The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
36 Dead in Iraq after a car bomb is detonated, taking the total to 80 in several days, the others killed by a suicide bomber.
How do you fight those that are basically invisible to conventional detection methods, those who are willing to end their own life in an effort to kill many others? Both in Iraq, and in general in the war on terrorism? Conventional rules of war no longer apply. Seemingly no-one in the entire world is safe from these coward, inhuman Islamic Extremists.
Are there any simple solutions? Are we doomed to live in perpetual paranoia? Are we going the right way about it?
How do you fight those that are basically invisible to conventional detection methods, those who are willing to end their own life in an effort to kill many others? Both in Iraq, and in general in the war on terrorism? Conventional rules of war no longer apply. Seemingly no-one in the entire world is safe from these coward, inhuman Islamic Extremists.
Are there any simple solutions? Are we doomed to live in perpetual paranoia? Are we going the right way about it?
Page:
I think you'll find we had already mobilised our forces and Americans where already in Iraq when I said that. As for missing the point I'm not so sure I am. The circumstances are different. It's the same lives yes but before we had already taken casualities, full scale war was imminent and I put forward that instead of sending in our troops and getting them killed we should simply send in bombs and kill them all anyway. Yes this would kill millions of innocents but we had already began that anyway which is the difference. I mean no one could change Americas mind, it was going to happen I was just thinking in our best interests.
This situation hasn't been decided upon though so I can put forward a different point of view. I don't want to see millions of people die just before it was unstopable and in this situation we are discussing it isn't so more options are open to discuss.
This situation hasn't been decided upon though so I can put forward a different point of view. I don't want to see millions of people die just before it was unstopable and in this situation we are discussing it isn't so more options are open to discuss.
Cub!st wrote:
> Oh and by the way Blank I have noticed this a lot. Whenever you talk
> to me and bring up something I have said in the past why do you even
> bother? You never even get the right quote you just make them up. For
> example I said "level" not "floor" "their
> cities". Not a big difference but I have noticed in the past you
> have misquoted me to give a certain effect upon the reader or even
> changed the words entirely to spin what I've said to your will. It's
> really annoying.
Find me an example. Go on, try. I may have misquoted you slightly, like the above, but as you say, it made little difference.
> Oh and by the way Blank I have noticed this a lot. Whenever you talk
> to me and bring up something I have said in the past why do you even
> bother? You never even get the right quote you just make them up. For
> example I said "level" not "floor" "their
> cities". Not a big difference but I have noticed in the past you
> have misquoted me to give a certain effect upon the reader or even
> changed the words entirely to spin what I've said to your will. It's
> really annoying.
Find me an example. Go on, try. I may have misquoted you slightly, like the above, but as you say, it made little difference.
Cub!st wrote:
> Ah but this is different as I said that with the benefit of
> hindsight.
No you didn't, you originally said this before we went into Iraq.
> We had levelled there cities already.
Again, we hadn't. And indeed we didn't. I think you need to touch up on your knowledge a bit there.
> I just said that
> when we look back on it it would have been FAR easier and reduced our
> casualities if we just levelled their cities with bombs. Doesn't mean
> I approve of it in the future.
It would have been easier, but it would have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. We didn't "do it anyway" as you always say we did, and you were proposing this city levelling before our bombs dropped, at any rate.
You're completely missing the point here: you didn't give a shaft about innocent lives in that incident, so why should you here? It's even the same innocent lives, for God's sake.
> Ah but this is different as I said that with the benefit of
> hindsight.
No you didn't, you originally said this before we went into Iraq.
> We had levelled there cities already.
Again, we hadn't. And indeed we didn't. I think you need to touch up on your knowledge a bit there.
> I just said that
> when we look back on it it would have been FAR easier and reduced our
> casualities if we just levelled their cities with bombs. Doesn't mean
> I approve of it in the future.
It would have been easier, but it would have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. We didn't "do it anyway" as you always say we did, and you were proposing this city levelling before our bombs dropped, at any rate.
You're completely missing the point here: you didn't give a shaft about innocent lives in that incident, so why should you here? It's even the same innocent lives, for God's sake.
