So much for "war on terror"
 

Holy shit...Al Qaeda is winning the war on terror!

Jordan blast:
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jh...rc=ActiveBuddy

Baghad blast:
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jh...rc=ActiveBuddy

So, how does that equate into al Queda winning? What objectives did they secure? What territory did they gain?

How do you know this isn't a last gasp by a group thats defeated and broken (like the Germans after Stalingrad and the Japanese after Midway)?

While I'm not gonna jump to the rosy conclusion that this is any sort of "last gasp" you can hardly say Al Quaida is "winning" anything.

They're continuing to wage their war, and we're continuing to wage ours - with (IMO) no signs of either side "winning" anything in the foreseeable future.

You can't win a war on terror. Not the way the Bush administration is trying to win it.

Cowards don't win wars. These men are cowards, Donnie.

Dude, I was being sarcastic.

I think the whole Scicide bonbing shit is cowarly(cowardly). There just stupid brainwashed pussies who think that killing their own people who have almost nothing to do with whatever there whining about.

Like that angry guy from Red Dawn said. "If a fox kills one of your animals would you retaliate by killing more of your animals?"

Do you also find writing coherently and spelling properly cowarly, as well? :rolleyes


I don't think "suicide bombing" is cowardly... it's takes a lot of guts to die for a cause. That's not to say I don't think it's incredibly stupid and morally reprehensible, but I also don't think brave and stupid have ever been mutually exclusive personality traits.

Just because you score a couple goals doesn't mean you win the game. Although, when George Bush is the captain of the other team... you worry.

American have been flying 2000 feet over baghdad and bombing the shit out of the city yet the arabs strap themselves with bombs and blowing themselves up in order to get back at us, who are the real cowards? Huh?

:billhicks

I'd be willing to bet that those martyrs of which you speak are mostly not Iraqi nationals.

Has anyone ever referred to you as "the Gegg-meister"? Just curious.

I used to agree with you, Ziggy, but I have changed my mind on that.

There's a lot of ways one could kill themself. They could grab a loaded gun, charge an army unit, and fight the fighters. They instead choose to take out a wedding party. Not a teribly gutsy move, IMO.

whats the difference between 3 guys hiding in an alleyway with some grenades or RPGs, then ambushing a army convoy and then booking it down pre specified paths.

Or you just drive a car into a group of people who look important then blow yourself up along with your fellow country-men. The reasoning is because they promise every dipshit they can find, that he will become wealthy and get a herum of virgins once he gets to heaven.

So what if the first plan actually takes some fucking coordination!? These cocks are trying to coast their way to victory, after a somewhat sucsessful first strike.

From their actions I'm only led to beleive that their leaders are fanatical dipshits who think they can wage a guerilla war on their own country and expect the odd bombing in another country to solve all their problems.

I say the US pulls out of iraq and just says, Here you go al queda! its yours, now lest see if YOU can do better!

So, if they suicide bomb a military checkpoint they're braver than if they bomb a wedding party? I don't know about that. Saner, maybe? More strategically minded, perhaps, but not any less brave.

Then again the difference between brave and stupid is often just a matter of perspective.

I suppose the strongest arguement against these people's "bravery" would be that they often are following someone else's orders, hitting someone else's target, or whatever. But really, I think there is a fallacy in equating all forms of bravery with honor, and saying that since they lack honor, that they are cowards.

I really don't have any clue why they would blow up a wedding party, rather than a military target, unless they think one is more effective than the other. Who's to say what they think they're acheiving? But I do think it takes a great deal of resolve for some jerk to blow himself to bits for some stupid fucking cause.


Brave or stupid?


Brave or stupid?


Brave or stupid? (see, they aren't ALL hard questions)

There's been rumors flying over the internet that Al Qaeda is the US government's household product name.

The explosions happened at US hotels and vast majority of muslims were killed. Israelis were warned to stay out of these hotels. Few articles indicated that bombs were planted in the ceilings. This happened the day after the republicans were destroyed in the election. Is this the work of US/Israel? Was this a stunt by bush administration to boost public support for war on terror? Is george bush desperately looking for approval from daddy bush? Only time will tell.

Kellychaos...no one ever called me gegg-meister...why?? :(

But what if they truly believe that that one agonizing moment will lead to an eternity of joy and pleasure? is that bravery?

I think the reason you target a weding party rather than a military post is because you're looking for two different results that way. You can't possibly beat the U.S. military in a head on battle, so you target the people in that nation, hoping that the masses will eventually turn on our presence there.

It's a tactic similar to that used in Israel, and I think it's cowardly. Blowing yourself up outside a military post may not be the same, that seems to me more like guerilla warfare.

Either way, it's still insane.

scully said, maybe true faith is a form of insanity. :O

I've heard that from many, many people, Guil. Except they spelled it right. Is some research in order for you?

This kind of reminds of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sure, the effects were devastating and ugly but the end result was that a lot of lives were saved via this decision rather than conventional warfare. No one can ever confince me otherwise.

Allow me to explain. Sure, a lot of lives and property (collateral damage?) are lost unintentionally due to the current combat doctrine of the U.S., but I propose that a lot more lives/damge would be incurred under a conventional style of combat that was not so surgical in its intent. Again, no one can convince me otherwise.

Note: This is not to say that I agree with the current activities. I don't agree with the idea of combat to effect regime change. If a nation doesn't immediately threaten us, then leave them the fuck alone. That is all.

You're an idiot.

why do most threads have to end like this? :(