Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomCube.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Summer of 1914.
    #5883582 - 07/21/06 03:03 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

The Summer of 1914
by William S. Lind
by William S. Lind



With Hezbollah’s entry into the war between Israel and Hamas, Fourth Generation war has taken another developmental step forward. For the first time, a non-state entity has gone to war with a state not by waging an insurgency against a state invader, but across an international boundary. Again we see how those who define 4GW simply as insurgency are looking at only a small part of the picture.

I think the stakes in the Israel-Hezbollah-Hamas war are significantly higher than most observers understand. If Hezbollah and Hamas win – and winning just means surviving, given that Israel’s objective is to destroy both entities – a powerful state will have suffered a new kind of defeat, again, a defeat across at least one international boundary and maybe two, depending on how one defines Gaza’s border. The balance between states and 4GW forces will be altered world-wide, and not to a trivial degree.

So far, Hezbollah is winning. As Arab states stood silent and helpless before Israel’s assault on Hamas, another non-state entity, Hezbollah, intervened to relieve the siege of Gaza by opening a second front. Its initial move, a brilliantly conducted raid that killed eight Israeli soldiers and captured two for the loss of one Hezbollah fighter, showed once again that Hezbollah can take on state armed forces on even terms (the Chechens are the only other 4GW force to demonstrate that capability). In both respects, the contrast with Arab states will be clear on the street, pushing the Arab and larger Islamic worlds further away from the state.

Hezbollah then pulled off two more firsts. It responded effectively to terror bombing from the air, which states think is their monopoly, with rocket barrages that reached deep into Israel. Once can only imagine how this resonated world-wide with people who are often bombed but can never bomb back. And, it attacked another state monopoly, navies, by hitting and disabling a blockading Israeli warship with something (I question Israel’s claim that the weapon was a C-801 anti-ship missile, which should have sunk a small missile corvette). Hezbollah’s leadership has promised more such surprises.

In response, Israel has had to hit not Hezbollah but the state of Lebanon. Israel’s Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, referring to the initial Hezbollah raid, said, "I want to make clear that the event this morning is not a terror act but the act of a sovereign state that attacked Israel without reason." This is an obvious fiction, as the state of Lebanon had nothing to do with the raid and cannot control Hezbollah. But it is a necessary fiction for Israel, because otherwise who can it respond against? Again we see the power 4GW entities obtain by hiding within states but not being a state.

What comes next? In the short run, the question may be which runs out first, Hezbollah’s supply of rockets or the world’s patience with Israel bombing the helpless state of Lebanon. If the latter continues much longer, the Lebanese government may collapse, undoing one of America’s few recent successes in the Islamic world.

The critical question is whether the current fighting spreads region-wide. It is possible that Hezbollah attacked Israel not only to relieve the siege of Hamas in Gaza but also to pre-empt an Israeli strike on Iran. The current Iranian government is not disposed to sit passively like Saddam and await an Israeli or American attack. It may have given Hezbollah a green light in order to bog Israel down locally to the point where it would not also want war with Iran.

However, Israel’s response may be exactly the opposite. Olmert also said, "Nothing will deter us, whatever far-reaching ramifications regarding our relations on the northern border and in the region there may be." The phrase "in the region" could refer to Syria, Iran or both.

If Israel does attack Iran, the "summer of 1914" analogy may play itself out, catastrophically for the United States. As I have warned many times, war with Iran (Iran has publicly stated it would regard an Israeli attack as an attack by the U.S. also) could easily cost America the army it now has deployed in Iraq. It would almost certainly send shock waves through an already fragile world economy, potentially bringing that house of cards down. A Bush administration that has sneered at "stability" could find out just how high the price of instability can be.

It is clear what Washington needs to do to try to prevent such an outcome: publicly distance the U.S. from Israel while privately informing Mr. Olmert that it will not tolerate an Israeli strike on Iran. Unfortunately, Israel is to America what Serbia was to Russia in 1914. That may be the most disturbing aspect of the "summer of 1914" analogy.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineWhiteRabbitt
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/06/02
Posts: 3,486
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: Summer of 1914. [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #5884035 - 07/21/06 10:29 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

What about all the political alliances in 1914? Who else would be going to war? I really don't think comparing this to WW1 is very accurate.


