Us Aircraft Carriers

[24107]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftZkFvPoeZo

check this out this why the world should hold its breath everytime a US air craft carrier is around

[SuperSixOne]

You can see alittle bit more about the RAM here,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDQ71WyIxGk

[Iranian Guards]

woooooooow. so coooool. iran is now scared.

[Kiaar]

woooooooow. so coooool. iran is now scared.

You should be, because Iran doesn't have the technology or the economy to match or effectively counter even one.

And saying "But we have missiles!!!!!!!" doesn't mean you can sink a carrier.

[Sajjad]

I like this ship, but only dislike arrogance when speaking about it. USA have much arrogance.

[AK54]

I like this ship, but only dislike arrogance when speaking about it. USA have much arrogance.me too...its embarrassing when american members come off like this.

[Kiaar]

I like this ship, but only dislike arrogance when speaking about it. USA have much arrogance.

Normally I try not to be, but in this case I had to balance out IranianGuard. And yeah, we are arrogant about our carriers.

They're the pride of our Navy. The same way a lot of Iranians on this board are so proud of their countries nuclear program or the missiles they supposedly have.

[AK54]

Normally I try not to be, but in this case I had to balance out IranianGuard. And yeah, we are arrogant about our carriers.

They're the pride of our Navy. The same way a lot of Iranians on this board are so proud of their countries nuclear program or the missiles they supposedly have.
let the dogs bark, theres no need to display unnecessary arrogance.


deep down we all know who stands where.

[Ricardo]

Normally I try not to be, but in this case I had to balance out IranianGuard. And yeah, we are arrogant about our carriers.

They're the pride of our Navy. The same way a lot of Iranians on this board are so proud of their countries nuclear program or the missiles they supposedly have.

There is HUGE difference between "Pride" and "Arrogance"

Pride: Our aircraft carriers are cool.

Arrogance: Look we have the best the aircraft carrier you morons and we will kill you all hahahahahaha YEEEEE HAAAAAW

http://www.peak.org/~greglief/cc/BushCowboyBomb.jpg

[SuperSixOne]

I like this ship, but only dislike arrogance when speaking about it. USA have much arrogance.

If you are refering to the guys in the video, they are soldiers trained to do their job, they really have very little info about the technical aspect of the ship. That is left to the engineers.

[apple_fritta]

OK i amm convinced it's impossible for Iran to strike an air craft carrier. :D sowi, just have to agree with the American fellow :(

[Iranian Guards]

OK i amm convinced it's impossible for Iran to strike an air craft carrier. :D sowi, just have to agree with the American fellow :( what do you mean iran cant strike a aircraft carrier? iran has anti aircraft missiles.

[Iranian Guards]

You should be, because Iran doesn't have the technology or the economy to match or effectively counter even one.

And saying "But we have missiles!!!!!!!" doesn't mean you can sink a carrier. oh really? if a fajr missile hit your carrier it will sink 100%.

[Chris]

There is HUGE difference between "Pride" and "Arrogance"

Pride: Our aircraft carriers are cool.

Arrogance: Look we have the best the aircraft carrier you morons and we will kill you all hahahahahaha YEEEEE HAAAAAW

http://www.peak.org/~greglief/cc/BushCowboyBomb.jpg

Dude oviosly you dont look at posts other Iranians make..

[Kiaar]

what do you mean iran cant strike a aircraft carrier? iran has anti aircraft missiles.

Are you seriously saying you want to use an anti aircraft missile against an aircraft carrier? Please tell me that's just a poorly worded post.

[Kiaar]

oh really? if a fajr missile hit your carrier it will sink 100%.

So you think the aircraft carriers just sit still in the water? That they have no escort, and that none of them have defenses?

There've been tons of videos posted on this forum about the extensive defenses a carrier fleet has to shoot down or avoid enemy missiles.

[SuperSixOne]

oh really? if a fajr missile hit your carrier it will sink 100%.

It would take upwards of 100,000-120,000 pounds of explosives to sink an aircraft carrier, hell it takes 10,000 to bring down a 4 story hotel.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c5c_1172482756&p=1

You would have to score 50+ direct hits, those ships are built like tanks with airpockets filled with flotation foam to keep them afloat ect...

Here's 200,000 pounds, it might even have to be more to sink an aircraft carrier.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d12_1176503726

[apple_fritta]

what do you mean iran cant strike a aircraft carrier? iran has anti aircraft missiles.

Did you not watch the documentary?? You need a tactical nuke to destroy the a/c carrier little-own a carrier b/g......

[SuperSixOne]

Did you not watch the documentary?? You need a tactical nuke to destroy the a/c carrier little-own a carrier b/g......

Your acctually right, here's a simulated nuclear explosion on some american vessels, 500 tons of TNT (1 million pounds) yet even they didn't sink and they are small destroyers and cruisers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFBwlPYQLV8

[JEskandari]

It would take upwards of 100,000-120,000 pounds of explosives to sink an aircraft carrier, hell it takes 10,000 to bring down a 4 story hotel.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c5c_1172482756&p=1

You would have to score 50+ direct hits, those ships are built like tanks with airpockets filled with flotation foam to keep them afloat ect...

Here's 200,000 pounds, it might even have to be more to sink an aircraft carrier.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d12_1176503726
do you know how much is 100,000-120,000 pound of explosive
Do you knew a zelzal missiles have less than 1000 pound of explosive and according to your general can rip an apartment block like its paper .
dont you think one of those 10000 pound mother of the bombs can cut the career in two pieces .

[Xenostrike 06]

Why spending that "120.000" pounds of Explosive to sink some US carriers..just hit its island with KH-31P she'll surely lost her control

KH-31 is one of Russian's latest Air to Surface Missile that capable of breaching through AN-1 SPY radar so putting DDG-63 Arleigh Burke or Ticonderoga Class won't do any good but umm My iranians Friend did your Government ever think of getting KH-31 ?

[Black_zero]

Iran need high Tech submarine to destroy it.

[dannytoro]

"Do you knew a zelzal missiles have less than 1000 pound of explosive and according to your general can rip an apartment block like its paper ."

...An apartment block does not have steel armour,plate,kevlar,fire suppressing foam, air cells and over engineered redundant strentgh like a carriers hull does. It would make a short implosion into the hull, and penetrate into outer, non-essentail details. And the Island is fully replicated elsewhere in the ship, with a cockswain and Jr.Commanders present at all times. Flight ops would continue, as well as propulsion.....

[Ricardo]

Iran need this russian missile.

http://www.wonderland.org.nz/ss-n-25.jpg

http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/images/0_target4.jpg

[Cedric]

Why spending that "120.000" pounds of Explosive to sink some US carriers..just hit its island with KH-31P she'll surely lost her control


The KH-31 cannot target a specific spot on the carrier. Anyways if the island is destroyed, the control will not be lost. The most important part of the ship is the Combat Information Center, it is located deep inside the ship and can use other ships systems such as radar.


.

[SuperSixOne]

The KH-31 cannot target a specific spot on the carrier. Anyways if the island is destroyed, the control will not be lost. The most important part of the ship is the Combat Information Center, it is located deep inside the ship and can use other ships systems such as radar.


.

Yeah, plus the nuclear reactors can differientiate power to turn the ship practically on a dime.

[rabs]

The United States has intercepted KH-31 clones.

[Xenostrike 06]

The United States has intercepted KH-31 clones.


But still US's still feared its capability,although its Combat Information center remain intact the destruction of Island will still open a Gap of defense network allowing Iranian Aircraft to strike deeper on the Carrier's part..maybe from its Aircraft elevator by "sneaking" some unguided rockets or Missiles in Carrier might be a terrible enemy in Long range but she can't do a thing in Close Quarter Battle against Swarming Missile armed Fast attack Crafts

and although KH-31 cannot target specific part of the ship it will likely aimed on Island since it's an Anti Radiation Missile which will home in on Radar's Emission and Carrier's Island have a lot of them installed onboard..and also i think the Destruction of Island would prevent that Carrier from launching or retrieving aircraft for a while since the Loss of air Traffic Controller

in that Spot Iran's Navy may Launched their hmm sorry i little bit forget..HMMM SA-N-4 Hoot on it or eliminating its Escort by their Stealthy Fast attack craft
US's CVBG would surely ended like INS Eliat
However i'm not counting on its aircrafts Hope Iranian planners knew how to overcome Swarming Damn Superhornets..Hmm maybe they could house some camouflaged S-300 Site as Anti Aircraft support

[dannytoro]

...Can't you read, losing the Island would not stop flight ops, nor would it defeat the CIWS systems which are autonomous.........

[Black_zero]

iran need high tech submarine along cruise missile launcher.

[Oriellien]

But still US's still feared its capability,although its Combat Information center remain intact the destruction of Island will still open a Gap of defense network allowing Iranian Aircraft to strike deeper on the Carrier's part..maybe from its Aircraft elevator by "sneaking" some unguided rockets or Missiles in Carrier might be a terrible enemy in Long range but she can't do a thing in Close Quarter Battle against Swarming Missile armed Fast attack Crafts

and although KH-31 cannot target specific part of the ship it will likely aimed on Island since it's an Anti Radiation Missile which will home in on Radar's Emission and Carrier's Island have a lot of them installed onboard..and also i think the Destruction of Island would prevent that Carrier from launching or retrieving aircraft for a while since the Loss of air Traffic Controller

in that Spot Iran's Navy may Launched their hmm sorry i little bit forget..HMMM SA-N-4 Hoot on it or eliminating its Escort by their Stealthy Fast attack craft
US's CVBG would surely ended like INS Eliat
However i'm not counting on its aircrafts Hope Iranian planners knew how to overcome Swarming Damn Superhornets..Hmm maybe they could house some camouflaged S-300 Site as Anti Aircraft support

The island has little to do with combat operations.

