chicot Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 So you're saying your own countrymen are blowing THEMSELVES up to make a point about US leaving? Sorry, I don't buy it. 381477[/snapback] Nope. I think that most of the ones actually blowing themselves are up are probably foreigners with some help and assistance from more ruthless and fanatical elements of the Iraqi insurgency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 This is what I meant: Few foreign fighters in Iraq "Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700 captives being held as security threats in Iraq, a strong indication that Iraqis are largely responsible for the stubborn insurgency." Yes, I know the article is a year old but I somewhat doubt that the number of foreigners being held has increased so that it is now 50% of the total number or anything like it. 381479[/snapback] These people aren't just "held". Lots of them are killed. Those numbers could just as easily mean that Iraqis are far more likely to let themselves be captured. More Syrians were killed during the assault on Baghdad than Iraqis, after all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 These people aren't just "held". Lots of them are killed. Those numbers could just as easily mean that Iraqis are far more likely to let themselves be captured. More Syrians were killed during the assault on Baghdad than Iraqis, after all... 381483[/snapback] Well, what do you believe? That there are more foreign insurgents than Iraqi ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Nope. I think that most of the ones actually blowing themselves are up are probably foreigners with some help and assistance from more ruthless and fanatical elements of the Iraqi insurgency. 381481[/snapback] So then you would agree with me that for the most part the Iraqi-led portion of the so-called "insurgency" has died down considerably? Because let me tell you, most of the reports WE hear here in the States are those about car-bombings any more. Much less regarding attacks against soldiers or infrastructure, much more against people trying to work with the new government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Well, what do you believe? That there are more foreign insurgents than Iraqi ones? 381491[/snapback] What the !@#$ does belief have to do with anything? Who gives a sh-- what I believe? What I believe is completely irrelevant to the reality on the ground...and from what evidence I've seen, anecdotal and otherwise, that indicates there's multiple parties in Iraq pursuing multiple goals, including ex-Baathists and foreign fighters that may or may not cooperate with each other depending on the situation, regardless of what anyone not in Iraq believes. That's a FAR cry from making a woefully ignorant blanket assumption that, because more Iraqis are in hospital than foreigners, more Iraqis than foreigners are fighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 What the !@#$ does belief have to do with anything? Who gives a sh-- what I believe? What I believe is completely irrelevant to the reality on the ground...and from what evidence I've seen, anecdotal and otherwise, that indicates there's multiple parties in Iraq pursuing multiple goals, including ex-Baathists and foreign fighters that may or may not cooperate with each other depending on the situation, regardless of what anyone not in Iraq believes. That's a FAR cry from making a woefully ignorant blanket assumption that, because more Iraqis are in hospital than foreigners, more Iraqis than foreigners are fighting. 381501[/snapback] Once upon a time I used to enjoy having a civilised debate with you. Sadly, it seems that is no longer possible. I asked what you believed because I wondered what your opinion was, not because it made any difference to the reality on the ground. How do you know what I made my "assumption" on? Are you are a mindreader as well as being supremely arrogant? I provided that link simply as a counterexample not because my entire opinion was based upon it's contents. You are indeed well-named. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Why would anyone pay attention to a psycho like Moore- the guy accused a former US President of aiding Al Quaeda. I'm definitely not from the republican party, nor would I ever consider joining it, but anyone who thinks that is not an american, IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Why would anyone pay attention to a psycho like Moore- the guy accused a former US President of aiding Al Quaeda. I'm definitely not from the republican party, nor would I ever consider joining it, but anyone who thinks that is not an american, IMHO 381549[/snapback] Actually it seems like the only one listening to Michael Moore are Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 How do you know what I made my "assumption" on? Are you are a mindreader as well as being supremely arrogant? 381533[/snapback] So let me get this straight: you state your opinion on something where opinion is fundamentally irrelevent, provide one item of completely ambiguous supporting data...then get pissy when you're called out on supporting your irrelevant opinion with one ambiguous data point? And I'm the one that's arrogant? That is a supremely retarded reasoning process you have there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 So let me get this straight: you state your opinion on something where opinion is fundamentally irrelevent, provide one item of completely ambiguous supporting data...then get pissy when you're called out on supporting your irrelevant opinion with one ambiguous data point? And I'm the one that's arrogant? That is a supremely retarded reasoning process you have there... 