Zarqawi dead?

[chromium05]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5059494.stm

Or another US government attempt to rally support for the november elections?

[Rich Cheney]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5059494.stm

Or another US government attempt to rally support for the november elections?


Please elaborate, what November elections?

[chromium05]

I was thinking of the US mid-terms.

General thinking is that the whole Iraq thing could cost Bush dearly, so in order to retain majority power in the houses, they need to appear to be gaining a foothold in Iraq.

Or am I missing something?

[enree erzweglle]

they need to appear to be gaining a foothold in Iraq.

Or am I missing something?That's the way it seemed to me. And the way the news broke, it seemed choreographed, designed to make us cheer. Which is exactly what about 90% of the people in my gym did when the story broke. It made me sad, the story and the reactions to it. The whole thing, really.

[DroppinScience]

As successful as this may be, don't we all remember when another top bad dude was captured (Saddam Hussein) and we all expected the violence to cease (or at the very least, decrease). Except it only INCREASED.

So it's a small victory until some more car bombings emerge...

[enree erzweglle]

I dropped the bomb that killed Zarqawi. He wasn't happy.That must mean that you get the $25mil reward. Spend wisely.

[enree erzweglle]

When you work for the Government, all those 'rewards' become null and void. Just doing my job, ma'am.Ah, we need more fearless bombardiers like you, people who'll do it on the cheap. More killing! More free killing! By tomorrow, I'll be in withdrawal.

Was al-Zarqawi in the original deck of most-wanted cards I wonder.

[HAL 9000]

Tony Blair the prime minister of a country that abhors the death penalty is on TV crowing about how wonderful it is that we have managed to blow up this man.

If they knew where he was, would it have been so difficult to arrest him?

Now we have others killed in the bomb blast including a child - yes indeed Mr. Blair this is "Very good news", you should be very proud of what has been achieved.

If there is a reduction in killing then that is a good result. But dealing with this man in this way shows that the west is no different to the insurgents - both view the enemy as evil monstors whose lives are of no value. This state of affairs can lead nowhere good.

[enree erzweglle]

^^^That's so well put.

If there is a reduction in killing then that is a good result. But dealing with this man in this way shows that the west is no different to the insurgents - both view the enemy as evil monstors whose lives are of no value. This state of affairs can lead nowhere good.It's a message that'll just fuel insurgency further, make it run hotter. Perhaps it's part of the bigger plan. The more we fear, the more we support efforts like this.

[catatonic]

This news sux.

[TimDoolan]

That's the way it seemed to me. And the way the news broke, it seemed choreographed, designed to make us cheer. Which is exactly what about 90% of the people in my gym did when the story broke. It made me sad, the story and the reactions to it. The whole thing, really.


Terrorist fucks getting what they deserve gives me a boner, I don't know about you.

[SobaViolence]

no one, ever, should rejoice at the death of another human being.

[kaiser soze]

Where's Osama?

[SobaViolence]

Toledo, Michigan.

[SobaViolence]

i am sad people rejoice in his death, i'm sad he saw the world the way he did and i'm sad that people all around the world work very hard to manage the world the way they do.

it's sad. that's all.

the enemy is never as dissimilar as you think. just in different, and in this case troubling, circumstances.

violence and hate only perpetuate more violence and hate. and it is not selective. it is all encompassing.

[QueenAdrock]

no one, ever, should rejoice at the death of another human being.

True. However, I sighed a breath of relief once I heard this. Until I realized it doesn't fucking matter because with terroists, once one is dead another will pop up. You can't fight a war on an ideology since there are thousands upon thousands who are willing to fight and die for it. With Zarqawi dead, whoever is next most-powerful in Al Qaeda will undoubtedly step up to bat.

I'm not sure whether or not it was choreographed for the mid-term elections, because they could have at least waited until early September. Political stuff like this will give them a boost in the polls, but it'll go back down soon after once they realize that one victory doesn't wash out two terms of fucking up the whole country.

[HAL 9000]

I'd kill them myself if I could, I'm not perfect, no-one is, why pretend?


This is a natural reaction to have - indeed it is the exact same feeling that is driving the terrorists/insurgents in the middle east - 'my enemy is evil, his life is worthless and he deserves to die'. But if the democracies of the west are incapable of rising above this, do we really expect the insurgents to?

We were trying to show the Iraqis a different and better way - one where there is democracy and order and where a human has rights. If you commit a crime then you will be given legal representation and a forum to plead your case - a fair hearing. These are the values our society is supposed to be built on. The way of the terrorist is to blow up a suspects house while they sit in it.

We seem to becoming the exact thing that we are fighting against.

[QueenAdrock]

We seem to becoming the exact thing that we are fighting against.

Except we're not middle-eastern.

Do you understand now?

Edit: And while I do agree with your main point, I still have faith that the US would try to capture him and bring him to trial before investing time and money into bombing campaigns. Maybe it's me being naive, but they captured Hussein and Moussaoui as opposed to bombing raids where they were believed to be, and then brought them to justice. I believe this was a last resort for the US.

[HAL 9000]

Except we're not middle-eastern.

Do you understand now?

Oh right, forget I said anything :D

edit after seeing your edit: Even if they had a choice between blowing him up and letting him go; I still think that this act sends out a terrible message that undermines our position in the region.

Maybe I am being over critical and they knew it was either blow the guy up or he will kill dozens more. But what really annoys me is the gloating and bandstanding of the leading political figures. That is what is sending the message that this is an acceptable way to deal with the enemy. If the act absolutely had to be done then so be it - but to celebrate it on TV after - thats a huge mistake IMO

[Ace42X]

whoever is next most-powerful in Al Qaeda will undoubtedly step up to bat.

I'm very skeptical if they are even ordered like this. Yes the US media tells the world "Zaqawi is Al Qaeda's #2" - but what does that mean? Terrorists are under no obligation to form themselves into a rigid military-esque hierachy. By their very nature, every individual can be totally autonomous, as can every cell and every division. A tree type stratified form of organisation is thus meaningless. Yes the US would like to tell us Lex Luther is now dead, but really what is Zaqawi other than a media figurehead? And, more literally *a figurehead in the western media*. Does anyone know what he has actually done apart from appear in a few videos, allegedly? It's not clear if Al Qaeda, as such, even existed before the US named it following the WTC attack, so to project upon it some sort of order seems a bit curious. Zaqawi may well jsut be the poster boy, and he might not even be THEIR poster-boy.

So yeah, the only thing I can see his death achieving is giving the media an excuse to start spinning "it's getting better" stories, which ironically might amount to the same thing as a successful mission.

[QueenAdrock]

What I mean by 'someone stepping up to bat' is not based on any sort of military hierarchical system they may have, but just common logic. I seriously don't see one person who may (or may not have) been in charge of a large terrorist organization dying and no one else taking over that position.

In Iraq, when we went in to "end terrorism" we ended up creating more terrorism in the long run. Zarqawi's death will give the rest of Al Qaeda a reason to keep fighting, and will fuel the fire. I believe more terrorism is likely to arise from this situation, opposite of what the US believes.

But like you said, we don't even know how important he was to Al Qaeda, we just see how important the west sees him. Either way, I'm sure his death will have little to no effect on terrorism, and most likely will have an adverse effect. All these people that are cheering about his death should be MORE worried about national security and the like. If you piss off others in the world, you better be well-equipped to deal with the backlash that's surely to arise.

[HAL 9000]

I'm very skeptical if they are even ordered like this. Yes the US media tells the world "Zaqawi is Al Qaeda's #2" - but what does that mean? Terrorists are under no obligation to form themselves into a rigid military-esque hierachy. By their very nature, every individual can be totally autonomous, as can every cell and every division. A tree type stratified form of organisation is thus meaningless. Yes the US would like to tell us Lex Luther is now dead, but really what is Zaqawi other than a media figurehead? And, more literally *a figurehead in the western media*. Does anyone know what he has actually done apart from appear in a few videos, allegedly? It's not clear if Al Qaeda, as such, even existed before the US named it following the WTC attack, so to project upon it some sort of order seems a bit curious. Zaqawi may well jsut be the poster boy, and he might not even be THEIR poster-boy.

So yeah, the only thing I can see his death achieving is giving the media an excuse to start spinning "it's getting better" stories, which ironically might amount to the same thing as a successful mission.


http://www.theonion.com/content/node/44900

One more struck off the list.

[kaiser soze]

killing terrorists doesn't end terrorism, they prefer to die anyways

when will people figure this out?

[fucktopgirl]

^haha indeed!

[QueenAdrock]

killing terrorists doesn't end terrorism, they prefer to die anyways

when will people figure this out?

Exactly. That's why I was so glad that Moussaoui got life in prison when frothing-at-the-mouth Republicans were calling for the death penalty. Death = 70 virgins, Prison = getting fucked up the ass by dirty Americans. Hmm, let's think about this one.

[enree erzweglle]

In a perfect world, with perfect humans, maybe. But then no-one should ever behead someone, or mastermind bomb attacks killing innocent civilians, etc etc.

When I heard the news today, for me, it was good news. I am glad he is dead, and I'd be glad when Bin Laden is dead. I'd kill them myself if I could, I'm not perfect, no-one is, why pretend?I don't know that anyone is pretending to be perfect. The retaliatory and violent nature of this could and does bother some people and I think they're just saying that there are maybe better ways to instill lessons of morality than to do to them what we are trying to stop them from doing to others.

I don't pretend that the problem is an easy one to solve. I don't know what the perfect solution is. I am saying that it pains me to hear of massacres, death, war particularly when it's done in the name of democracy and in situations where a lot of the very basic tennets of democracy fly in the face of the fundamental way of life in some societies. Democracy works for us, it works for a lot of Christian-based societies but that does not necessarily mean that it will be embraced or will succeed in a Muslim-based world, where separating religion and spirituality from government is nearly impossible.

[EN[i]GMA]

no one, ever, should rejoice at the death of another human being.

Bullshit.

Humans that do not value the lives of others are not valuable; they are less than valuable.

[Qdrop]

GMA']Bullshit.

Humans that do not value the lives of others are not valuable; they are less than valuable.

word.

anyone who still valued Zarqawi's life after all he's done is beyond "bleeding heart liberal", you're just a hyperemotional pile of sanctimony.

the man was a danger to the civilized world. he beheaded men on camera and passed the tapes to the media.
he had no value to the civilized world. he had no place here- in a prison or otherwise.

but please, please try and tell me that America isn't any better...and one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter...and on down that spiral....
sure...

[Pres Zount]

Enemies deserve to be purged.

[HAL 9000]

word.

anyone who still valued Zarqawi's life after all he's done is beyond "bleeding heart liberal", you're just a hyperemotional pile of sanctimony.

the man was a danger to the civilized world. he beheaded men on camera and passed the tapes to the media.
he had no value to the civilized world. he had no place here- in a prison or otherwise.

but please, please try and tell me that America isn't any better...and one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter...and on down that spiral....
sure...


I would have been happy to see Zarqawi arrested, tried and maybe even executed (Im not a fan of the concept but if it is the local law then so be it). That would have been acceptable.

I do not see this man as a freedom fighter, I suspect he was a terrorist and a murderer. The lowest of human beings. But when you say that this man has no place on this earth because of the acts he has committed, are you not using the exact same argument that terrorists use to justify their acts of murder? Will this bombing not make insurgents believe even more strongly that US forces are of no value and have no place on this earth?

And America is better because it does have a legal system, a democracy and a concept of human rights - that is why this particular act ( killing a man and then gloating on TV) is sending such a bad message.

It is not consistent with the behaviour of a civilised country which America is supposed to be and should be seen to be. What message does this send to the average Iraqi about what sort of regime is going to be exist in the future. It does not give one confidence that in years to come there will be an all singing all dancing uncorrupt, free and democratic government in place.