[SuperSixOne]

iran need high tech submarine along cruise missile launcher.

Iran needs a life, it thinks it soooo cool because it chooses to defy the U.S. When the world is just going to leave it behind.

[Ricardo]

Iran needs a life, it thinks it soooo cool because it chooses to defy the U.S. When the world is just going to leave it behind.

You need to grow up, when does Iran defied the US?

I think is the opposite.

Grow up, little kid.:roflmao3:

[daddy]

actually ricardo, let me ask why should IRIran NOT defy usa or any imperial powers? it is not anybody's servant or slave. but IRIran has diplomatic relations with almost all countries in this world, save for one - the same one that outspends all other countries (individually) on earth for killing, murdering etc purposes, and the same one that is CURRENTLY in illegal occupation of at least two sovereign countries, bombing, killing, shooting, pillaging etc etc as is its nature.

[JAWilliams]

On the contary, we sailors know our systems, we repair them we know all about them! We know how to operate, maintain them, take them apart, and put them back togeher. Anything that may break on a ship we can fix in short order, if we don't have the part we can make it.

Yes we are proud of our ships, and we command respect, if not good feelings, you have to respect the carrier battle group.

I have spent most of my career a sea, so you can take this to the bank.

What do you expect us to say! When you dreamers are telling how easy it would be to shoot a missile and sink a carrier! Do you expect us to agree with you?

And if a missile does manage to hit the ship every sailor is rigerously trained in Damage Control and Fire Fighting, similar to that Every Marine a Rifleman thing. We spend a great deal of time training in Damage Control. So your missile may do some damage but the American Sailor will be able to handle it.


Current events, we want to stabilize Iraq and leave, as far as that other place is concerned we were attacked and they would no give up the guilty party, so we attacked what would you have done in our position. We have the power and we used it. Have a great day!

[SuperSixOne]

You need to grow up, when does Iran defied the US?

I think is the opposite.

Grow up, little kid.:roflmao3:

You can think all you want, but it won't mean anything. Iran has defied the U.S. and NATO all through this "Nuclear program"

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Here's 200,000 pounds, it might even have to be more to sink an aircraft carrier.

That or a rubber dingy full of explosives. http://www.irandefence.net/images/smilies/SpE/roflmao.gif

[Kiaar]

That or a rubber dingy full of explosives. http://www.irandefence.net/images/smilies/SpE/roflmao.gif

Yes, a small, slow ship is really going to be able to get close to a US Naval Battlegroup during war time...

[SuperSixOne]

That or a rubber dingy full of explosives. http://www.irandefence.net/images/smilies/SpE/roflmao.gif

The sad part is the carrier could probably outrun your "fast attack boats" they do well over 40mph.

http://www.web-l.com/things-you-wont-see-on-cnn/aircraft-carrier-tips-as-it-makes-sharp-turn.jpg

or if they got close, the wake would probably capesize them.

[apple_fritta]

Your acctually right, here's a simulated nuclear explosion on some american vessels, 500 tons of TNT (1 million pounds) yet even they didn't sink and they are small destroyers and cruisers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFBwlPYQLV8

Nothing other than a real nuke can depict a nuke man!

[Xenostrike 06]

The sad part is the carrier could probably outrun your "fast attack boats" they do well over 40mph.

or if they got close, the wake would probably capesize them.

there are many ways to Rome..same goes for Sinking an Aircraft Carrier...although it's able to outrun our Fast Attack craft..it won't outrun its Missiles..and it can't do anything against Skhval-11 Underwater Rocket beside Missile armed Fast Attack craft do not need to get close the Carrier,it can launch its Missile from a very safe distance and if they're stealth the Carrier or its CVBG won't be able to pick them up..and as for Handling Massing Hornets..an Air defense destroyer would fit..or arming some of the FAC to knock those birds out of the skies

and few threads above i saw a word "Island have very little things to do with Combat Operations" that would be right but surely it has something serious to do with Navigation and Flight Control..where did the Combat Information center transmit Course change(if necessary)..although it has "small" value in attack role its destruction would deal some gap in Defenses allowing deeper strike

although the Damage control can perform fast action to repair the damage..it won't be as fast as incoming Missiles and torpedoes

[Kiaar]

there are many ways to Rome..same goes for Sinking an Aircraft Carrier...although it's able to outrun our Fast Attack craft..it won't outrun its Missiles..and it can't do anything against Skhval-11 Underwater Rocket beside Missile armed Fast Attack craft do not need to get close the Carrier,it can launch its Missile from a very safe distance and if they're stealth the Carrier or its CVBG won't be able to pick them up..and as for Handling Massing Hornets..an Air defense destroyer would fit..or arming some of the FAC to knock those birds out of the skies

and few threads above i saw a word "Island have very little things to do with Combat Operations" that would be right but surely it has something serious to do with Navigation and Flight Control..where did the Combat Information center transmit Course change(if necessary)..although it has "small" value in attack role its destruction would deal some gap in Defenses allowing deeper strike

although the Damage control can perform fast action to repair the damage..it won't be as fast as incoming Missiles and torpedoes

I don't think Iran has stealth ships, and any ship small enough to avoid being picked up by radar probably can't carry let alone fire a missile either.

[JEskandari]

I don't think Iran has stealth ships, and any ship small enough to avoid being picked up by radar probably can't carry let alone fire a missile either.
Nobody has any sort of stealth ship yet, if you want it to be stealth it must be under sea.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Yes, a small, slow ship is really going to be able to get close to a US Naval Battlegroup during war time...

I was joking but US carriers are not even worthy of our torpedos. No ship can get away.

[Kiaar]

I was joking but US carriers are not even worthy of our torpedos. No ship can get away.

I think this is the real joke. A US aircraft carrier not worthy of a torpedo? Normally I have respect for things you say, but this one makes me doubt that.

Iran does not have the super-mega-awesomely-powerful weapons of ultimate destruction some of you think they do that are invulnerable to any sort of defense and will hit the mark and sink anything 100% of the time.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Well then,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4871078.stm

The mega ships are a thing of the past. They cant move fast enough making them vunrable. Put it this way, if Iran wanted to build a carrier, I would be angry, a waste of resources that could be used much more effectivly.

[Oriellien]

Iran doesnt have enough torpedoes to get by carriers defences and then sink it. Sure some will get by, but you'd need hundreds to sink a carrier. Oh, but the torpedo is so powerful it sunk a derelict rusty defenseless ship!

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Iran doesnt have enough torpedoes to get by carriers defences and then sink it.

LOL, Since you know, then how many does Iran have?

Sure some will get by, but you'd need hundreds to sink a carrier.

Are you sure about that? Doesnt that depend on what kind of charge?

Oh, but the torpedo is so powerful it sunk a derelict rusty defenseless ship!

Would you rather a brand new shiny ship to test on?

[Oriellien]

LOL, Since you know, then how many does Iran have?



Are you sure about that? Doesnt that depend on what kind of charge?



Would you rather a brand new shiny ship to test on?

1) My mistake, I should have said Iran doesnt have the capability to launch enough torpedos at the same time to pose a signifigant risk. Unless Iran has thousands of super speed boats with 20 launchers each, they will never get the oppurtunity to launch enough torpedo's. It will take hundreds of torpedo's, if not thousands to launch in the same battle to overwhelm the defences, the hull plating, the jamming, and the emergency reactions on a carrier.

2) A carrier has tons upon tons of plating, burnless steel, fireproof foam, etc etc, that would require either numerous strikes on the same spot to penetrate, or a torpedo with an insane amount of TNT. Said torpedo would be way too slow to get past the defences, unless it was a tactical nuke. Secondly, a carrier is a fifth of a mile long. Even if torpedo's impact the carrier and got through the plate, it wouldnt be a very big hole, and you would need 50+ penetrations to sink a carrier. If a torpedo did penetrate the hull, there are dedicated damage control teams that can seal the area off and reinforce it in seconds, probaly trapping some people inside but thats war.

3) No I wouldnt, it still wouldnt prove a thing unless it was a Nimitz carrier in the middle of a defence fleet.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

1) Said torpedo would be way too slow to get past the defences, unless it was a tactical nuke.



http://www.irandefence.net/images/smilies/StE/confused.gif

360km/h (233mph) under water = too slow ?????http://www.irandefence.net/images/smilies/StE/worried.gif

[Oriellien]

Shkval's and those based off of them are strong enough to cripple destroyers and cruisers but not carriers. In fact, Neo-cons have been using it as an excuse that for war with Iran but facts proved them wrong.

[dannytoro]

...Yeah Shvkal is fast, but it's punch is very light. That's why the soviets relyed on the big Wake followers, probably had a 1500kilo warhead on those monsters....

[Behrooz Boonabi]

It is not a Shvkal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tbagger]

I was joking but US carriers are not even worthy of our torpedos. No ship can get away.
If you put it that way, then the Iranian Navy isn't even worthy enough to sail in the same sea as the US Navy. Remember what happened in 1988?

[JEskandari]

Iran doesnt have enough torpedoes to get by carriers defences and then sink it. Sure some will get by, but you'd need hundreds to sink a carrier. Oh, but the torpedo is so powerful it sunk a derelict rusty defenseless ship!
You are disappointing me.

[Oriellien]

You are disappointing me.

Thanks, but its the truth. Most torpedo's would be intercepted.

I may not like what the ships do, but I like all ships, and you cant deny one ships strengths because it follows bad orders.

[JEskandari]

If you put it that way, then the Iranian Navy isn't even worthy enough to sail in the same sea as the US Navy. Remember what happened in 1988?
in 1989 you dared to fire at our airbas 300 and gave medal to the captain of the ship do you dare to do such things in 2007.you think how long it will take for iran to wipe your navy out of Persian Gulf and sea of Oman if you do such thing.

