well, maybe that too. What I meant was that who knows how many of these terrorist attacks are actually just fuckers like this shooting at civilians. I guess it's still a terrorist attack, but not al qaeda.

Exactly, manufactured terrorism.

Lets go through a senerio.

The US invades Iraq, toppels its goverment, etc,etc.

What if, thing are going good in Iraq, no real terrorism threat. But, the US, for what ever reason, wanted to stay in Iraq longer. Well, its hard to stay in Iraq if all is peaceful. So, manufacture some terrorism, create a need for the Us military to stay for "security". Bang, now you get to stay longer. Then tell the Iraq's "you can tell us to leave when ever you want", then manufacture some terrorism against them and they will be begging you to stay. Then you get to stay and...o I dont know....get more free oil?

Knowing Arabs, they generaly need little incentive to start fucking things up. I doubt the US has to do terrorism itself. And the war in Iraq seems to blow up in the face of the US administration quite badly. All that for a little bit of oil?

@11b no doubt such a thing could be possible. But i dont think its going on as you say.

Yes I doubt the Americans really want to be in Iraq for longer at the moment.

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/

That nonsense again.
You're taking my quote out of context. Whatever the reasons for going into Iraq, right now it only wants out, and fast, and without more trouble.

For all we know, that flash movie could be manufactured terrorism. Having said that, after watching it, i think it has served its intentional purpose. It has made me doubt.

Well, apparently it has already been made official that it was not a 757 that hit the Pentagon.

Yay there is serbian version. *happy* *happy* *happy* *happy*

Hehe Gfree. As for the site...gotta love stuff like that. On a sidenote, the US has been known to use pretty, erh, radical means such as white phosphor and napalm (or something very closely related to napalm, anyway) on Fallujah. A city with more than just "insurgents", I might add.

So they're creating more than enough 'terrorism' by using such tactics in a civilian area as it is.

There is a certain gung-ho attitude. Mind you one of the girls at my uni likes Bush so much that she doesn't think Iraq is going too badly

I don't think Iraq is going too badly.

If we lose in Iraq, it'll be because of politics. We militaryily pwn the country. There is no way anyone will be able to field an army there without it being completely annihilated by coalition forces. There's no way they could seize a town for any length of time, nor own a highway, or do much of anything at all that's meaningful.

Anyway, there is a major insurgency, sure, and people die all the time. Sure sucks. And shows the morals of an enemy who kills more of its own than it does of the "invaders". I'm also willing to bet for every soldier they've managed to kill, we've wasted several times that number worth of terrorists. Too bad a war of attrition isn't going to work.

It's just how you look at it. The ppl attacking the US and British troops in Iraq don't always equal terrorists; they probably call themselves freedom fighters or something.

If you say that Iraq was a success in terms of sheer military might, sure. But we all know that there's no way Iraq will be secured, things are doomed to end with the US and co withdrawing from a country in unrest. Seeing as the goal was to establish a dictatorship (or a democracy, but that's so unlikely that it's not even an option ) sympathetic to the West, things are looking to fail rather than succeed.

As for killing more enemies than own troops getting killed; that's not what guerilla warfare is about, aye? The Soviets brought the Germans to their knees too, with tremendous losses on their side...way more than those of the German army.

Look at Vietnam as well. That was a war that America needs to remember.