Terrorist Propaganda ... I couldn't finish it..

[{nF}remix]

May be highly offensive....people die in this film

Found this while lurking around the INSmod.net forums (Great upcoming source mod BTW http://forums.insurgencymod.net/inde...showtopic=6818)

Sorry if this is offensive (If this needs to be closed, so be it), but i feel this needs to be discussed..i only watched the first 10 seconds. Im speechless....what are your guys' thoughts?

[Justinian]

Possibly the worst propaganda I've ever seen. I find it highly amusing they used a shot of the medic who was shot with a sniper rifle, got back up, and ended up finding and destroying the entire squad of snipers with his men ... then administered first aid.

[Kino]

Deleted by user.

[Seleukos]

They might not all be dead, When they are out guarding stuff like that they have them wear especially heavy armor.
The sniper is smart though he only fired one shot each time. The guy is an ******* but at least he isn't blowing up children, though he might but not in this video.

The guy is an *******? It is war, that is what happens in war.... Soldiers fire at enemy soldiers. That is a basic principle of war.

[Zuwxiv]

Blatant propaganda, from another side. I find it sickening that some people actually believe that the US doesn't use any propaganda.

Pre-scripted "live" talks with soldiers, political campaigns, etc.

Would you rather have the enemy shooting soldiers from your country, or children from his own?

Edit: my post and the post after mine were within a very short time period. I submitted the reply, and my refresh (cable, LAN) showed the next post. I'm guessing less than a quarter of a second away. Completely off topic.

And I liked the other forum's comment about that .50 just for this sniper. Just because it is a war (regardless of my beliefs on the initial legitimacy of it) doesn't mean I support the other side.

*guns smiley that isn't there anymore*

[danzig]

Blatant propaganda, from another side. I find it sickening that some people actually believe that the US doesn't use any propaganda.

Pre-scripted "live" talks with soldiers, political campaigns, etc.

Who said the US doesnt use propaganda? This was about Islamic extremist propaganda. American propaganda = trying to show a more peaceful, better Iraq while Islamic propaganda = this. There is lovely video on the net of what happens when Islamic nutcases run into US in a real firefight that doesnt involve snipers or IED but they wouldnt make good propaganda for them since they are always on the losing end of that. Ive seen so many of these videos doesnt bother me it is war but its amusing that this is the limit of success for them, sniper attacks and blowing up crowds of women. What a well run insurgency....

Would you rather have the enemy shooting soldiers from your country, or children from his own?

How about he shoot no one since neither are a real enemy to him and its his own blind ignorance that makes it so.

[Guderian]

I couldn't watch past 58 seconds...what a waste...the reason why Iam against war. It's not so excellent when you see the realities is it?

[Kino]

Deleted by user.

[Amroth]

I watched the first few minutes, and in that time I didn't see any terrorist activity. Sickening, yes, but it is war.

Apoc

[Cradds]

If a guy shoots one of my fellow Americans he's an A-Hole.

What about when you americans manage to hit your allies

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

If a guy shoots one of my fellow Americans he's an A-Hole.

Agreed.

[Removed_user_012521]

Im sorry I did not get to your worthless oppinions earlier, I was occupied with something else.

I have said this so many times but I dont know if I am being clear enough. US soldiers rarely inflict collateral damag in the form of civillians. There are restrictions for weapons and tactits that can be used in areas with a threat of collateral damage. For you idiots out there that means that they cant use things that kill allot of ppl. For example: Lets say that a 500lb bomb has an error rate of 10yds, and a field rang of damage of about 150yds, in a place like a city it would be illegal to drop one (illegal meaning it could result in courtmartial). Another historical example is the beggining of the Fallujah saga. When 4 american contractors illegaly drove through fallujah (there was an order saying that no less that 4 vehicle could drive through the city), they were ambushed, killed, their bodies burned, then they were hung on the "broklyn bridge". After that there obviuosly was a lot of calling for retaliation or at least to get the bodies back. The Marines, knowing sending an armoured convoy into the city, with angry mobs running around, would result in the deaths of hundreds or more-or-less civilains (they were defanatly not Bystanders). They had the local police get the bodies back and overuled any form of immediat retaliation.
These are 2 of many many cases in which the US implemeted an "ask questions first the carfully shoot later" stratagy.

Now Hellenic,

I have been reading some of your earlier statement and must admit I am starting to loose what ever respect for you I ever had. Not only do you oppose the war (Many do) you take it farther. You insult the soldiers (even here in the US where most ppl dont support the war they still support and respect the troops), you insult the civilians who are trying to start another life (you insult them by defending the insurgency), and you seem to oppose anything that involeves killing if they are not american servicmen.
"The insurgency targets occupant soldiers on its soil. It's at least stupid to say that it has any benefit from targetting its own people."--- Hellenic

Then why are so many civilians dying in car bombings? The fact is that the insurgency have no motivation or politcical meesage and are the enemies of peace. They can not challeng US military might and so they resort to sensless violence and killing. Are these the people who you would want ruling Iraq?


Now, Jeus the Inane,

"Quote:
America did not start this war. This war was started on september 11, 2001, when islamic fundamentalist terrorist flew airplanes into the world trade center and the pentagon. Condis not the one who needs to hang, its the terrorist who do.



Oh, but what did Iraq had to do with that? Afganistan, fine, but Iraq? And what is a more relevant question is, why did those "religious fanatics" decided to hijack and airplane and crash it into a building?"---- Jesus the Inane



Those Religious Fanatics bombed the Worl Trade Center and the Pentagon because they were Religious Fanatics. They do not believe in toleration or seperation between church and state, that is why they have been continualy attacking since the 80's. Also there are many arguments for why the US is in Iraq, while I belive the WMD argument was just a way to get the war past senate there are many motives for the removal for Suddam. One is the belief that Iraq is part of the war on terror. Obviuosly all the bombings going on in Iraq is a sure sign that there were terrorist in it before. And if you are one to believe that they all floked to Iraq because of the US occupation then obvoiusly they do not speak for the ppl of Iraq who then are trying to participat in a democracy. Do you see what Im getting at?

If the terrorist in Iraq now were part of the Iraqi population then obviously Iraq had links to terrorism. If they moved to Iraq after Suddam then obviously they were not part of the population. You could then say that majority of the population wants to participate in a democracy, a far cry from the times of suddam.

[Rapax]

Obviuosly all the bombings going on in Iraq is a sure sign that there were terrorist in it before. And if you are one to believe that they all floked to Iraq because of the US occupation then obvoiusly they do not speak for the ppl of Iraq who then are trying to participat in a democracy. Do you see what Im getting at?

If the terrorist in Iraq now were part of the Iraqi population then obviously Iraq had links to terrorism. If they moved to Iraq after Suddam then obviously they were not part of the population. You could then say that majority of the population wants to participate in a democracy, a far cry from the times of suddam.

That logic is flawed. Obviously a lot of this terrorism comes from outside since the US brilliantly managed to give terrorists a platform for attacking and studying US forces. Some of it also comes from the inside, but drawing the assumption that that means there were terrorists before which would be justification to attack is very flawed. If the USA was invaded, how many "terrorists" you think would appear that were normal citizens before?
What is further flawed is the assumption that just because most of the population doesn't actively resist, it automatically endorses occupation and democratization. I assume that most people wanna get on with their lives trying to stay alive. Democracy, dictatorship, I think they'd be happy if some sort of control would be re-established. Living under Saddam wasn't good, living in constant danger of bombs, abductions and accidental killing isn't very good either.

So again, if parts of the insurgency are in fact iraqis, that doesn't mean that iraq had terrorist links, it means they don't like the occupation and if the population doesn't actively resist, it doesn't mean it endorses the occupation.

[Removed_user_012521]

If USA was invaded there would be a resistance, but ppl would'nt go around blowing up crowded markets. Another point to make is that the Inusrgency is not friendly to the population either. So chances are that most the insurgency come from outside the country, and the 20% rest are the fanatics and those who were formerly in power.

"What is further flawed is the assumption that just because most of the population doesn't actively resist, it automatically endorses occupation and democratization. I assume that most people wanna get on with their lives trying to stay alive. Democracy, dictatorship, I think they'd be happy if some sort of control would be re-established. Living under Saddam wasn't good, living in constant danger of bombs, abductions and accidental killing isn't very good either."


They propably support it because A) thats why the insurgency is bombing them. And B) they are not resisting it and are activly taking part in elections.

[Zuwxiv]

But there will always be violence. We can't avoid fighting in Iraq. So isn't this a legitimate form of warfare? This isn't "terrorists" (loathe to use the word), but it is soldiers of the enemy. They aren't exactly fighing like we do...

But then again, how did America fight the war for Independance? Hiding behind trees, shooting, and running away while they still can. And it worked.

There is some saying that is something like "The secret to warfare is to use overwhelming numbers of soldiers on your enemies weakest spot when they least exspect it." Isn't that legitimate?

Of course, all those mo-fos should be killed immediately. If we can't do it, I'd be willing to enlist. But while you can want them to die, you can still understand the legitimacy of their form of combat.

[danzig]

But there will always be violence. We can't avoid fighting in Iraq. So isn't this a legitimate form of warfare? This isn't "terrorists" (loathe to use the word), but it is soldiers of the enemy. They aren't exactly fighing like we do...

But then again, how did America fight the war for Independance? Hiding behind trees, shooting, and running away while they still can. And it worked.

Er thats not how they fought the entire war and if they had they would have never won. Snipers are not going to win any war, they will sap morale for some or **** off others.

There is some saying that is something like "The secret to warfare is to use overwhelming numbers of soldiers on your enemies weakest spot when they least exspect it." Isn't that legitimate?

Of course, all those mo-fos should be killed immediately. If we can't do it, I'd be willing to enlist. But while you can want them to die, you can still understand the legitimacy of their form of combat.

Well Im not attacking their tactics (all is fair in love and war after all and while I despise even one US soldiers death Id be a hypocrite to say its unfair or not right) what Im saying is they are using those tactics because they are incapable of mounting any other type of warfare. Remember Vietnam that ultimately what broke US's will was Tet Offensive because it was such a large scale operation that shouldnt have been possible by an enemy that was being 'beaten'...the fact it was a complete and utter failure by North Vietnam and ended in devestating loses (and most will argue now would have been the true end of the war if the US hadnt decided the 'war was over' due those loses) didnt matter. The insurgents in Iraq have shown no ability or capability of ever been able to mount anything of a real threat to the US hence it has no chance to win. Its one of the key reasons why some of us argue that regardless of whether Iraq was a mistake it would be an even *worse* mistake to leave it now, one for the Iraqis itself leaving it in shambles and two it leaves the false impression that you can defeat the US by such little military effort. Note recently Japanese offical who said the US would lose a war against China and one of his reasons stated? US could never stomach the amount of deaths that China would. In alot of ways the US's most deadly enemy when it comes to warfare is ourselves, for poorly led wars and to the inability to accept that with war comes death that it isnt a video game.

[SovietDoom]

But then again, how did America fight the war for Independance? Hiding behind trees, shooting, and running away while they still can. And it worked.

Actually, not until Americans started to beat British Armies in the field did the British actually suffer a defeat. George Washington fought an entirely conventional campaign, and used people like the Green Mountain Boys and Rangers to sabotage and disrupt the British.

It is virtually impossible to win a war entirely by guerilla action. It basically puts the populace in a bad mood, but not a bad mood that gets worse, since all of these attacks on US tricks are like a gnat biting an elephant.

If the insurgency somehow manages to pull off another Tet, then I can say that this war is going to be hard fought. However, Iraq isn't divided into North Iraq and South Iraq, and there aren't two powerful foreign powers (like the Soviet Union and China) giving aid to the enemy.

[Removed_user_012521]

Also there is no concievable way that the insurgency can challenge the Army & Marines in the field. The NV were veteran warriors, the insurgency are mostly rag-tag bands of militia and fanatics.

[Guderian]

In alot of ways the US's most deadly enemy when it comes to warfare is ourselves, for poorly led wars and to the inability to accept that with war comes death that it isnt a video game.

I think that is a good thing, Americans don't want their sons, father and brothers dying...the longer it is avoided the better, Iraq should not have happened. But now that it has it is time for the US to actually take reponsibility instead pretending everything is fine and dandy in Iraq. Taking responsibility means either digging in for the long haul and admiting it or preparing for an evacuation and admiting it. None of this fence sitting rubbish the Bush administration is doing while American troops are dying.

[Hellenic Hoplite]

Terrorist propaganda? It doesn't show any terrorists, it shows people of the country they are fighting in, removing some of the invaders which have occupied them, like Europeans did when the Germans occupied their countries. And you feel pity for those who die? It is sad that people die, but one thing is that those who die in this video went there with the intention to occupy the country and kill people, which many of them have already done. Imagine the thousands of Iraqui people (including huge percentages of civilians, men children and aged people) who died in horrible ways by those bastards, and then tell me who's the scum.

I find that video very interesting. At least some people there are still brave enough not to lay down their arms, and are still offering death to those who dared defy their right for freedom and occupied their country just for the sake of some oil which is as black as their blood.

By the way, this is merely a video with facts. What is the propaganda? That they show a sniper shot Bush's head? If Bush was a man (which he clearly isn't, puppets aren't men, he just isn't made of wood) he would go and fight there. But of course he has thousands of idiots who are so dull-brained to think, and he can send them there to do his dirty work, as well as, rightfully so, die in the process.

If a guy shoots one of my fellow Americans he's an A-Hole.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! *laughs until tomorrow*

And what about the millions of Americans who shoot millions of other Americans every year?

What a criminal and selfish way you have been taught to think with! In our own country it's I must possess, no matter what the cost for the others is. Out of it it's we must possess, no matter what the cost for the others is. *I*. *We*. The rest of the world may as well burn at our feet, for all we care!