UK using 'fake boundaries' in Iran dispute - former British envoy

[papasmerf]

How many Iraqi children and women (civilians) have been killed by US military, any Idea?

“We don’t do body counts”
General Tommy Franks, US Central Command
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Of those you included how many were killed by terrorist bombs?

 

[Aardvark154]

The red army could not in Afghanistan, and I suspect the american army cannot either, short of using nuclear weapons, which would seal the oil in the ground for generations and kill millions of americans and europeans from fallout.

That the Red Army could not in Afghanistan without going even farther than the Soviet Government was willing, was largely due to two issues: 1) that the U.S. supplied high tech (particularly man portable anti-aircraft missiles) to the anti-Soviet groups in Afghanistan. 2) philosophically as well as in a couple of other ways the Red Army was neither willing nor able to connect with the Afghan people and win hearts and minds. Which reinforces that despite having the ability to do something, doing it may not be the wisest course of action.

 

[persis]

Are you excusing the tactic of hiding behind women and children?
You are sick.

WHats made the situation in Iraq is that under no circumstance would ANYONE in the west excuse the kind of collateral damage that we would see in an all out war.
But then again who cares right?
I guess that the world trade centers were really filled with soldiers.

Learn to distinguish between terrorism and terrorist….

Anyone who bombs and kills innocents is committing the act of terrorism.

 

[persis]

Of those you included how many were killed by terrorist bombs?

Ask US Central Command, I am sure they know!

 

[papasmerf]

Learn to distinguish between terrorism and terrorist….

Anyone who bombs and kills innocents is committing the act of terrorism.

So we agree tat strapping on a bomb or loading your car up with explosives then heading to a gathering place to explode it is terrorism? Stands to reason that those who commit these acts are doomed for all of eternity.

And here I was begining to think you were one of them.

 

[persis]

So we agree tat strapping on a bomb or loading your car up with explosives then heading to a gathering place to explode it is terrorism? Stands to reason that those who commit these acts are doomed for all of eternity.

And here I was begining to think you were one of them.

That is why I keep saying that you are also an idiot.

 

[papasmerf]

That is why I keep saying that you are also an idiot.

You seem to be a young boy, filled with ideals handed down by syphilitic minds.

 

[danmand]

You seem to be a young boy, filled with ideals handed down by syphilitic minds.

You, on the other hand, seem to be an old man, filled ..................

 

[Aardvark154]

stop giving fu..ing stupid arguments and start talking what is practically possible in the real world

I'm very glad you find my points stupid, and that you have to use expletives, the mark of person who can't express themselves well to state that.

 

[basketcase]

the reality is not that simple !!!

may be you need some brushup on your readings here in the history of Guerilla warfare and dont forget to read the Iraqi portion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare#Iraq_.28since_2003.29

Of course, it's not that simple. They are not hiding behind women and children, the 'insurgents' were there first. It's not their fault that the women and children moved in front of them.

ps. I have no idea what you are trying to prove with your link.

 

[basketcase]

1st, from your link never

Guerrilla warfare (also spelled guerilla) is a method of unconventional combat by which small groups of combatants attempt to use mobile and surprise tactics (ambushes, raids, etc) to defeat a foe, often a larger, less mobile, army. Typically the smaller guerrilla army will either use its defensive status to draw its opponent into terrain which is better suited to the former or take advantage of its greater mobility by conducting surprise attacks at vulnerable targets, often deep in enemy territory.

The link discusses using raids and terrain to minimize the strategic advantage of a more powerful force. I don't see anywhere that discusses hiding within a civilian population in hopes of creating civilian casualties and intentionally targeting civilians. That is terrorism. The vast majority of attacks are not against the US or other military forces in Iraq but against their fellow average Iraqis.


2nd, if all Americans share responsibility for these attacks, how much responsibility do all Iraqis share for this terrorism. Your logic says that all Americans are to blame because they are not able to prevent some Iraqis from attacking each other. The only people to blame are the assholes who are committing these terrible acts.

3rd, maybe you should look up the meaning of the word hypocrite. This is the 3rd time you've used the term talking about me and in none of the cases does it make any sense.