Oh and by the way Blank I have noticed this a lot. Whenever you talk to me and bring up something I have said in the past why do you even bother? You never even get the right quote you just make them up. For example I said "level" not "floor" "their cities". Not a big difference but I have noticed in the past you have misquoted me to give a certain effect upon the reader or even changed the words entirely to spin what I've said to your will. It's really annoying.
Blank wrote:
> Cubist, you've said before that we should have "floored their
> cities" (Iraq's) for the September 11th attacks. And when
> pointed out that thousands if not millions of innocent lives would be
> lost you stuck with it and said it was for our protection. And since
> you've even said this again recently, I wouldn't even try and put
> across the sanctimonious viewpoint if I were you.
Ah but this is different as I said that with the benefit of hindsight. We had levelled there cities already. I just said that when we look back on it it would have been FAR easier and reduced our casualities if we just levelled their cities with bombs. Doesn't mean I approve of it in the future.
> Cubist, you've said before that we should have "floored their
> cities" (Iraq's) for the September 11th attacks. And when
> pointed out that thousands if not millions of innocent lives would be
> lost you stuck with it and said it was for our protection. And since
> you've even said this again recently, I wouldn't even try and put
> across the sanctimonious viewpoint if I were you.
Ah but this is different as I said that with the benefit of hindsight. We had levelled there cities already. I just said that when we look back on it it would have been FAR easier and reduced our casualities if we just levelled their cities with bombs. Doesn't mean I approve of it in the future.
Cub!st wrote:
> My answer would be to kill them before the get the chance to kill
> themselves and many innocents with them. Unfortunately I don't know
> how that could be done without some kind of gigantic bomb but that
> would kill many innocents too which brings us back to the original
> dillemna unless ofcourse you are cold hearted and only believe in
> protecting yourself and your own.
Cubist, you've said before that we should have "floored their cities" (Iraq's) for the September 11th attacks. And when pointed out that thousands if not millions of innocent lives would be lost you stuck with it and said it was for our protection. And since you've even said this again recently, I wouldn't even try and put across the sanctimonious viewpoint if I were you.
> My answer would be to kill them before the get the chance to kill
> themselves and many innocents with them. Unfortunately I don't know
> how that could be done without some kind of gigantic bomb but that
> would kill many innocents too which brings us back to the original
> dillemna unless ofcourse you are cold hearted and only believe in
> protecting yourself and your own.
Cubist, you've said before that we should have "floored their cities" (Iraq's) for the September 11th attacks. And when pointed out that thousands if not millions of innocent lives would be lost you stuck with it and said it was for our protection. And since you've even said this again recently, I wouldn't even try and put across the sanctimonious viewpoint if I were you.
My answer would be to kill them before the get the chance to kill themselves and many innocents with them. Unfortunately I don't know how that could be done without some kind of gigantic bomb but that would kill many innocents too which brings us back to the original dillemna unless ofcourse you are cold hearted and only believe in protecting yourself and your own. Meh it all comes down to are you willing to let morals stand in the way of achieving your goals? That question can be interpreted as very cold hearted I know but it's the truth.
Yep, but they used to just target coalition troops. If people are queueing to join the new military and police then to me that rather suggests they're in favour of the new order in Iraq and want to protect it.
What happens around the world when terrorists attack and kill people? People hate the terrorists more and more want to stop them, same thing is happening in Iraq. There won't be any big end game battle because the terrorists don't have the resources to do so, if they did they wouldn't be using such cowardly weapons as car bombs.
What happens around the world when terrorists attack and kill people? People hate the terrorists more and more want to stop them, same thing is happening in Iraq. There won't be any big end game battle because the terrorists don't have the resources to do so, if they did they wouldn't be using such cowardly weapons as car bombs.
They targeted Iraqis queuing to join the US led police force in Baghdad.
Belldandy wrote:
> I think we *may* be coming towards the final throes of revolt in
> Iraq.
Not in my opinion. I think that country is just about ready to tear itself apart. The Allies are just the referees in what will turn out to be a horrific fight to destruction.
> I think we *may* be coming towards the final throes of revolt in
> Iraq.
Not in my opinion. I think that country is just about ready to tear itself apart. The Allies are just the referees in what will turn out to be a horrific fight to destruction.
Page: