# 24hr Terror TV Stn Broadcasting in Baghdad - Al Zahraa TV



## 1feral1 (11 Dec 2006)

GDay all from a chilly evening in Baghdad'.

Recently we have been getting on our TVs here a most unique station called Al Zahraa TV (google this). It is the propaganda machine for the AIF, and watching it, although we don't have a clue what is being said, the message is clear!

After a brief speech by some clown in Bin-Cam, with a matching set of CBA, then hours upon hours of AIF digital footage of US HUMVEEs, US and UK armoured vehicles of all types, and convoys of trucks being destroyed by IEDs (S)VBIEDs, EFPs, and indirect fire. Plus sniper footage too, all not for the faint hearted. All unedited, so be weary.

How anything like that can allowed to be constantly aired (can't the freq be jammed??), we'll you tell me! 

In short its pretty sick shyte, fed in on Channel 6. We are told the broadcasting centre is mobile, and hence why its not off the air, or better yet, DESTROYED by Mr JDAM, but this garbage simply motivates the weak minded and influencial youth, and produces more radicals, not only making things more difficult for the Coalition, but for the average Smuftie, who just wants to have a job and raise a family, like anyone of us.

Anyways, for those curious, and those having some time, feel free to Google and perhaps find a link for this Terror TV, as thats what we are calling it here.


Regards from the Sandbox,


Wes


----------



## KevinB (11 Dec 2006)

Yeah -- we where having a discussion about it today.

I was interested that it had not met Mr LittleBird and his friends.



Even more interested that there has not been a public outcry from the Muslim clerics in the West decrying it...



Some of the local Iraqi's have been calling those people Savages.  
anyone who drinks beer and eats pork is GTG in my eyes...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Dec 2006)

you would think they could send a missle along the carrier wave.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Dec 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Yeah -- we where having a discussion about it today.
> anyone who drinks beer and eats pork is GTG in my eyes...



Ya, you and I should discuss this and other things over a cold drink here in the confines of a nearby warm and semi-safe place. Next time you are in the IZ here in Hell City, let me know. My Iraqna to fol via PM. 

One of my men is downloading a DVD worth of this propaganda for everyone in the PL as a reminder to the insanity of this place.


Keep your shyte wired tight out there Kevin, we are.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## KevinB (11 Dec 2006)

Roger -- I have a favour to ask as well on behalf of one of your countrymen...


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Dec 2006)

PM me...

Cheers,

Wes

I am on here til 2145.


----------



## Kilo_302 (11 Dec 2006)

As absolutely disgusting as Al Zahraa TV is (I have seen it), we're opening up a pandora's box here by discussing it as a legitimate military target. If it can proven that its employees are actively supporting insurgent attacks, fine, arrest them (or "neutralize" them, whichever is easier). I hate to play devil's advocate here, but Al Zahraa is basically an extremely graphic Middle Eastern version of Fox news. That may be a crude comparison, but in my opinion they both serve the same purpose, which is to convince, rather than inform. Although I must admit Fox news does not incite hatred against religious/ethnic groups, in which case that does make Al Zahraa illegal if we apply Western definitions of hate crimes.


----------



## FredDaHead (11 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> As absolutely disgusting as Al Zahraa TV is (I have seen it), we're opening up a pandora's box here by discussing it as a legitimate military target. If it can proven that its employees are actively supporting insurgent attacks, fine, arrest them (or "neutralize" them, whichever is easier). I hate to play devil's advocate here, but Al Zahraa is basically an extremely graphic Middle Eastern version of Fox news. That may be a crude comparison, but in my opinion they both serve the same purpose, which is to convince, rather than inform. Although I must admit Fox news does not incite hatred against religious/ethnic groups, in which case that does make Al Zahraa illegal if we apply Western definitions of hate crimes.



There's a world of frickin difference between saying "the guys on the other side are evil" and, say, "look how we cowardly kill people" and showing the gore. That's like saying the Nazi propaganda machine ("kill all the Jews, we will conquer the world") was the same as the Allied propaganda machine ("let's stop this madman"). Hey, they were both propaganda machines, right?

I'm not gonna go as far as saying you're a troll, but it does seem like every thread you get involved in, you just post inflamatory comments such as this one. Thread lightly.


----------



## FoverF (11 Dec 2006)

Inflammatory or not, he brings up a very valid point.

Does broadcasting combat footage filmed by a militant party make you a party to the conflict? 

Although not as graphic, most American news stations have no difficulty broadcasting American air-delivered munitions killing Iraqi military/militia/civilians. Some cast it in a negative light, some are somewhat neutral, and some are CNN. This station may indeed be encouraging people to join militant groups, but you may note there are military recruitment commercials played on any number of western channels (Canadian channels being no exception).

If they are violating Iraqi law by 'inciting hatred' or whatever statutes exist in Iraqi law, then they should be dealt with on that basis. Ideally this would involve a police investigation, and if tried and found guilty, the people responsible would be incarcerated. 
However, ideal solutions are just that, and expedient solutions have to be taken when the ideal solution is impractical (like this case). I realize Iraq is a bit of a rough and tumble place right now, and that hitting their transmitter with a large piece of air-delivered ordnance is a much more practical solution. These people *probably* are intimately tied to the insurgency, and in wartime that's sometimes good enough (and usually the best you can prove anyways). There's a reason their transmitter is mobile, they know what they've gotten themselves into.

All I'm trying to say is that this is a line which must be tread carefully. Do we want to make media outlets (including our own) party to armed conflict?  This isn't so much a big deal in the present conflict (where the foe feels no need to justify their targets based on any ethical  criteria we would recognize). 

But what criterion should be used to allow the killing of members of the media? 

-------------------------------------------
Aside:
 I disagree with the characterization of the using IEDs as "cowardly". They do it because fewer of their people die when they do it that way. Western powers use armour and airpower for exactly the same reasons, and are characterized (just as wrongly) as cowardly by the their enemies.


----------



## Kilo_302 (11 Dec 2006)

> There's a world of frickin difference between saying "the guys on the other side are evil" and, say, "look how we cowardly kill people" and showing the gore. That's like saying the Nazi propaganda machine ("kill all the Jews, we will conquer the world") was the same as the Allied propaganda machine ("let's stop this madman"). Hey, they were both propaganda machines, right?



I'm pretty sure I stated that there was  a difference between Fox News and Al Zahraa, however I maintain that they are both essentially cheerleaders for their respective "sides".  As for trolling, it seems that that not "toeing the line" here is the equivalent. My post on this specific thread merely raises valid questions as to media involvement in conflict, and at what point can a "journalist" (if those working for Al Zahraa can be called journalists) be considered a combatant. These questions are important, and I am by no means trolling simply because I illuminate problems with targeting media outlets, be they valid or not. The world is not black and white.

As for the graphic nature of their broadcasts, what else would we expect? I will repeat myself, Al Zahraa is disgusting, however many Iraqis who watch this pseudo-news have no doubt seen the real thing outside on the streets, so why should they be offended? FoverF is correct when he points out that Western media outlets show the deaths of people almost everyday, though the shots are often bomb blasts seen from thousands of feet above the ground. If CNN insists on showing footage of combat, perhaps they should also show the results on the ground.


----------



## HDE (12 Dec 2006)

Does the new station offer any means whatsoever for those with an differing viewpoint to be heard?  I'm not a big fan of Fox, however I have seen debates between folks with various opinions.  Any shots of the "collateral damage", dead civilians, in the various attacks they're showing?  These are the sorts of issues that differentiate journalism from propaganda.


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Dec 2006)

FoverF said:
			
		

> Inflammatory or not, he brings up a very valid point.
> 
> Does broadcasting combat footage filmed by a militant party make you a party to the conflict?
> 
> ...




IED's not cowardly?

Have you seen and heard the results from one aside from CNN?

Why don't you tell what you think to the families of the 45+ locals who were killed about 90minutes ago. They were day labourers, wanting a days pay for a days work. IED's are targeting more locals than Coalition Forces, thats a fact.


Secondly from another post, comparing FOX to Terror TV is like comparing apples to oranges. We don't show us beheading them! I will admit FOX is rightwing, and I like it. Back home I watch it all the time.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## armyvern (12 Dec 2006)

*Propoganda alert!!!*



			
				Wesley 'Over There' (formerly Down Under) said:
			
		

> We don't show us beheading them!



Kilo_302, but especially FoverF...note the above. We don't show it because *we aren't doing it*!! Get a grip. Fox does not = Al Zahraa


----------



## KevinB (12 Dec 2006)

Wes,  PM's are bouncing to you again
  I will call in an hour or so.
Cheers.


