Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

War in The Middle East

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: War in The Middle East

    Originally posted by Fedayeen
    Don't you just love the power of media? And the blind sheep?
    that is why i choose to view media as one source of info and facts, not forming opinion. i get my media from many sources. mainstream media is just a circus often.

    Comment


    • Re: War in The Middle East

      Originally posted by OMG
      please don't turn this thread into anti-semitism. there are many j-e-w-s that are very unhappy with the violence done in their name. you should understand that governments do not always act in the interest of their people. mine does not act how i wish.

      Evidently not enough to make a difference. I heard about a poll they took in israel and well over eighty percent fully support israel's genocidal behavior. So at best a mere ten to fifteen percent are "unhappy" and most are happy as larks killing every living creature in another country, including future terrorists, I mean children.

      Just like they support Armenian Genocide denial. Yeah..."many" j-e-w-s support us PFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Just like your fairy tale "many."

      Comment


      • Re: War in The Middle East

        Ah yes. The polls. What percentage of the American population supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003?

        Comment


        • Re: War in The Middle East

          Originally posted by Nemesis
          Evidently not enough to make a difference. I heard about a poll they took in israel and well over eighty percent fully support israel's genocidal behavior. So at best a mere ten to fifteen percent are "unhappy" and most are happy as larks killing every living creature in another country, including future terrorists, I mean children.

          Just like they support Armenian Genocide denial. Yeah..."many" j-e-w-s support us PFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Just like your fairy tale "many."
          your stats are based on those with money, media and power.

          don't blame j-e-w-s in general. blame people (including j-e-w-s, christians, and all of the other people killing) who are money greedy warmongering like the usa christians like bush and his friends. not all christians like killing people. same with j-e-w-s and every other people of all religions.

          blame those who kill as they are killers. not those associated with them.
          Last edited by OMG; 07-22-2006, 07:04 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: War in The Middle East

            Stats below are as of 1997. Take a look where your tax dollars go:

            U.S. Financial Aid To Israel: Figures, Facts, and Impact

            Summary
            Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid
            Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)

            Foreign Aid Grants and Loans
            $74,157,600,000

            Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)
            $9,047,227,200

            Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments
            $1,650,000,000

            Grand Total
            $84,854,827,200

            Total Benefits per Israeli
            $14,630


            Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.
            Aid to Israel

            Grand Total
            $84,854,827,200

            Interest Costs Borne by U.S.
            $49,936,680,000

            Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
            $134,791,507,200

            Total Taxpayer Cost per Israeli
            $23,240
            washington-report

            Comment


            • Re: War in The Middle East

              the usa also had osama on the cia payroll. again, often governments don't stand for the people within the borders. certainly israel doesn't represent judiasm for example.

              israel is guilty of numerous human rights violations, with no doubt. but they aren't the only ones doing wrong.

              i think rabbi lerner is generally open minded.
              The Prophetic Jewish, Interfaith & Secular Voice to Heal and Transform the World

              Comment


              • Re: War in The Middle East

                what do you think about the proposed idea? those can be changed, too.


                for example: "Sharing of Jerusalem and its holy sites, with each side entitled to etablish their national capital in Jerusalem, Israel to have control over the xxxish and Armenian quarters plus the Wall and adjacent territory, and Palestine to have control over the Temple Mount with its mosques."

                i am sure if you disagree and write to Tikkun, they'll listen. i know they will, in fact.

                Comment


                • Re: War in The Middle East

                  Hassan Nasrallah was born in Bourj Hammoud, which is like the "Glendale" of Beirut, Lebanon. I've also read that he supposedly speaks Armenian.

                  Comment


                  • Re: War in The Middle East

                    Originally posted by TomServo
                    Hassan Nasrallah was born in Bourj Hammoud, which is like the "Glendale" of Beirut, Lebanon. I've also read that he supposedly speaks Armenian.
                    interesting trivia?

                    Comment


                    • Re: War in The Middle East

                      Originally posted by D3ADSY
                      This is getting tiring.

                      "The U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are small in number compared to the fresh and numerically and strategically superior forces of Iran."
                      What is your point here? You have nothing to state.



                      Originally posted by D3ADSY
                      You clearly did not read my post if you are actually going to argue that the insurgency pushed the USMC out of Fallujah in the siege and ensuing operation. Politics and policy. Who ordered the siege and first assault? Washington, not the Marines, and who called it off? Washington, not the Marines. Both times against the wishes of those on the ground.
                      You also clearly have not heard about counter-insurgency operations, counter intelligence and so on.

                      Please feel free to read the following:




                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plymouth_Rock
                      First, I never stated the insurgency pushed the American troops out of Fallujah. You are once again, in an absence of any argument and substance, inserting things in my argument that I did not make in order to have something to argue with. This is the second time you did that.


