|
The Ramadan Attacks
|
View this Thread in Original format
| 'mju:zik |
OK.
So there have been more than ten attacks in Baghdad in the last 2 days. Everyone read about the hotel attack?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../iraq_attack_dc
And now the red-cross attack. There are several questions that immedeately pop into my head. The obvious ones...is the US losing control? What would happen if they withdrew from the capitol? yadayada...
BUT
one question that is especially of intrest since we have quite a few arabs here. about the the holy month. The US military has been training recently to give a good impression to the people about how it is conducting itself. ie not eating in public, not smoking, etc. But how does this look now? I mean are the soldiers going to give a about Ramadan if they are getting attacked more than ever?
I think it was pretty stupid for the US to lift the curfew. They just assumed that the attacks would halt once Ramadan started? |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| Interesting question, IF us lose control and in the long run the whole war, what will happen then? a new terrible regime in Baghdad? probably they will produce wmd? then it will be a really hard situation to handle for the world.... |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| It is obvious that if US troops leave Baghdad it will plunge into total chaos. But the real question is who is behind this attack. Was it forces loyal to Saddam or those alligned with Al-Quaeda. Or maybe it's the cooperation of both. Imo Bush really screwed it up there. Now instead of having 2 opposing sides out there he has a single enemy that's almost untraceable. |
|
|
| ahlamalek |
what I see is that the US never had any control over the country. What seemed like control was in reality fighters staying on the low or patient rebels waiting giving the US a chance to prove what they said in their rhetorics.
140000 soldiers aren't enough to keep under control a country like Iraq.
Slowly the attacks will raise in numbers and in dammage and the US will be left wondering who they should bomb so those attacks stop... :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
I will repeat what I had said before, when the US casualities will reach 500, the occupation forces will leave. And I will add, that if an attack does 50 US casualites at once, they will leave too. |
|
|
| Tranex02 |
| quote: | Originally posted by 'mju:zik
I think it was pretty stupid for the US to lift the curfew. |
why?
| quote: | Originally posted by ahlamalek
the US will be left wondering who they should bomb so those attacks stop... :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: |
LoL:p |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
| They should have had better aim. They could have gotten Wolfowitz.:( |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSaenz
They should have had better aim. They could have gotten Wolfowitz.:( |
:rolleyes:
| quote: | Slowly the attacks will raise in numbers and in dammage and the US will be left wondering who they should bomb so those attacks stop...
|
not particularly amusing .
Looks like you guys literally celebrate the increase of terrorism, totally forgetting that's it's not even Anti-American :conf: |
|
|
| 'mju:zik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tranex02
why?
|
because they got bombed worse than ever the day they lifted it |
|
|
| 'mju:zik |
| quote: | Originally posted by ahlamalek
what I see is that the US never had any control over the country. What seemed like control was in reality fighters staying on the low or patient rebels waiting giving the US a chance to prove what they said in their rhetorics.
140000 soldiers aren't enough to keep under control a country like Iraq.
Slowly the attacks will raise in numbers and in dammage and the US will be left wondering who they should bomb so those attacks stop... :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
I will repeat what I had said before, when the US casualities will reach 500, the occupation forces will leave. And I will add, that if an attack does 50 US casualites at once, they will leave too. |
the US wont leave until there is a stable democratic government. they can't. if they did there would be a mother of all terror states in Iraq and a lot more than 500 people would get hurt because of it down the line. what they might do is set up headquarters away from major combat zones. |
|
|
| 'mju:zik |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
:rolleyes:
not particularly amusing .
Looks like you guys literally celebrate the increase of terrorism, totally forgetting that's it's not even Anti-American :conf: |
honestly!
you dont think its kind of fuked up to be rooting for saddam and osama? i mean even if you hate the US, dont you want Iraq to be a nice place to live? |
|
|
| Tranex02 |
| quote: | Originally posted by 'mju:zik
honestly!
you dont think its kind of fuked up to be rooting for saddam and osama? i mean even if you hate the US, dont you want Iraq to be a nice place to live? |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
Looks like you guys literally celebrate the increase of terrorism, totally forgetting that's it's not even Anti-American :conf: |
there's a difference between thinking that a comment sounded funny and celebrating what happend.....
I laughed at ahlamalek's comment that the US will start looking somewhere else to bomb inorder to fight the terrorists....(ie. attacking another country).....
i didn't laught at the attacks that took place in baghdad......
I would never laugh at anyones death....even if they deserved it... |
|
|
| Tranex02 |
| quote: | Originally posted by 'mju:zik
because they got bombed worse than ever the day they lifted it |
so if the curfew was left in place, the attacks would not have happend???
i don't think the 4 hour curfew would have hindered the terrorists operations much.... |
|
|
|
|