As for the armchair asshat comments about the tactics -- if you have no time on the ground please dont offer commentary.  As Wes and Vern stated there is a huge difference, and IED's and beheadings are terror tools - indescrimate (even the beheadings are indecriminate since they do it to non combatants...)

WAY more locals are killed by insurgent groups than the insurgents kill MNF personnel with those methods.


----------



## FoverF (12 Dec 2006)

I should probably clarify that the point I was trying to make in my aside (which, in hindsight, should probably have been expressed elsewhere, but it was topical at the moment), is that while some cowards may use IEDs, using them does not define one as a coward. 

I was not trying to speak for the intestinal fortitude of the people carrying ou tthe attacks in these videos. 



> Why don't you tell what you think to the families of the 45+ locals who were killed about 90minutes ago. They were day labourers, wanting a days pay for a days work.


Had they been killed by CBUs dropped from 10,000ft, it would have been just as cowardly. Or by mortars, or bayonets, or....The weapon used is somewhat immaterial in this regard. Using any weapon indiscriminately, or against civilians for purposes of terrorism, is cowardly. IEDs are not special in this regard. 

That's all I was trying to say. 



> WAY more locals are killed by insurgent groups than the insurgents kill MNF personnel with those methods.


I'm sure they also kill more locals than foreign infidels with 7.62X39. 
Cowardice is a property of the person using the weapon, not of any weapon itself. 



> Quote from: Wesley 'Over There' (formerly Down Under) on Today at 01:29:20
> We don't show us beheading them!
> 
> Kilo_302, but especially FoverF...note the above. We don't show it because we aren't doing it!! Get a grip. Fox does not = Al Zahraa



At no point in this thread did I mention beheading, OR Fox, nor make ANY attempt to draw moral equivalency between warring factions in Iraq, so I'm not sure why I was singled out on that response? I certainly never implied that "we" are cutting people's heads off in Iraq. "We" as in Canada? "We" as in people on this board? Other than the part about Fox and Al Zahraa (which I agree with fully) I don't understand your post at all. Care to elaborate? 


But does anyone have anything to say regarding the media as military targets? 

We all seem to agree that Al Zahraa is a legit target. But so far the explanation for that has been because they're almost certainly directly involved in the insurgency. Arguments about graphic content are bogus. This implies that the discriminator should be whether the people being killed on TV look gross or not. I see very little ethical difference between showing an insurgent sniper attack kill a US soldier, and showing a 500lb JDAM take out a city block. And if they carefully edited their tapes so that you never actually SAW any dead people after the fact, I highly doubt any of us would change our tune on al Zahraa.

I'm sure they ARE cheerleading for the insurgents, which is probably the biggest justification for taking them out, but many western media sources fall into the exact same category. I'm NOT saying Al Zahraa is the moral equivalent of western news stations. So DON'T flame me on that regard. Al Zahraa is nasty, they're the bad guys, they're evil, whatever denunciations you want, I'll say it till I'm blue in the face. I'm not trying to say Fox is just as bad. But they're both TV channels, and both are used as recruiting tools, both act as mouthpeices for their their respective sides.

Western TV stations are used as recruitment tools, pass on statements by military and political leaders supporting/justifying wars, have their personnel accompany military units into combat, and in some cases act as  the cheerleading section. This pretty much makes them military targets IMHO.

But where does it stop? Are the people filming footage for Al Zahraa legitimate targets? I'm sure just about everyone would agree. Embedded journalists are fair game in my book too. But where do you draw the line? A CNN correspondant with a US marine company? Their staff in Baghdad? CNN's offices in Washington? (this is somewhat immaterial in the war in Iraq (where the very term 'legitimate military target' has no meaning to the insurgents, but again, for emphasis, I'm not just talking about the war in Iraq). 

Most of the discussion in the west regarding the military/media relationship, and media during wartime focuses on their 'impartiality', or lack of it. Because western media sources, by virtue of geography, are beyond the reach of most opponents. So their being actively targetted isn't much of a threat. But this is not/will not always be the case.  

I don't have a definitive answer, I'm just trying to start some discussion on the topic.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Dec 2006)

FoverF said:
			
		

> *Had they been killed by CBUs dropped from 10,000ft, it would have been just as cowardly..... Using any weapon indiscriminately, or against civilians for purposes of terrorism, is cowardly.
> 
> That's all I was trying to say.*


......what you are succeeding in saying however is:

a) you have no idea what is involved with targetteering for air strikes, and hence, believe it's indiscriminate,
b) you believe coalition forces are targetting civilians for the purposes of terrorism, and hence, have no concept of the strategy or operational art involved, the Rules of Engagement, the oversight and investigative capabilities available to command should indiscriminate acts occur.