[Qdrop]

But when you say that this man has no place on this earth because of the acts he has committed, are you not using the exact same argument that terrorists use to justify their acts of murder?
no, because there is a fallacy at work there.
your statement would be accurate if both sides prescribed to the same set of morals, laws, and absolutes...
but they do not.

granted, i'm biased (and i know one could go through a litany of american military offenses to cry hypocrisy)...but America military agenda is not one of "spilling the blood of all infidels who do not bow to allah). while our tactics leave much to be desired in many eyes, and we've had our share of attrocities....our goal in situations in Iraq is not to turn them into christian American-lites and run thier gov't like a puppet (though some in our country certainly wouldn't mind it). our goals is to set up democratic, soveriegn nation that is not a threat to peace for the western world, and will provide valuable trade and markets (which is good for EVERYONE).

you simple cannot say the same for muslim terrorists/militants. tactics asside, thier goals are not humanitarian by any means. they are barbaric, uncivilized, and despotic.

compare the american legal system, it's system of ethics, liberty, and equality to the despotic rule of muslim militants/leaders.

perhaps it's a case of the ends justifying the means.
and i would think it very hard for anyone to think the "ends" of any muslim militant is more ethically sound than ours.

in order to buy what i am selling you here, one would have to believe in some kind of "universal morality" or "truth". an empistemological rational about civility and the "golden rule" or reciprocity, of freedom and liberty...based partly on natural law, and partly on human ideals derived from natural law.

and then you have to buy that America (for better of worse) is backed by that universal morality more so then Muslim militants.
so us killing them would be justifed.
them killing us would be morally repugnant.


And America is better because it does have a legal system, a democracy and a concept of human rights - that is why this particular act ( killing a man and then gloating on TV) is sending such a bad message.

It is not consistent with the behaviour of a civilised country which America is supposed to be and should be seen to be. What message does this send to the average Iraqi about what sort of regime is going to be exist in the future. It does not give one confidence that in years to come there will be an all singing all dancing uncorrupt, free and democratic government in place.
well the unfortunate reality is that it's really difficult to do things by the legal book during wartime....
this was much differant than finding Sadaam in a hole and putting him on trial.
Zarqawi was lead militant on the move....planning and killing all the way. your chances of grabbing him are not as easy as "well, we know were he is...let's go arrest him instead of bombing..."
nah, man....it ain't NYPD Blue out there.
people slip through the cracks to easy....and removing him from his position would be too vital a blow to miss out on....

while arresting him and putting him through trial may have sent a more civilized message....
we'll have to rely on "we are upholding univeral moral law...and you're not" to justify and defend our actions.

[Warrior]

YOU suck Qdrop!Dont try, Ace is better!

[Warrior]

Enemies deserve to be purged.

BUsh and company should be beheaded!

[EN[i]GMA]

I do not see this man as a freedom fighter, I suspect he was a terrorist and a murderer. The lowest of human beings. But when you say that this man has no place on this earth because of the acts he has committed, are you not using the exact same argument that terrorists use to justify their acts of murder?

No, because it is clear to any honest person that the US are generally morally superior than terrorists.

Now I know I'm going to get shit for saying this, and I know for a fact that you can point to cases where you the US has acted horrendously (Where any country has, actually), but the simple fact is, even if the US were maleficient in their invasion of Iraq (as I feel they were), they are still morally superior to terrorists who actively, with intent, kill civilians, behead journalists, and destroy churches.

There can be no moral equivilency here. Any sympathy you might have been able to wring from me, for the 'freedom fighters' is lost as soon as they blow up a restaraunt packed with people.

Intent matters, and these people intend to kill innocents, and would gladly kill you if you happened to be in their way.


Will this bombing not make insurgents believe even more strongly that US forces are of no value and have no place on this earth?

I don't see how it could.

ANyone willing to behead another person or blow one's self up is probably already pretty fanatical.


And America is better because it does have a legal system, a democracy and a concept of human rights - that is why this particular act ( killing a man and then gloating on TV) is sending such a bad message.

In a war (ignoring the justice or injustice of that war), an invidual killing of a particularly heinous murderer is not something to get riled up over.


It is not consistent with the behaviour of a civilised country which America is supposed to be and should be seen to be. What message does this send to the average Iraqi about what sort of regime is going to be exist in the future.

I hope it gives the message that terroristic thugs will not be allowed to blow up restaraunts and busses for political or idealogical reasons.

It does not give one confidence that in years to come there will be an all singing all dancing uncorrupt, free and democratic government in place.

Well, if you want my honest opinion, I don't think there will be one, so this is pretty immaterial.

[enree erzweglle]

GMA']Humans that do not value the lives of others are not valuable; they are less than valuable.Wow. Damn but that's harsh. So those devalued humans...what do you think of them and where does that place you. Seems circular to me. I should just leave the thread now.

[EN[i]GMA]

Wow. Damn but that's harsh. So those devalued humans...what do you think of them and where does that place you. Seems circular to me. I should just leave the thread now.

Hmm.

That is kind of circular, now that I think about.

[K-nowledge]

well the unfortunate reality is that it's really difficult to do things by the legal book during wartime....
this was much differant than finding Sadaam in a hole and putting him on trial.
Zarqawi was lead militant on the move....planning and killing all the way. your chances of grabbing him are not as easy as "well, we know were he is...let's go arrest him instead of bombing..."
nah, man....it ain't NYPD Blue out there.
people slip through the cracks to easy....and removing him from his position would be too vital a blow to miss out on....

while arresting him and putting him through trial may have sent a more civilized message....
we'll have to rely on "we are upholding univeral moral law...and you're not" to justify and defend our actions.

Also, Zarqawi was known to be strapped with a bomb for a jacket and who else knows what his close followers might have had as well. It could have been a dangerous situation to simply go in and arrest him.

[STANKY808]

GMA']
I hope it gives the message that terroristic thugs will not be allowed to blow up restaraunts and busses for political or idealogical reasons.


Or airplanes? Such as this guy...

Less than four months later, on October 6, two bombs explode on Cubana Flight 455, which has just taken off from Barbados. The plane is carrying seventy-three people, including Cuba's teenage fencing team and eleven Guyanese citizens, most of them students on their way to Havana to attend medical school. All aboard perish when the plane crashes into the sea. A CIA source subsequently reports that sometime around the last week of September, another renowned anti-Castro exile in Caracas, Luis Posada Carriles, was overheard stating: "We are going to hit a Cuban airliner."

This past March, Posada sneaked into the United States using a false passport and requested political asylum. Despite repeated demands for his arrest and extradition to Venezuela, where the crime was planned, US authorities made no move until May 17. Homeland Security officials finally detained him after he gave an interview to the Miami Herald in which he discussed the relative ease with which he'd been able to move around Florida and then held a press conference.

Terrorist or freedom fighter?

And as far as the current situation - I believe what some people are upset about is the exuberance with which Zarqwi's death has been met with. I've seen his dead face more than I ever wanted to but I can't avoid it. And to be perfectly clear, I have no problem with him being killed - just the downright giddiness of the reporting of it.

And as an aside - I seem to recall in the past the US military claiming the airing of footage of their dead soldiers by Al Jazera etc as being contrary to the Geneva Convetions. Yet the picture of this guy's corpse is everywhere.

[ericlee]

Also, Zarqawi was known to be strapped with a bomb for a jacket and who else knows what his close followers might have had as well. It could have been a dangerous situation to simply go in and arrest him.

that's what I was thinking as well and those bombs can cause just as much of an impact as an air strike.

[HAL 9000]

I absolutely agree that

our goal is to set up democratic, soveriegn nation that is not a threat to peace for the western world, and will provide valuable trade and markets (which is good for EVERYONE).




I can also agree that in terms of morality their exists a Golden Rule or some level of ethics which is ‘optimal’ for the human race and that western societies are probably closer to it that most middle eastern societies, particularly when we are talking about Iraq.

The point that you and Enigma seem to be making is that this ethical superiority, makes it different when we kill someone compared to when 'they' do.

and it is different in terms of the intended outcome of the killing.

The trouble I have is that the act in question seems to violate that western ethical code. Particularly when we see the Iraqi prime minister and reporters cheering the announcement- as far as I know a child was killed in this attack so this is hardly an event to celebrate.

This does not seem like the act of a civilised authority, even if we assume that it would have been difficult to arrest him (and when the police turned up Zarqawi was still alive so it must have been pretty soon after), I think the message it sends out about human rights and law and order are all wrong.

I can see your points (Enigma and QDrop) but I dont think this will send the right messages to thhe Iraqi people about the ethics we wish to introduce.

[ericlee]

christ's sakes. I think post #36 should be edited or deleted. I thought there was a sticky forbidding that kind of nonsense.:rolleyes:

[Ace42X]

GMA']No, because it is clear to any honest person that the US are generally morally superior than terrorists.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHA

HA HA HA HA

HAHAHHAHAHAHA

Oh jesus, man, AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Ho

Chuckle.

[Qdrop]

yeah yeah yeah....
the dirty capitalist americans are worse than the terrorists....

[Ace42X]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5064590.stm

The Zaqawi files.

[Qdrop]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5064590.stm

The Zaqawi files.

??
point?

[EN[i]GMA]

HAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHA

HA HA HA HA

HAHAHHAHAHAHA

Oh jesus, man, AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Ho

Chuckle.

So you believe the terrorists are morally superior to American/British soldiers?

Or perhaps you think them morally equal; their crimes match up equally in terms of disgustingness?

Is there some 3rd option I'm unaware of?

I know everything 'American' is antithetical to your sentiment, but I don't know how you can support the assertion that terrorists are equal to or better than the average US or UK soldier.

[Ace42X]

GMA']Or perhaps you think them morally equal; their crimes match up equally in terms of disgustingness?

Precisely. Now if you are talking about *scale* then the US are worse. If you are talking about the apathy of the people who share corporate responsibility for it, ditto.

I know everything 'American' is antithetical to your sentiment,

In that "American" is synonymous with injustice and corruption, yes.

but I don't know how you can support the assertion that terrorists are equal to or better than the average US or UK soldier.

Quite easily.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The invasion of Iraq was called "Shock and Awe" because it was designed to cow people into submission. The war was illegal, ergo, it is terrorism. To define the US's actions as anything but terrorist is a nonsense.

QED.

That's the quick and easy version, there are more examples than I have desire to recount that illustrate this point quite clearly. Every criticism you can level at the "terrorists" can be levelled at the US on a much greater scale.

[Bob]

for me, the disappointment isn't in the act of killing the guy, if you look at it pragmatically, it's probably the most attractive option. as has been noted, attempting to capture him alive, on the ground, could have gone disastrously (could have being the key phrase, there's no way to know what WOULD have happened). no, it's not exactly the most civilized thing in the world to do, but it happened, there you go. for me, it's just the response to the news that's bothersome. everyone's cheering and grinning and beaming and patting themselves on the back, "yay, we blew him up, hooray, we rule, woo", i don't know, it's just not very comforting conduct to see in your democratic officials, you know? i'm not suggesting that they should be mourning or anything, i would just like to see, i don't know, more reserved optimism. a "i wish it could have gone better" kind of thing. even though that might not have been possible.

BASICALLY what i'm saying is i don't like to see such open bloodlust in my leaders. they could at LEAST try to pretend like they don't have it, like they usually do.

[Ace42X]

BASICALLY what i'm saying is i don't like to see such open bloodlust in my leaders. they could at LEAST try to pretend like they don't have it, like they usually do.

I think that is a testament to just how hollow a victory it is.

[D_Raay]

GMA']So you believe the terrorists are morally superior to American/British soldiers?

Or perhaps you think them morally equal; their crimes match up equally in terms of disgustingness?

Is there some 3rd option I'm unaware of?

I know everything 'American' is antithetical to your sentiment, but I don't know how you can support the assertion that terrorists are equal to or better than the average US or UK soldier.
So you think the soldiers who gunned down the old women and children in Haditha are somehow morally superior?

[EN[i]GMA]

So you think the soldiers who gunned down the old women and children in Haditha are somehow morally superior?

No.

But I would say the percentage of American soldiers who kill innocent civilians is much less than the percentage of terrorists who do.