--------------------
You gotta jump and swing up to hit me in the knees.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Summer of 1914. [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #5884793 - 07/21/06 03:07 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

http://www.siteinstitute.org/bin/article...s&Subcategory=0

A document which seeks to debunk the claim that jihad is a wasted venture against America due to the disparity in terms of military capabilities and force in numbers, and discusses the concept of “Fourth Generation Warfare,” was distributed yesterday, July 10, 2006, amongst jihadist forums by the Global Islamic Media Front. The author expresses his “astonishment” at the psychological defeat within the Islamic Nation and focuses on an interview conducted by an Islamic scholar on the Internet, who claimed that war is already decided in favor of America; words, which the author believes, exemplify “ignorance” for Islamic history and Western political and military analysis. Jihad, within the rubric of the fourth generation of warfare, which is understood as spreading warfare to the enemy’s communities to destroy popular support for their forces, is then purportedly effecting desired results.


The author borrows heavily from an article written by William S. Lind, et al, called, “The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation,” which explains the evolution in war concept. Waging war against ghost-like entities such as al-Qaeda has allowed the Mujahideen to prove their “superiority” in this method of warfare, and overcome the enemy’s advanced weaponry and capabilities that are not built to for this combat. Statistics of numbers of Mujahideen to enemy forces in Afghanistan, Somalia and Russia, show the success of a smaller force to dispel the Soviet Union, America and Russia, and according to the author, disprove the aforementioned scholar’s opinion.


He continues to explain that al-Qaeda forced the United States to reevaluate the rules that it sets for international security situations, as it destroyed the cornerstones of America’s strategic defenses on September 11, 2001, which are: early warning, preventative attack, and deterrence. The document outlines how these cornerstones were circumvented and the affect they had on future strategy. A combination of this discussion and that of the fourth generation warfare, are brought upon the Mujahideen for awareness and urge them to focus their propaganda and psychological attacks to achieve victory in this new war.

A translation of the document is provided to our Intel Service members.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Summer of 1914. [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #5885241 - 07/21/06 06:06 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

I want all memebers of Hezbollah to die. The Lebanese were idiots to let Hezbollah set up their genocidal war machine in Lebanon. The Lebanese deserve to get their black asses blown up along with Hezbollah.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Summer of 1914. [Re: Luddite]
    #5885875 - 07/21/06 09:36 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Luddite said:
I want all memebers of Hezbollah to die. The Lebanese were idiots to let Hezbollah set up their genocidal war machine in Lebanon. The Lebanese deserve to get their black asses blown up along with Hezbollah.




Do you ever have anything intelligent to add to the conversation.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblezorbman
blarrr
Male

Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
Re: Summer of 1914. [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #5889717 - 07/23/06 03:51 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

They wanted a simple prisoner swap...we take two of yours, you give us two of ours..Israel blew it all out of proportion and has overeacted bigtime. Tragic and bloodthirsty like Bush. Not surprising.


--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”  -- Rudiger Dornbusch


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
Re: Summer of 1914. [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #5893166 - 07/24/06 01:11 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

The_Red_Crayon said:
The author borrows heavily from an article written by William S. Lind, et al, called, “The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation,” which explains the evolution in war concept. Waging war against ghost-like entities such as al-Qaeda has allowed the Mujahideen to prove their “superiority” in this method of warfare, and overcome the enemy’s advanced weaponry and capabilities that are not built to for this combat. Statistics of numbers of Mujahideen to enemy forces in Afghanistan, Somalia and Russia, show the success of a smaller force to dispel the Soviet Union, America and Russia, and according to the author, disprove the aforementioned scholar’s opinion.




I'm sorry but I just don't buy any of this. I believe this argument fails on 3 points:
1) If America were to enter an actual "war" akin to WWI, then the commitment would be HUGE. There would be a deploymeny 10x the size of the current force in Iraq, a likely draft, and matching equipment. Comparing a deployment of this size to the operation in Afghanistan is a joke.
2) Compare American losses in Iraq (not aggregate, but loss rates) to those in Vietnam, or compare them to Russian losses in Chechnya. This makes one fact adbundantly clear: America has gotten very good at taking far fewer losses. Now, compare this to total Mujahideen losses in Afgahnistan. What does this mean? That in a WW1-esque scenario the "smaller bands" are going to take VERY heavy losses compared to America, and will ultimately break.
3) If America were to make a very large deployment (again WW1-esque) the forces of Al Queda would likely lose their civilian-backing when the realities of a large American force became known. It's easy to think it's a good idea to support "freedom fighters" when America isn't actually bombing your town yet. When that changes, so does your opinion. For proof of this I'd point to Kosovo, where America didn't commit more than a bombing campaign.