> *I don't have a definitive answer, I'm just trying to start some discussion on the topic*.


Laudable. Many of us prefer _informed_ discussion here, limiting the trolling less-informed commentary to The Mess threads.


----------



## FoverF (12 Dec 2006)

Journeyman:

DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

I have the highest respect for the airmen of the US armed services (with only a very few exceptions among the many I have met), who as a group are the most operationally experienced in the world. And every member of the RAF I have ever met could be held up as the very model of professionalism. 

Your statement that I believe them to be terrorists would be laughable if I wasn't so P.O.'d about it. 

I do NOT believe that coalition airstrikes in Iraq are indiscriminate, and at no point in time did I try to imply that they were. Neither do I believe that coalition forces are wandering around the streets indiscriminately bayoneting people,(which your mischaracterization would imply that I believe, although I note that you chose to omit my other examples from your quote). I suppose my aspirations to be a pilot in the CF are so I can go around killing and terrorizing too? 

Your post is borderline SLANDEROUS, and I highly resent it. If you have nothing to say regarding the actual body of my post, fine, then DON'T REPLY.

But I strongly resent you picking through to find something which can be taken out of context, and using it to accuse me of being a complete retard, an anti-war extremist, and a troll at the same time. 

Apparently no-one here has any interest in discussing the operational or ethical considerations of direct action by conflicting parties against media outlets.

Yet there doesn't seem to a shortage of people to slander me, tell me I need to get a grip, etc... because I made an off-hand comment that cowardice is decided by WHO you kill and WHY, NOT by which WEAPON you use. And I FIRMLY stand behind that. But I guess that's just me being an "asshat".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Dec 2006)

I will discuss........

If we are at war with someone then we are at war with thier media...............blow it up reeeal good.


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Dec 2006)

Foverf, I have gotten the same thing many a time. That is, rational arguments of mine are replied with insults and suggestions as to my intelligence and political persuasion. I still don't understand what there is to be so defensive about. What's wrong with a healthy debate?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> As absolutely disgusting as Al Zahraa TV is (I have seen it), we're opening up a pandora's box here by discussing it as a legitimate military target. If it can proven that its employees are actively supporting insurgent attacks, fine, arrest them (or "neutralize" them, whichever is easier). I hate to play devil's advocate here, but Al Zahraa is basically an extremely graphic Middle Eastern version of Fox news. That may be a crude comparison, but in my opinion they both serve the same purpose, which is to convince, rather than inform. Although I must admit Fox news does not incite hatred against religious/ethnic groups, in which case that does make Al Zahraa illegal if we apply Western definitions of hate crimes.



Maybe its because you consider this moronic post that makes no sense a rational arguement?


----------



## GO!!! (12 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Foverf, I have gotten the same thing many a time. That is, rational arguments of mine are replied with insults and suggestions as to my intelligence and political persuasion. I still don't understand what there is to be so defensive about. What's wrong with a healthy debate?



You're right, we're all a bunch of ignorant, reactionary, extreme right wing idiots for being so stupid as to disagree with you. 

If you're really all that upset about it, www.rabble.ca  has many more like minded individuals with thought processes more geared towards your end of the spectrum.


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Dec 2006)

> Maybe its because you consider this moronic post that makes no sense a rational arguement



It was meant to ask important questions. And again, insulting language is unnecessary. I would also object to the fact that you claim I am "defending the Soviet Empire". The USSR was an abomination. Just as Nazi Germany was an abomination.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Dec 2006)

What questions??

Its the same as but in no way similar??  WTF?


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Dec 2006)

I was arguing both sides of a point. "I take your point however...then again...maybe we are both right" sort of thing. Maybe its more appropriate in a paper of some sort, rather than on a discussion board. My apologies.


----------



## GO!!! (12 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I was arguing both sides of a point.



So why don't you agree to disagree with yourself?  :


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Dec 2006)

FoverF said:
			
		

> .........is that while some cowards may use IEDs, using them does not define one as a coward.



SNAP!

I am biting.

