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

[GO!!!]

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]

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]

What questions??

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

 

[Kilo_302]

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!!!]

I was arguing both sides of a point.

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

 

[1feral1]

.........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]

Nicely stated. FINISH HIM!

 

[ClaytonD]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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!!!]

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]

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]

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]

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

Wes

 

[KevinB]

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