I'm sure the authors involved are very practiced scholars, and are smart, well-intentioned people, but I just don't think the comparison they're trying to make is fair. The American deployment in WW1 included 1.5 million men before the last 6 months of the war, and 2 million by the armistice, with an additional 2 million being trained to ship to Europe should the war drag on. This was at a time when the total US population was just 100 million.

An equivalent deployment today would involve 6 million overseas and an equvalent reserve of 6 million.

This means that statistics from the Iraq occupation force of 150,000 just don't compare.

If America were to actually deploy between 6 and 12 million soldiers in the Middle East, you can bet that the "fourth generational warfare" units would collapse.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Summer of 1914. [Re: Economist]
    #5893313 - 07/24/06 02:06 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

I think your missing the point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Generation_War

Quote:

Fourth generation warfare (4GW) is a concept defined in 1989 by a team of American analysts, including William S. Lind, used to describe warfare's return to a decentralized form. In terms of generational modern warfare, the fourth generation signifies the nation states' loss of their monopoly on combat forces, returning in a sense to the uncontrolled combat of pre-modern times. The simplest definition includes any war in which one of the major participants is not a state but rather a violent ideological network. Fourth Generation wars are characterized by a blurring of the lines between war and politics, soldier and civilian, peace and conflict, battlefield and safety. While this term is similar to terrorism and asymmetric warfare, it is much narrower. Classical examples, such as the slave uprising under Spartacus or the assassination of Julius Caesar by the Roman senate, predate the modern concept of warfare and are examples of the type of combat modern warfare sought to eliminate. As such, fourth generation warfare uses classical tactics—tactics deemed unacceptable by the preceding generations—to weaken the technologically advantaged opponent's will to win.



The use of fourth generation warfare can be traced to the post-World War II Cold War period, as superpowers and major powers attempted to retain their grip on colonies and captured territories. Unable to withstand direct combat against bombers, tanks, and machine guns, non-state entities used tactics of secrecy, terror, and confusion to overcome the technological gap. Mao's concept of the People's war and Ho Chi Minh's conduct in the Indochina Wars are early examples of 4GW.

Fourth Generation warfare has often involved an insurgent group or non-state trying to implement their own government or reestablish an old government over the one currently running the territory. However, a fourth generation war is most successful when the non-state entity does not attempt, at least in the short term, to impose its own rule, but tries simply to disorganize and delegitimize the state in which the warfare takes place. The aim is to force the state adversary to expend manpower and money in an attempt to establish order, ideally in such a highhanded way that it merely increases disorder, until the state surrenders or withdraws. Fourth generation war could be said to be the ultimate strategy of scorched earth, leaving nothing for the occupier to occupy. Speaking figuratively, the non-state adversary, not being able to expel the invader from his home, tries to bring it down on both their heads, leaving the invader no choice but to leave the ruins alone





I think this perfectly describes how war is fought these days. I also think if the US does not adapt they will be lost in history. The simple fact is the only way these insurgents can win is simply not lose.

Global Guerrillas goes on to explain

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/05/4gw_fourth_gene.html
Quote:

4GW -- FOURTH GENERATION WARFARE
4GW (fourth generation wafare) is the term used by military thinkers to describe conflict at the end of the 20th century. In general, 4GW is an extremely effective method of warfare that the US and its allies will find very difficult to defeat (a slow burn, rather than complete eradication, may be the best possible outcome). I have outlined the basics of 4GW warfare below to enhance your understanding of the term.

Definition
4GW can be defined as a method of warfare that uses the following to achieve a moral victory:

Undermines enemy strengths (this may seem obvious, but most of modern warfare has involved direct attacks on enemy strengths -- find the enemy army and destroy it).
Exploits enemy weaknesses.
Uses asymmetric operations (weapons and techniques that differ substantially from opponents).

Drivers
The rise of 4GW is both a product and a driver of the following:

The loss of the nation-state's monopoly on violence.
The rise of cultural, ethnic, and religious conflict.
Globalization (via technological integration).

Tactics
4GW is fought on the tactical level via:

Rear area operations -- 4GW warriors do not confront a nation-state's military but rather it society.
Psychological operations -- terror.
Ad-hoc innovation -- use of the enemy's strengths against itself.

Generations of Warfare
The generational development of warfare can be outlined as:

First generation -- wars of Napoleon, conscription and firearms (the decline of mercenaries).
Second generation -- the US civil war and WW1, firepower and nation-state alignment of resources to warfare.
Third generation -- WW2, maneuver and armored warfare.
Fourth generation -- ad hoc warriors and moral conflict.