Troll, or shytedisturber, you have got me wondering, but in reality, I really don't give a phuque, as there is more important things going on here than to listen to some clueless person about his opinion on insurgent cowardly yellow bellied behaviour and his tools of cold blooded murder. I am just happy to be yet another bacon loving infidel, who craves whisky, and has sinful thoughts 24hrs/day!

So pal, someone who places 500kg of explosives in a trunk of a vehicle at a busy market full of men, women and children (who are there to buy food, and sell wares), and then remotely detonates it, killing for sake of arguement 200+ (27 Nov 06 Sadr City Baghdad), then waits for rescue personnel to show up, lets them get into it a bit, then detonates another 500kg of HE, is not a coward?

WTF have you been smoking, reading or who have you been listening to?

The losers that film the carnage are the bombers themselves! The Juba sniper special was a shocker!! I watched at least 50 US soldiers getting head shots and dropping like flys, plus at least 100 IEDs on Coalition vehicles before I turned it off. That stn goes all the time, its full of hatred, not news or views.

Even a child knows that stealing is wrong, and if you cannot see that such activity by this Terror TV is wrong, you have a mental problem!

Thats pretty sick shyte for all ages to watch, and I mean all ages!! Would you let your kids watch?

Anyone associated with this network of sickness should be wiped out, as doing so will save lives, maybe even mine!

It really shytes me to tears that people with the only source of info they have is a rumour, started by some lefty limp wristed tree hugger, or some cheap INet source, then take it upon themselves to become some subject matter expert about what goes on here, when the closest they have come to war is reading a novel, watching Jarhead, or the news.

My advice to you is STFU if you don't have a clue about the reality of what goes on here in this arsehole of a place (ya, thats EXACTLY what it is here).

Remember, its your integerity on here, not ours, but I don't think you care anyways.  

Stick to being a civvy avaition wannabee pal, and steer CLEAR of me!

Disgusted yet again, beyond a joke,


Wes


----------



## Fyuri (13 Dec 2006)

Nicely stated. FINISH HIM!


----------



## ClaytonD (13 Dec 2006)

Okay just so you know that I know. I may be out of my lane by commenting on this topic. (Just tell me if I am and I'll refrain from posting again)

But as Bruce said it, we are at war with them, we are at war with their media. The fact of the matter is, Al Zahraa is a propoghanda machine, therefore it is a psychological weapon used (In many forms) against allied nations. Last I checked, we are at war on terrorism. Doesn't Al Zahraa support terrorism? A camera can be a more effective weapon than a gun in many cases. (IMO atleast.)

Raid it, bomb it, whatever, just get rid of it.


----------



## armyvern (13 Dec 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I probably shouldn't speak for FoverF, but I am guessing that blowing up coalition forces wouldn't be considered cowardly.



And that is the difference between a professional Army and a terrorist.

Professional armies do not deliberately target civilians; we go for the bad guys.

The terrorist act, however, of deliberately targeting civilians, with no goal other than to cause both political and economical instability, is always cowardly; and is especially so when such act is carried out from behind the "luxury" of their remote detonator.

The targetting of 'real' soldiers, professional armies say, using VBIEDs, IEDs etc, is also a cowardly act in that the terrorsists chose not to face us head-on like true warriors. This targetting of legitimate threats, such as the Army opposite you, can not be taken in the same context as the deliberate targetting of the local civilian populace.

Attack me, I am a soldier. Leave the innocents out of it. When you refuse to face we soldiers head-on, and choose instead to destroy the infrastructure, economy, and lives of those you profess to fight your jihad on behalf of; you are a coward indeed.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Dec 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> And that is the difference between a professional Army and a terrorist.
> 
> Professional armies do not deliberately target civilians; we go for the bad guys.
> 
> ...



Although I agree with you, we have to be very careful with our definitions.  Just looking back in history, your points would say that the Americans during the American Revolution were in fact Terrorists.  They targeted 'real soldiers' in ambushes from behind trees.  They had vigilante groups harassing and in some cases killing Loyalists.  They operated in Cells.  In that day, they would have been considered Terrorists by what you have laid out as today's standards.  The same may have been said of the French Underground in WW II.   So we have to be very careful in our definitions and qualifiers.


----------



## armyvern (13 Dec 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Although I agree with you, we have to be very careful with our definitions.  Just looking back in history, your points would say that the Americans during the American Revolution were in fact Terrorists.  They targeted 'real soldiers' in ambushes from behind trees.  They had vigilante groups harassing and in some cases killing Loyalists.  They operated in Cells.  In that day, they would have been considered Terrorists by what you have laid out as today's standards.  The same may have been said of the French Underground in WW II.   So we have to be very careful in our definitions.