 

[basketcase]

A few other sources on guerrilla tactics:

From Mao when he was a guerrilla (the inspiration for much of the struggles in Asia)

As to the matter of military responsibilities, those of the guerrillas are to exterminate small forces of the enemy; to harass and weaken large forces; to attack enemy lines of communications; to establish bases capable of supporting independent operations in the enemy's rear, to force the enemy to disperse his strength; and to co-ordinate all these activities with those of the regular armies on distant battle fronts.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1937/guerrilla-warfare/

Notice no mention of attacking civilians.

From a seeming instruction manual, http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/warfare.htm

The urban guerilla should take care not to blow up their neighbors, like a faction of the Weatherman did in NYC. Emma Goldman expressed regret that she and her co-horts at one time exposed their neighbors to such danger, which turned her against violent confrontation for a while. Of course, seeing the suppression of the Anarchists in Russia and the Ukraine made her once again propose armed conflict and she enthusiasticly supported the Revolution in Spain.

You should also not engage in a firefight if there are many innocent bystanders in the line of fire, if it can be helped. The history of these organizations is that the full weight of the state security apparatus comes down upon them and most of their members are caught or killed. Not all of them. Ever.

From Brittanica http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9110197/guerrilla-warfare

also spelled guerilla warfare type of warfare fought by irregulars in fast-moving, small-scale actions against orthodox military and police forces and, on occasion, against rival insurgent forces, either independently or in conjunction with a larger political-military strategy.

Then there's Che's view. http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/guwar.pdf

Acts of sabotage are very important. It is necessary to distinguish clearly between sabotage, a
revolutionary and highly effective method of warfare, and terrorism, a measure that is generally
ineffective and in-discriminate in its results, since it often makes victims of innocent people and
destroys a large number of lives that would be valuable to the revolution. Terrorism should be
considered a valuable tactic when it is used to put to death some noted leader of the oppressing
forces well known for his cruelty, his efficiency in repression, or other quality that makes his
elimination useful. But the killing of persons of small importance is never advisable, since it brings
on an increase of reprisals, including deaths.

Do you need more explanation of the difference between Guerrilla and Terrorist? There may be some guerrilla tactics in Iraq but most of the violence is plain old hatred filled terrorism.

 

[onthebottom]

War has both a military and a political side. You may have kicked ass in Iraq militarily but you're failing miserably politically. What makes you think the results of a war with Iran would be any different?

I don't think its very wise to use the war in Iraq as an example of American superiority.




I agree.

Because we could easily go in, break it and walk away...... Think Iraq 1

Fixing it is messy (especially when the asshats are determined to kill each other), breaking it, for us, is easy. In the first Iraq war we didn't take a single shot to one of our M1A2s..... give that a thought.

We could destroy Iran and leave it in ashes.... It took 100 hours to kick Iraq's ass the first time and 3 weeks to roll over the country the second. The Russian's couldn't subdue Afghanistan in 10 years and it took us less than that many months.

I walked through ATL on Sunday morning with 200 solders from the big red 1, you don't want to fight these guys, they look dangerous walking thru an airport.

OTB

OTB

 

[basketcase]

Somehow I find the experts (Mao and Che) more reliable on the topic than the average joes who contribute to wikipedia. but here's more.

A US Marine thesis http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1990/GJ.htm

Guerrilla warfare is an unconventional type of warfare
involving limited combat against military targets. It consists
of three phases: Phase I is the development of local support;
Phase II is organizational growth, and combat against the
enemy; and Phase III is the transition of the guerrilla
organization into a conventional force, and the defeat of the
enemy.

From History.com http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=211089

Guerrilla Tactics.

Lacking the numerical strength and weapons to oppose a regular army in the field, guerrillas avoid pitched battles. Instead, they operate from bases established in remote and inaccessible terrain, such as forests, mountains, and jungles, and depend on the support of the local inhabitants for recruits, food, shelter, and information. The guerrillas may also receive assistance in the form of arms, medical supplies, and military advisers from their own or allied regular armies.

