This question popped into my mind after reading today’s headlines in the local papers; Is it really possible after what happened in Kuwait when two gunmen sent a US marine on a fast track to hell (inshallah) in an ambush. The noticeable difference in this assault is that it was carried out on the soldiers in uniform and were supposed to be battle ready, unless they thought that the war-like situation only prevails after a unilateral declaration by the Americans, which in turn put all the American soldiers in a combat mode.
But, really if you analyze the headlines it looks awfully bad on the US that their soldiers are susceptible to terrorism and can be easily terrorized, and yet another point to be taken into consideration about a nation which is in absolute moral decline. The politically correct statement should have been, “ Two wussy US marines gunned down in a guerrilla attack with their pants down”. At least we are playing fairly by the international rules of militaristic terminologies. Only this time, the real soldiers happen to be the attackers who carried out a classic guerilla style attack.
A few casualties do not mean incompetence or being scared of terrorism! Recently, Pakistani solders were involved in a raid (unlike the US troops that were ambushed) against the suspected Al Qaida members & suffered some serious casualties. This doesn't mean that they were/are incompetent or in any way scared to face such situations again.
Ahmedjee, that's not the point. What I am trying to say is that why in the world the US authorities are using the word "Terrorism" for this particular incident. When clearly, it was more like a guerrilla raid. Using terrorism for such incidents just makes US army looks bad...that's all.
when some camel jockeys drive up in a pickup and shoot at soldiers in peace time, it's Islamic terrorism. There are rules of engagement for not firing at civilians unless fired upon.. which were observed and the cowardly towel-heads were duly dispatched to hell (inshallah).
The Kuwaitis termed them terrorists. The US Marines were set upon in a very dastardly way, thus negating any charge of being less than honorable. It was a guerilla tactic, most likely employed by terrorists, ie. not belonging to any army. They could have been Iraqi agents, though. The Marines have standing orders to not fire until fired upon and this applies in the whole region. Any suggestion that they do otherwise by non-Americans can be rightly seen as an exhortation to incite further animosity. The situation was taken advantage of by those not clearly defined as military. This was a one way mission for those who fired on the Marines.
Biased analysis aligns the analyser with propagandistic methods. I wish to avoid that pitfall and stay at a decent altitude above the fray, for a better view. Every faction has the potential to fall below the standards of acceptability. Call the shots fairly!
[QUOTE] Originally posted by TOMASSO: *
The **Kuwaitis* termed them terrorists. The US Marines were set upon in a very dastardly way, thus negating any charge of being less than honorable. It was a guerilla tactic, most likely employed by terrorists, ie. not belonging to any army. They could have been Iraqi agents, though.
[/QUOTE]
They were Kuwaiti civilians from all reports from Kuwait so far, which makes it pretty embarrasing considering the fact the Kuwaiti's are supposed to be the most pro-American of all Arabs as the US liberated them. If these Kuwaiti civilians were Iraqi agents as you are speculating then thats even worse for the US, as it shows that some (if not a great numbers?) are pretty sympathetic to the Iraqi people?
There are two political pointers to this less than hostile attitude the Kuwaiti 's have for Iraq. 1) Iraqi and Kuwaiti ministers met earlier this year for the first time since the Gulf war, and announced they wanted to forget the past and work for better relations. 2) At the present time Kuwait is opposing any unilateral US attack on Iraq, wanting it to have formal UN backing.
But that said it is indeed a bad omen that there are such high level of anti-American feelings even in US-liberated Kuwait.
PA, I need to understands how you define peace time in current ME situation.
By the way if you knew any thing about Kuwait, there are thousand and I mean thousands of people paying their respects to the two "Martyrs", since their Namez-Janzah and Ghusal was not offered due to a common practice in Islam for those who are killed in the line duty (shuhadah).
The US troops are there to protect Kuwait on the request of the Kuwaiti Emir himself. They have a base and an agreement to stay there and/or conduct military exercises in the region.
US and Kuwait are not in a state of war. I would categorize an absence of war as peacetime.. wouldn't you?
as for the Kuwaitis hailing the dead.. we have people in pakistan naming their newborns Osma or voting for MMA, so apparently there is no dearth of idiots in both places.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
MiniMe,
The US troops are there to protect Kuwait on the request of the Kuwaiti Emir himself. They have a base and an agreement to stay there and/or conduct military exercises in the region.
US and Kuwait are not in a state of war. I would categorize an absence of war as peacetime.. wouldn't you?
as for the Kuwaitis hailing the dead.. we have people in pakistan naming their newborns Osma or voting for MMA, so apparently there is no dearth of idiots in both places.
[/QUOTE]
Since Kuwait is monarchy how can it be that all of the people are satisfied with the decision of the Kuwaiti Ruler.
Revolution has always been in a killing atmosphere which is history.
You protest, you fail (verbal). You kill you achieve (practical). Achieve not only the loss of another human but also draw attention onto YOU (international conflict).
Who cares what the emir says? Since when was he an objective and rational being? From what i know he doesnt care about his people as he is galavanting around the world, spending their hard earned money on sports cars and mansions.
PA your notion of only war and peacetime is extremely navie or the variety of order or chaos (depending on your pov) that Bush has created on the international scene.
if the Emirs and monarchs makes bad decisions, why dont the "dissatisfied majority" who live in these lands revolt against his rule? why dont their muslim brethren from other countries help them overthrow the tyrant ruler? are these people not capable of selecting a proper leader?
Queer you and i both know that the common man doesnt care who rules him if get his daily bread and water. When that doesnt happen that is when he cares. The society should develop where its basic needs are met and fulfilled for it to go for more luxurious rights of democracy
in that case, why is america to blame? kuwaitis dont care about their leadership or decisions that affect their future. they didnt protest their leader's decision to seek american support. and now they fire at americans who are their to defend them from the iraqis? thats backstabbing.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by queer: *
in that case, why is america to blame? kuwaitis dont care about their leadership or decisions that affect their future. they didnt protest their leader's decision to seek american support. and now they fire at americans who are their to defend them from the iraqis? thats backstabbing.
[/QUOTE]
But the natural process of things is for the govt to fulfill these needs is it not? In a country where the people are improvished, the govt does do much and yet is provide protection, money, trade etc , it doesnt have an incentive to change. For if it does change, it will destory its own power base. Thus the US can influence the govt to change. But rather it helps these repressive govt extend their influence and artifically props them up
just a while back you said the common man doesnt care, and now you say "repressive govt". how can the govt be repressive if the common man has no views on the govt?
sure, the US can change the govts if it wishes, but if the US doesnt, it isnt a crime. especially when the natives themselves dont give shyt about who rules over them.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by queer: *
just a while back you said the common man doesnt care, and now you say "repressive govt". how can the govt be repressive if the common man has no views on the govt?
sure, the US can change the govts if it wishes, but if the US doesnt, it isnt a crime. especially when the natives themselves dont give shyt about who rules over them.
[/QUOTE]
Para 1 is illogical. The fact that the people have no opinion does not have any affect on the actions of the govt, which can be repressive. I suggest you go back and learn logical thinking in high school.
Para 2 is true, but it is hypocracy, that some dictatorships are fine, others arent. Also the champion of human rights should be hold universal standards and not ones that are self centered.