Hildegard

The who the what now? Which post? Must have been drunk or whatever when I forgot to write the word 'read'. You've asked me to prove there is a difference between the so called insurgent groups in Iraq, you've never answered.

It isn't childish at all, it's that simple. After the war in Iraq just another conflict for resources led by the modern age powers on the pretext of human rights, freedom, beacon of democracy and all other one dimensional bull**** they sell to the public so they can put their conscience at ease that everything is transparent, clean and justifiable. And if you see it otherwise please put an effort in it and care to explain to me how and why it is different.

So how is the war for resources unfolding? Did they take entire Tripoli already?

http://winter-is-coming.net/2011/08/dubrov...tions-revealed/

Walsh still didn't my post. Shame on you, shame shame shame....

And maybe you're just pathetic in your futile attempt to picture myself to be overjoyed about anything regarding this tragedy.

I'm not living in the past nor am I afraid of Turks, I'm telling what was it like to be ruled under the noble Habsburgs. And to your comments of the EU, nobody gives a **** who would you like in the EU or not.

And if it wasn't for my country and the sacrifices of my people Vienna wouldn't have been besieged once by the Turks, but many more times. And probably in that would have fallen at a certain point. And don't you lecture me about my history, certainly not the Austrian version of it where the Habsburgs are most certainly shown in pink and velvet. The regime under the Habsburgs let us deal with the Turks, although we were outnumbered almost in every battle and skirmish, and fight with them on our own more times then the Habsburgs helped militarily. Austria through out history exploited my country, people and resources for its own goals and interest, you didn't give a **** about our security. You were nothing but dictators and imperialistic oppressors, you executed countless people in my country, imprisoned them, impoverished the land, surppressed civil and other liberties. You were to my country the enemy within, and the Turks the enemy beyond the border. My country was too small to stand on its own between such large powers, and you took that to your advantage as best and as roothlesly as you could to serve your own agenda. And I ain't gonna waist one more minute on the Habsburgs that were the plague on my people among others.

It's a personal aspiration for the family, the precious Habsburgs, that killed, robbed and impoverished my people by the thousands and thousands for hundreds of years. Very noble indeed, but hey those were the dark times so it's ok. And you can stuck your EU up your ass as well as your generalization of an entire region.

Yeah, let's put the word Jihad in any bomb-terrorist related event, even where there is no room for such a notion. One thing related to that is the chronology of the events just after this attack. US media led by CNN and FOX, little later BBC as well, in one moment calling upon the US intelligence services said that a massive car bomb has exploded in Oslo and that it's a classic handwriting of Al Qaeda. Immediately news of Norwegian involvement in Afghanistan came popping out, Islamist this, Jihad that, Al Qaeda, etc. But that was utterly false, even with the first images of the blast you can see the damages on the buildings and say that's plastic explosives and no VBIED with a hand print of Al Qaeda. While the Norwegian authorities, like normal folks, wouldn't say anything about whom's to blame until they had more info. And than the peek point of propaganda exploitation of this tragedy, not 20min after breaking news, on TV comes Barrack Obama sending condolences to the Norwegian people, promising support, saying we're all in this together, 'this is our common struggle'. Before any Norwegian member of government or security forces said anything. Together with the US media offensive, later that evening on the press conference the Norwegian prime minister said that prime minister David Cameron phoned him and by the looks of it offered involvement of the British intelligence services because as Stoltemberg carried out the British PMs word: UK already has the possession of intelligence material that could prove very interesting to Norway. I have no doubt they are 'interesting'. However Stoltemberg said the investigation was to be carried out through normal channels and expressed full confidence in the ministry of justice and Norwegian authorities. Nice kick in the butt for David. I have no doubt that certain people in his cabinet and in Washington are disappointed that the attacker is named Anders Behing Breivik, a domestic nut, and not something like Hamad bin Khalifa Al Sulejmani. But nevertheless, they whored this tragedy quite enough to the point they could, as I'm confident they will even more. My condolences to the people who lost their loved ones and to the Norwegian people.

Don't like the Habsburgs one bit, I'd slay them all.

Russian stealth fighter-bombers you say? Can you please share what Russian aircraft are in question here? Their designation and specifications if you don't mind.

That wasn't my point. Read EDIT.

They weren't all armed, Osama didn't have any weapons on him, the women wasn't used as a human shield but was shot by the special forces, Osama was captured first and then executed in front of his daughter. Team Six! Sarcasm aside, this whole ordeal could have been done better with the same or similar end result.

Now we are playing CSI Iraq? Well of course when someone points out that all US and Coalition armed opposition in Iraq are terrorists that goes without saying and needs no proving, why? Because the US regime and mass media present it so, and if you differ please present your evidence or be called a troll or whatever. Exact evidence what one group does or does not to the full extent of their activities I could prove to you or anyone else only if I was an embedded journalist with some insurgent group, but I'm not and neither is any journalist to my knowledge. In Iraq there were many and are many groups with certain degree of power and influence, during Saddam they were tamed with force and intimidation. After the fall of Saddam they all popped out like Gene from the bottle, and some people with common views and understanding came together to form new groups and organizations. The so called insurgent groups in Iraq you can divide into those of Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish, but that would be somewhat inaccurate. There is a difference between Shiite militias and insurgency done by the Sunni. The Shiite militias and their actions isn't aimed at the US, it's mostly directed against Sunni. On the other hand Sunni insurgency is aimed at pretty much everyone, the US, the Shiite militias and the current government. The US puts all Sunni insurgency into one pot, so does the media, a classic act of propaganda were one is satanising his opponents. Most accurate division of that insurgency would be that you have: 1) The Sunni nationalists, which made a large portion of the insurgency at the start of it and still do today, these groups consists in one hand of former Ba

This story reminds so much of Serbian explanations how and why the war in former Yugoslavia began in 1991.