Differences
Many of the methods used in 4GW aren't new and have robust historical precedent. However, there are important differences in how it is applied today. These include:

Global -- modern technologies and economic integration enable global operations.
Pervasive -- the decline of nation-state warfare has forced all open conflict into the 4GW mold.
Granularity -- extremely small viable groups and variety of reasons for conflict.
Vulerability -- open societies and economies.
Technology -- new technologies have dramatically increased the productivity of small groups of 4GW warriors.
Media -- global media saturation makes possible an incredible level of manipulation.
Networked -- new organizational types made possible by improvements in technology are much better at learning, surviving, and acting.

Winning a 4GW conflict
Victory in 4GW warfare is won in the moral sphere. The aim of 4GW is to destroy the moral bonds that allows the organic whole to exist -- cohesion. This is done by reinforcing the following (according to Boyd):

Menace. Attacks that undermine or threaten basic human survival instincts.
Mistrust. Increases divisions between groups (ie. conservatives and liberals in the US).
Uncertainty. Undermine economic activity by decreasing confidence in the future.





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
Re: Summer of 1914. [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #5893350 - 07/24/06 02:19 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

No, I haven't missed the point, I think that "the point" is missing evidence.

I simply don't think the US is being "harmed" in any way by existing 4gw forces. Sure, 9/11 was a start, and it resulted in the US toppling 2 regimes.

But the argument you are attempting to make is that 4gw warfare actually poses a real threat to the US. Simply put: I don't buy it.

The US government is not in any real danger of collapse, the society of the US is not falling apart, and American culture seems to be pretty intact (Microsoft is still on schedule to release their next operating system in 2007, right?)

If, somehow, a 4gw force could pose a real threat to the US, I think the US would begin to fight a real war, and would win easily.

I just don't think evidence to the contrary exists.

In the grand scheme of things, Iraq just isn't a major conflict. It's being fought entirely with American standing and reserve forces, and it's also being fought by all-volunteers. As a result, there are inherent limits on the size and scale of deployments and operations that result.

I get your point about "all they have to do to win" is "not lose", but my point is that, in a WW1-scenario, they WILL LOSE.

If there were actually 6-12 million American soldiers in the middle east, they would lose, and I don't believe there is significant evidence to the contrary.

Consider it this way: Look at the loses 4gw forces have taken in Iraq while combatting Americans. Now multiply those losses by a factor of 20-40x (the result of a massive American deployment). They would really and truly lose.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Summer of 1914. [Re: Economist]
    #5893405 - 07/24/06 02:37 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

I simply don't think the US is being "harmed" in any way by existing 4gw forces. Sure, 9/11 was a start, and it resulted in the US toppling 2 regimes.




4gw organizations can start from anything, in this country it could start from ex-prisoners or muslim fanatics to extremist mexican seperatists. The driving force for this is a attack on society (which is why infrastructure is commonly targeted) It is not a simple war of attrition it is fought directly towards the nation states resources.

Quote:

But the argument you are attempting to make is that 4gw warfare actually poses a real threat to the US. Simply put: I don't buy it.




Maybe not directly, but the 4gw going on in Iraq is a major thorn in the US military side, it keeps us in a position of vulnerability, we do not have the foreign leverage we did say before Iraq.

Quote:

The US government is not in any real danger of collapse, the society of the US is not falling apart, and American culture seems to be pretty intact (Microsoft is still on schedule to release their next operating system in 2007, right?)





This is a matter of opinion but then again the investors of Enron we're very sure that their company was not about to go bankrupt either. Just because the economy "maybe" doing well right now doesnt mean their couldnt be a economic crisis. (Fires,hurricanes,terrorist attacks,oil supply.) If their was a war with Iran,China could go bankrupt and this in turn could force US under.


Quote:

If, somehow, a 4gw force could pose a real threat to the US, I think the US would begin to fight a real war, and would win easily.




I certainly dont think they are doing a very good job in Iraq fighting the insurgency or Afghanistan, and to just think of a possible war with Iran or North Korea could push us over the limit and people certainly dont want a draft right now. Their would be rioting in the streets. It is political suicide.

Quote:

In the grand scheme of things, Iraq just isn't a major conflict. It's being fought entirely with American standing and reserve forces, and it's also being fought by all-volunteers. As a result, there are inherent limits on the size and scale of deployments and operations that result.





This is Limited to Total to Absolute Warfare, Ever read Carl von Clausewitz? US has a small amount of troops yet war costs lots of money, especially not even counting the myriads of government contracts Take a look for yourself At the amount of taxpayer money being spent on expensive toys that are easily destroyed or never used.

