Guerilla Actions in Irak

Hi Imperialist,

Oh Joy! Oh, Bliss!

I have just checked out the link you gave in your last post.

On JUN 17 2005, 11:01AM you asked "You mean to say there were no US KIA in northern or southern provinces last month".

On JUL 13 2005, 04:12PM you stated "I asked you several times last month if you meant to say there were NO casualties in any southern/northern provinces" (Not quite the same thing, but we will overlook that).

I checked. On JUL 13, 20:05 I replied "I have had a look and can only find one such question on JUN 17 2005, 11:01AM" (see above). I then asked where are all the other "several times".

In you last post of Jul 14 2005, 0620PM you referred me to your post of JUN 18 2005, 05:02PM saying "...you can see for yourself that I posted the link to the question in case several times on the forum. I give you only one example".

Er, no you don't, not even one example.

The first point is that you originally stated "I asked you several times last month...." (see above). There was no previous mention of links in either your or my posts.

Secondly, your recommended linked post of JUN 18 2005. 11:01AM is apparently addressed to Denes, not me.

Thirdly, it does not refer in any way to any question by me, or to me in any way. You actually wrote, "I don't know who these members are exactly, but we shouldn't forget members with "one-sided propaganda agenda" who also deal terrible blows to this forum's credibility, as seen here:

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...=15&#entry34611 "

Now you think after all this we might actually arrive at something new. But no, we arrive back on a page of this thread that contains only one such question in numerous posts: the one you originally asked on JUN 17 2005, 11:01AM! (see head of this post) - the very same one that I had already pointed out to you as the only example I could find.

The fact is that, for all your attempts to bluff other posters, you appear to have asked this question only once. Why do you persistently engage in such falsehoods?

Have you no sense of personal honour?

Have you no pride?

The single worst crime one can commit on a factual forum such as this is to deliberately and repeatedly mislead others.

The credibilty of forums such as this depends on the integrity of the users. You are displaying vitually none.

Cheers,

Sid.

Mister, I have given you the answers I had. I did claim you had a history of unbacked claims, and I gave an example of one message in which you were proven to have asserted something proven false. Then you claimed after a month that you did not assert such a thing. I said, FINE, it is your right to clarify what you said.
Now, please stop posting off-topic messages, and I hope the moderator will issue you a warning if you dont.

This is not a bank. I will not withdraw anything. If you want to say "your claim is false", then by God man, just do it and give me a break. I said that in view of the month-later-developments you have the right to state your point and I will not have anything against it.
If you want me to further substantiate my claim, maybe I will, in my own time. When I please. Maybe in a month or two. Its my right, stop harassing me with your persistent demands and stop ruining this thread with your issues.

Yes, Victor, I read the article and saw some news about it.
The insurgents who use carbombs do a lot of damage on the coalition soldiers but also take innocent people with them (their version of collateral damage).
Only in this case it seems this insurgent was hell-bent on killing those children, because there was no way of him not seeing them around, especially as they were already there and did not simply walk by when he detonated.
Secondly, I also think this was a deliberate ploy to seperate the US soldiers from the populace.
Either the US soldiers will avoid going in the midst of civilians/giving children candy, in order to avoid this, either the parents will stop their children from going around US soldiers.
Terrorism? Yes, this was.

Dragos, look at this:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...ticle299271.ece

They wont withdraw for years, IMO. The Iraqis are not strong enough to face the insurgency, not even to talks about being strong enough to secure their borders, airspace, etc. This will be one of the reasons for a lengthy US presence there. Which, like Sid said, in a couple of years could spark the insurgency in shia dominated regions too.

I have read another article in which it was stated that this was a Shia neighbourhood. I don't think this was a good move from the insurgents' part. 24 Shia civilians killed will surely create a lot of outrage.

Hi Imperialist,

Still wriggling and in denial of the truth, I see.

Absolutely. You did claim, to a third party, on a public forum, that I had "a history of unbacked claims subsequently proved to be false".

However, it is completely untrue that you "gave an example of one message in which (I was) proven to have asserted something proven false."