What happened? I have a difference of an opinion, that's all. I'm not saying terrorist attacks aren't gruesome, because they target civilians on purpose. What is gruesome for me is state-level terrorism and civilian deaths that go under the disguise of unfortunate collateral damage. For me the invasion of Iraq is nothing but state-level terrorism committed by one country, the US, against another, at the expense of its civilians. Done so on the pretext of lies and deception, for the sole reasons of those that are geostrategic and economic, 'justified' that the other side (Saddam) has done much worse things and that the people now have democracy so it's fine. For me that is ****ing gruesome and the even worse thing is that concept has passed in the so called free world as something acceptable and alright. The only reason it has passed as such it's because the entity that has committed that act is the most powerful country in the world, if any other country A did the same thing to the country B things would have been much different. When one invades a country for its own self-interest while fully aware it will result in massive civilian casualties for me is nothing else but terrorism. But such terrorism is a lot less awful because it is done by MLRS 270, Paladins and laser guided bombs, not suicide bomber and IED. Terrorists blow up a market place killing civilians, US forces shelling a city, in their campaign of achieving the goals of the Bush administration which are anything but altrustic, kill a bunch of civilians while fighting resistance. Looking at these two examples of course they are different, primarily in their initial intent but then again much more similar then different because the end game is the same, deaths of innocent civilians caught up in power struggles of those who don't give a rats ass about them.

Of course Al Qaida's methods evolved since the 80s to now days, it would be foolish of them if it didn't. While fighting the Soviets Islamic fighters used suicide bombers, IED and ambushes as pretty much the main technique of resistance. Afghan geographical landscape and Soviet inferior coverage and surveillance in the air compared to the present of the US allowed the Islamic forces to operate and engage the Soviets in countryside on a much larger scale then they do now. Such strategy can't work for example in Iraq due to the terrain and other factors. Hence the movement of operations to urban areas. When I talk about anti - US forces in Iraq and comparing them to those of anti - Soviet I do so for the insurgent groups that target US military targets, not the ones that deliberatly target civilians in order to spread chaos. But for many all anti -US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are put in the same basket of terrorist&Al Qaida. For me that isn't the case. And I wouldn't say by far the comparison for the war in Korea nor do I see the label that connects it to the comparison I have made here.

I'm talking about Iraq. And how convinient is to put all the civilian deaths in Iraq under the carpet of collateral damage and terrorist actions. But who gives a **** hey? They are away in some country where everybody rides camels and after all they are better off now since they have democracy. Nice pat on your own back.

Calling names and pointing figures, nice one. The only thing pathetic here is your level of communication. CIA trained and created Al Qaida, and then it backfired on the US, something that often happens. Al Qaida while fighting Soviets in Afghanistan used suicide bombers, in the process they also killed many civilians, they tortured and killed captured Soviet soldiers, they were deemed as freedom fighters. In Afghanistan and Iraq when domestic groups, so called insurgents, use suicide bombers and blow up US and coalition targets resulting also in civilian deaths, when they capture American soldier and behead them, they are a bunch of terrorist dogs. For me the two that I mentioned are the pretty much the same, group of fighters using the same techniques and methods of warfare to combat a superior occupation force. Both of these groups can be looked at as terrorist and as freedom fighters, depending on your point of view. Now I now you'll come at me screaming retarded suicide bombers blowing up market places full of innocent civilians. And of course a group using such methods are sick ****s and terrorists in almost anyones sane mind. The US and Coalition forces merge any opposing force in Afghanistan and Iraq as terrorist. My point is that the US through out history paints one group as terrorist when they're acting against them, and another one as guerrillas or freedom fighters when their actions suits them, but when in fact the two often have little difference at all. In my opinion a group in Iraq using suicide bombers, IED and ambushes against US forces is absolutely no different then Islamic forces fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, both using same tactics against occupation armed forces that illegally invaded their country for their own interests. Hm, no I'm not. I'm saying the difference between the two is more often in the perception of the western powers and media rather then in their own actions and goals.

Of course they were technics and tactics learned from the CIA while they were allies, and I really don't need the US version of what is and what is not terrorism.

Terrorists are organizations, groups and individuals that are willingly conducting actions aimed at the deaths of civilians or undergoing actions of self-interest while fully aware they will result in deaths and suffering of innocent civilians. Don't get me wrong, for me Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist. But what is going on in the last 10 years, and rather the last 60 years isn't war on terror, but war of terrors. State-level terrorism and small-group terrorism as means of achieving goals and aims of various powerhouses, the talk of light vs. dark, good vs. evil in all of this is nothing more then propaganda on both and any side.

He got the terrorist label the very moment when he decided to undergo actions aimed against the interests of the US and its allies.

And when the due process can't be achieved by a special forces raid but with a use of an entire military and in process be directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. But hey, they are better off now so it's ok to do such things because man in power was eviiiiiiiiiilllll. And why then doesn't the SEAL team go kill the rulers of Syria and Bahrain? They did the same thing to their people just like Colonel.