Quote:

I get your point about "all they have to do to win" is "not lose", but my point is that, in a WW1-scenario, they WILL LOSE.





This will never happen its wishful thinking, and even 6 or 7 million it doesnt matter. Attrition doesnt work on a unpaid enemy.

Quote:

Consider it this way: Look at the loses 4gw forces have taken in Iraq while combatting Americans. Now multiply those losses by a factor of 20-40x (the result of a massive American deployment). They would really and truly lose.




It doesnt mean shit, they can pick off as many insurgents as they want their will be plenty to fill their shoes. The problem is, is when a 200$ bomb destroys a 30 million dollar Bradley. Their is a inherent flaw in this type of warfare.

The United States's military can not keep this up in Iraq if the insurgency is to last for another 8 or 10 more years.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
Re: Summer of 1914. [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #5893439 - 07/24/06 02:55 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

I think there are a couple of flaws in your reply:

First, no, America does not want a draft now, but that's also a result of the American public percieving no threat now. If America was actually threatened by North Korea or Iran, that would change. If Iran actually deployed a bomb, or North Korea actually launched a missile that got close to the US, that would probably all change VERY quickly. The manpower is always there if the will is there.

Second, I just don't think there's as big a danger of economic collapse as you're suggesting. A spike in oil prices (which is where I'm assuming your war with iran = fall of china scenario comes from) won't cause a catastrophe for two reasons: First, China's growth isn't fueled by some sort of massive lending scheme. The banking system in China simply isn't developed. Without creditors, there can be no true collapse. Yes, China's economy could stop growing, or even shrink, but you just wouldn't have the bankruptcy and loan-defaulting that's necessary for true economic collapse. Second, as oil prices spike, then refinement of extra-heavy oil and shale-producing oil becomes profitable, and global oil reserves/production will significantly expand.

The final point deals with the $200 bomb vs. the multi-million dollar bradley. What you seem to be missing here is scale. Hezbollah's rockets don't come cheap. Sure, they're inexpensive in terms on US equipment, but how large do you think Hezbollah's budget is?

4GW forces lack manpower and money, that's what forces them to act the way they do. I would argue that the $200 bomb probably costs more in scaled terms to the 4gw force than the tank does to a traditional military.

The same goes for manpower: 4gw forces LACK MANPOWER. Again, that's one of their defining characteristics. If the US is able to dramatically increase the losses it inflicts (which would undoubtedly be the result of a large deployment), the 4gw force would lose first.

Finally, on Clausewitz: a draft is necessary for Total or Absolute warfare. The nationstate is not mobilized unless the population is mobilized. Similarly, citing military contracts is virtually meaningless. The war in Iraq is hardly the strain on the US economy that production for a world war was (or even Vietnam for that matter). If the US were to begin fighting a total or absolute conflict, things would be VERY different.

I'm with you on the argument that the money spent on Iraq shouldn't be spent on Iraq. I'm a libertarian, and the whole thing makes me sad. However, that doesn't mean that the US economy is actually suffering as a result of the war in Iraq, and it's silly to make that claim.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Summer of 1914. [Re: Economist]
    #5893455 - 07/24/06 03:03 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

i guess we will have to agree, to disagree eh :smile:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Insurgents Target Iraqi Police; 59 Dead
( 1 2 3 4 all )
RandalFlagg 4,450 62 09/16/04 04:37 PM
by Zahid
* Qassam Mujahideen blast two Zionist bulldozers
( 1 2 all )
Zahid 2,597 39 09/27/04 06:33 PM
by Phluck
* US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents
( 1 2 all )
FrenchSocialist 2,612 23 06/15/07 12:22 PM
by MushmanTheManic
* The most powerful insurgent group in Iraq.
( 1 2 3 all )
The_Red_Crayon 5,527 42 06/21/06 08:49 PM
by Phred
* A picture of insurgent vs coalition influence in Iraq FrenchSocialist 677 5 04/27/07 04:42 PM
by FrenchSocialist
* Understanding the 4th Generation of Warfare. The_Red_Crayon 697 2 09/30/06 04:40 AM
by kotik
* Iraqi Insurgency predicted to survive for years
( 1 2 all )
RandalFlagg 2,591 26 02/12/05 02:53 PM
by infidelGOD
* Pat Buchanan: Israel right on Hezbollah, wrong on Lebanon
( 1 2 all )
Basilides 3,073 36 07/29/06 07:33 PM
by Vvellum

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
1,351 topic views. 2 members, 6 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.021 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 12 queries.