381557[/snapback] It's okay to have an opinion, you feces flingin' freak. Really. It is. Try it some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Why would anyone pay attention to a psycho like Moore- the guy accused a former US President of aiding Al Quaeda. I'm definitely not from the republican party, nor would I ever consider joining it, but anyone who thinks that is not an american, IMHO 381549[/snapback] Lots of people accuse the US of aiding al Qaeda. It's because they can't accept that the world's actually a complex place. And Moore happens to be a very visible example of that...just look at his work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 It's okay to have an opinion, you feces flingin' freak. Really. It is. Try it some time. 381558[/snapback] Boy... I sure would like to "pile on" now. Nah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 So let me get this straight: you state your opinion on something where opinion is fundamentally irrelevent, provide one item of completely ambiguous supporting data...then get pissy when you're called out on supporting your irrelevant opinion with one ambiguous data point? And I'm the one that's arrogant? That is a supremely retarded reasoning process you have there... 381557[/snapback] When exactly would opinion be relevant? This is a politics board - what exactly do you expect people to be doing apart from stating their opinion? Or maybe I should just wait for someone else to offer an opinion and then rip into it. Nah, there's enough people playing that game already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 So let me get this straight: you state your opinion on something where opinion is fundamentally irrelevent, provide one item of completely ambiguous supporting data...then get pissy when you're called out on supporting your irrelevant opinion with one ambiguous data point? And I'm the one that's arrogant? That is a supremely retarded reasoning process you have there... 381557[/snapback] And BTW am I actually allowed to reply with my opinion to JSP since he actually asked what it was? Perhaps I should just give a highly condescending reply and tell him that my opinion is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 This is what I meant: Few foreign fighters in Iraq "Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700 captives being held as security threats in Iraq, a strong indication that Iraqis are largely responsible for the stubborn insurgency." Yes, I know the article is a year old but I somewhat doubt that the number of foreigners being held has increased so that it is now 50% of the total number or anything like it. 381479[/snapback] Sorry, I'm going to have a hard time giving credence to "suspected foriegn fighters", some random percentage, and an article by USA Today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 decent piece from Globalsecurity.org on iraq dealing with the composition of the insurgency: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops..._insurgency.htm although it is safe to say that it is always in a state of flux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 So then you would agree with me that for the most part the Iraqi-led portion of the so-called "insurgency" has died down considerably? Because let me tell you, most of the reports WE hear here in the States are those about car-bombings any more. Much less regarding attacks against soldiers or infrastructure, much more against people trying to work with the new government. 381494[/snapback] Suicide bombings certainly seem to have increased and, assuming they are indeed being carried out by foreigners, that would seem to suggest that their influence is increasing. I'm not sure that attacks against the US military are down however. I read a report a few weeks ago that stated that attacks against the US military are at exactly the same level as they were a year ago (about 60-70 a day if I remember rightly). Unless these attacks actually cause loss of life they don't make the news (that's the way it is here and I'd guess it would be the same on your side of the Atlantic). Suicide bombings that kill dozens of people are always going to receive more media coverage than attacks on military targets that kill no one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Suicide bombings certainly seem to have increased and, assuming they are indeed being carried out by foreigners, that would seem to suggest that their influence is increasing. I'm not sure that attacks against the US military are down however. I read a report a few weeks ago that stated that attacks against the US military are at exactly the same level as they were a year ago (about 60-70 a day if I remember rightly). Unless these attacks actually cause loss of life they don't make the news (that's the way it is here and I'd guess it would be the same on your side of the Atlantic). Suicide bombings that kill dozens of people are always going to receive more media coverage than attacks on military targets that kill no one. 381824[/snapback] An excellent point. But I am still essentially correct. Where the "insurgents" once successfully attacked and killed coalition soldiers, they have been blunted. Their only outlet has been to assault innocent civilians. The fact that Iraqis themselves haven't rooted out ther killers among them speaks VOLUMES about the general population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Meanwhile, back at the blind midgets vs. the diabetic hippo fights... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 An excellent point. But I am still essentially correct. Where the insurgents once successfully attacked and killed coalition soldiers, they have been blunted. Their only outlet has been to assault innocent civilians. The fact that Iraqis themselves haven't rooted out ther killers among them speaks VOLUMES about the general population. 381829[/snapback] Well we can't stop drug dealers and child molesters, what does that say about us? It's easier said than done. I'd imagine that plenty of Iraqis would like the violence would stop. But the Americans OBVIOUSLY cannot protect them, so they're gonna clam up. The don't know democracy - they know intimidation, and their reactions are ingrained. When we can do a better job of protecting civilians, it'll improve. And don't tell me it's up to the Iraqi police and military to protect themselves. We assumed that responsibility when we invaded. We bought it, it's ugly, and it's all ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts