Pete

i dont think its simply becouse of the electricity.... ;) i seen pictures of these resistance fighters, they dress in white clothes and red...ummm..headrags? they seem to get more and more organiced and they do attack military targets and avoid civilians. i doubt that they are "saddam loyalists" though...majority of them could very well be shiite muslims since the only "reason" i heard of so far was that they started there resistance after an amount of people got shot by americans during a protest in some town just after the war had ended. i am very curious about these people, the organisation and the motives they have to fight americans... they are a much bigger threat than saddam ever was, an army is fairly easy to locate and to beat...but when a resistance/querilla gets the peoples "hearts and minds"...anything can happen.

hi guys ;) i still regulary read the forums here...im a little dissapointed over that nobody has mentioned the iraqi resistance as anything more than "us-casualty-makers"....does anyone have information about who they are??, what goals they have??...are they really "saddam loyalists" as bush says?? they seem to be growing in strenght and might be a strong factor in making a future iraq, something like hizbollah became...except i feel they might become much much larger and stronger. we all know one side of the conflict very well by now (Bush and his regime), id like to know more about the other part(s) in the conflict becouse to be honest...i know nothing of them.

aaahh...i was wainting for something like that Iraq attacked Iran, i was asking for wars started by iran... radicals? terrorists??...we are talking about nations, arent we? besides, those 11/9 saudis were a part of al-queda, they are opposed the saudi goverment... try again schoeler, try answering my questions instead of mentioning non-goverment decided actions done by a few, we are not claiming USA to be actively supporting terrorists only becouse the domestic problems you have there, are we? so..what war was started by Iran (axis of evil nation)?? does Iran threaten the world peace, being a muslim religious nation?..does the vatican state pose a threat towards other nations intrests?..is USA dangerous to world peace?? and dont think im a kid schoeler, im most likely much older than you are.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,02:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You don't think a viable democratically elected and secular government in the middle east will stabilize the region? Â I suppose the current theocracies, monarchies and dictatorships are more preferable. Â <span id='postcolor'> do you think so? number 1 democraty in the world (....yeah, right) = usa number 1 theocraty in the world = vatican state which of them you find more stable/peacefull?? we have a huge number of monarchies in europe, doesnt get us into bloody wars despite that. USA as the greatest "democracy" in the world does... Iran is a theocracy, what war do you remember Iran starting lately?? saudiarabia is a monarchy, what war do you remember them starting??? usa is a democraty, what wars do you remember being started by usa?? ...........israel + arabic nations wars, all/most of them started by so called democratic nations (or dictatorships perhaps...) but not by kings or priests (maybe im wrong, not sure) if these are the current statistics, i believe that a democratic nation is far more agressive than any other... besides, who asked USA to free anyone in iraq/middle east anyways?...why bush keeps calling it "liberation" instead of occupation or invasion???

perhaps someone was thinking that if it was called "shield" it sounds more defensive (defensive war = legal war) lol more suitable name would be "liberty remover" or "world basher"...or something. its so sad to see that UN is totally useless, its not because of iraq it became useless, its becouse usa wont respect the un...so it goes down in the history books that bush and his usa destroyed un

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 17 2003,05:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Civilians Saddam Hussein has killed - 1,500,000 Civilians killed in the Gulf war (according to Iraq even) - 2,278 That's 1/658th of the total number of people killed by Saddam. Â Who do you think the bigger threat is again?<span id='postcolor'> that is a false way to put statistics. how about like this: amount of iraqis killed during + after gw1? if you are not counting the iraqi soldiers killed in the war (as you shouldnt) then you also shouldnt count the iraqis killed trying to revolt against saddam (civil war) after american promises of support..... in this case we are simply counting the amounts of civilian death who were not involved in the fighting. amount killed as collaterial damage. us: 2.278 iraq: not known (but i quess a less, iraqis didnt fight on own territory much at all..and why should they shoot there own people?) amount killed becouse of sanctions. us: countless..perhaps up to a million by now. iraq: could done more to get the sanctions lifted, gets part of the blame. amount killed becouse of depl. uranium rounds. us: not known, but can be thousands (more than 300 tons of uranium was spread over iraq...) iraq: doesnt use that kind of ammuntion. ooohh...wtf??...now im making saddam look like a saint and usa as a murderous bastard??, must be something wrong with the way i count.... ok...new try. saddam has ruled for, what, 20-30 years??..in this time he killed 1.5 million? how many usa killed during the same period of time??...only in vietnam usa killed the double. oooohh..wait, something is wrong, my counting just goes on saddams favour all the time!! ok, lets see...the last 2 years bush been president. us started 1 war and threatening to start another, with civilian casualties iraq started no wars and is not threatening to start any. mmmmm...someone help me, please....how possible i continue making usa look so bad? you know....bush has killed more americans than any other mayor during his time as a mayor...but now as he is president he has a much wider variety of victims..now he has much more power and doesnt have to consentrate on own people anymore. its sooooo easy to talk shit about bush for some reason, and america for that matter...actually, all countries that ever existed has done some dirty deeds, saddam is no exception, neither is usa, or even small sweden that been without war longer than any country on the planet...all has done dirty things. BUT...one thing is to have done dirty things, its already history, another and much worse thing is to do what you can to make the world dirtier, war on iraq is not needed...not yet atleast some people say "what if iraq...", its bullshit, the same as i would say "what if vatican state..." and declare war on them before the pope decides to start armageddon a little bit earlier and send his swiss quard to attack nicaraqua. to make it all very clear to you all pro-war people...i AM pro-war when it is to defend self or to defend some other country....but i cant, and neither should any of you, be prowar when it is only becouse "bush doesnt like saddam" private personal dislike cause. not becouse i like saddam...but because the signals it gives to the world, india and pakistan nearly started a nuclear war on the same reasons usa used to attack afganistan, god knows how many countries now decides to start a war to "attack before they decide to attack"