[Oriellien]

in 1989 you dared to fire at our airbas 300 and gave medal to the captain of the ship do you dare to do such things in 2007.you think how long it will take for iran to wipe your navy out of Persian Gulf and sea of Oman if you do such thing.

No, I didnt actually. I am not my country, I didnt shoot down a plane, and I didnt give a medal to anyone. You dont know anything about my beliefs, so dont you dare to tell me what kind of person I am. 66 children died on that plane, and 220 others. You think I am the kind of person that would do that?

[Kiaar]

No, I didnt actually. I am not my country, I didnt shoot down a plane, and I didnt give a medal to anyone. You dont know anything about my beliefs, so dont you dare to tell me what kind of person I am.

Ah, but why not? You can't do it to them and they get extremely offended if you try, so they must be able to do it you. A double standard at it's best.

[Kiaar]

in 1989 you dared to fire at our airbas 300 and gave medal to the captain of the ship do you dare to do such things in 2007.you think how long it will take for iran to wipe your navy out of Persian Gulf and sea of Oman if you do such thing.

Another more of the "My daddy is bigger than yours!" argument, except your dad isn't that big.

A US carrier isn't a small unarmored ship made of wood. It has sophisticated weapons, computers, jamming, and defense technologies that the Iranian Navy can only dream about. Just because your government says "Oooh, look, shiny missile, we win!" doesn't mean it's that easy or true.

I don't think that you understand that a lot of the technology Iran has now is tech. that Russia and the US were experimenting with decades ago, and have a better understanding of how to use it and how to defend against it.

Iran doesn't have a magic "sink" button that it can press to automatically sink a US ship without anyone have a chance to stop it. When you make comments like you think how long it will take for iran to wipe your navy out of Persian Gulf and sea of Oman if you do such thing without any reasoning behind it, it makes you look like you're speaking without thinking.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

If you put it that way, then the Iranian Navy isn't even worthy enough to sail in the same sea as the US Navy. Remember what happened in 1988?

Yes, the US navy shot down our domestic passenger aircraft, angering Iranians and creating a new surge in Iranian antiship developments. :)

[Kiaar]

Yes, the US navy shot down our domestic passenger aircraft, angering Iranians and creating a new surge in Iranian antiship developments. :)

I think the point was if you think the US Navy isn't worth a torpedo, then the insignificant Iranian Navy isn't fit to be in the water.

[JEskandari]

Another more of the "My daddy is bigger than yours!" argument, except your dad isn't that big.

A US carrier isn't a small unarmored ship made of wood. It has sophisticated weapons, computers, jamming, and defense technologies that the Iranian Navy can only dream about. Just because your government says "Oooh, look, shiny missile, we win!" doesn't mean it's that easy or true.

I don't think that you understand that a lot of the technology Iran has now is tech. that Russia and the US were experimenting with decades ago, and have a better understanding of how to use it and how to defend against it.

Iran doesn't have a magic "sink" button that it can press to automatically sink a US ship without anyone have a chance to stop it. When you make comments like without any reasoning behind it, it makes you look like you're speaking without thinking.
the problem is its not small you think because its big and it has armor it unsinkable ,it's clearly the logic that made Titanic tragedy.

[Kiaar]

the problem is its not small you think because its big and it has armor it unsinkable ,it's clearly the logic that made Titanic tragedy.

The Titanic was also made with engineering technique and materials that are extremely weak compared to modern standards. The Titanic was also not a warship.

A carrier is not unsinkable, but it's not nearly as easy to cripple or destroy as some think also.

[JEskandari]

The Titanic was also made with engineering technique and materials that are extremely weak compared to modern standards. The Titanic was also not a warship.

A carrier is not unsinkable, but it's not nearly as easy to cripple or destroy as some think also.
it was made with the engineering and the material they thought is best in the world, but as we know there was flaw in design that made it sank in 1 hour.
It was told that titanic is the strongest ship in the world and it was containing military ships also.
so you now tell all the thing was told about titanic about US careers as its the embodiment of perfection no weak pint no flaw . and modern weapon are strong too you think you can use a weapon for 60 years without any counter to it . I wont think so.

[Kiaar]

it was made with the engineering and the material they thought is best in the world, but as we know there was flaw in design that made it sank in 1 hour.
It was told that titanic is the strongest ship in the world and it was containing military ships also.
so you now tell all the thing was told about titanic about US careers as its the embodiment of perfection no weak pint no flaw . and modern weapon are strong too you think you can use a weapon for 60 years without any counter to it . I wont think so.

The Titanic was made in the early 1900's. Modern carriers have technology from the 2000's. Notice the nearly 100 year difference.

Again, the Titanic was not a war ship either. It was a cruise ship. There's a pretty significant difference.

[Oriellien]

Also, WWII era carriers are not currently in service :) The bullet has been used effictevly for over 600 years though.

[JEskandari]

Also, WWII era carriers are not currently in service :) The bullet has been used effictevly for over 600 years though.
Not 60 year 10 year is it enough for you.

[Kiaar]

Not 60 year 10 year is it enough for you.

Huh? How's that relate to what Oriellien said.

[JEskandari]

The Titanic was made in the early 1900's. Modern carriers have technology from the 2000's. Notice the nearly 100 year difference.

Again, the Titanic was not a war ship either. It was a cruise ship. There's a pretty significant difference.
its a comparison about the logic we wont plan to haul an iceberg to Persian gulf . if there is 100 year of technology between titanic and a career there is millions year of technological gap between todays anti ship missiles and torpedoes with an iceberg .

[Kiaar]

its a comparison about the logic we wont plan to haul an iceberg to Persian gulf . if there is 100 year of technology between titanic and a career there is millions year of technological gap between todays anti ship missiles and torpedoes with an iceberg .

I still have no idea what the Titanic has at all do state of the art aircraft carriers.

Yeah, the Titanic sunk because it was poorly made. I'm not arguing that point. That still has nothing to do with an aircraft carrier though.

[JEskandari]

I still have no idea what the Titanic has at all do state of the art aircraft carriers.

Yeah, the Titanic sunk because it was poorly made. I'm not arguing that point. That still has nothing to do with an aircraft carrier though.
it sank because it had flaws and the death tools were high because they thought it is perfect.
the same goes for anything else when we think its perfect because there is no perfect man made device.

[Kiaar]

it sank because it had flaws and the death tools were high because they thought it is perfect.
the same goes for anything else when we think its perfect because there is no perfect man made device.

There's no such think as perfect man made, I agree. That said, an aircrafter carrier is still not easy to sink. Unlike the titanic, every single person on board is trained in damage control and is an expert at what they do. The titanic was not heavily armored and didn't have anti-glacier weapons either :P

[JEskandari]

Huh? How's that relate to what Oriellien said.
the relation is that those 600 years old bullet are very diffrent with today bullets. he said ww2 carriers are different i said 10 years is enough in todays world to made a counter for the weapon .

[daddy]

ok kiaar and other americans, tell us what will make aircraft carriers from usa sink? and who other than usa possesses such tool? lol waiting for patriotic gobbledegook, oh no nation has as much power as usa, none comes close to the usa aircraft carrier blah blah

[Ricardo]

In my opinion is not necesary to sink an aircraft carrier, just a two hits on the deck could make it worthless:)

[JEskandari]

In my opinion is not necesary to sink an aircraft carrier, just a two hits on the deck could make it worthless:)
in fact its better not to sink them at least near your shores they are dangerous to ecosystem its better to made them in effective .

[Kiaar]

ok kiaar and other americans, tell us what will make aircraft carriers from usa sink? and who other than usa possesses such tool? lol waiting for patriotic gobbledegook, oh no nation has as much power as usa, none comes close to the usa aircraft carrier blah blah

I really don't think you of all people should be lecturing on "patriotic gobblebegook."

If you read up, I did indeed say it was possible to sink a carrier. What I also said was that there is no "Win" button that iran can press to make an entire fleet sink like some of you believe.

[Oriellien]

Daddy go think up new ways to nuke the US like the other thread :)

[Oriellien]

In my opinion is not necesary to sink an aircraft carrier, just a two hits on the deck could make it worthless:)

And thats true, taking out its catapults is a lot easier then sinking it.

[Kiaar]

And thats true, taking out its catapults is a lot easier then sinking it.

Depends. Catapults can be repaired. It will take it out of the fight, but probably not for too long.

[Oriellien]

To hit the flight deck it would also have to be a missile or projectile which would have to get past the screens as well.

[Black_zero]

it will be better for iran to fire Ballistic Missile on the carrier lol..

[Oriellien]

it will be better for iran to fire Ballistic Missile on the carrier lol..

A WWII atomic bomb test didnt sink a WWII era carrier. Plus ballistic missles arent designed to penetrate carrier defences, theyd get shot down easily.

[Jadeite]

Yes, the US navy shot down our domestic passenger aircraft, angering Iranians and creating a new surge in Iranian antiship developments. :)

Actually, I believe he was referring to Operation Praying Mantis, which also happened in 1988.

[rabs]

Plus ballistic missles arent designed to penetrate carrier defences, theyd get shot down easily.

What, their missiles are not nearly accurate enough to hit a moving carrier but still, short of SM-3s, which arent feilded yet there is absloutetly nothing in the US arsenal that can stop a ballistic missile.

[Kiaar]

What, their missiles are not nearly accurate enough to hit a moving carrier but still, short of SM-3s, which arent feilded yet there is absloutetly nothing in the US arsenal that can stop a ballistic missile.

Ballistic missiles aren't meant to be used against a fast moving target either. The whole point of a ballistic missile is to cause a lot of damage to a stationary target. Even if they fired it, I highly doubt Iranian tech is advanced enough to make that accurate.