I would say that most American soldiers have no interest in indiscriminately killing civilians, whereas most terrorists would support it.

[Ace42X]

GMA']
But I would say the percentage of American soldiers who kill innocent civilians is much less than the percentage of terrorists who do.

Considering that almost every one of the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq brought about through the invasion of Iraq is techically the death of an "innocent civillian" (IE someone the US army is not entitled to murder), you might want to re-think that.

But really, the "few bad apples" argument? Pshaw, you could apply that to 'terrorists' just as easily.

I would say that most American soldiers have no interest in indiscriminately killing civilians,

Hahahahahahahaha. Of course they don't. But, of couse, identical to terrorists, they do not consider the "non-combatants" they murder to be "innocent civillians."

Just as the terrorists consider the people they kill to be viable targets, so does the soldier who shoots at the 14 year old with an AK trying to protect his granny, or the naval officer who fires off the missile that kills families.

"no interest in indescriminate killing" ? So when they cheer and chirrup and exclaim "Say hello to Allah for me!" after nailing fleeing non-coms on the highway of death, that's just hi-jinks.

Your double-standards disgust me.

[SobaViolence]

GMA']Bullshit.

Humans that do not value the lives of others are not valuable; they are less than valuable.

well, that's your jihad. if you don't find peace, you're just gonna live this hell over again.

if you replace Allah with Democracy, suicide bombers with tanks/air strikes, terrorists with soldiers, end of occupation/imperialism with liberty, islamic fundamentalism with patriotism, America with Al Qaida...you'll find you are what you hate.


push someone and eventually they push back. you have no right to ask the poor and exploited to ask for forgiveness.

[Qdrop]

jesus...only on the BBMB political board will a post about Zarqawi being killed turn into an american-bashing, "the terrorists aren't as bad as you!" thread.

fuckin gross.
i've been on this board for over 2 years now...and nothing ever fuckin changes.

[Qdrop]

Your double-standards disgust me.

explain the goal of muslim terrorists.

explain the goal of the US military.

(both will be brutally opinionated and loaded with stategic/defensive remarks....but we'll start there).

[D_Raay]

jesus...only on the BBMB political board will a post about Zarqawi being killed turn into an american-bashing, "the terrorists aren't as bad as you!" thread.

fuckin gross.
i've been on this board for over 2 years now...and nothing ever fuckin changes.
That isn't the point Q. Death is death no matter which way it is spun. Murder is murder. Would you be so discriminate if we were talking about convict A who only killed 3 people versus convict B who killed 20?

The point is that this whole mess is wrong, and equally wrong on both sides. The argument that people who point this out are somehow "america-bashing" is ludicrous. We have not the standing nor the moral conscience to place ourselves as a country in the position you and E are suggesting and it is dangerous to do so.

Has our "bring it on" president somehow permeated into your collective subconscious and replaced cognitive logical thought with pliable fantasies of greatness as a nation?

Zarqawi is dead, yes, but I won't rejoice in it or gloat over it. I wouldn't gloat over any death, for there will always be someone there to pick up the weapon he dropped.

[Schmeltz]

D_Raay is right. What do you want, man? Do you want us all to cluster around your thread nodding in agreement and parroting the same obvious line over and over? "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a bad person." I think we can all agree on that. But to expect everybody to champion this assassination as some kind of landmark achievement by the free world is utterly ridiculous.

Many have touched on this before, and I think I may as well reiterate the point: the War on Terror is not a clash between black and white; like any other human conflict it turns on controversy and interpretation. In point of fact, I can't think of much moral difference between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who sends suicide bombers to detonate their bodies in crowded marketplaces, and Dick Cheney, who sends American fighter pilots to drop phosphorus bombs on crowded marketplaces. I seriously doubt the completely innocent people on the receiving end of horribly violent force consider the moral equivalence between the potential origins of the destruction of their lives. The coalition forces claim to be on the side of democracy and human rights, but the actions they perform are a positive insult to those very principles. I refuse to assign any kind of moral superiority to one side simply on the basis of a hollow and totally insubstantial claim to their alleged defense of the principles they flout so readily.

This is a conflict, not between bad and good guys but between people blindly wedded to ignorant and destructive ideologies. It is a mutual failure on the part of the leaders of all the societies involved. To celebrate another bloody milestone on this spiral of depravity is ludicrous. Killing al-Zarqawi won't give the people of Iraq jobs, or potable water, or reliable electricity, just as shooting an RPG at an American convoy won't deliver Iraqi political independence or economic stability any sooner. This is a knife fight between blind opponents in the dark.

[Qdrop]

That isn't the point Q. Death is death no matter which way it is spun. Murder is murder. Would you be so discriminate if we were talking about convict A who only killed 3 people versus convict B who killed 20?
well, i don't agree with that.
i don't believe that every life is equal (and i've said this before). i believe your live's worth is what you make of it, to a degree (no, that doesn't mean i think infants lives are worthless)...the life you live and the goals you set are directly related to how much your life should be worth to the rest of society.

Zarqawi's goals are differant than the majority of the american military and those in control.
his ultimate goal (if he really has one) is not benevolant by virtually anyone's mark (cept a muslim extremist). he wants to kill all who are not muslim and who interfier with his jihad of sorts....his ideal goal would be for the earth to be under despotic muslim control...complete with all the trimmings.
the ultimate goal of the american military is to promote soveriegn democracies that are no military threat to the west and produce benifial market places.

The point is that this whole mess is wrong, and equally wrong on both sides. no, you are wrong....and it disgust me you are so blind.
you needn't be a war mongering neo-con hawk to realize our goals sit on an higher plane then Zarqawi's...or to realize that the actions of a small platoon of marines deciding to murder a family when they fuckin snap....is not equal to actions of someone like Zarqawi who's SOLE M.O. is to do just that as much as possible.

The argument that people who point this out are somehow "america-bashing" is ludicrous. We have not the standing nor the moral conscience to place ourselves as a country in the position you and E are suggesting and it is dangerous to do so. when you claim America's actions are no better than someone the likes of Zarqawi....dude, i just wonder what the fuck your parents and community taught you. and i cringe that you are teaching your children the same thing.

[Qdrop]

D_Raay is right. What do you want, man? Do you want us all to cluster around your thread nodding in agreement and parroting the same obvious line over and over? it's not my thread. and i certainly made no plea for everyone to rally round the flag....

"Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a bad person." I think we can all agree on that. But to expect everybody to champion this assassination as some kind of landmark achievement by the free world is utterly ridiculous. certainly not what i'm asking. i just ask that we not be so blind that we put the american militarys actions and goals on the same plane as someone like Zarqawi.

Many have touched on this before, and I think I may as well reiterate the point: the War on Terror is not a clash between black and white; like any other human conflict it turns on controversy and interpretation. In point of fact, I can't think of much moral difference between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who sends suicide bombers to detonate their bodies in crowded marketplaces, and Dick Cheney, who sends American fighter pilots to drop phosphorus bombs on crowded marketplaces.
yes you can. yes you fuckin can.
you are among the smartest of posters on this board, why are you pretending there is no differance?
while both of those actions are sickening,
again, i go back to the ultimate goal of each side. they are not equal.
and one of those actions are considered the ideal....and the other is a tragic necessity (collateral damage) to stop the other.
Zarqawi cheers when he kills innocents.
don't pretend we do.

I seriously doubt the completely innocent people on the receiving end of horribly violent force consider the moral equivalence between the potential origins of the destruction of their lives. yeah, well no one wants to die, schmeltz.

The coalition forces claim to be on the side of democracy and human rights, but the actions they perform are a positive insult to those very principles. at times...and in certain instances...yes. a few rotten apples do not spoil the bushel.

I refuse to assign any kind of moral superiority to one side simply on the basis of a hollow and totally insubstantial claim to their alleged defense of the principles they flout so readily. sucks for you.
i'm not afraid to draw a line in the sand.
unlike you and D, i don't think staying neutral and feigning superior moral objectivity makes me better person.

[Funkaloyd]

Why do you think the US went into Iraq, Q?
the life you live and the goals you set are directly related to how much your life should be worth to the rest of society.What are Pat Robertson's goals? Can I cheer when he croaks?

[EN[i]GMA]

It's not that I think US actions are particularly virtous; I disagred with the invasion and though, and still think, that it was reckless and unecessary.

But terrorists who murder, bomb, and behead innocent civilians, as a strategy, as a goal, something they set to do, are the worst possible humans imaginable.

If these were 'freedom fighters' solely fighting off the 'US opressors' you might have a point, but they aren't, so you don't.

Has the US killed civilians? Yes.

Has it killed more civilians than the terrorists? I don't honestly know.

But why has it killed more civilians, if indeed it has? Because of the terrorists.

If people weren't bombing busses and restaraunts, we wouldn't be hunting people down and bombing them.

The US IS on higher moral ground than the terrorists, the US forces DO want a better future for Iraq and the terrorists.

I don't know why I have to explain this out; it should be obvious.

There is a brand of Islam, prevelent in Iraq, now, that would would wish to see you and everything you love and stand for eradicated, and you're going to sit here and tell me these people are at all deserving of consideration?

Cheney might be evil, Bush might be evil, Rumsfeld might be evil, but good lord, they're not that evil.

They wouldn't behead anyone on tape, for propaganda.

That's what we're dealing with here.

And any point you have about comparable US warcrimes is lost when you fail to acknowledge that, for all our many failings, we are better.

It's not black and white, it's dark gray and absolute, utter blackness.

The average terrorist would have no qualms about entering a cafe where you were seated, and blowing himself up.

Almost no American soldier would do that.

The intent is entirely different, and in any moral question, intent matters.

[Funkaloyd]

GMA']They wouldn't behead anyone on tape, for propaganda.Decapitating people is worse than launching a war of aggression? That seems to me to be an argument based on emotion.

[EN[i]GMA]

Decapitating people is worse than launching a war of aggression? That seems to me to be an argument based on emotion.

I don't like the fact that we're in this way any more than you do.

And yes, I see your point; this fighting is our fault for going in there, I acknowledge that.

But that's all behind us, there's nothing we can do about it now.

[Qdrop]

Why do you think the US went into Iraq, Q?
to end a non-democratic, free market threat, and replace it with a non-threatening free market ally.

that was the goal...
the methods used (lies, fabrications) were disgusting...
the planning for post war recovery was non-existant.

the bush administration cemented itself as one of the worst in american history.

What are Pat Robertson's goals? Can I cheer when he croaks?
approx. the same as Zarqawi, but with a tad less violence.

i'll cheer when he's dead.

[Qdrop]

GMA']

But terrorists who murder, bomb, and behead innocent civilians, as a strategy, as a goal, something they set to do, are the worst possible humans imaginable.

If these were 'freedom fighters' solely fighting off the 'US opressors' you might have a point, but they aren't, so you don't.

Has the US killed civilians? Yes.

Has it killed more civilians than the terrorists? I don't honestly know.

But why has it killed more civilians, if indeed it has? Because of the terrorists.

If people weren't bombing busses and restaraunts, we wouldn't be hunting people down and bombing them.

The US IS on higher moral ground than the terrorists, the US forces DO want a better future for Iraq and the terrorists.

word.

I don't know why I have to explain this out; it should be obvious.
and it is.
some people on this board have personal vendetta's and agendas as emotionally big as any neocon in the bush cabal.

[D_Raay]

word.


and it is.
some people on this board have personal vendetta's and agendas as emotionally big as any neocon in the bush cabal.
And what exactly would that agenda would be?

You like to cross lines and call people out because it annoys you that you may actually be wrong about something. I would like to know what possible "agenda" me or schmeltz or Ace exactly have?

[Qdrop]

And what exactly would that agenda would be?

