outside factor; invading countries, when the reason is perceived as being 'because they're muslims' and the result is widespread deaths of muslims, is going to breed fundamentalism more than any crazy imam. Crushing dissent in an occupied country with missiles is going to make the shit hit the fan at one hell of a rate - this is an ideology where death holds no fear if it is in defence of Islam, so bombing is not a deterrent at all.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

So respond with superior force. And lots of it. So that those teaching the fundamentalists of the next generation arent around to continue the cycle.

I don't think you quite understand the problem here. If the fundamentalists were all lined up, or where we knew where they lived, it would be a different question. We don't. Getting the political will to kill the enemy is easy, it's different killing random innocent people who happen to be nearby.

Although I'm reluctant to draw parallels to East Asia, look how many bombs were dropped on the South Vietnamese. It didn't exstinguish the NLF / Viet Cong.

[Marilyn Manson]

Even if we could shove all the fundamentalists in the world into some kind of rocket, and blast it off into space, then Fundamentalism is not going to be extinguished as a force, so long as the ideas and social conditions neccesary to create it still exist.

[Knight Theamion]

I am on the bring back Sadam committee, I think some Iraqi's are with me.

[Tactitus]

Tbh, I'd rather they were blowing up churches than people.

Compared to televised beheadings, it seems rather tame. :/

[Mr_Blob]

The insurgents are trying to stir up religous hate between muslims and christians in iraq in the hope of starting a conflict between these two groups. This wont work as the bulk of people in iraq dont want to fight against each other, they just want to have a safe place to raise their kids and enjoy life (like everyone else in the world.) The insurgents tried this same bombing tactic hoping to cause conflict between sunni's and shia's and that hasnt worked. The insurgents and their supports are only a small minority in iraq (hard to believe given how the antiwar element in the world media reports and also the general tendancy of all media to put the most negative side forward of any situation). They're made up of hate filled ignorant people who are easily led. They've been convinced that having democracy in iraq will lead to the destruction of its moral codes and that the only way forward is to set up an islamic state. The challenge for the Coalition and Iraqi government is to convince these people that democracy is not a threat to their way of life (or their country) and that their insurgent efforts are self defeating and only perpetuate their own misery.

There's also a number of other macro reasons for the church bombings that could be analysised such as making christians around the world angry or making people feel its all to hard lets just blow the whole place up, etc, but realistically who knows what they're thinking!

[Summanus]

This is why Orwellian society is great - we can teleport it we want to. But we don't want to.

So just destory them because the Party wishes it

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

When you come up with a method to debate with a fundamentalist to get them to compromise, ill accept this as correct.

if you kill a few 100 fundamentalists, you get a few 1000 in return in other parts of the country. the use of force doesnt work in this case, thats why this whole 'war on terror' was totally stupid in the first place.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Mr_Blob

The insurgents are trying to stir up religous hate between muslims and christians in iraq in the hope of starting a conflict between these two groups.

There aren't enough Christians in Iraq to fuel much of a conflict. A Sunni/Shia conflict on the other hand...

There's also a number of other macro reasons for the church bombings that could be analysised such as making christians around the world angry or making people feel its all to hard lets just blow the whole place up, etc,

Who but Kura would think that? With people being beheaded, I doubt many people are going to care about a few church buildings.

but realistically who knows what they're thinking!

I think the only plausible idea is that it's an attempt to sway other muslims.

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

nonsense

You are not Gabriel Shear, he's a fictional character and has better hair. Let go!

[Nusselt]

if you take the synopsis of this thread, isn't it basically what the 'murderous bastard fundamentalists' think?

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I don't think you quite understand the problem here. If the fundamentalists were all lined up, or where we knew where they lived, it would be a different question. We don't. Getting the political will to kill the enemy is easy, it's different killing random innocent people who happen to be nearby.

Although I'm reluctant to draw parallels to East Asia, look how many bombs were dropped on the South Vietnamese. It didn't exstinguish the NLF / Viet Cong.

so is this going to be bush's vietnam then?

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

if you take the synopsis of this thread, isn't it basically what the 'murderous bastard fundamentalists' think?

If one side fights with "Rules of Engagement" and the other can do anything it damn well pleases, the RoE side has to have 100 times the firepower since its going to have a shitload more casualties , and theyll be a lot higher profile.

[G.K Zhukov]

Copied from the American Rules of Engagement (RoE):

Hostile fire is to be responded to in the following way: Bombing of whole cities, killing of enemy that looks suspious. Maximum firepower from armour, machineguns, artillery and air power is to be used.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

so is this going to be bush's vietnam then?

No. But it could be if you started adopting Kura's suggest strategies.

I'll only consider full on comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq when the Iraqi death-toll hits a million.

[roadrunner_0]

whats the approximate death toll now then, as i pretty much manage to aviod the news where iraq is concerned

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

whats the approximate death toll now then, as i pretty much manage to aviod the news where iraq is concerned

there have been no casualties so far in this conflict, apart from al qaeda operatives.

[Nusselt]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

If one side fights with "Rules of Engagement" and the other can do anything it damn well pleases, the RoE side has to have 100 times the firepower since its going to have a shitload more casualties , and theyll be a lot higher profile.

im confused

i meant isn't the ' "Kill em all, let their god sort them out"' 'mentality what the mbf think? i don't get the reply