also......that picture of the half destroyed plane on that field in iraq......................doesnt show a runway?? intresting flight-training they give to the terrorists, dont you thing?..a 747-cabriolet (?) with half of the plane missing, they never would be able to fly that shit anywhere lol its better to just send the terrorists to american flight schools...this is what happened, if american fbi is a reliable and unbiased source to trust. really fspilot, im not even trying to change your mind, just trying to mirror your logic....

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 16 2003,00:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We both know it's of "the boneyard".<span id='postcolor'> no, you are lying, as you always do becouse your president has ordered you to do so...otherwise he will kill your family, i KNOW its a terrorist training camp. those pictures show that the aircraft are complete and not destroyed at all, they got there engines, wings and main body intact, far as i can say of those pictures. the picture of the iraqi plane on the other hand, shows a plane cut to half... </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Biased sources are unreliable. You have an unreliable source.<span id='postcolor'> as i said, ALL sources are biased, this cannot be avoided as long as we belong to the human race and live with different opinions about many things, abortion, weapon laws, wars, politics...at some point you will take a stand for something and this makes you biased, some are more biased than others, but we all are biased. but, i rely on my source, to me and many others on this forum he is reliable, if we would have a vote (but we will not have that vote, i rely on my source no matter what the rest of the forum decides anyway...) so, i say he is reliable, have you catched him for lying lately??..i think not, you say he is unreliable only becouse you dont like the news that he came with. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now, prove to me that the fuselage in Iraq is not used for training, and doesn't exist today. <span id='postcolor'> who says it doesnt exist???..of course it does, we have pictures of that...but none of the pictures that was on that page showed any terrorists, atleast i couldnt see any. that plane is used for antiterrorist training as i said, and to train aircraft mechanics, and to train iraqi firedepartment to save people from a crashed plane... if you use that satelite a little better, perhaps you could take pictures of iraqi international airports and see even more aircraft there, dont you think iraq, just as any other country, need to be prepared to handle different conflict situations that can happen on airports? do you think they would train secret anti-terror tactics on an international airport so that anyone, even potential terrorists, can see how they do?? you do know that there are many terrorist groups in iraq, dont you??..did you also know that those groups (mostly kurdish) fight against saddam you didnt, did you??...saddam has an army and doesnt need to resort to terrorism, saddam has his own inteligence agency, just as you have cia, and doesnt need undiciplined terrorists. what for saddam would need terrorists???..if you are thinking about those people with bombs on there chests walking on parades..i say they are just as much terrorists as japanese kamikaze pilots were. mostly those bombs on the chests are symbolic, to show loyalty, and in a war, its a military tactic, as long it hits military targets...you are not planning to send civilians to iraq?? a pilot, dropping bomb on a red cross house (afganistan) is much more of a terrorist than a soldier with a handgrenade blowing up himself with 2 enemy (american or iraqi, doesnt matter) soldiers. in ww2 russians had dogs with bombs that ran under enemy tanks and blew them up, terrorist dogs or a very effective military tactic?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 15 2003,22:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you think Balschoiw is an unbiased source you should stop banging your head on things.<span id='postcolor'> aha! but he provided us with a picture of an american terrorist hijack training camp! its obviously a real picture, not a fake..those planes exist, this means america trains or has the capacity to train thousands of terrorists daily. we got proof, are you saing that we dont? and i never said "unbiased" source....everybody is biased, even me, and even you. but he IS a source and this you cant prove me wrong at, if HE says those planes are for terrorist training then it is up to YOU to prove us wrong. we not only have proof, we also have a source... are you still trying to say those planes arent used to train terrorists???...prove me wrong, if you can

YEAH!!..LETS DO PRE-EMPTIVE HIJACKINGS OF THOSE NON-COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT AT THE AMERICAN TERRORIST CAMP AND SINK THEM ALL IN THE HAWAIIAN COAST!!! ....we got reliable sources (Balschoiw) claiming those aircraft being used for terrorist training!!..what else we would need?? aaaaaarrgh!!...*bangs head on the table in frustration*