[JEskandari]

Ballistic missiles aren't meant to be used against a fast moving target either. The whole point of a ballistic missile is to cause a lot of damage to a stationary target. Even if they fired it, I highly doubt Iranian tech is advanced enough to make that accurate.
fateh 110 accuracy is less than 10 meter and shahab missiles carry bomblets which if you want to send the carrier group out of fight but not to destroy it is enough and solving the accureacy problem and for sinking carear which is not a good idea but a very possivble thing you can usae many things other than anti-ship missiles and torpedos like mines.

[Oriellien]

What, their missiles are not nearly accurate enough to hit a moving carrier but still, short of SM-3s, which arent feilded yet there is absloutetly nothing in the US arsenal that can stop a ballistic missile.

Short range ballistic missles like Scuds and Scarabs arent really "ballistic", they have a very low orbit pattern and are on a plane that is similiar to missles fired from airplanes, a battle groups defences can eliminate the same way they eliminate harpoons and regular missiles. It probaly wouldnt be completely destroyed, but it would just bounce off after the interceptors hit it.

A longer range missile like the Shahab probaly couldnt be intercepted, but those would have to be fired at least 1000km away, and I dont think that would be very accurate vs a moving a target.

As for IRBM's and ICBM's, those would have to be fired from father away from Iran to achieve an orbital pattern and thus be ballistic, but those arent usually used for conventional explosives.

[Oriellien]

double post nevermind

[JEskandari]

Short range ballistic missles like Scuds and Scarabs arent really "ballistic", they have a very low orbit pattern and are on a plane that is similiar to missles fired from airplanes, a battle groups defences can eliminate the same way they eliminate harpoons and regular missiles. It probaly wouldnt be completely destroyed, but it would just bounce off after the interceptors hit it.

A longer range missile like the Shahab probaly couldnt be intercepted, but those would have to be fired at least 1000km away, and I dont think that would be very accurate vs a moving a target.

As for IRBM's and ICBM's, those would have to be fired from father away from Iran to achieve an orbital pattern and thus be ballistic, but those arent usually used for conventional explosives.
these missiles fly at 7 mach but harpoon is subsonic

[Jadeite]

fateh 110 accuracy is less than 10 meter and shahab missiles carry bomblets which if you want to send the carrier group out of fight but not to destroy it is enough and solving the accureacy problem and for sinking carear which is not a good idea but a very possivble thing you can usae many things other than anti-ship missiles and torpedos like mines.

You still have to fire it at where the target is predicted to be, not where it is. The problem with this, is unlike a regular missile, a ballistic missile has no manuevering capability. Once an incoming missile is detected, the carrier group simply needs to change course, and it will miss. Chances are it'd be detected soon after launch, giving the target group adequate time to dramatically decrease hit probability.

[JEskandari]

You still have to fire it at where the target is predicted to be, not where it is. The problem with this, is unlike a regular missile, a ballistic missile has no manuevering capability. Once an incoming missile is detected, the carrier group simply needs to change course, and it will miss. Chances are it'd be detected soon after launch, giving the target group adequate time to dramatically decrease hit probability.
there is a little difference with fateh 110 by what you think its guidance system is Inertial & electro-optical terminal

[Oriellien]

BTW just a note, im not defending the US government or what the aircraft carriers are used for, I am just defending the ships themselves because I love ships, and I do think US aircraft carriers (or any other US navy ships) are excellent ships. So try to remember that before someone tells me im evil for supporting the Iranian plane being shot down or something.

[Jadeite]

there is a little difference with fateh 110 by what you think its guidance system is Inertial & electro-optical terminal

That still doesn't mean it can correct its course adequately enough to hit a target conducting evasive manuevers.

[SuperSixOne]

Nothing other than a real nuke can depict a nuke man!

That's as close as we are going to get without the U.N. or some tree huggers calling B.S.

[JEskandari]

That still doesn't mean it can correct its course adequately enough to hit a target conducting evasive manuevers.
i don't know it can update its course fast enough or not but i know iran tested shahab 2 and fateh 110 in war game holy prophet 2 in persian gulf and sea of omman not on the land like shahab 3.

[Maverick]

I think the only feasible way to really cripple or sink a Battle Carrier Group of the US Navy would be to Nuke it, even if the Nuke is intercepted (which is highly unlikely because carrier defenses are not designed to intercept IRBM unless they are carrying Patriot 3C Batteries or have AWACS with F-18/A's in Air to intercept the Missile a long long way off) the electro magnetic pulse would probably render a lot, if not all, of the ships electronics useless plus cause considerable damage on the Ship and her surrounding ships as well.

Other then that it is a fairly decent task in even planning on destroying an American Carrier with their countless defenses. Perhaps the Russians may have something better!

[Kiaar]

I think the only feasible way to really cripple or sink a Battle Carrier Group of the US Navy would be to Nuke it, even if the Nuke is intercepted (which is highly unlikely because carrier defenses are not designed to intercept IRBM unless they are carrying Patriot 3C Batteries or have AWACS with F-18/A's in Air to intercept the Missile a long long way off) the electro magnetic pulse would probably render a lot, if not all, of the ships electronics useless plus cause considerable damage on the Ship and her surrounding ships as well.

Other then that it is a fairly decent task in even planning on destroying an American Carrier with their countless defenses. Perhaps the Russians may have something better!

A nuke would probably do it. Unfortunately once someone uses a nuke, it basically opens the door for anyone to use it.

[Oriellien]

The USS Saratoga a WWII carrier survived a 20 kiloton nuke, I think todays aircraft carriers could survive the first generation of A-Bombs any country would produce. Nucleur tipped missles and torpedo's would definatly sink a carrier, but an actual nucleur explosion from a first generation nuke probaly wouldnt.

[Maverick]

A nuke would probably do it. Unfortunately once someone uses a nuke, it basically opens the door for anyone to use it.

Perhaps it might lead to a potential Nuclear retaliation but should only be used against military concentrations, Nuking targets such as Naval fleet is not equivalent to Nuking civilian population. Besides that in turn would probably lead to annihilation of even USA. Even the mighty US cannot stop or withstand a full fledged Nuclear strike and by then it wont matter what she does with her enemy!



The USS Saratoga a WWII carrier survived a 20 kiloton nuke, I think todays aircraft carriers could survive the first generation of A-Bombs any country would produce. Nucleur tipped missles and torpedo's would definatly sink a carrier, but an actual nucleur explosion from a first generation nuke probaly wouldnt.

My friend "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" had a yield between 14-21 kilotons, those were very small. USSR has already tested a 50,000 kiloton device whereas most Nuclear countries can develop multiple thousand kiloton devices easily and are usually capable of delivering them as well......Not to mention today's devices are much more smarter, accurate and deadly then the first devices!

[Jadeite]

I think the only feasible way to really cripple or sink a Battle Carrier Group of the US Navy would be to Nuke it, even if the Nuke is intercepted (which is highly unlikely because carrier defenses are not designed to intercept IRBM unless they are carrying Patriot 3C Batteries or have AWACS with F-18/A's in Air to intercept the Missile a long long way off) the electro magnetic pulse would probably render a lot, if not all, of the ships electronics useless plus cause considerable damage on the Ship and her surrounding ships as well.

Most military electronics are hardened vs EMP effects. It doesn't add much to the cost either. An EMP's destructive effects are actually dramatically overrated. Also, the EMP would only happen in the first place if the device was able to successfully initiate (in which case the EMP is the last of the target's worries). A device that is intercepted won't do anything, since the term successful intercept means destroyed or mission killed by its very definition. Nuclear devices are actually easily rendered useless. Part of the reason why multiple warheads on are often carried on IRBMs and ICBMs is to guarantee that at least one will work.


Other then that it is a fairly decent task in even planning on destroying an American Carrier with their countless defenses. Perhaps the Russians may have something better!

Nope. The Russians planned on using nuclear weapons as well. It's pretty much the best guarantee you have, considering the massive defenses vs conventional weapons that a carrier and its escorts have.

Perhaps it might lead to a potential Nuclear retaliation but should only be used against military concentrations, Nuking targets such as Naval fleet is not equivalent to Nuking civilian population.

Every major Iranian military facility would be destroyed with nuclear devices in retaliation, at the least.

Besides that in turn would probably lead to annihilation of even USA. Even the mighty US cannot stop or withstand a full fledged Nuclear strike and by then it wont matter what she does with her enemy!

By who? Russia? Russia wouldn't care about Iran. China wouldn't either.

My friend "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" had a yield between 14-21 kilotons, those were very small.

He's referring to "Able" and "Baker", both 21 kiloton devices. USS Saratoga survived "Able" (an air burst at 518 ft of altitude over the atoll) with minor damage, but was sunk by "Baker" which was an underwater test.

USSR has already tested a 50,000 kiloton device whereas most

The 50 MT yield "Tsar Bomba", which was also a prestige weapon. It required a specially modified bomber to carry it, and only one was produced. It is in fact more efficient to hit a target with multiple smaller yield devices than to hit it with one large device. Soviet nuclear devices often had higher yields than their US counterparts, due to a need to compensate for less accurate delivery methods.

Nuclear countries can develop multiple thousand kiloton devices easily and are usually capable of delivering them as well......Not to mention today's devices are much more smarter, accurate and deadly then the first devices!

Not quite. Building a nuclear device is easy, after all, the US accomplished the feat back in 1945. Building a reliable, accurate, and long range delivery mechanism isn't nearly as easy. In fact, the US could have actually won a nuclear exchange with the USSR until approximately 1980, due to the fact that the Soviet ICBM and intercontinental bomber forces were severely lacking, and the problems with their missile subs being technologically inferior.

They compensated for this by building a lot of IRBMs instead, and this is also why they wanted a missile base in Cuba, because they had little ability to hit the continental US.

