High Tech vs. Low tech

[Lampshade111]

Oh yes Iraq was a great fricken place under Saddam! Just ignore the mass graves over there and the weak economy. Remember not to say anything bad about Saddam unless you want to dissappear. Most Iraqis were pleased Saddam was removed! Remember?!

If the Iraqi terrorists really cared about their country they would help us rebuild it and not kill their own people and destroy what they have left in an attempt just to kill Americans.

[Lampshade111]

Originally Posted by SiN|ScarFace

So all who resist are terrorists?

Yes despite whatever names they are called, names they give themselves, or foolish fanatical reasons their actions make them terrorists. What else do you call men who fire from crowds in the market, set bombs up in Mosques, execute their own people, and prevent any attempt to rebuild the country?

[Kruder]

About my edited post,i meant to p.m it to Ringo but i mistakenly posted it here and deleted it as soon as i noticed not to push things further...

[RittWitt]

Wow, this has really exploded, excuse the pun. I hope everyone here can get past their differences and try to get back on topic. I'd really hate to see this thread locked/deleted. I apologize if anything I said has sparked this current direction. I want to emphasize that there have been atrocites commited on *both* sides. The beheading of soldiers as propaganda and the execution of civillians in terrorist attacks is a shameful act; likewise, so is the humiliation prisoners suffered at Abu Ghraib and the rape and murders of innocent civillians. No war is ever pretty, and this one is no exception.

I would ask that we shift back on topic here as to what advantages high-tech has over low-tech (or vice versa) and leave our opinions about the cultural implications of this conflict at the door. I will do my best to remain impartial in any further posts. Please understand that I was simply trying to paint a picture of the conflict through a soldier's eyes who has experience with the topic. I was but a small part in a much larger conflict, and while what I saw and felt has changed my outlook, do not let it jade yours until you, too, have seen the horrors both sides enact on eachother.

With Respect,

RittWitt

[SiN|ScarFace]

Originally Posted by Lampshade111

Yes despite whatever names they are called, names they give themselves, or foolish fanatical reasons their actions make them terrorists. What else do you call men who fire from crowds in the market, set bombs up in Mosques, execute their own people, and prevent any attempt to rebuild the country?

So then you assume that all who resist target non combatants, which isn't the case. There are terrorists and there are also people who are only against occupation and there are those who engage in killing each other, civilians and troops.

May I ask your age?

[eddie]

Finally, I'm awaiting this answer.

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

I'm 13


But there are increasing elements of state sponsored terrorism moving in from Iran.
Terrorism, in my definition, is killing civilians.

IED's, kidnapping, beheading.....alls fair in love and war but when you kill 300 women and children on their way to a high holy day celebration then you are a terrorist.



On topic- Those elements from Iran are not low tech even if they are not piloting UAV from thousands of miles away.
They have a fully industrialized nation backing them with all that implies.

[Lampshade111]

Originally Posted by SiN|ScarFace

So then you assume that all who resist target non combatants, which isn't the case. There are terrorists and there are also people who are only against occupation and there are those who engage in killing each other, civilians and troops.

May I ask your age?

So rather than peacefully oppose occupation they fight us as we try to rebuild and keep us there LONGER! Their attacks against our soldiers who were originally patrolling for their security leads to events where our soldiers attack civilians. After a certain point you don't know who the enemy is anymore and this stress and loss of respect for the Iraqis does lead to events where good soldiers will shoot civilians on purpose. Even if insurgent groups claim to fight us as they are against the occupation they are still no better than all of the other terrorists as in fighting against us they are destroying their own country. Even if we do leave the country who do you think will be the real loser? Us? No we did our part, removed Saddam and tried to help them rebuild. The Iraqis will have been the real losers. Their country will be devastated and stuck in a state of civil war for many years to come.

I am rather offended that you ask my age. Yes the Iraqis have lost my respect but all of my arguments have good reasoning behind them. Might I ask you age?

[Gyberg]

Originally Posted by ArmedDrunk&Angry

Terrorism, in my definition, is killing civilians.

Does that transferr to the allied bombings of german cities, when in some cases the targets where the parts of the cities where the workers lived?

[puglous]

Does that transferr to the allied bombings of german cities, when in some cases the targets where the parts of the cities where the workers lived?

Probably, but "good guys" and "bad guys" are relative terms. If the enemy is worse than you, you're the good guy.

Anyway, I'd appreciated it if we stopped justify everything with "the allies did it" and villifying everything with "the axis did it" and get back on topic, or if we must continue this political debate, we could stop bringing up irrelevant WWII details.