You like to cross lines and call people out because it annoys you that you may actually be wrong about something. I would like to know what possible "agenda" me or schmeltz or Ace exactly have?

with Ace, it's obvious....he hates all things american. period.
he thinks america is the devil.
if americans cured cancer tomorrow...Ace would theorize it to be an American capitalist ploy to imperialize the world while fileting small middle eastern children.

you, D, just love all things Liberal...and hate all things republican.
you remind me of my conspiracy-theory friends who believe in countless crazy tin-hat theories...not because they make any sense, but because it's just fun to believe....it gives them a sense of purpose, and of wonder.
you are much like that with your love for all-things-liberal.
you are infatuated with all this leftist, green, and remotely progressive....and while some of it is truly just common sense..that's really not why you support it. it just gives you a sense of worth and well-being....it gives you a "mission". the rational behind it, the likely hood of it's success are inconsequential to you.
and just like conspiracy-theorists...you will never yield, never question yourself or truly be objective about your beliefs...no matter how many times you are hammered down.
it's your religion.
you are the "guy at the concert" who knows the band ok, knows some of the songs, knows nothing about music....but just loves THE CROWD and the sense of purpose you feel being surrounded by like minded people. you're on a righteous mission....

schmeltz, hell....he confuses me. he's very intelligent....and more educated than many on here...and more level headed than many. but i think he still falls victim to the "liberal lemming rush"...and kinda follows and rationalizes liberal ideals just to give himself a sense of being enlightened.
i still value his thoughts on matters like this far more than you or Ace....

[Ace42X]

GMA']But terrorists who murder,

Calipari? Haditha?

bomb,

Shock and Awe?

behead

Fallujah?

innocent civilians,

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?

as a strategy,

Shock and Awe?

as a goal,

Highway of death?

something they set to do,

Snipers killing Ambulance drivers?

are the worst possible humans imaginable.

As long as they aren't "our guys" of course.

If these were 'freedom fighters' solely fighting off the 'US opressors' you might have a point, but they aren't, so you don't.

They aren't according to whom? The French resistance regularly hung collaborator, who were technically "innocent civillians." You going to tell us the French Resistance were barbaric terrorists? 'Cause the Nazis would certainly agree with you on that one.

But why has it killed more civilians, if indeed it has? Because of the terrorists.

The terrorsts who exist because the US invaded...

If people weren't bombing busses and restaraunts, we wouldn't be hunting people down and bombing them.

And if the US army weren't a bunch of gung-ho loons, they'd not be retaliating by bombing people in the first place. Nice try to shift the blame, but totally pointless.

The US IS on higher moral ground than the terrorists,

Yes, if you discount all objectivity and ignore the facts.

I don't know why I have to explain this out; it should be obvious.

The reason it isn't "obvious" is because your argument is solely based on nationalistic ideology. Anyone being objective sees quite a different story.

There is a brand of Islam, prevelent in Iraq, now, that would would wish to see you and everything you love and stand for eradicated, and you're going to sit here and tell me these people are at all deserving of consideration?

Considering the religious right in the US is exactly the same, I guess so. EXACTLY the same. Or are you going to invade the mid-west and start using incendiary weapons on "potential KKK suspects" ?

Cheney might be evil, Bush might be evil, Rumsfeld might be evil, but good lord, they're not that evil.

According to you. And so far the best you can offer is "because they're on our side." Stunningly naive.

They wouldn't behead anyone on tape, for propaganda.

They'd bomb them, though. Twice. And show us the footage.


And any point you have about comparable US warcrimes is lost when you fail to acknowledge that, for all our many failings, we are better.

That is possibly the most ridiculous thing you've said, and given the line-towing bullcrap you come out with on a regular basis, that is saying something.

"Better" ? Well, yes, if you mean "total number of people murdered" then the US is much better. If you consider it in terms of "treaties broken" - yep again. If you mean in terms of "weapons of mass destruction used" yes, again the US is "better" (IE has commited more atrocities). If you take it to mean "using proscribed weapons" yes.

It's not black and white, it's dark gray and absolute, utter blackness.

It's pointless rhetoric you are using to cover up the fact that your sole argument is based on prejudice and "we have to be better, we're the good guys. And when we do worse then them, it's either a few bad apples or necessary, or an innocent mistake, or one of a number of justifications for the unjustifiable."

The average terrorist would have no qualms about entering a cafe where you were seated, and blowing himself up.

And the average US soldier has no qualms about breaking into a channel 4 reporter's house and beating him up for no apparent reason, seriously traumatising his child for life. Or bombing civillian TV stations. Or killing reuters reporters. Or bombing John Simpson of the BBC, etc etc etc.

Almost no American soldier would do that.

But they would use incendiary weapons indescriminately on civillians.

The intent is entirely different, and in any moral question, intent matters.

A great pronouncement. But total first rate bollocks.

Seriously, you have out-done yourself in vomit-inducing hypocrisy.

[EN[i]GMA]

Calipari? Haditha?

Add all of those up together and you have, rougly, one decent sized restaraunt bombing.

I don't think we need to go into body counts.


Shock and Awe?

The intent of 'Shock and Awe' was 'kill as many civilians as possible'?


Fallujah?

What of it?


Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?

I suppose your talking about the Lancet study?

This one: http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/ ?


Highway of death?

While I disagree with it, they were killing soldiers who had recently invaded another nation.

No similarity.


Snipers killing Ambulance drivers?

Is this official US policy, 'off ambulance drivers'?

Does Bush go on tape supporting this?

Do you think 'killing alumbance drivers' is really part of the US strategy?


As long as they aren't "our guys" of course.

Did I say that?


They aren't according to whom? The French resistance regularly hung collaborator, who were technically "innocent civillians." You going to tell us the French Resistance were barbaric terrorists? 'Cause the Nazis would certainly agree with you on that one.

Comparing average Iraqis to Nazi collaborators...

You are a paragon of debate ethics.


The terrorsts who exist because the US invaded...

All of them?

You think the US invasion just sparked them to think "You know what, I'm going to go off some kids today"?


And if the US army weren't a bunch of gung-ho loons, they'd not be retaliating by bombing people in the first place. Nice try to shift the blame, but totally pointless.

How are you supposed to stop them unless you kill them?


Yes, if you discount all objectivity and ignore the facts.

...


The reason it isn't "obvious" is because your argument is solely based on nationalistic ideology. Anyone being objective sees quite a different story.

Sees that the average US soldier is no different, morally, than the average Islamic extremist terrorist?

Perhaps I'm 'too far gone', but I don't see it.


Considering the religious right in the US is exactly the same, I guess so.

'Exactly the same?'

The religious right has killed what, a half dozen abortion doctors in the last 20 years?

The terrorists kill about that many on a slow day.


EXACTLY the same.

All capital letters huh?

Bold it next time, and you'll really have an argument.

Or are you going to invade the mid-west and start using incendiary weapons on "potential KKK suspects" ?

Ah, now a moral equivilency between terrorists, people who have sadistically beheaded journalists and truck drivers, with 'christian fundamentalists'.


According to you. And so far the best you can offer is "because they're on our side." Stunningly naive.

I said that?

Or have you, again, ascribed something to me which I do not believe?

I don't think they are better because 'they are on our side', I think they are better because they are not actively calling for the deaths of civilians, not strapping themselves to explosives and blowing themselves up around women and children, not capturing, torturing, beheading journalists.

That's why I think they are 'better'. Not 'good' but certainly 'better'.


They'd bomb them, though. Twice. And show us the footage.

And you can't find the difference here? You really can't?


That is possibly the most ridiculous thing you've said, and given the line-towing bullcrap you come out with on a regular basis, that is saying something.

"Better" ? Well, yes, if you mean "total number of people murdered" then the US is much better.

What's the hard evidence on the body counts for both sides?

I truly don't know.

If you consider it in terms of "treaties broken" - yep again.

Which treaties?

How many of these treaties did Iraq sign and adhere to?

When the US breaks the Geneva covention, or defies the UN, you assualt it; how many times did Iraq commit war crimes?

This is absolutely fucking asinine, that you're going to sit and lecture me, pontificate about US war crimes, and ignore Iraq's.

Who's the hypocrite here?


If you mean in terms of "weapons of mass destruction used" yes, again the US is "better" (IE has commited more atrocities).

Has it?



It's pointless rhetoric you are using to cover up the fact that your sole argument is based on prejudice and "we have to be better, we're the good guys. And when we do worse then them, it's either a few bad apples or necessary, or an innocent mistake, or one of a number of justifications for the unjustifiable."

Is it US to policy to go out our way to kill innocents? Is it the policy of the terrorists?

What do you think would happen if the terrorists had the technology, the firepower, we have?

What do they do when they get explosives?

They strap themselves up and walk into a restaruant, with the sole intent of killing as many innocents as possible.

Don't you even try to claim you hold some moral highground when you equate an average soldier with that.


And the average US soldier has no qualms about breaking into a channel 4 reporter's house and beating him up for no apparent reason, seriously traumatising his child for life.

Oh, so you're saying US soldiers just do this all time, walk into houses and beat people up?

Or bombing civillian TV stations. Or killing reuters reporters. Or bombing John Simpson of the BBC, etc etc etc.

Was any of that intentional?

Do soldiers and tacticians go out of their way to kill reporters or bomb John Simpson?


But they would use incendiary weapons indescriminately on civillians.

They used them on civilians, with the sole intent to kill civilians?

Or did they use them for some other purpose?



A great pronouncement. But total first rate bollocks.

Seriously, you have out-done yourself in vomit-inducing hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy?

When have I not denounced US war crimes?

Numerous times in that post I said that the US was doing, and had done terrible things, including the start the war in first place.

How then can I be guilty of hypocrisy?

I'm saying that the terrorists, the people who would see you dead for not believing as they do, are worse human beings than most soldiers.

That soliders don't join the army with the sole intent of killing themselves and many innocent civilians, that soldiers don't capture and behead people and post it on the internet.

Believe it or not, the US is trying to set up a stable government (a democracy!), trying to set up a police force, get schools built, get water running, etc.

Those aren't things 'terrorists' would do, are they? Of course they aren't, because terrorists are blowing up power stations, water treatment facilities, etc.

The US is getting water running in places where it hadn't run for years under Saddam; that's laudable.

If you add up all the good the US is doing, with the evil, and compare it with the good and the evil the terrorists are doing, you can only come to one sensible solution (unless of course you are the biased, hypocritical one).

[EN[i]GMA]

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Shall we parse the list, Ace?

See how many people the terrorists killed vs. how many soldiers have killed?

It's all very well tracked, you know.

Just do the first page, for starters, compare the deaths caused by soldiers and the deaths caused by terrorists.

You mention John Simpson; why didn't you mention Paul Douglas?

I

[SobaViolence]

i must be losing my edge. or people have me on ignore. or my points aren't very arguementative, or argue-worthy.

i don't even register on Qs radar anymore, and he has a strong dislike of me...


*considers resignation*

ps.Terrorists see the US the exact same way you see them. except they are poor and you came to piss in their bedroom.

[fucktopgirl]

I do believe that the US governement is far worst then the terrorists at some extent.And a lot of informations regarding this war are falsified to cover up and justified the uglinest of this invasion in the middle east!

So i just drop in to say that and let you man of high intellect debate the issue in deepness. BUt i am on the side of D_Raay,Schmetlz and Ace, it make more sense.

[Qdrop]

my points aren't very [...] argue-worthy.

i don't even register on Qs radar anymore, and he has a strong dislike of me...


*consider[..] resignation*



*sniff

[SobaViolence]

see, if you just ignore your enemies, they'll give up.

[K-nowledge]

see, if you just ignore your enemies, they'll give up.
That has got to be the biggest crock I've read in this thread.


Bin Laden was ignored, and look what happened.

[ericlee]

That has got to be the biggest crock I've read in this thread.


Bin Laden was ignored, and look what happened.

I think he was referring to Q.

[SobaViolence]

That has got to be the biggest crock I've read in this thread.


Bin Laden was ignored, and look what happened.

did the US ignore Iraq? either times? Afghanistan?

[admsitio]

did the US ignore Iraq? either times? Afghanistan?

I don't know actually if Zarqawi is already death.. lies are ... so real...
On this site there is some information about this issue:

http://hatingbush.blogspot.com

[Ace42X]

GMA']
I don't think we need to go into body counts.