[JEskandari]

I think the only feasible way to really cripple or sink a Battle Carrier Group of the US Navy would be to Nuke it, even if the Nuke is intercepted (which is highly unlikely because carrier defenses are not designed to intercept IRBM unless they are carrying Patriot 3C Batteries or have AWACS with F-18/A's in Air to intercept the Missile a long long way off) the electro magnetic pulse would probably render a lot, if not all, of the ships electronics useless plus cause considerable damage on the Ship and her surrounding ships as well.

Other then that it is a fairly decent task in even planning on destroying an American Carrier with their countless defenses. Perhaps the Russians may have something better!
F-18/a intercept Irbm ,since when.

[burster]

Jeskandari,

There is no ASAT system that uses an F-18 as a platform. There was once an ASAT system that used an F-15 as a launch vehicle, but it never reached full operational capability, AFAIK. The navy does have an anti-IRBM, anti-MRBM system though, the AEGIS system combined with an SM-3 missile. I don't recall off hand how many destroyers and cruisers actually have the missile right now, but projections were to have 15-18 armed with it in this decade.

F-18/a intercept Irbm ,since when.

[Maverick]

F-18/a intercept Irbm ,since when.

I tried finding what I read but couldn't, perhaps some one else could provide the links as it said that F/A-18's may possibly carry air-to-air weapons which can be used to shoot down ballistic missiles!

The same article had suggested that the F-22 could be used as an AWACS as well. But the most important and attractive piece of information there was about the air-to-air missiles carried most likely by F/A-18's that were capable of shooting down ballistic missiles. I assume that would include IRBM's!

[IR.IRAN]

like to see the US make one mistake, and that carrier will be the new home for our fishes in the persian gulf :D

[Kiaar]

like to see the US make one mistake, and that carrier will be the new home for our fishes in the persian gulf :D

More big talk that shows ignorance as to the actual defenses on a carrier...

[IR.IRAN]

More big talk that shows ignorance as to the actual defenses on a carrier...

your talking as if its unsinkable :p lol

[Kiaar]

your talking as if its unsinkable :p lol

And you're talking as if all you need to do is throw a few rocks at it to penetrate the hull.

[IR.IRAN]

And you're talking as if all you need to do is throw a few rocks at it to penetrate the hull.

not quite, but i believe its easier to sink it than not being able to sink it.
i never said its easy to do so, but it sure can be done :)

[Relikt]

Why it need to be sink?
Cripple it and it would be just big target.
Good shot in turbine room would slow it down. Carrier need to run on high speed because heavy loaded planes cant launch if speed of carrier is low.

Sinking carrier is BIG problem it is biggest war ship and build to be unsinkable. But disable it is much easier.

P.S. If someone nuke US carrier I think that US doctrine said it is nuclear war and they will nuke one city for revenge.

[JEskandari]

I tried finding what I read but couldn't, perhaps some one else could provide the links as it said that F/A-18's may possibly carry air-to-air weapons which can be used to shoot down ballistic missiles!

The same article had suggested that the F-22 could be used as an AWACS as well. But the most important and attractive piece of information there was about the air-to-air missiles carried most likely by F/A-18's that were capable of shooting down ballistic missiles. I assume that would include IRBM's!
be assured it must be something else as burster said it might be f15 not f-18/a and not f22 certainly because at least those missile must compare the spead of the balistic missiles which are usually more than 10 mach and if you compare f18 or f22 range of radar you see if they detect the missile and if they want to counter it then the missile id far away.its not a good strategy to counter a balistic missiles and attack it in t5he course of its flight its better to decide what the it course would be and using defensive system to ready what you want to send against it beforehand like an ambush .its why we wont see all the f15 "that burster said" in american army equiped wit such systems because its not so effective .

[JEskandari]

Why it need to be sink?
Cripple it and it would be just big target.
Good shot in turbine room would slow it down. Carrier need to run on high speed because heavy loaded planes cant launch if speed of carrier is low.

Sinking carrier is BIG problem it is biggest war ship and build to be unsinkable. But disable it is much easier.

P.S. If someone nuke US carrier I think that US doctrine said it is nuclear war and they will nuke one city for revenge.
there is no unsinkable as i said before today many times people said that something is unsinkable but we saw those things sank. so its better to say hard to sink but i'm ready to bet any body a calculated blow can sink it

[dannytoro]

"but i'm ready to bet any body a calculated blow can sink it"

Lol-Do you think you are the first nation who tried to sink one? Everybody tries with their best stuff.....no dice.....

[JEskandari]

"but i'm ready to bet any body a calculated blow can sink it"

Lol-Do you think you are the first nation who tried to sink one? Everybody tries with their best stuff.....no dice.....
Good Very Good ,over confidence is the path to fall.

[Kiaar]

Good Very Good ,over confidence is the path to fall.

You should probably tell that to Iran as well.

Both sides seem to think they can win against the other without breaking a sweat.

[sayenforever]

You should probably tell that to Iran as well.

Both sides seem to think they can win against the other without breaking a sweat.

Not really. More a US characteristic. Iranians know it'll be painful, but they can make a US plan of attack prohibitively costly.

[Kiaar]

Not really. More a US characteristic. Iranians know it'll be painful, but they can make a US plan of attack prohibitively costly.

You should tell that to your friends on the forum who think the US will roll over and beg if Iran tried to launch a missile at the continental US (somehow) or if they use their missiles to shoot at an aircraft carrier.

[Mahati]

You should tell that to your friends on the forum who think the US will roll over and beg if Iran tried to launch a missile at the continental US (somehow) or if they use their missiles to shoot at an aircraft carrier.

Zionix comes to mind. He seems to think that the US will have a disgraceful retreat out of Iraq because of Iran and that our Navy will be a graveyard in the Gulf.

[Kiaar]

Zionix comes to mind. He seems to think that the US will have a disgraceful retreat out of Iraq because of Iran and that our Navy will be a graveyard in the Gulf.

Zionix would believe that the USA is actually in antarctica and all it's people are actually human-like trees if an article said so.

[The Vengeance]

*swats Kiaar with his snow covered branch*

Shush, you.

[Kiaar]

*swats Kiaar with his snow covered branch*

Shush, you.

Ouch :(

What was that for.

[leftwing]

yes what pride you must have, a boat that runs around the globe, playing the role of Pentagons mafioso hitman, bombing and killing thousands, costing you millions which could be spendt on schools, hospitals etc. We are doomed as a race.

[Kiaar]

yes what pride you must have, a boat that runs around the globe, playing the role of Pentagons mafioso hitman, bombing and killing thousands, costing you millions which could be spendt on schools, hospitals etc. We are doomed as a race.

I take pride in the technological achievements of my country in all forms, just as any Iranian here is proud of the military weapons and such that they develop.

[British Lion]

Why is it irrational to be proud of something that protects you and your compatriots?

[IR.IRAN]

Why is it irrational to be proud of something that protects you and your compatriots?

if your refering to the aircraft carriers then they are not protecters, they are a support for the us to kill more people

[British Lion]

Yes - to kill people who want to blow up parts of the US and its populace, which seems reasonable enough to me.

[IR.IRAN]

Yes - to kill people who want to blow up parts of the US and its populace, which seems reasonable enough to me.

lol so your telling me that people in afghanistan and iraq that are virtually harmless to the usa are as much as a threat as a country like n.korea lol
face it your in denial of the mass killings the usa enjoys to do

[British Lion]

Afghanistan was harbouring people who killed thousands of US citizens and caused billions of dollars worth of damage to US property.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Afghanistan was harbouring people who killed thousands of US citizens and caused billions of dollars worth of damage to US property.Lies. Those who killed US citizens died with them. By your "logic", Britain, the USA and many other countries should be bombed because they harbored terrorists (you call them soldiers) who killed dozens of thousands of Afghan and Iraqi citizens and caused dozens of billions of dollras worth of damage.

[British Lion]

Lies. Those who killed US citizens died with them.
Those who flew the planes did, but not those who planned the operation, ran training and acquired funding.

By your "logic", Britain, the USA and many other countries should be bombed because they harbored terrorists (you call them soldiers) who killed dozens of thousands of Afghan and Iraqi citizens and caused dozens of billions of dollras worth of damage.
Since when could the official military of a sovereign state be classified as terrorists?

In any case, your implication is wrong. US and British soldiers may sometimes accidentally kill Iraqi or Afghan civilians, but their intention is precisely the opposite, and their goal is to kill insurgents, Taliban fighters and terrorists. This is not analogous to a group that deliberately targets civilians and completely ignores military targets.

[leftwing]

I take pride in the technological achievements of my country in all forms, just as any Iranian here is proud of the military weapons and such that they develop.

Im not defending them either, we have several urgent matters globally needing money then having billions being spendt on high tech war tools, and the US is the big spender while it owes a debt to organs like the UN.

[leftwing]

Why is it irrational to be proud of something that protects you and your compatriots?

Bullshait, you and your compatriots have nothing to do in the middle east miles away from your homeland, pulls your guns, ships and colonial troops out and protect your boarders, then Il give you that right to be proud, other than that, american naval power today is nothing more than a mafioso blackmailing tool.

[Kiaar]

Im not defending them either, we have several urgent matters globally needing money then having billions being spendt on high tech war tools, and the US is the big spender while it owes a debt to organs like the UN.

The US doesn't owe the UN any money. The US pretty much pays all the bills for the UN.

The US does owe money to individual countries, but not the UN itself.

[leftwing]

True, but still my point remains, the US could have led the financing of many projects helpful to our race in total after the cold war, instead they, russia, china, EU went the opposite. Its really nothing to be proud of.

[Kiaar]

True, but still my point remains, the US could have led the financing of many projects helpful to our race in total after the cold war, instead they, russia, china, EU went the opposite. Its really nothing to be proud of.

That's true, but I don't see any of the oil-rich ME countries giving a lot to charity these days either.

[leftwing]

Those who flew the planes did, but not those who planned the operation, ran training and acquired funding.