Firstly a "history" requires rather more than one example. One example is not a "history".

Secondly, the example you claim to have offered was not an assertion by me. It contained a question. You can tell that because it had a "?" at the end of it.

Thirdly, even if you want to misinterpret my question as a statement, far from proving false, it proved correct.

Fourthly, my original question required no clarification. The English is clear. This issue only requires clarification now because you unilaterally and mistakenly decided to invent your own interpretation.

Fifthly, how can this be "off-topic"? It is you who started this thread and you who asserted that I had a history of unbacked claims subsequently proved to be false. If we are off topic, the responsibility is yours.

Why should I stop harassing you? Do you think I should allow you to get away with false statements? Refusal to answer legitimate questions? Evasion? Misrepresentation? Etc., etc....... We would all like totally immunity from the consequences of our actions but, sorry, I am not granting it to you.

As for your suggestion that intervention by the Moderator might be beneficial, I fully agree. Your actions are a threat to the integrity of the thread.

As I stated from the very beginning, all that is required is that either:

1) You substantiate your claim that I have "a history of making unbacked claims later proven to be false"

or

2) Withdraw the claim.

If it takes intervention from the Moderator to establish whether or not I have "a history of making unbacked claims later to be proven false" or not, then that is OK by me. I will abide by his adjudication. Will you?

I will now refrain from making further contributions to this thread for a little time while the unfortunate Moderator bores himself rigid by reading through all our back posts and reaches a decision.

Cheers,

Sid.

Get a life already...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi Moderator,

As Imperialist has voiced no apparent objections, please carry on and resolve this issue as detailed in my last post.

Cheers,

Sid.

Imperialist, your statement that "Sid has a history of making unbacked claims later proven to be false" is abusive, since it is defaming and you failed to prove it.

The only example you gave is the one about the coallition casualties in this very thread.
Sid wrote:

Even if the question was begging an answer that was to counter your overstating the success of the insurgents, by no means it can be qualified as an assertion that no coallition casualties took place in the northern or southern provinces. At best you can claim that the question was suggesting that there were provinces with no coallition casualties, which seems to be true, since you offered casualties for a couple of provinces.

Thus being said, I think this whole unfortunate rant is caused by an overreaction to a different opinion. I urge again that debates should be driven by rational arguments, not by preconceived ideas and impulsive remarks.

Hi Dragos,

Fully accepted.

Cheers,

Sid.

Withdrawing the claim he made would still be desirable though.

I didnt overstate anything. Before Sid came with that question, I was only posting casualty lists, and reports of attacks. As stated in the first message of this thread, the goal was to monitor the guerilla actions in Irak. Which I did. If someone finds that one-sided, I invited them to participate in posting their own side of the coin, not arrogantly demand me to do the work for them.
It seems Victor did that, and I accepted a dialogue based on the link to his article about the children killed. Sid on the other hand, besides demanding all sorts of things of me, and speaking of polls and majorities without giving one authoritative link, has contributed nothing of value to this thread, except his own subjective views.

edit:

This post has been edited by Imperialist on July 15, 2005 02:03 pm

Hi Imperialist,

As of two minutes ago the link I gave to the Iraqi opinion poll I quoted was still exactly where I said it would be.

Go to Google and type in "Chrenkoff".

You might save a bit of time by adding "Iraq poll" to "Chrenkoff".

Cheers,

Sid.

Thats a blog. With an agenda, like my two blogs I linked were said to be.
I was talking about a link to something like washingtonpost, cbs, cnn, IHT, something "authoritative", as you always say.

Imperialist, your analysis would have been more sober and less prone to subjectivity issues if your reports would not have been supplemented with tendentious comments like:

"Its total chaos out there"

"Is it only a question of time until the shiites join the insurgency in full force?"

"After Fallujah they said they "broke the back" of the insurgency..."

"And this month looks to be one of the bloodiest, if things continue like this for the Americans in the Anbar province"

The bloodiest since when? At least give some reference points. Maybe this document will assist you: http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/OIF-Total-by-month.pdf