Because you don't know anything about the body counts at all. We could do, but the statistics are meaningless and slanted. Highway of death, 20,000 non-coms killed by the US in one afternoon. How many "road side bombings" is that?

The intent of 'Shock and Awe' was 'kill as many civilians as possible'?

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

It was "terrorism." And killed a lot more people than the net total of beheadings. And a lot more brutally. It was "killing people" as "a strategy."

[Fallujah]What of it?

The mass slaughter of innocent civillians in incredibly brutal ways, including the use of proscribed weaponry, and the intimidation of the citizenry, including the execution of fleeing civillians.

I suppose your talking about the Lancet study?

This one: http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/ ?

Yes, the Lancet study. The one made by a respected peer-reviewed journal. The one that is not at all refuted by you linking to propoganda found on a bullshit website. However, if you choose to select who you lend credence to based on how hard you want to believe their argument, then top marks go to "the slate."

What it boils down to is "I don't believe they could've done a very good job, because there is a war on. So despite the methodology being sound, and used all the time for all manner of studies which we generally accept, we don't think this one counts."

Well excuse me if I am not convinced by "The Slate." Speaking as someone who is "accustomed to perusing statistical documents".

While I disagree with it, they were killing soldiers who had recently invaded another nation.

No similarity.

They were indescriminately killing ANYONE on the highway, and the "soldiers" were technically and LEGALLY non-coms. They were in NO WAY legally entitled to do so. They were unarmed, and leaving the theatre of combat. The US were AGAIN using weapons considered illegal by every forward thinking nation, and proscribed under the Geneva conventions.

What you mean is "you refuse to acknowledge the similarity because you are prejudiced, and because it hurts your "US the golden boy" image."

Is this official US policy, 'off ambulance drivers'?
Does Bush go on tape supporting this?
Do you think 'killing alumbance drivers' is really part of the US strategy?

What the fuck is the matter with you? "Because Bush didn't go on tape, it's ok. It doesn't count. It's like it never happened." ?!? Bombing media outlets was clearly part of "US strategy" considering that ON THE SAME DAY precision strikes took out several specific media outlets. But Bush hasn't gone on tape saying it. Guess that doesn't count either, right?

Did I say that?

No, but that is the sole crux of your argument. "When our guys do it, it doesn't count. Because Bush doesn't go on tape, and we blow up people, not behead them. And when we use incendiary weapons that are proscribed, it doesn't count. And they were soldiers we killed, even though we sure as hell couldn't tell who we we blew to hell from several miles away."

When "terrorists" kill civillians, it's a horrible crime, when the US do it, terrible tragedy, but necessary collateral damage. Double standard.

Comparing average Iraqis to Nazi collaborators...

It is a direct historical parrallel, precisely. Right down to the instigation of a puppet government, and puppet police force. The only reason you are uncomfortable is the fact that you are stuck in a "it couldn't happen here" mentality. Doesn't matter HOW similar the behaviour is, the simple waving of the stars and stripes will have you saying "yes, but we CAN'T be that bad, no matter WHAT we do."

And what have been your arguments? "Oh, well I prefer THESE statistics. And Bush has said this, and didn't say that..." Great stuff.

All of them?
You think the US invasion just sparked them to think "You know what, I'm going to go off some kids today"?

Yeah, because terrorism was widespread in Iraq before the invasion. Jesus Christ you are insulting our intelligence now. The only terrorists in Iraq before the invasion were ones trained and funded by the CIA.

How are you supposed to stop them unless you kill them?

No doubt that is what the plane hi-jackers thought before September the 11th. Exactly the same mindset, exactly the same reasoning. "These bad people have to die, because they want to kill us and everything we stand for." Oh, but the difference is that the US is "right" for some ill-defined reason? I forgot.

Sees that the average US soldier is no different, morally, than the average Islamic extremist terrorist?

Perhaps I'm 'too far gone', but I don't see it.

Damn straight. Of course you can't see it. Because in your eyes the US army is a fine bastion of generally good people, YOUR people, who want nothing more than to protect the weak and stand up for truth justice and the American way. Well guess what, the terrorists don't think of themselves as the bearded villains in a victorian melodrama, complete with sinister music and going "Muahahahaha" as they hatch their fiendish plans (IE strategies.)

You're trying to tell us that the whole "insurgency" is made up solely of psychotic car-bombing extremists. Whereas the US army's transgressions are "just a few bad apples."

That's your prejudice, plain and simple, and it's as plain as the nose on your face.

'Exactly the same?'
The religious right has killed what, a half dozen abortion doctors in the last 20 years?

Perhaps you forgot what you said:

"There is a brand of Islam, prevelent in Iraq, now, that would would wish to see you and everything you love and stand for eradicated, and you're going to sit here and tell me these people are at all deserving of consideration?"

The religious right in the US would wish me "eradicated" as a hippy long-haired abortion-loving lefty. They do not want me watching the films I want to watch, having the sex I want to have, or having homosexual friends. Many of them "wish to see" homosexuals killed, and say as much frequently and loudly.

They hate my freedom, quite really, and quite literally. And they are working on it, in your government, as we speak.

Perhaps you should've rephrased that as "In Iraq, a warzone, there is a lot of killings." Not as exciting, but when you strip away the slanted rhetorical bullshit, that's about all you were saying.

The terrorists kill about that many on a slow day.

So really, the ideology is irrelevent then, and you just mentioned it as some bullshit talking point to try and divert the actual bones of the argument is that "they kill a lot of people." Unsurprising, given that the US has made the country a warzone. Ideology really doesn't come into it.

Ah, now a moral equivilency between terrorists, people who have sadistically beheaded journalists and truck drivers, with 'christian fundamentalists'.

No. The number of terrorists who have "sadistically beheaded journalists and truck drivers" are quite clearly a minority. How many beheadings have there been? Not necessarily even "On a slow day" ?

What you are doing is taking a minority, A La abortion doctor killers, and inflating that to be representative of a whole group. Once again "our loons are a few bad apples, whereas EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM IS A BLOODTHIRSTY BEHEADER!"

Seriously, you are full of shit. How dare you have the nerve to criticise my "debating tactics" when you are desperate to pull the same shit you accuse me of at every opportunity. Once again, you are a stinking hypocrit, and should be despised for it.

*You* are the one making that moral comparison, mine was quite quite different. But you are just desperate to salvage your burning ideology, so will twist it any way you can to avoid having to admit that your country is the bad guy.

I said that?

It is what your arguments all amount to. If that was not what you believe, then you should change your arguments to better reflect it.

I think they are better because they are not actively calling for the deaths of civilians,

They are just actively killing civillians. And what do you mean "Not calling for the deaths of civillians" - I have heard PLENTY of Yanks saying "Nuke the whole lot of them" and "We should flatten the whole country" etc etc etc. Plenty of them. Oh, but THEY DON'T COUNT, right?

not strapping themselves to explosives and blowing themselves up around women and children,

No, they press a button which fires off a missile which has exactly the same effect. Of course, if the US soldier tied themselves to the rockets, that would make them evil, but sitting safely miles and miles away, and watching it on a camera, that's perfectly civilised, right?

not capturing, torturing, beheading journalists.

Except for that C4 journalist who was arrested at his house, "interogated" which involved being man-handled and kept in stress positions, etc etc etc. Before being released without any explanation or apology. And those journalists who got blown up by the US army of course. But then, they weren't "beheaded" per se. Yes, in some cases the head left the body, but as the body was simultaneously detonated into thousands of pieces by the explosions, THAT'S ALRIGHT! Not like prisoners were habitually tortured in ABu Ghraib. Oh wait, the dozen or so soldiers who did that were a few bad apples. Whereas the dozen or so "terrorists" who behead journalists are indicative of every single arab with an AK! Fuck off and stop being such a prick.

That's why I think they are 'better'. Not 'good' but certainly 'better'.

Yes, you have convinced me. The US soldiers NOT sacrificing themselves to cause exactly the same results clearly makes them morally superior.

And you can't find the difference here? You really can't?

I can. You tell me they are bad and they deserve what you do to them. Whereas it is THEM who tell the west the exact inverse. And of course, you are "better" so thus you telling me that you are "better" must be more convincing...

What's the hard evidence on the body counts for both sides?
I truly don't know.

I know you don't. No-one does, least of all our governments. They have said as much. And yet it doesn't stop you arguing from the position that you do, and that they support your case.

Which treaties?

Plenty, including the UN charter and Geneva Conventions, and thus by extension the US Constitution.

How many of these treaties did Iraq sign and adhere to?

Irrelevant. You might as well say "criminals break the law, so the police and judiciary needn't be law-abiding when dealing with them." Surely you can see the logic error in this? Firstly, Iraq is in no position to adhere to anything, as its infrastructure was smashed by the US. You mean "how many have the terrorists signed and adhere to." By their nature, these disparate people cannot sign or uphold a treaty. However, they are still protected by the Geneva conventions, etc.

When the US breaks the Geneva covention, or defies the UN, you assualt it; how many times did Iraq commit war crimes?

Ah, I see, so your defence is now the "moral equivalency" that you so railed against? Well done on proving my point for me. Well done. Not only did you succeed in "arguing from ignorance" but you also made my point for me in the process. I bet you wish you hadn't bothered now, eh?

This is absolutely fucking asinine, that you're going to sit and lecture me, pontificate about US war crimes, and ignore Iraq's.

Who's the hypocrite here?

How is it hypocritical? I was saying the US is as bad in any moral way, and worse in terms of scale. Are you going to argue that "Iraq" has been using proscribed munitions and WMDs on the scale the US has? Because that is a nonsense. They simply do not have the resources to do so.

What you actually mean is not that I am being hypocritical, but that you are unhappy being reminded of all the indefensible (not that it has stopped you gallantly trying to, Goebbels) things your country has done, and which tarnish its image as "the good guys" and ruins your righteous indignation and moral-high-roading.

Yes, ever since the US destroyed Iraq and turned it into a disgusting hell-pool of anarchy, chaos, destruction and violence, the Iraq people, and a few Jihadis from over the border, have done a lot of high profile and well-reported violent acts. But to suggest that the US, which unlike sending tapes to the west, actively lies and covers up its crimes, is somehow "smalltime" by comparison is insane.

Has it?

Yes, conclusively. Shake 'n' Bake incendiary weapons, fuel-air-explosives, cluster-bombs, etc etc. Compared to what? Conventional explosive Car-bombs made out of fertiliser in a cellar?

Is it US to policy to go out our way to kill innocents?

Considering it had no business being in Iraq in the first-place, and as such all of them were technically innocent when the US invaded and started killing, yes, yes it blatantly is. If the invasion of Iraq isn't going out of your way to kill innocent people, I don't know what is.

Is it the policy of the terrorists?

Hard to say. You don't know what the policy of the terrorists are. You don't know WHO the terrorists are. You don't know who is doing what, you don't know how they are organised, you do not know what their individual motivations are. You don't know the first thing about the people you have labled, other than they are the enemy, and must therefore be bad.

It's pathetic to hear you talking such bollocks about something you don't know the first thing about. And more than a little disgusting when you tell us how these strangers you do not know or understand should all die.

What do you think would happen if the terrorists had the technology, the firepower, we have?

Maybe they'd attempt regime change, plunging a country into violent anarchy? Maybe they'd sit their navy off your coast, and fire missiles into your cities in an attempt to "shock" your people and cause them "awe" so that they don't put up too much of a fight as they start splitting up families and killing people indescriminately from afar?

Maybe they'd do everything your country does, in short. But this is a red herring. Are you going to invade Australia because "if they had the military force of the US, they might be tempted to invade"?


They strap themselves up and walk into a restaruant, with the sole intent of killing as many innocents as possible.

Yeah, that's Palestine. In Iraq they use car-bombs, outside specific targets. Police stations, mosques etc.

And what does the US do with its explosives? Oh yeah, level Fallujah, trying to kill as many innocents as possible. Of course, we were told that "no-one in Fallujah is innocent." (Literally, as it goes). And the terrorists will tell you that you don't get Shias in Sunni mosques, and vice versa.