Since when could the official military of a sovereign state be classified as terrorists?

In any case, your implication is wrong. US and British soldiers may sometimes accidentally kill Iraqi or Afghan civilians, but their intention is precisely the opposite, and their goal is to kill insurgents, Taliban fighters and terrorists. This is not analogous to a group that deliberately targets civilians and completely ignores military targets.


Accidentally? What kind of a dream world do you live in? You really believe that american/british forces and hired security forces dont rape, abuse, kill everyday with purpose, and get away with it? In any case War, and especially illegal wars (iraq), are the worst form for terrorism with the highest casualty figure and greatest destruction to a country, see the world in a broader realistic perspective please.

[Kiaar]

Accidentally? What kind of a dream world do you live in? You really believe that american/british forces and hired security forces dont rape, abuse, kill everyday with purpose, and get away with it? In any case War, and especially illegal wars (iraq), are the worst form for terrorism with the highest casualty figure and greatest destruction to a country, see the world in a broader realistic perspective please.

Something I don't understand here:

- You guys support the insurgency, yet if there wasn't one, the US would have left long ago.
- The government in Iraq is predominantly Shi'a, which Iran should like, yet they support those who are trying to topple it.
- The insurgency and the terrorists (like Al-Qaeda) who went to Iraq after the war started have killed hundreds of thousands more than the US has. Yet no one seems to care about that.

Anyone got an answer?

[leftwing]

That's true, but I don't see any of the oil-rich ME countries giving a lot to charity these days either.

Correct, but maybe then the US should start first as the global leader it brags to be and start as an example as many wanted, it is the richest country in the world after all, then put pressure on dictator states like saudi arabia and such to reform their gov. Once states like these get a gov with the support of the people, money often go other ways than Palaces, luxury appartment resorts for foreigners and BAE warplanes. To cut it short, all oil rich states in the ME are ruled by free loathing dictators where most have the genuine support of the US, exept Iran.

[Kiaar]

Correct, but maybe then the US should start first as the global leader it brags to be and start as an example as many wanted, it is the richest country in the world after all, then put pressure on dictator states like saudi arabia and such to reform their gov. Once states like these get a gov with the support of the people, money often go other ways than Palaces, luxury appartment resorts for foreigners and BAE warplanes. To cut it short, all oil rich states in the ME are ruled by free loathing dictators where most have the genuine support of the US, exept Iran.

Yet I don't see Iran giving money either to any poor nations. They arm the Palestinians sure, but why not send them food and water instead? Why not help them build homes and utilities? They give them weapons to use to kill and die, yet they don't give anything to actually help the average person who is just trying to live their life.

Oh, you meant the support of the US. Well, my above paragraph is still true. Not that the US is any better. I agree though, we could cut our defense budget by 1% and that in itself would buy monstrous amounts of food or build thousands (if not millions) of homes.

[British Lion]

Accidentally? What kind of a dream world do you live in? You really believe that american/british forces and hired security forces dont rape, abuse, kill everyday with purpose, and get away with it?
No, I don't believe that the US or UK militaries have a policy of deliberately killing civilians. What reason does the US or the UK have for killing civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan? Killing civilians brings them no strategic benefit. At the same time, all the evidence shows that killing civilians, whether accidentally or deliberately, results in reduced support at home and in the occupied country for the occupation. So I will not accept that the US or UK have a policy of deliberately killing civilians unless I see specific evidence of it, because it makes no sense whatsoever for them to do that.

In any case War, and especially illegal wars (iraq), are the worst form for terrorism with the highest casualty figure and greatest destruction to a country, see the world in a broader realistic perspective please.
So you believe that World War II was an act of terrorism, and Britain and France should be vilified as terrorists for starting it? How about the US War of Independence? The Napoleonic Wars? How can you claim that wars that, if left unfought, would have ended with tyranny stretched over significant areas of the globe with no end in sight, were not worth fighting, not least that they are acts of terrorism? It is you, not I, that needs to take a deeper look at the real world, and stop seeing things in black and white.

[leftwing]

Something I don't understand here:

- You guys support the insurgency, yet if there wasn't one, the US would have left long ago.
- The government in Iraq is predominantly Shi'a, which Iran should like, yet they support those who are trying to topple it.
- The insurgency and the terrorists (like Al-Qaeda) who went to Iraq after the war started have killed hundreds of thousands more than the US has. Yet no one seems to care about that.

Anyone got an answer?

I have an answer, first of all Im not iranian, but I support the resistance against your colonial halliburton forces. Second of all the US wouldnt have left Iraq even if the bombs stopped because the plan is to stay and secure pipelines and other strategic points in the ME. Third of all, if Iran invaded Mexico and Canada, threatened the US to stop its nuke programs or face bombardment (which it would either way), the US would have done the EXACT same shait. Fourth of all, 70 percente of the bombs and attacks in Iraq is aimed at coalition forces.

The idea that Al qaida or a Cobra army has killed thousands upon thousands alone is false, the invasion created a desperate breathing ground for violent gangs, mafia groups, religous fanatics dispersed widely on the political axis killing and roaming freely to earn money because of lack of jobs, food, electricity, and all of this came beacuse of failed american occupation policies, second and most important that the Iraqis didnt want you there in the first place

And the final point, even the Iraqi gov it self cant move out of the green zone because they are seen as traitors collaborating with the US.

[Kiaar]

I have an answer, first of all Im not iranian, but I support the resistance against your colonial halliburton forces. Second of all the US wouldnt have left Iraq even if the bombs stopped because the plan is to stay and secure pipelines and other strategic points in the ME. Third of all, if Iran invaded Mexico and Canada, threatened the US to stop its nuke programs or face bombardment (which it would either way), the US would have done the EXACT same shait. Fourth of all, 70 percente of the bombs and attacks in Iraq is aimed at coalition forces.

The idea that Al qaida or a Cobra army has killed thousands upon thousands alone is false, the invasion created a desperate breathing ground for violent gangs, mafia groups, religous fanatics dispersed widely on the political axis killing and roaming freely to earn money because of lack of jobs, food, electricity, and all of this came beacuse of failed american occupation policies, second and most important that the Iraqis didnt want you there in the first place

And the final point, even the Iraqi gov it self cant move out of the green zone because they are seen as traitors collaborating with the US.

This is my last post for the night, I'm tired, so I'll respond to anything more tomorrow.

In response to the 70%- while 70% may be aimed at coalition forces, most of those seem to fail. If you look at the numbers of civilians killed by snipers, gun fights, executions, or bombs, you'll notice they're many, many times the number of coalition troops killed.

The invasion created the political vacuum, yes, but the US didn't arm those groups and tell them to go kill. There were obvious some serious issues in this country before the US went in, the US just gave them the chance to come out. I didn't say they wanted us there, and we shouldn't be there. I support the war in Afghanistan, but I agree, there was no point in Iraq.

The government are seen as traitors by the militant groups. The terrorist and militant groups will kill any government that isn't them. If Al-Sadr takes charge, everyone else will start attacking his people. If some Sunni group takes charge, all the Shi'a groups will attack them. No matter who's in power a large number of groups are going to be trying to kill them.

[leftwing]

No, I don't believe that the US or UK militaries have a policy of deliberately killing civilians. What reason does the US or the UK have for killing civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan? Killing civilians brings them no strategic benefit. At the same time, all the evidence shows that killing civilians, whether accidentally or deliberately, results in reduced support at home and in the occupied country for the occupation. So I will not accept that the US or UK have a policy of deliberately killing civilians unless I see specific evidence of it, because it makes no sense whatsoever for them to do that.


So you believe that World War II was an act of terrorism, and Britain and France should be vilified as terrorists for starting it? How about the US War of Independence? The Napoleonic Wars? How can you claim that wars that, if left unfought, would have ended with tyranny stretched over significant areas of the globe with no end in sight, were not worth fighting, not least that they are acts of terrorism? It is you, not I, that needs to take a deeper look at the real world, and stop seeing things in black and white.


Its not a official policy, I didnt say that, but it happends, officials know it happends and its not excusable because its war. Soldiers kill, rape, destroy, thats what they do, thats what they have done in every major conflict in our history. And they are no better than this evil image you have of others doing the same thing to your country. Thats why war is.. bad?

No your missing the broader point here, war is terrorism in every way and worse, the result of war causes mass killing, mass destruction and by saying its ok because its war but not terrorism is unlogical in every human sense because it is. Your logic that just because we decleared war on Hitler, therefore all wars are justifiable is completly crazy, your the one viewing the world in black and white, you just argued for it.

Because White wants to end tyranny (whish is massivly subjective on whats evil and whats not), it declares war and kills thousands of Blacks, when Blacks bombs the gov that killed thousands of their people, its terrorism?? Are you getting the picture?

[leftwing]

This is my last post for the night, I'm tired, so I'll respond to anything more tomorrow.

In response to the 70%- while 70% may be aimed at coalition forces, most of those seem to fail. If you look at the numbers of civilians killed by snipers, gun fights, executions, or bombs, you'll notice they're many, many times the number of coalition troops killed.

The invasion created the political vacuum, yes, but the US didn't arm those groups and tell them to go kill. There were obvious some serious issues in this country before the US went in, the US just gave them the chance to come out. I didn't say they wanted us there, and we shouldn't be there. I support the war in Afghanistan, but I agree, there was no point in Iraq.

The government are seen as traitors by the militant groups. The terrorist and militant groups will kill any government that isn't them. If Al-Sadr takes charge, everyone else will start attacking his people. If some Sunni group takes charge, all the Shi'a groups will attack them. No matter who's in power a large number of groups are going to be trying to kill them.

No the US did arm, because when the US is giving training and military aid to Iraqi military and police which are already intrenched within fanatic or crime groups, they will just cause more damage, where the only solution for this is for the US to leave before causing more damage leaving the iraqis to solve this on their own.