The tactics of guerrillas are those of harassment. Striking swiftly and unexpectedly, they raid enemy supply depots and installations, ambush patrols and supply convoys, and cut communication lines, hoping thereby to disrupt enemy activities and to capture equipment and supplies for their own use. Because of their mobility, the dispersal of their forces into small groups, and their ability to disappear among the civilian population, guerrillas are extremely difficult to capture.

Another paper to the US military http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/marques.pdf

This thesis will focus on the operations of the guerrilla force, the overt
military or paramilitary arm of the insurgency. The auxiliary, which supplies and
supports the insurgency, and the underground, which conducts the above mentioned
sabotage, subversion, and intelligence gathering activities, will be addressed only in their
direct support of guerrilla combat operations. Subversion and sabotage must also be
defined because the two activities are so often linked to insurgencies in general they are
5
incorrectly thought to fall under the heading of guerrilla warfare. Subversion and
sabotage, combined with guerrilla warfare and other activities, are aspects of the
Unconventional Warfare mission, as defined above. Subversion “undermines the
political, military, economic, or psychological strength of a nation or occupying power.
Subversion attacks the internal or international legitimacy of targeted governments or
powers and their actions” (DA 2001a, 2-8). Sabotage “injures or obstructs the national
defense of a nation by willfully damaging or destroying any national defense or war
material, premises, or utilities, including human and natural resources” (DA 2001a, 2-9).
These two activities are predominately carried out by the underground arm of an
insurgency and not the guerrilla force. The terms “urban guerrilla warfare” and
“terrorism” are often used interchangeably. To ensure a delineation between the two,
terrorism is defined as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful
violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in
the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological” (DoD 2001,
437).

or http://www.bellum.nu/literature/lawrence001.html (also has comments buy TE Lawrence on the Arab Guerrilla tactics during WWi

For the Fourteenth Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (first published in 1929) the editor commissioned T.E. Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of Arabia, to write on the subject of guerrilla warfare. The element of personal experience that pervades the article is unusual in an encyclopedia but must have been the chief reason this particular author was sought out. The first paragraph, more conventionally encyclopedic in tone, was written by Sir Thomas Barclay (vice president of the International Law Association and author of International Law and Practice and other works).

GUERRILLA, a term currently used to denote war carried on by bands in any irregular and unorganized manner; erroneously written "guerilla," being the diminutive of the Span. guerra, war. The position of irregular combatants was one of the subjects dealt with at the Peace Conference of 1899, and the rules there adopted were reaffirmed at the conference of 1907. They provide that irregular bands in order to enjoy recognition as belligerent forces shall (a) have at their head a person responsible for his subordinates, (b) wear some fixed distinctive badge recognizable at a distance, (c) carry arms openly and (d) conform in their operations to the laws and customs of war. The rules, however, also provide that in case of invasion the inhabitants of a territory who on the approach of the invading enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist it, shall be regarded as belligerent troops if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war, although they may not have had time to become organized in accordance with the above provisions. These rules were borrowed almost word for word from the project drawn up at the Brussels international conference of 1874, which, though never ratified, was practically incorporated in the army regulations issued by the Russian government in connection with the war of 1877-78. Cf. BRIGANDAGE.

An article on topic, Distinguishing Terrorism From Guerrilla Warfare http://www.ornery.org/essays/2004-03-10-1.html

From the CIA's manual in central America http://25thaviation.org/history/id541.htm

Armed propaganda includes every act carried out, and the good impression that this armed force causes will result in positive attitudes in the population toward that force; ad it does not include forced indoctrination. Armed propaganda improves the behavior of the population toward them, and it is not achieved by force.
...

þ Destroy the military or police installations and remove the survivors to a "public place."

þ Cut all the outside lines of communications: cables, radio, messengers.

þ Set up ambushes in order to delay the reinforcements in all the possible entry routes.

þ Kidnap all officials or agents of the Sandinista government and replace them in "public Places" with military or civilian persons of trust to our movement; in addition, carry out the following:

þ Establish a public tribunal that depends on the guerrillas, and cover the town or city in order to gather the population for this event.