Don't you even try to claim you hold some moral highground when you equate an average soldier with that.

Yeah, they just mow down Italian diplomats, shoot 15 villagers, bomb news channels, etc etc. So sophisticated and civilised.

Of course, using tactical weapons which allow you to blow up a house and its inhabitants is so morally superior to strapping a bomb to you to do precisely the same thing.

Oh, so you're saying US soldiers just do this all time, walk into houses and beat people up?

Yes, yes they do! Let me guess, them starting on BBC and C4 news reporters unprovoked was just COINCIDENCE? Someone accidentaly put their information in the "to rough up" pile instead of the "on our side pile" - easy enough mistake to make, right?

Was any of that intentional?

Of course it fucking was! They accidentally killed a lot of reporters all on the same day?!? What, the A-10 pilot's finger slipped? "Yah, I didn't think there would be anyone in that busy office building I bombed.." WTF are you on? "Yeah, despite us all knowing the reporters in that hotel room were there, due to us being clearly informed and it all documented, etc, we still accidentally shot at it" ?!?

"Well, yah see, we were aiming at the viable military targets right there. You see, we were being painted by a SAM hidden skilfully in the room directly behind those journalists in the hotel. And there was heavy machine gun fire coming from the basement of the Al Jazeera offices... So we had to take them out..."


They used them on civilians, with the sole intent to kill civilians?

Or did they use them for some other purpose?

How do you know what the purpose of the car-bombs was for? Well? Name one piece of evidence for one single bombing that says their targets were "innocent civillians" rather than rival gangs, terrorist cells, Iraqi Policemen, etc? How do you know that car-bomb outside the mosque wasn't a retaliation against a sectarian leader? Was the car-bomb outside the police station there "just to kill innocent civillians" ? Lot of scores to settle over there, and a lot of old scores.

No, you don't know a damned thing, you've just got it into your head that they are sociopathic blood-lusting animals whose only motivation is to cause death, and that is total unfounded ignorant bollocks of the highest order, being voiced by a loud-mouth moron whose arguments are solely based on prejudice and preconceptions.

"Us good, them bad." Writ big.


When have I not denounced US war crimes?

"The US's atrocities are bad, but irrespective of any objective or quantative judgement, or any specific event, or any sort of supporting evidence or rationale, theirs are worse" is hardly a fair and unbiased analusis.

How then can I be guilty of hypocrisy?

Quite easily. Your condemnation is not equivalent for actions which are equivalent. US soldiers in Haditha? "One off, few bad apples." Shooting civillians in Fallujah "not sanctioned frm above." Abu Ghraib? Ditto.

And yet, for no apparent reason, you equate every single car-bombing or explosion caused by "the terrorists" as some consolidated unified action by a faceless indistinguishable hoard.

Why? Prejudice, my friend. Now, I am willing to conceed you are not prejudiced, just a total guppy who sucks up the crap fed to him by a biased media. That still doesn't change the fact that what you are saying is hypocritical.

I'm saying that the terrorists, the people who would see you dead for not believing as they do, are worse human beings than most soldiers.

Yes, and they should all be wiped out and executed, and beheaded because they are subhuman, I agree (I don't, but that is beside the point). And I am not being hypocritical in saying that. Know why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T FUCKING EXIST OUTSIDE YOUR OWN PRECONCEPTIONS.

What a crock of shit... They are fighting because of the occupation, and exploitation. They are fighting because of a puppet government, and the wrongs against them. They are NOT fighting for some abstract reason you have dreamed up to villify them, you total prick. Even Bin Laden, one of the most vocal of the extremists, is more pragmatic in his condemnations.

Next you'll be telling me the Jews have to be gassed because their sole reason for being is to water down the master-race and to steal and poison the great society.

that soldiers don't capture and behead people and post it on the internet.

But they do turn attack dogs on them, take snaps of them, and get them developed. A la Abu Ghraib. And they do burn people alive, crush them alive. They do rupture all of a person's internal organs simultaneously, so that the victim dies suffocating on their own blood, in agony, with their eyeballs popped out. They DO do that, though.

Believe it or not, the US is trying to set up a stable government

Puppet government. The Ba'athist government was perfectly "stable" by any sense of the word, as was the society. Much more so than any of its neighbours, democratic or otherwise.

trying to set up a police force, get schools built, get water running, etc.

Yes, the US government is trying to rebuild all the things it destroyed. And has failed. After years and years and years, and billions of dollars, after bombing one of the most advanced middle-eastern countries backwards to pre-victorian levels, it is still "trying" to change a goddamn thing. And it hasn't. The money is gone, all gone, and next to none of it went to rebuilding a damned thing. Corruption all the way up squandered the money, nearly all of it going to the rich wealthy white people in the US.

So yes, I am sure that the US is "trying" - much in the same way a junkie "tries" not to commit crimes to get his fix.

Those aren't things 'terrorists' would do, are they? Of course they aren't, because terrorists are blowing up power stations, water treatment facilities, etc.

No, they aren't.

The US is getting water running in places where it hadn't run for years under Saddam; that's laudable.

It's bullshit propoganda. Getting water running to green-zone areas where the coalition troops are is hardly a great service to the Iraqi people, many of whom STILL do not have a proper power supply, and STILL do not have access to vital medications, etc.

If you add up all the good the US is doing, with the evil, and compare it with the good and the evil the terrorists are doing, you can only come to one sensible solution (unless of course you are the biased, hypocritical one).

Yes, let's.

What good has the US done? Name one thing, just one.

Nope?

What bad things has it done? Provoked the insurgency, and paved the way for the terrorists to exist. They did not exist in Iraq before the US invasion, ergo the US invasion is responsible for the bringing about of terrorism.

Conclusion? US responsible for everything evil, and nothing good. QED.

Oh, of course, I'm biased. The fact that there was no "terrorism" under Saddam, and that Iraq was a sucessful secular nation before the invasion, is clearly irrelevant. The fact that the "terrorism" is a direct response to the US's actions is clearly beside the point.

[Funkaloyd]

with Ace, it's obvious....he hates all things american. period.
he thinks america is the devil.
if americans cured cancer tomorrow...Ace would theorize it to be an American capitalist ploy to imperialize the world while fileting small middle eastern children.

you, D, just love all things Liberal...and hate all things republican.
you remind me of my conspiracy-theory friends who believe in countless crazy tin-hat theories...not because they make any sense, but because it's just fun to believe....it gives them a sense of purpose, and of wonder.
you are much like that with your love for all-things-liberal.
you are infatuated with all this leftist, green, and remotely progressive....and while some of it is truly just common sense..that's really not why you support it. it just gives you a sense of worth and well-being....it gives you a "mission". the rational behind it, the likely hood of it's success are inconsequential to you.
and just like conspiracy-theorists...you will never yield, never question yourself or truly be objective about your beliefs...no matter how many times you are hammered down.
it's your religion.
you are the "guy at the concert" who knows the band ok, knows some of the songs, knows nothing about music....but just loves THE CROWD and the sense of purpose you feel being surrounded by like minded people. you're on a righteous mission....

schmeltz, hell....he confuses me. he's very intelligent....and more educated than many on here...and more level headed than many. but i think he still falls victim to the "liberal lemming rush"...and kinda follows and rationalizes liberal ideals just to give himself a sense of being enlightened.
i still value his thoughts on matters like this far more than you or Ace....
Ooh, do me, do me!

[Funkaloyd]

Calipari? Haditha?

Add all of those up together and you have, rougly, one decent sized restaraunt bombing.

I don't think we need to go into body counts.


Shock and Awe?

The intent of 'Shock and Awe' was 'kill as many civilians as possible'?


Fallujah?

What of it?


Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?

I suppose your talking about the Lancet study?

This one: http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/ ?


Highway of death?

While I disagree with it, they were killing soldiers who had recently invaded another nation.

No similarity.


Snipers killing Ambulance drivers?

Is this official US policy, 'off ambulance drivers'?

Does Bush go on tape supporting this?

Do you think 'killing alumbance drivers' is really part of the US strategy?


As long as they aren't "our guys" of course.

Did I say that?


They aren't according to whom? The French resistance regularly hung collaborator, who were technically "innocent civillians." You going to tell us the French Resistance were barbaric terrorists? 'Cause the Nazis would certainly agree with you on that one.

Comparing average Iraqis to Nazi collaborators...

You are a paragon of debate ethics.


The terrorsts who exist because the US invaded...

All of them?

You think the US invasion just sparked them to think "You know what, I'm going to go off some kids today"?


And if the US army weren't a bunch of gung-ho loons, they'd not be retaliating by bombing people in the first place. Nice try to shift the blame, but totally pointless.

How are you supposed to stop them unless you kill them?


Yes, if you discount all objectivity and ignore the facts.

...


The reason it isn't "obvious" is because your argument is solely based on nationalistic ideology. Anyone being objective sees quite a different story.

Sees that the average US soldier is no different, morally, than the average Islamic extremist terrorist?

Perhaps I'm 'too far gone', but I don't see it.


Considering the religious right in the US is exactly the same, I guess so.

'Exactly the same?'

The religious right has killed what, a half dozen abortion doctors in the last 20 years?

The terrorists kill about that many on a slow day.


EXACTLY the same.

All capital letters huh?

Bold it next time, and you'll really have an argument.


Or are you going to invade the mid-west and start using incendiary weapons on "potential KKK suspects" ?

Ah, now a moral equivilency between terrorists, people who have sadistically beheaded journalists and truck drivers, with 'christian fundamentalists'.


According to you. And so far the best you can offer is "because they're on our side." Stunningly naive.

I said that?

Or have you, again, ascribed something to me which I do not believe?

I don't think they are better because 'they are on our side', I think they are better because they are not actively calling for the deaths of civilians, not strapping themselves to explosives and blowing themselves up around women and children, not capturing, torturing, beheading journalists.

That's why I think they are 'better'. Not 'good' but certainly 'better'.


They'd bomb them, though. Twice. And show us the footage.

And you can't find the difference here? You really can't?


That is possibly the most ridiculous thing you've said, and given the line-towing bullcrap you come out with on a regular basis, that is saying something.

"Better" ? Well, yes, if you mean "total number of people murdered" then the US is much better.

What's the hard evidence on the body counts for both sides?

I truly don't know.


If you consider it in terms of "treaties broken" - yep again.

Which treaties?

How many of these treaties did Iraq sign and adhere to?

When the US breaks the Geneva covention, or defies the UN, you assualt it; how many times did Iraq commit war crimes?

This is absolutely fucking asinine, that you're going to sit and lecture me, pontificate about US war crimes, and ignore Iraq's.

Who's the hypocrite here?


If you mean in terms of "weapons of mass destruction used" yes, again the US is "better" (IE has commited more atrocities).

Has it?



It's pointless rhetoric you are using to cover up the fact that your sole argument is based on prejudice and "we have to be better, we're the good guys. And when we do worse then them, it's either a few bad apples or necessary, or an innocent mistake, or one of a number of justifications for the unjustifiable."

Is it US to policy to go out our way to kill innocents? Is it the policy of the terrorists?

What do you think would happen if the terrorists had the technology, the firepower, we have?

What do they do when they get explosives?

They strap themselves up and walk into a restaruant, with the sole intent of killing as many innocents as possible.

Don't you even try to claim you hold some moral highground when you equate an average soldier with that.


And the average US soldier has no qualms about breaking into a channel 4 reporter's house and beating him up for no apparent reason, seriously traumatising his child for life.

Oh, so you're saying US soldiers just do this all time, walk into houses and beat people up?


Or bombing civillian TV stations. Or killing reuters reporters. Or bombing John Simpson of the BBC, etc etc etc.

Was any of that intentional?

Do soldiers and tacticians go out of their way to kill reporters or bomb John Simpson?


But they would use incendiary weapons indescriminately on civillians.

They used them on civilians, with the sole intent to kill civilians?

Or did they use them for some other purpose?



A great pronouncement. But total first rate bollocks.

Seriously, you have out-done yourself in vomit-inducing hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy?

When have I not denounced US war crimes?

Numerous times in that post I said that the US was doing, and had done terrible things, including the start the war in first place.

How then can I be guilty of hypocrisy?

I'm saying that the terrorists, the people who would see you dead for not believing as they do, are worse human beings than most soldiers.

That soliders don't join the army with the sole intent of killing themselves and many innocent civilians, that soldiers don't capture and behead people and post it on the internet.

Believe it or not, the US is trying to set up a stable government (a democracy!), trying to set up a police force, get schools built, get water running, etc.

Those aren't things 'terrorists' would do, are they? Of course they aren't, because terrorists are blowing up power stations, water treatment facilities, etc.

The US is getting water running in places where it hadn't run for years under Saddam; that's laudable.

If you add up all the good the US is doing, with the evil, and compare it with the good and the evil the terrorists are doing, you can only come to one sensible solution (unless of course you are the biased, hypocritical one).



I don't think we need to go into body counts.

Because you don't know anything about the body counts at all. We could do, but the statistics are meaningless and slanted. Highway of death, 20,000 non-coms killed by the US in one afternoon. How many "road side bombings" is that?


The intent of 'Shock and Awe' was 'kill as many civilians as possible'?

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

It was "terrorism." And killed a lot more people than the net total of beheadings. And a lot more brutally. It was "killing people" as "a strategy."


[Fallujah]What of it?

The mass slaughter of innocent civillians in incredibly brutal ways, including the use of proscribed weaponry, and the intimidation of the citizenry, including the execution of fleeing civillians.


I suppose your talking about the Lancet study?

This one: http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/ ?

Yes, the Lancet study. The one made by a respected peer-reviewed journal. The one that is not at all refuted by you linking to propoganda found on a bullshit website. However, if you choose to select who you lend credence to based on how hard you want to believe their argument, then top marks go to "the slate."

What it boils down to is "I don't believe they could've done a very good job, because there is a war on. So despite the methodology being sound, and used all the time for all manner of studies which we generally accept, we don't think this one counts."

Well excuse me if I am not convinced by "The Slate." Speaking as someone who is "accustomed to perusing statistical documents".


While I disagree with it, they were killing soldiers who had recently invaded another nation.

No similarity.

They were indescriminately killing ANYONE on the highway, and the "soldiers" were technically and LEGALLY non-coms. They were in NO WAY legally entitled to do so. They were unarmed, and leaving the theatre of combat. The US were AGAIN using weapons considered illegal by every forward thinking nation, and proscribed under the Geneva conventions.

What you mean is "you refuse to acknowledge the similarity because you are prejudiced, and because it hurts your "US the golden boy" image."


Is this official US policy, 'off ambulance drivers'?
Does Bush go on tape supporting this?
Do you think 'killing alumbance drivers' is really part of the US strategy?

What the fuck is the matter with you? "Because Bush didn't go on tape, it's ok. It doesn't count. It's like it never happened." ?!? Bombing media outlets was clearly part of "US strategy" considering that ON THE SAME DAY precision strikes took out several specific media outlets. But Bush hasn't gone on tape saying it. Guess that doesn't count either, right?


Did I say that?

No, but that is the sole crux of your argument. "When our guys do it, it doesn't count. Because Bush doesn't go on tape, and we blow up people, not behead them. And when we use incendiary weapons that are proscribed, it doesn't count. And they were soldiers we killed, even though we sure as hell couldn't tell who we we blew to hell from several miles away."

When "terrorists" kill civillians, it's a horrible crime, when the US do it, terrible tragedy, but necessary collateral damage. Double standard.


Comparing average Iraqis to Nazi collaborators...

It is a direct historical parrallel, precisely. Right down to the instigation of a puppet government, and puppet police force. The only reason you are uncomfortable is the fact that you are stuck in a "it couldn't happen here" mentality. Doesn't matter HOW similar the behaviour is, the simple waving of the stars and stripes will have you saying "yes, but we CAN'T be that bad, no matter WHAT we do."

And what have been your arguments? "Oh, well I prefer THESE statistics. And Bush has said this, and didn't say that..." Great stuff.


All of them?
You think the US invasion just sparked them to think "You know what, I'm going to go off some kids today"?

Yeah, because terrorism was widespread in Iraq before the invasion. Jesus Christ you are insulting our intelligence now. The only terrorists in Iraq before the invasion were ones trained and funded by the CIA.


How are you supposed to stop them unless you kill them?

No doubt that is what the plane hi-jackers thought before September the 11th. Exactly the same mindset, exactly the same reasoning. "These bad people have to die, because they want to kill us and everything we stand for." Oh, but the difference is that the US is "right" for some ill-defined reason? I forgot.


Sees that the average US soldier is no different, morally, than the average Islamic extremist terrorist?

Perhaps I'm 'too far gone', but I don't see it.

Damn straight. Of course you can't see it. Because in your eyes the US army is a fine bastion of generally good people, YOUR people, who want nothing more than to protect the weak and stand up for truth justice and the American way. Well guess what, the terrorists don't think of themselves as the bearded villains in a victorian melodrama, complete with sinister music and going "Muahahahaha" as they hatch their fiendish plans (IE strategies.)

You're trying to tell us that the whole "insurgency" is made up solely of psychotic car-bombing extremists. Whereas the US army's transgressions are "just a few bad apples."

That's your prejudice, plain and simple, and it's as plain as the nose on your face.


'Exactly the same?'
The religious right has killed what, a half dozen abortion doctors in the last 20 years?

Perhaps you forgot what you said:

"There is a brand of Islam, prevelent in Iraq, now, that would would wish to see you and everything you love and stand for eradicated, and you're going to sit here and tell me these people are at all deserving of consideration?"

The religious right in the US would wish me "eradicated" as a hippy long-haired abortion-loving lefty. They do not want me watching the films I want to watch, having the sex I want to have, or having homosexual friends. Many of them "wish to see" homosexuals killed, and say as much frequently and loudly.

They hate my freedom, quite really, and quite literally. And they are working on it, in your government, as we speak.

Perhaps you should've rephrased that as "In Iraq, a warzone, there is a lot of killings." Not as exciting, but when you strip away the slanted rhetorical bullshit, that's about all you were saying.


The terrorists kill about that many on a slow day.

So really, the ideology is irrelevent then, and you just mentioned it as some bullshit talking point to try and divert the actual bones of the argument is that "they kill a lot of people." Unsurprising, given that the US has made the country a warzone. Ideology really doesn't come into it.


Ah, now a moral equivilency between terrorists, people who have sadistically beheaded journalists and truck drivers, with 'christian fundamentalists'.

No. The number of terrorists who have "sadistically beheaded journalists and truck drivers" are quite clearly a minority. How many beheadings have there been? Not necessarily even "On a slow day" ?

What you are doing is taking a minority, A La abortion doctor killers, and inflating that to be representative of a whole group. Once again "our loons are a few bad apples, whereas EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM IS A BLOODTHIRSTY BEHEADER!"

Seriously, you are full of shit. How dare you have the nerve to criticise my "debating tactics" when you are desperate to pull the same shit you accuse me of at every opportunity. Once again, you are a stinking hypocrit, and should be despised for it.

*You* are the one making that moral comparison, mine was quite quite different. But you are just desperate to salvage your burning ideology, so will twist it any way you can to avoid having to admit that your country is the bad guy.


I said that?

It is what your arguments all amount to. If that was not what you believe, then you should change your arguments to better reflect it.


I think they are better because they are not actively calling for the deaths of civilians,

They are just actively killing civillians. And what do you mean "Not calling for the deaths of civillians" - I have heard PLENTY of Yanks saying "Nuke the whole lot of them" and "We should flatten the whole country" etc etc etc. Plenty of them. Oh, but THEY DON'T COUNT, right?


not strapping themselves to explosives and blowing themselves up around women and children,

No, they press a button which fires off a missile which has exactly the same effect. Of course, if the US soldier tied themselves to the rockets, that would make them evil, but sitting safely miles and miles away, and watching it on a camera, that's perfectly civilised, right?


not capturing, torturing, beheading journalists.

Except for that C4 journalist who was arrested at his house, "interogated" which involved being man-handled and kept in stress positions, etc etc etc. Before being released without any explanation or apology. And those journalists who got blown up by the US army of course. But then, they weren't "beheaded" per se. Yes, in some cases the head left the body, but as the body was simultaneously detonated into thousands of pieces by the explosions, THAT'S ALRIGHT! Not like prisoners were habitually tortured in ABu Ghraib. Oh wait, the dozen or so soldiers who did that were a few bad apples. Whereas the dozen or so "terrorists" who behead journalists are indicative of every single arab with an AK! Fuck off and stop being such a prick.


That's why I think they are 'better'. Not 'good' but certainly 'better'.

Yes, you have convinced me. The US soldiers NOT sacrificing themselves to cause exactly the same results clearly makes them morally superior.


And you can't find the difference here? You really can't?

I can. You tell me they are bad and they deserve what you do to them. Whereas it is THEM who tell the west the exact inverse. And of course, you are "better" so thus you telling me that you are "better" must be more convincing...


What's the hard evidence on the body counts for both sides?
I truly don't know.

I know you don't. No-one does, least of all our governments. They have said as much. And yet it doesn't stop you arguing from the position that you do, and that they support your case.


Which treaties?

Plenty, including the UN charter and Geneva Conventions, and thus by extension the US Constitution.


How many of these treaties did Iraq sign and adhere to?

Irrelevant. You might as well say "criminals break the law, so the police and judiciary needn't be law-abiding when dealing with them." Surely you can see the logic error in this? Firstly, Iraq is in no position to adhere to anything, as its infrastructure was smashed by the US. You mean "how many have the terrorists signed and adhere to." By their nature, these disparate people cannot sign or uphold a treaty. However, they are still protected by the Geneva conventions, etc.


When the US breaks the Geneva covention, or defies the UN, you assualt it; how many times did Iraq commit war crimes?

Ah, I see, so your defence is now the "moral equivalency" that you so railed against? Well done on proving my point for me. Well done. Not only did you succeed in "arguing from ignorance" but you also made my point for me in the process. I bet you wish you hadn't bothered now, eh?


This is absolutely fucking asinine, that you're going to sit and lecture me, pontificate about US war crimes, and ignore Iraq's.

Who's the hypocrite here?

How is it hypocritical? I was saying the US is as bad in any moral way, and worse in terms of scale. Are you going to argue that "Iraq" has been using proscribed munitions and WMDs on the scale the US has? Because that is a nonsense. They simply do not have the resources to do so.

What you actually mean is not that I am being hypocritical, but that you are unhappy being reminded of all the indefensible (not that it has stopped you gallantly trying to, Goebbels) things your country has done, and which tarnish its image as "the good guys" and ruins your righteous indignation and moral-high-roading.

Yes, ever since the US destroyed Iraq and turned it into a disgusting hell-pool of anarchy, chaos, destruction and violence, the Iraq people, and a few Jihadis from over the border, have done a lot of high profile and well-reported violent acts. But to suggest that the US, which unlike sending tapes to the west, actively lies and covers up its crimes, is somehow "smalltime" by comparison is insane.


Has it?

Yes, conclusively. Shake 'n' Bake incendiary weapons, fuel-air-explosives, cluster-bombs, etc etc. Compared to what? Conventional explosive Car-bombs made out of fertiliser in a cellar?


Is it US to policy to go out our way to kill innocents?

Considering it had no business being in Iraq in the first-place, and as such all of them were technically innocent when the US invaded and started killing, yes, yes it blatantly is. If the invasion of Iraq isn't going out of your way to kill innocent people, I don't know what is.


Is it the policy of the terrorists?

Hard to say. You don't know what the policy of the terrorists are. You don't know WHO the terrorists are. You don't know who is doing what, you don't know how they are organised, you do not know what their individual motivations are. You don't know the first thing about the people you have labled, other than they are the enemy, and must therefore be bad.