Like I said though, the targetting of a legitimate threat, like the army opposite you can not be taken in the same context as targetting the civilian populace. And while I still view the refusal for head-on confrontation of an Army as cowardly, we would still be considered a legitimate target for this act. This is not the case when terrorists make innocent civilians their target, deliberatly. The two situations are not comparable.


----------



## GO!!! (13 Dec 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Like I said though, the targetting of a legitimate threat, like the army opposite you can not be taken in the same context as targetting the civilian populace. And while I still view the refusal for head-on confrontation of an Army as cowardly, we would still be considered a legitimate target for this act. This is not the case when terrorists make innocent civilians their target, deliberatly. The two situations are not comparable.



Exactly.

Soldiers have always been legitimate military targets for other militaries (I'll stick with the GC definition which requires the open carrying of arms, identifying dress and adherence to the rules of war, which *WE* follow) but these terrorists hardly qualify as a military by any definition.

Terrorism is the effort to manipulate and intimidate civilian populations into adopting political agendas, using violence. Military attacks are aimed at  assets (be they material or human) of enemy tools of force, and here in the civilised world, are the manifestations of an entire country, as focussed throught their elected officials. In other words, our agenda is our national will, and vice versa. Terrorism is the agenda of a select few willing to massacre and torture by the thousands in order to get their way.

If you can't see a difference in these two ideologies, there is definitely a problem - but it is with you, not us.


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Feb 2007)

Well, FINALLY, the plug has been pulled on this 'Terror TV' network!

From my initial post back on 11 Dec to in the past few days, the signal has finally silenced, at least for now.

All this time we thought the signal was coming out of Iraq, but it was not, it was coming out of EGYPT! Why is was not turned off until now, well who only knows, but at least this sickness will not be pumping into living rooms here (and elewhere).

How such outragous material can go on for months without action from another country's government is unbelievable (but we are not suprised really, are we??), and goes to show us all the care factor and support for those batting on the otherside is indeed elsewhere, and its alive, well, and prospering.


Regards from Baghdad,


Wes


----------



## Seyek (28 Feb 2007)

Good to hear this station is finally silenced, but I want to throw my own 2 cents into the debate.

 I do not believe IEDs to be cowardly weapons. The manner in which they are used to murder innocent men, women, and children is cowardly. The people who commit such actions are cowardly. However, planting an IED on the side of a road and waiting for a truck, tank, APC, or whatnot to drive over it and kill/wound those individuals is not by any means cowardly. It's good tactics. They don't have near the capability to face us head on, and if we were in the same position (being occupied by a vastly superior military force) we would do the same thing. Now I'm not saying that the terrorists, Jihadists, or whatever you call them are noble or anything. Their twisted, murderous scumbags, especially those that use IEDs against innocents. But if anyone (not Iraqi, but in general) was being occupied by an overpowering foreign military force and utilized IEDs, ambushes, dressing in civilian clothes, not openly bearing arms and otherwise pretending to be civies to fight off the occupiers, I would call them smart.

 Again as for the cowardly thing (directed to the Librarian), we are cowards ourselves when you think about it. They don't have armoured vehicles, tanks, helicopters, carrier groups, fighters, bombers, stealth aircraft, or large quantities of night vision, body armour, sophisiticated conventional warfare training, and all the other advantages we enjoy. Yet we use them, based on the cowardly head-on approach, the only way to not be cowards would be to use equal numbers, with equal equipment, and equal training. That's not a particularly intelligent way to fight a war. I understand what you're saying, but I feel it's simply wrong.

 As for professional militaries not targeting civilians, take a look back to WW2 and all the bombings on civilian settlements, or even the cold war, in which us noble, civilian protecting westerners were ready to lob massed amounts of nukes at eastern cities and kill millions of innocents. I'm not saying we're murderers, because we do protect civilians and do everything we can to protect them, I'm only saying that in the past we have targeted civilians, and dependent on the situation, we're willing to do so.


----------



## 1feral1 (1 Mar 2007)

Strange enough  this network of hate was back up and running as of last night, and for how long, who knows.

Wes


----------



## KevinB (1 Mar 2007)

Wes -- its been piped out if Syria as well.


----------