On the note of civillians killed versus the ratio fo occupation forces which is true as you say, but with a wrong conclusion that they are failing. General Petrausses I belive said that to take out an american humvee passing by a crowded area, you have to take 40 to 50 civillians out. On top of that, iraqis have to kill people who collaborate with the US, then they have to kill those who killed the collaboraters, then religion comes into the picture, Iran interferes, Saudi Arabia interferes and what you have is a major soup of violence.

The point is that US presence in Iraq is a major catalyst for violence and should end instantly.

[British Lion]

Its not a official policy, I didnt say that, but it happends, officials know it happends and its not excusable because its war. Soldiers kill, rape, destroy, thats what they do, thats what they have done in every major conflict in our history. And they are no better than this evil image you have of others doing the same thing to your country. Thats why war is.. bad?
Of course it happens sometimes. If you put a bunch of 18 year olds in extremely stressful situations for months on end, with rifles, surrounded by unarmed people then yes sometimes crimes are going to happen. This is unavoidable, but perpetrators are brought to justice as often as is practical. But that isn't what you said - you said that the US and UK deliberately kill civilians, and used that as evidence that military spending was immoral. Quite clearly this isn't true at all, and so it doesn't support your premise that military spending is immoral.

No your missing the broader point here, war is terrorism in every way and worse, the result of war causes mass killing, mass destruction and by saying its ok because its war but not terrorism is unlogical in every human sense because it is. Your logic that just because we decleared war on Hitler, therefore all wars are justifiable is completly crazy, your the one viewing the world in black and white, you just argued for it.
I did not say all wars are justifiable, I said war is sometimes justifiable. You have repeatedly said and continue to say that war is inherently "terrorism". But clearly a war to stop an evil such as the Nazis is justifiable, and better than not doing it, so it cannot possibly be "terrorism", and you seem to accept this yourself. So the reason I am "missing" your "broader point" is your broader point is utterly indefensible.

Because White wants to end tyranny (whish is massivly subjective on whats evil and whats not), it declares war and kills thousands of Blacks, when Blacks bombs the gov that killed thousands of their people, its terrorism?? Are you getting the picture?
While I do not view the world is racialist terms, as you do, your point is wrong on a wider level - the US had not tried to free the arab world (something which you perhaps unsurprisingly view as bad, given your other views) at the time of the WTC attacks, and neither the WTC nor the people inside it constituted the "government" of America. You seem keen to highlight rare instances in which 18 year olds suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome commit crimes in contravention of orders, but are willing to gloss over the fact that islamic terrorists almost never even try to attack military, or even civilian government targets, preferring instead to hit softer civilian targets delibately because they are not so heavily defended. That is why Al-Quaeda are terrorists, and the US military are not.

[leftwing]

Of course it happens sometimes. If you put a bunch of 18 year olds in extremely stressful situations for months on end, with rifles, surrounded by unarmed people then yes sometimes crimes are going to happen. This is unavoidable, but perpetrators are brought to justice as often as is practical. But that isn't what you said - you said that the US and UK deliberately kill civilians, and used that as evidence that military spending was immoral. Quite clearly this isn't true at all, and so it doesn't support your premise that military spending is immoral.


I did not say all wars are justifiable, I said war is sometimes justifiable. You have repeatedly said and continue to say that war is inherently "terrorism". But clearly a war to stop an evil such as the Nazis is justifiable, and better than not doing it, so it cannot possibly be "terrorism", and you seem to accept this yourself. So the reason I am "missing" your "broader point" is your broader point is utterly indefensible.


While I do not view the world is racialist terms, as you do, your point is wrong on a wider level - the US had not tried to free the arab world (something which you perhaps unsurprisingly view as bad, given your other views) at the time of the WTC attacks, and neither the WTC nor the people inside it constituted the "government" of America. You seem keen to highlight rare instances in which 18 year olds suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome commit crimes in contravention of orders, but are willing to gloss over the fact that islamic terrorists almost never even try to attack military, or even civilian government targets, preferring instead to hit softer civilian targets delibately because they are not so heavily defended. That is why Al-Quaeda are terrorists, and the US military are not.

You dont think that British and american generals KNEW that iraqi civillians would die as a result of the invasion? That makes it deliberate, BUT its not a public policy which is hypocritical. You really believe that ALL crimes are reported and pursued? Off course not, you said it yourself, it hurts the war campaign if news such as killing of civillians come out, thats why american troops put shovels in the hand of dead iraqis claiming they are digging bombs in the ground after shooting them in.. stressfull situations.. And just to snare it down to the start, your 18 year olds have nothing doing in a foreign country where they are not wanted in the first place, occupation is terrorism as well.

No see your not getting my point, yes war against Hitler is also terrorism because you cause events that kill and maim innocents, therefore your not any better than the terrorist because you accept these casualties to reach your goal of toppling Hitler.

And please spare me the rascist card argument, I was simply replying to your comment about "black and white view of the world" and using it as an example to try making a simple abc equation of my point to you which obivously failed.

WTC doesnt constitute an important economical hub for a country which BEFORE sept 11 had troops all over the middle east (which is not supported by the average arab) and which armed and supported Israel in the war against palestinians? See this is your problem, you cant see the issue from both perspectives, one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. Just because you kill 40 000 (official numbers) in a war, then say "I didnt mean it.. really.." doesnt justify it, your still a killer, a terrorist = trying to convince politically by using violene.

On the notion of liberating the arab world, its weird that the US britains trying to liberate while supporting every dictatorial gov in the middle east from Saudi-Arabia and the arab states, to Jordan.

[Oriellien]

The US hasnt killed 40,000 people in iraq. Mabye its prescense has, but not itself. And no, I dont think the US knew that a civil war would start and leave 40,000 (in reality probaly 200,000+) people dead when it toppled Saddam, otherwise they wouldnt have sat on their *** when it happened.

And the WTC had nothing to do with economics, it was just a pretty target. Only an idiot would think destroying the WTC would mortally cripple the economy. All companies have to do is move to another building and the problems fixed, except now they have to attend funerals of their dead friends who have nothing to do with the government, and by the way, many of the victims werent even American.

[leftwing]

The US hasnt killed 40,000 people in iraq. Mabye its prescense has, but not itself. And no, I dont think the US knew that a civil war would start and leave 40,000 (in reality probaly 200,000+) people dead when it toppled Saddam, otherwise they wouldnt have sat on their *** when it happened.

And the WTC had nothing to do with economics, it was just a pretty target. Only an idiot would think destroying the WTC would mortally cripple the economy. All companies have to do is move to another building and the problems fixed, except now they have to attend funerals of their dead friends who have nothing to do with the government, and by the way, many of the victims werent even American.

OMFG listen thats not the point, if an american warplane bomb a bridge in Iraq killing 40 civillians in Baghdad to stop iraqi traffic flow in the capital during an invasion, it seems logical, for a militia it seems logical to hit strateic targets like WTC and the pentagon, they are no good or bad here, we are talking about the same crap of people using violence to grant their political goals which is wrong, which is terrorism because innocents suffer. I cant even imagine how you could read my entire previous post and not get my point.

And it doesnt matter if the americans killed 1000, 2000 or even 500 000, its murder (leaving the civil war out of it), its wrong. Thats the argument here, get? No? Iraqis go to funerals as well, and believe me most of them had nothing to do with the gov, so what the khell is your point?

[Oriellien]

OMFG listen thats not the point, if an american warplane bomb a bridge in Iraq killing 40 civillians in Baghdad to stop iraqi traffic flow in the capital during an invasion, it seems logical, for a militia it seems logical to hit strateic targets like WTC and the pentagon, they are no good or bad here, we are talking about the same crap of people using violence to grant their political goals which is wrong, which is terrorism because innocents suffer. I cant even imagine how you could read my entire previous post and not get my point.

And it doesnt matter if the americans killed 1000, 2000 or even 500 000, its murder, its wrong. Thats the argument here, get? No? Iraqis go to funerals as well, and believe me most of them had nothing to do with the gov, so what the khell is your point?

Because the WTC isnt a strategic target. The only strategic part about it, is that it used to be the police command center, which has nothing to do with anything outside of the City. If you wanted a strategic target, you should have crashed a plane into a military base, or a federal building in the city.

As for your second part, mabye you should read my post again before you say something unrelated to what I said.

[leftwing]

Because the WTC isnt a strategic target. The only strategic part about it, is that it used to be the police command center, which has nothing to do with anything outside of the City. If you wanted a strategic target, you should have crashed a plane into a military base, or a federal building in the city.

As for your second part, mabye you should read my post again before you say something unrelated to what I said.

The WTC was'nt a strategic target? It was the image of american capitalism and economical strenght, its at least as strategic beacuse of its symbolism. A milita cant defeat the entire US army, but it can try to break its countries morale. No the WTC was not just an appartment store..

[Kiaar]

The WTC was'nt a strategic target? It was the image of american capitalism and economical strenght, its at least as strategic beacuse of its symbolism. A milita cant defeat the entire US army, but it can try to break its countries morale. No the WTC was not just an appartment store..

Ok, I lied, I'm back. Got bored and came back.

The thing is though the WTC hardly broek anyones morale. It united the US in a way not seen since the Cold War, if not since the middle of the 20th century. It's entire purpose was to send a message of "We will kill you if you don't do what we tell you." It backfired though I guess.

[Kiaar]

No see your not getting my point, yes war against Hitler is also terrorism because you cause events that kill and maim innocents, therefore your not any better than the terrorist because you accept these casualties to reach your goal of toppling Hitler.


Ok, so stopping a genocidal madman from conquering Europe and killing millions (more) is a bad thing? What are you on?

You seriously believe Hitler should have been left alone to conquer who he pleases? What of those being attacked? Should they lay down like dogs, because if they resist people will die?