                      Originally posted by D3ADSY
                      In that case let us not ever hold a discussion over any historical event that we were not present at.
                      The Russian government lied about casualty figures during the Chechen Wars and I believe it was the mothers of the fallen Russian soldiers who put an end to the lies.
                      I also believe the DoD releases the names of the fallen soldiers.
                      You are making irrelevant analogies between history and the present. For starters, everything in history is open to interpretation based on the facts, and so is the present. The U.S. government has engaged in subterfuge in the past, and it has done so in the present. If you listen to Al Jazeera they claim the opposite of what you believe. How do we know?


                      Originally posted by D3ADSY
                      I am, and have been since I first started posting in this thread on this particular matter, speaking in terms of military, not strategical, ideological or politic terms. Militarily American forces are, and always have been, superior to enemy forces in Iraq. I am not saying the Insurgency is no threat, or that is a paper tiger, far from it.
                      If they are so superior then why have they not been able to subdue the insurgency? The reality is that, having technological superiority, as well as fire power superiority means absolutely nothing on the battlefield. This is from Shun Tzu in the Art of War. I suggest you read it.

                      Originally posted by D3ADSY
                      When Iraq fought Iran they were not employing guerilla tactics, and the same can be said about the first gulf war. Why do I mention this? Because there is a difference between fighters who train and fight "fourth generation warfare" and what we see in Iraq;
                      When Iran and Iraq fought, that was a conventional war, carried out by two states. What the U.S. did was destroy the state and the state army of Iraq and it is left with the non-state entities in fourth generation war. As such I am left befuddled as to why you brought up the example of Iran and Iraq as it is completely irrelevant.

                      Originally posted by D3ADSY
                      The kind of enemy you are referring to when you mention "fourth generation warfare" does exist but they are a small, hardcore element with the vast majority being opportunists, grabbing a weapon and heading to the fight when he hears of one, firing a few shots at the enemy before retreating back home. Simply because insurgents are being slaughtered in Iraq does not necessarily mean they are being so because they are unflinching fighters who with their "ready to die" attitude never give up.
                      You not only underestimate the insurgecy, but you have totally believed the guff you hear from Washington, namely that, these are nothing more than 'opportunists'. Fourth generation war is not small, but in fact, it is very expansive and very predominant in the world setting, and you can find many instances of fourth generation warfare. Another that comes to mind is the Chechens fighting the Russians. The insurgents are for the most imbued with Islamic principles and believe in a God and a cause higher than this earth, higher than any State and higher than any earthly army or utopia. That is why they are ideologically and mentally superior to the Americans and just like in Vietnam, they have home field advantage and a will and determination that Americans do not. There different moods and reason why the different sides are fighting. What America is confronting in Iraq and Afghanistan is more than it bargained for and you do not give enough credit to the insurgency for bogging down the the most superior military.

                      Originally posted by D3ADSY
                      I understand you point about conventional and non-conventional warfare but I have tried to argue my point with my posts concerning Fallujah only for you to brush them aside. If every Iraqi insurgent was the equivalent of, say, a Hezbollah militant in terms of their training and equipment things would be different, but they are far from it. They never had decent training as proper military units.A
                      Insurgencies are insurgencies and non-state entities, whether Iraqi insurgencies, Hezbollah, Hamas or the Tamil Tigers in India makes absolutely no difference. You are drawing arbitrary lines in order to have an argument. By somehow creating a fallacious comparison - that in order to be properly considered an insurgency they must be 'well trained' and be 'armed properly' - you are trying to exclude the Iraqi insurgents as somehow proper and thereby underestimating them. Whether they are armed with Katyusha rockets or Molotov xxxxtails makes no difference. If they are a non-state entity and horizontally organized networks engaged in battles against conventional state armies, they are insurgents by the fact itself. They do not report to any State, any government, or any central power except of course their unearthly God of Islam.


                      Originally posted by D3ADSY
                      Yes they can, but not with the media making victories out to be defeats. I believe I covered this basic subject with my post on the Tet Offensive.
                      Do you seriously believe the naivity that somehow if the media did not report the news about what is going on, or at least slanted it supposedly in favor of the Americans, that somehow they would be any more successful against insurgence? Such an example in thought processes is not only pontificating, but it is purely conjecture. There is absolutely no reason to believe such a fallacious link, and it was nothing more than an excuse used after the fact to justify Americas loss in Vietnam. It is wholly simplistic and nothing more than an example of catharsis, of trying to blame some third party for what is initially the reality of war, of fourth generation war, that when state armies meet determined non-state armies, the result is that the state always loses. And America, sadly, will walk out of this with more bad than good. It cannot outlast the insurgency on its own territory. Thousands of Americans will die, and billions upon billiions will be spent on this stupid war that was poorly planned from the beginning, and the deficit will further increase and the region will further destabilize and those like you will continue to simplistically blame the media.
                      Achkerov kute.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X