þ Shame, ridicule and humiliate the "personal symbols" of the government of repression in the presence of the people and foster popular participation through guerrillas within the multitude, shouting slogans and jeers.

þ Reduce the influence of individuals in tune with the regime, pointing out their weaknesses and taking them out of the town, without damaging them publicly.

þ Mix the guerrillas within the population and show very good conduct by all members of the column, practicing the following:

Do you want more expert opinions or are you happy because wikipedia's vauge definition is more to your liking?


to the rest of you, sorry for the long posts.

 

[basketcase]

Could you please explain what you mean by hypocrite. You seem to be using a definition other than that used in the English language.


I am proud that you have somewhat progressed beyond posting links and running but your next lesson is to offer an arguement without resorting to name calling. It only exposes the weakness of your points.

Again, could you please post your definition of the term 'hypocrite' because I am lost as to what you could mean.

Nite.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

Because we could easily go in, break it and walk away...... Think Iraq 1

Fixing it is messy (especially when the asshats are determined to kill each other), breaking it, for us, is easy. In the first Iraq war we didn't take a single shot to one of our M1A2s..... give that a thought.

We could destroy Iran and leave it in ashes.... It took 100 hours to kick Iraq's ass the first time and 3 weeks to roll over the country the second. The Russian's couldn't subdue Afghanistan in 10 years and it took us less than that many months.

I walked through ATL on Sunday morning with 200 solders from the big red 1, you don't want to fight these guys, they look dangerous walking thru an airport.

None of this refutes my point.

 

[basketcase]

Just for you never, I'll put this stuff into simple terms in case the experts are too complicated.

Guerrilla tactics = attacking military and political targets.

Terrorist tactics = attacking civilians

A group such as the IRA has at times engaged in guerrilla tactics with the targeting of British police and military forces. They also have engaged in terrorist activities with bombs targeting civilians. Just because a group uses both types of tactics doesn't mean that the terms are interchangeable.

In the NCAA, Florida has played a good part of the season running an up-tempo fast-break strategy on offense but in the final minute of the championship, they used delaying tactics. That doesn't mean that fast break and delay are the same thing.

Admit it; some of your heroes are at times acting like guerrilla but at other times are terrorists plain and simple.

 

[red]

Because we could easily go in, break it and walk away...... Think Iraq 1


OTB

OTB

if they do attack Iran I hope thats what they do

 

[basketcase]

Never, please go on ignoring what I've posted by that was written by experts in the field. If you reference your wiki link enough times, it must make it true, right?


My bigger question though is Do you know what the word 'hypocrite' means? You sure don't seem to. Could you please post your definition so that I can try to understand what the drivel you post means.



I could also ask what "don't put words in the mouth" means. Do you mean "don't put words in your mouth?" If so, please show me where I have done so. Then again, asking you two things in one post might just be too confusing.

 

[basketcase]

The people that I label terrorists are terrorists. Sure the US and Israel had terrorism at their beginnings but both have progressed since then. If I criticized one group of terrorists for unprovoked attacks on innocent people while congradulating another, that would be hypocritical but that is not the situation.

I am not pro-invasion in Iraq and think that the motivation was all about money and image. That being said, the bombing of civilians for no good reason goes against my morals. Saddam was bad; so is the destabilization caused by his removal.

I don't see much of a difference between the back and forth terror attacks between Jew and Arab in the first half of the last century and the back and forth attacks between the Shia and Sunni terrorists in Iraq in the first part of this century. In both cases, terrorism was responded to with terrorism.

In modern Israel though, there is a definite movement towards peaceful relations from a grassroots level that has had a growing effect on the politics of the country and the legal system has moved much closer to protecting people's rights regardless of their religion. They have a long way still to go to even get as far as rights in Canada but there is some progress. The grassroots peace movement in Palestine has had almost no effect on the policies of the Palestinian Authority and the government continues to promote the benefits and 'successes' of what they call the resistance. One side is slowly moving towards a more positive existence while the other is digging in with violence and rhetoric. That is why my point of view tends to be more supportive of the Israelis.

I do appreciate that you took the time to put together a reasoned argument but your accusations of hypocrisy only seem to fit on the most superficial level.