How about if your country was attacked and needed help. But no one wanted to help, because it would be "terrorism" to engage in that war. You're calling all war terrorism, but nothing in life is that absolute. Your logic is inherently wrong for that reason- that fact that you classify any thing, regardless of circumstances or setting. Nothing in life is that simple and to think so is ridiculous.

[Oriellien]

The WTC was'nt a strategic target? It was the image of american capitalism and economical strenght, its at least as strategic beacuse of its symbolism. A milita cant defeat the entire US army, but it can try to break its countries morale. No the WTC was not just an appartment store..

A-Q is not a militia, and Wall Street is a bigger symbol of Capitalism then the WTC. New York City is one of the most liberal and anti-US foreign policies in the US.

And the WTC isnt a symbol of capitalism or economic strength. If you want economic strength theres a little building near the WTC called the stock market that wasnt even damaged. If you want Capitalism, go to washington DC. The WTC was a symbol of an achievment, two tall buildings, beatiful to look at and fun to go to the top, that had nothing to do with the US government.

[Nubian Warrior]

:roflmao3: that's funny. pure capitalism will only consume and exhaust itself eventually. i was wathcing the gop debates on tv and it was amazing how these failed reaganites were trying to resurrect the poor old sod.

[Oriellien]

:roflmao3: that's funny. pure capitalism will only consume and exhaust itself eventually. i was wathcing the gop debates on tv and it was amazing how these failed reaganites were trying to resurrect the poor old sod.

Three of them said they dont believe in evolution :P Including a front-runner.

[leftwing]

A-Q is not a militia, and Wall Street is a bigger symbol of Capitalism then the WTC. New York City is one of the most liberal and anti-US foreign policies in the US.

And the WTC isnt a symbol of capitalism or economic strength. If you want economic strength theres a little building near the WTC called the stock market that wasnt even damaged. If you want Capitalism, go to washington DC. The WTC was a symbol of an achievment, two tall buildings, beatiful to look at and fun to go to the top, that had nothing to do with the US government.

No Wall street is not a bigger symbol, the WTC is pictured in every child history book all over the world, it housed several companies and was an easier target to strike with airplanes than the stock marked

Ok ok, since you have a real problem understanding the point, il add this random article, you be the judge of whats terror and whats not, read what certain iraqis feel about US operations in Falluja which were just as much terrorism as the WTC attacks:

IRAQ:
Where Nobody Is Accountable
Ali al-Fadhily*

BAGHDAD, May 21 (IPS) - Killings, crime, lack of medical care, collapse of educationāthe list goes on. But with the occupation by U.S.-led forces now into a fifth year, and a supposedly democratic government in place, no one knows who to hold accountable for all that is going wrong.

It is the occupation forces, particularly the United States and Britain, that must be held accountable, many Iraqis say.

"It is good of these people to discuss accountability for theft, but the most important thing to account for is Iraqi blood," Numan Ahmed, a human rights activist from the Adhamiya neighbourhood in Baghdad told IPS.

The British medical journal Lancet has reported that by July 2006, 655,000 people had died as "a consequence of the war." It has reported that the risk of death among civilians is now 58 times higher than before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

"By now a million Iraqis have been killed for no reason, and many millions disabled or badly injured just because of some thieves in Baghdad and Washington," Ahmed said. "We are prepared to reveal the documents to condemn them even if takes us a lifetime."

But Iraqis have no means to take action against occupiers.

The United States has not accepted jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which has the power to investigate complaints of genocide. The United States took the view that the court could conduct "politically motivated investigations and prosecutions of U.S. military and political officials and personnel."

U.S. opposition to the ICC is in stark contrast to the strong support for the Court by most of its closest allies. But Iraqis have found no way to proceed against these either.

With no doors of justice open to them, many Iraqis are now taking to unlawful ways to hit back at occupation forces and government targets.

"The only way to do it is at gunpoint," 32-year-old Ali Aziz from Ramadi, 100 km west of Baghdad, told IPS. "They invaded us at gunpoint and we find it ridiculous to talk about any other way of getting back what belongs to us."

Aziz said he had lost several friends in attacks by U.S. soldiers. "The whole world is dealing with this in a hypocritical way, and there is only us to claim our rights the way we find proper."

The human rights group al-Raya filed a case in a local court in Fallujah against U.S. forces in 2004, following a massive military crackdown. About three-quarters of all buildings in the city were destroyed or heavily damaged during the U.S. assault in November 2004.

But U.S.-backed Iraqi security forces have hit out at the human rights group. "The secretary-general for the organisation has now been arrested by Fallujah police for reasons that we are not aware of, and the organisation is not functioning any more," a member of the board, speaking on condition of anonymity, told IPS in Baghdad.

"It is not the right time to talk about accountability when daily killings by U.S. and Iraqi soldiers are still ongoing. God knows if it will ever be possible."

A case for accountability could well be made. A judge from the United States wrote at the time of the trial of Nazi war criminals in Nuremberg in Germany in 1946: "To initiate a war of aggressionāis not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was judged by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan Sep. 16, 2004 as "an illegal act that contravened the UN charter."

The lack of accountability appears now to be leading to greater support for armed resistance against occupation forces.

"What accountability are you talking about, sir," said Abu Jassim from Fallujah, who lost four members of his family when a U.S. bomb destroyed his home during the first U.S. offensive in the city in April 2004. "Americans are criminals, and the whole world is covering up for their crimes." They will be held accountable, he said, by "Allah" and by "the heroes of the Iraqi resistance."

Iraqis are also angry over destruction of their civilian infrastructure, for which no one has been held responsible.

"The U.S. crime of deliberately crushing Iraqi infrastructure must be looked at as a crime against humanity," chief engineer Jalal Abdulla at Baghdad's Ministry of Electricity told IPS. "They did not have to do this to support their military effort, but they did it just to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths for no reason but cruelty."

Others vent their frustration against what they see as an impotent United Nations. "The UN should be the place for asking those Americans why they committed so many crimes in Iraq," said Baghdad resident Malik Hammad.

(*Ali, our correspondent in Baghdad, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who travels extensively in the region)

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37814

[leftwing]

Ok, so stopping a genocidal madman from conquering Europe and killing millions (more) is a bad thing? What are you on?

You seriously believe Hitler should have been left alone to conquer who he pleases? What of those being attacked? Should they lay down like dogs, because if they resist people will die?

How about if your country was attacked and needed help. But no one wanted to help, because it would be "terrorism" to engage in that war. You're calling all war terrorism, but nothing in life is that absolute. Your logic is inherently wrong for that reason- that fact that you classify any thing, regardless of circumstances or setting. Nothing in life is that simple and to think so is ridiculous.

Im not saying that you shouldnt fight a man like Hitler, what Im saying is that in War and conflict you are just as guilty in murder and killing as your enemy, your not a liberator, your not a freedom fighter, your a terrorist, a murderur, you invaded another country in violence to reach political objectives illegally, that is the DEFINITON of terrorism. Im anti violence, I dont believe in military or wars, In Hitlers germany the americans and britains were looked upon as terrorists for example after the Dresden bombings which some say killed 1-2 million germans, isnt that terrorism? Get the point?? Omg, Read the above article I posted, Il post it on a main category later.

[leftwing]

Il requote this part:

Iraqis are also angry over destruction of their civilian infrastructure, for which no one has been held responsible.

"The U.S. crime of deliberately crushing Iraqi infrastructure must be looked at as a crime against humanity," chief engineer Jalal Abdulla at Baghdad's Ministry of Electricity told IPS. "They did not have to do this to support their military effort, but they did it just to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths for no reason but cruelty."

Others vent their frustration against what they see as an impotent United Nations. "The UN should be the place for asking those Americans why they committed so many crimes in Iraq," said Baghdad resident Malik Hammad.
--

Per definition, the way the US military has acted is no different from any other militia or armed group, they are a bunch of people using violence to reach their goals, and they are both wrong, if you guys dont get the point after this simple quote, then you must be horribly thick.

[George]

Per definition, the way the US military has acted is no different from any other militia or armed group, they are a bunch of people using violence to reach their goals, and they are both wrong, if you guys dont get the point after this simple quote, then you must be horribly thick.

The difference is that the US military wears uniforms and represents an actual country, not just a radical theology. While the US identifies civilians as collateral loses, these other groups consider the US military targets as collateral damage. Not their primary target.

[George]

A-Q is not a militia, and Wall Street is a bigger symbol of Capitalism then the WTC. New York City is one of the most liberal and anti-US foreign policies in the US.

And the WTC isnt a symbol of capitalism or economic strength. If you want economic strength theres a little building near the WTC called the stock market that wasnt even damaged. If you want Capitalism, go to washington DC. The WTC was a symbol of an achievment, two tall buildings, beatiful to look at and fun to go to the top, that had nothing to do with the US government.

I don't know bro. The WTC was a symbol of a lot that had to do with America and it's economy. While wall street is essential, it isn't a symbol; it's more of the gears that keep the economy rolling.

I personally took a hit in my pocket book with the drop of the stock market after 9/11. But like the WTC and my personal finances, the symbols are temporarily destroyed and are quickly built back up bigger and stronger than before.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Those who flew the planes did, but not those who planned the operation, ran training and acquired funding.
Those who ran training were American flight instructors. Most countries place sanctions on countries who won't extradite criminals, and sometimes, mount commando raids to kidnap them. 7-11 was a lame excuse for invading a country, installing a puppet and killing thousands of civilians and continuing to do so.


Since when could the official military of a sovereign state be classified as terrorists?Since they started terrorizing civilians.


In any case, your implication is wrong. US and British soldiers may sometimes accidentally kill Iraqi or Afghan civilians, but their intention is precisely the opposite, and their goal is to kill insurgents, Taliban fighters and terrorists.I may sometime accidentally ki