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 15 2003,19:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lets not ignore this. Â We've got pictures that don't appear to be forged to me, and are from a professional source. And two unbiased sources that these pictures suggest are true. Â Why isn't this convincing?<span id='postcolor'> the pictures of that aircraft on the field? so what?..even if they do actually have it there, perhaps its used for ANTI-terrorism training?? i could hand you a picture of an american aircraft scrapyard and declare that as a huge terrorist training camp.....since a picture speaks better than a thousand words...... why dont you just show us a picture of a iraqi mudhouse and claim it as proof that bin laden lives in it as saddams lover every other weekend, thus connecting saddam with bin ladens AQ-network.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ Mar. 15 2003,19:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The question I ask myself is how many bags of "freedom fries" could good ol uncle Saddam buy to feed his starving people instead of using the money to build lavish palaces and weapons stockpiles etc.<span id='postcolor'> heh..freedom fries are not healthy, would kill a lot of people. i read an article some time ago about just that problem. saddam actually does have enough food to feed the iraqi population as food if the one thing he gets for the oil, BUT..the iraqi regime lacks money to transport the food. really, not kidding..it was something pretty complicated as that they dont have money to lease trucks from other countries to transport the food, and Iraq's own trucks are breaking down due to lack of maintenance. that article did however point out that the food was handed out to the people as evenly as just possible and without any difference of the people's "race" (you know..kurdish, shia, sunni..etc). if to dumb it down a bit...its like you get soup but no bowl to eat it from. Iraq just doesnt have any money, the money that they do have is "private money"...as saddams own personal billions of dollars, but i agree with you, he should hand out some of that money to help his own people.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That France makes over 3 Billion dollars a year on Iraqi Food for Oil and Money for Oil deals.<span id='postcolor'> how much does the US make for the same deals? its nothing new, besides France is one of the many countries who would like to have the sanctions on Iraq removed, only ones wanting to keep the sanctions are Usa and England. all our countries are making money on Iraq and the sanctions, but not all our countries like to see 500.000 children die before reaching the age of 4 just to make more money. not all our countries like to feel responsible for the terrible drinking-water quality in Iraq that kills thousands and thousands of people...if the sanctions placed on iraq would allow them to buy/get decent water-pumping/cleaning equipment lives would be saved, but of course...just in case saddam makes more deadly wmd's....bah! more people have now lost there lives becouse of the sanctions than saddams wmd's, a lot more... quite funny...i remember one of the last things i wrote on this forum nearly a year ago, it was a comment about "Bush's plans on starting a war on Iraq by forcing new weapons-inspections on Iraq and then, after inspectors failure or Saddams refusal, attack Iraq. i remember that very clearly and i never was suprised that USA still wants to start a war even if the inspections are actually working and saddam is cooperating. from the start USA wanted this war, not to remove wmd's. we can easily call bush a "liar" when he says that he wants a "peacefull solution" or that he "prays for peace". im against this war, but i dont expect anything to stop it, it already started the day bush cheated his way to precidency, i just hope that it will be very bloody war, a war that will kill millions of civilians and soldiers, i hope it will be so damn bloody that americans never again lets a president as bush into power again, i hope this war will be so cruel that americans self get chocked over it, i hope that somehow americans will get to see what war really is and what it does....things as precision bombs, smart bombs or what ever are still just bombs, bombs that kill and destroy anything they land upon when dropped, or if unlucky, later when Iraqi people gets blown up ten years after the war when stumbling on bombs that never exploded... im so tired of the constantly warmongering USA, not one year passes without America at war, not even one month...if the US is only involved in small wars then they are threatening to start larger wars somewhere else....so believe me, i HOPE that this war will be so savage that it will end future wars waged by USA. according to the UN, the only wars that are legal are "defensive wars" or "war to stop a threat to the world-peace" saddam's Iraq justifies none of those reasons to be used... and i hope Bush chokes on his "freedom fries"!! (i know...strong words, but im a little bit mental still, and tired)

speaking about terrorism.... i read that us sent special CIA agents to iraq, they are called "shadow warriors" of something like that...its not that i do believe all thats written in the newspapers but, heres a thought... in the article it said that these special men were already preparing an invasion by blowing up important places or preparing to do so. since the war is still "undeclared"...wouldnt these men be in this case be classified as terrorists? perhaps someone knows more about this? not that i say that any of that is actually true, but its much more likely to be true than that iraq has nuclear weapons or is developing them, perhaps about the same much true as iraq having chem/bio weapons on ships that are sailing around the planet (power said so...), it might be or it might not. (hrmmm...cant avoid to be largely antiamerican...aargh!!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 15 2003,00:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd just like to say that I'm not really on one side of the fence or other...I'm more like balancing on top of the fence huckin' rocks at both sides...<span id='postcolor'> yep. thats how i remember you, we had some good discussions... you are one of the few (very few) who can be somewhat neutral and see both sides in a argument, i just out you there since i suddenly realised that i didnt know any others that foxer and tex who are always on the "other side of the fence"...wheres wobble by the way?