It's pathetic to hear you talking such bollocks about something you don't know the first thing about. And more than a little disgusting when you tell us how these strangers you do not know or understand should all die.


What do you think would happen if the terrorists had the technology, the firepower, we have?

Maybe they'd attempt regime change, plunging a country into violent anarchy? Maybe they'd sit their navy off your coast, and fire missiles into your cities in an attempt to "shock" your people and cause them "awe" so that they don't put up too much of a fight as they start splitting up families and killing people indescriminately from afar?

Maybe they'd do everything your country does, in short. But this is a red herring. Are you going to invade Australia because "if they had the military force of the US, they might be tempted to invade"?


They strap themselves up and walk into a restaruant, with the sole intent of killing as many innocents as possible.

Yeah, that's Palestine. In Iraq they use car-bombs, outside specific targets. Police stations, mosques etc.

And what does the US do with its explosives? Oh yeah, level Fallujah, trying to kill as many innocents as possible. Of course, we were told that "no-one in Fallujah is innocent." (Literally, as it goes). And the terrorists will tell you that you don't get Shias in Sunni mosques, and vice versa.


Don't you even try to claim you hold some moral highground when you equate an average soldier with that.

Yeah, they just mow down Italian diplomats, shoot 15 villagers, bomb news channels, etc etc. So sophisticated and civilised.

Of course, using tactical weapons which allow you to blow up a house and its inhabitants is so morally superior to strapping a bomb to you to do precisely the same thing.


Oh, so you're saying US soldiers just do this all time, walk into houses and beat people up?

Yes, yes they do! Let me guess, them starting on BBC and C4 news reporters unprovoked was just COINCIDENCE? Someone accidentaly put their information in the "to rough up" pile instead of the "on our side pile" - easy enough mistake to make, right?


Was any of that intentional?

Of course it fucking was! They accidentally killed a lot of reporters all on the same day?!? What, the A-10 pilot's finger slipped? "Yah, I didn't think there would be anyone in that busy office building I bombed.." WTF are you on? "Yeah, despite us all knowing the reporters in that hotel room were there, due to us being clearly informed and it all documented, etc, we still accidentally shot at it" ?!?

"Well, yah see, we were aiming at the viable military targets right there. You see, we were being painted by a SAM hidden skilfully in the room directly behind those journalists in the hotel. And there was heavy machine gun fire coming from the basement of the Al Jazeera offices... So we had to take them out..."


They used them on civilians, with the sole intent to kill civilians?

Or did they use them for some other purpose?

How do you know what the purpose of the car-bombs was for? Well? Name one piece of evidence for one single bombing that says their targets were "innocent civillians" rather than rival gangs, terrorist cells, Iraqi Policemen, etc? How do you know that car-bomb outside the mosque wasn't a retaliation against a sectarian leader? Was the car-bomb outside the police station there "just to kill innocent civillians" ? Lot of scores to settle over there, and a lot of old scores.

No, you don't know a damned thing, you've just got it into your head that they are sociopathic blood-lusting animals whose only motivation is to cause death, and that is total unfounded ignorant bollocks of the highest order, being voiced by a loud-mouth moron whose arguments are solely based on prejudice and preconceptions.

"Us good, them bad." Writ big.


When have I not denounced US war crimes?

"The US's atrocities are bad, but irrespective of any objective or quantative judgement, or any specific event, or any sort of supporting evidence or rationale, theirs are worse" is hardly a fair and unbiased analusis.


How then can I be guilty of hypocrisy?

Quite easily. Your condemnation is not equivalent for actions which are equivalent. US soldiers in Haditha? "One off, few bad apples." Shooting civillians in Fallujah "not sanctioned frm above." Abu Ghraib? Ditto.

And yet, for no apparent reason, you equate every single car-bombing or explosion caused by "the terrorists" as some consolidated unified action by a faceless indistinguishable hoard.

Why? Prejudice, my friend. Now, I am willing to conceed you are not prejudiced, just a total guppy who sucks up the crap fed to him by a biased media. That still doesn't change the fact that what you are saying is hypocritical.


I'm saying that the terrorists, the people who would see you dead for not believing as they do, are worse human beings than most soldiers.

Yes, and they should all be wiped out and executed, and beheaded because they are subhuman, I agree (I don't, but that is beside the point). And I am not being hypocritical in saying that. Know why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T FUCKING EXIST OUTSIDE YOUR OWN PRECONCEPTIONS.

What a crock of shit... They are fighting because of the occupation, and exploitation. They are fighting because of a puppet government, and the wrongs against them. They are NOT fighting for some abstract reason you have dreamed up to villify them, you total prick. Even Bin Laden, one of the most vocal of the extremists, is more pragmatic in his condemnations.

Next you'll be telling me the Jews have to be gassed because their sole reason for being is to water down the master-race and to steal and poison the great society.


that soldiers don't capture and behead people and post it on the internet.

But they do turn attack dogs on them, take snaps of them, and get them developed. A la Abu Ghraib. And they do burn people alive, crush them alive. They do rupture all of a person's internal organs simultaneously, so that the victim dies suffocating on their own blood, in agony, with their eyeballs popped out. They DO do that, though.


Believe it or not, the US is trying to set up a stable government

Puppet government. The Ba'athist government was perfectly "stable" by any sense of the word, as was the society. Much more so than any of its neighbours, democratic or otherwise.


trying to set up a police force, get schools built, get water running, etc.

Yes, the US government is trying to rebuild all the things it destroyed. And has failed. After years and years and years, and billions of dollars, after bombing one of the most advanced middle-eastern countries backwards to pre-victorian levels, it is still "trying" to change a goddamn thing. And it hasn't. The money is gone, all gone, and next to none of it went to rebuilding a damned thing. Corruption all the way up squandered the money, nearly all of it going to the rich wealthy white people in the US.

So yes, I am sure that the US is "trying" - much in the same way a junkie "tries" not to commit crimes to get his fix.


Those aren't things 'terrorists' would do, are they? Of course they aren't, because terrorists are blowing up power stations, water treatment facilities, etc.

No, they aren't.


The US is getting water running in places where it hadn't run for years under Saddam; that's laudable.

It's bullshit propoganda. Getting water running to green-zone areas where the coalition troops are is hardly a great service to the Iraqi people, many of whom STILL do not have a proper power supply, and STILL do not have access to vital medications, etc.


If you add up all the good the US is doing, with the evil, and compare it with the good and the evil the terrorists are doing, you can only come to one sensible solution (unless of course you are the biased, hypocritical one).

Yes, let's.

What good has the US done? Name one thing, just one.

Nope?

What bad things has it done? Provoked the insurgency, and paved the way for the terrorists to exist. They did not exist in Iraq before the US invasion, ergo the US invasion is responsible for the bringing about of terrorism.

Conclusion? US responsible for everything evil, and nothing good. QED.

Oh, of course, I'm biased. The fact that there was no "terrorism" under Saddam, and that Iraq was a sucessful secular nation before the invasion, is clearly irrelevant. The fact that the "terrorism" is a direct response to the US's actions is clearly beside the point.
Nobody's going to fucking read all of that.

[admsitio]

Nobody's going to fucking read all of that.

The US foreing policy is wrong.And the truth is out there.People dieing, children too, allienated citizens, war, cost of war, deficit, lies, and so on...
Our world needs some of truth.

[fucktopgirl]

Nobody's going to fucking read all of that.

i did as you should, pretty enlightening or i must said entertaining!

[EN[i]GMA]

It's become needlessly convoluted; back to the basics.


Oh, of course, I'm biased. The fact that there was no "terrorism" under Saddam, and that Iraq was a sucessful secular nation before the invasion, is clearly irrelevant. The fact that the "terrorism" is a direct response to the US's actions is clearly beside the point.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Is there any depth to which you will not sink to villify the US?

I sometimes don't know if you're willfully obstinate in your debates simply because you're an asshole who enjoys riling people up, or if you really are that much of hate-filled ideologue.

What do want, Ace? A concession?

As I see it, there are two possibilities here, both of them viable: My perception of the war is absolutely skewed do the bias in reporting and propaganda, or you do nothing but selectively pick out a few instances, whip of a few generalities, appeals to emotion, and some rank abuse, and ride those like a whore (to preempt your obvious retort, the whore is YOUR mother).


To summarize: I refuse to believe that the US are as bad as the terrorists.

Perhaps it's naive, and I'm almost certainly biased, but I can't think of anything that would allow me to side, morally, with the terrorists who are blowing up mosques and beheading journalists.

I can concede, and I have conceded, that both sides are commiting terrible crimes, but just fucking look at the death totals, and see who's doing the most killing; the terrorists.

See who's building schools and who's destroying them, who's trying to set up a government, a democratic government, and who's trying to destroy it.

I truly believe that Iraq would better if the US had its way than if the insurgents did; again, that may be naive, but I've simply seen no evidence to the contrary. Do you have any?

What assurances do you have that the insurgents wouldn't fuck things up worse than they are?

I'm trying to understand your position here, and I'm trying to remain civil about this, because quite simply, I don't understand how anyone can think as you do, how you could support the 'insurgents'. Enlighten me. Why are their goals laudable?

Let's try not to get into another quote fest here, use paragraphs. Otherwise, the debate becomes pointlessly, needlessly obfuscated.

[Ace42X]

GMA']
What the fuck is wrong with you?

For what, saying that Iraq was sucessful? Compared to its neighbours, it certainly was. Its healthcare system, for example, was first-rate. Now it is in ruins.

Is there any depth to which you will not sink to villify the US?

What, me making a partial list of the litany atrocities commited by the US is "sinking to any depth" - hah.

or if you really are that much of hate-filled ideologue.

Rich coming from the person who in a single breath ascribed motivation to countless people he doesn't know the first thing about, and based pretty much SOLELY on motivations HE choses to give to them, says they are all completely worthless and deserve to *die*.

If anyone here is hate-filled, it is you. And it is solely based on ideology, considering it is aimed at a group of people you don't know the first thing about.

What do want, Ace?

You dropping the ol' red white and blue and thinking before you post might be a start.

My perception of the war is absolutely skewed do the bias in reporting and propaganda,

And personal prejudice.

or you do nothing but selectively pick out a few instances

Yes, that's right, I'm picking out "the few bad apples." Whereas every instance you pick out (or fail to pick out, all we have got is sweeping generalisations so far) is "the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

That is hypocrisy.

To summarize: I refuse to believe that the US are as bad as the terrorists.

Yes, we are all aware of how static your views are on that matter. Anyone who has read your constant down-playing of the US's actions is well aware of that.

blowing up mosques and beheading journalists.

Both of which the US has actively done. Blown up mosques, and killed (brutally) journalists. Oh, but *they don't count* right?

just fucking look at the death totals, and see who's doing the most killing; the terrorists.

The death totals you confessed you didn't really know about? The ones your sources said were impossible to get a repsentative figure for?

See who's building schools and who's destroying them,

The US has destroyed more schools than the terrorists. Common sense should tell you that. You don't need to rebuild something that hasn't already been destroyed. And it wasn't the terrorists who did it in the first-place. The terrorists are NOT systematically destroying schools. They may well be "disrupting reconstruction efforts." But what that actually means is "reconstruction is impossible in a warzone. And it wouldn't be a warzone if the 'terrorists' just let us do whatever the hell we wanted!"

who's trying to set up a government, a democratic government, and who's trying to destroy it.

The inability of the Iraqi government to come to an agreement is due to the pressure applied by the US, and the eruption of sectarian violence is the direct product of the unsatisfactory way the government is being formulated. But let's look at the "government" the US tried to set up. Allawi,accused of executing hostages just like any "terrorist." Great choice for first prime-minister.

I truly believe that Iraq would better if the US had its way than if the insurgents did; again, that may be naive, but I've simply seen no evidence to the contrary. Do you have any?

I'd certainly agree that if the US had its way, things would be more regimented, but not "just" by any stretch of the imagination. You might as well say "If the Confederacy had their way, yeah there'd be slavery and injustice, but at least there'd've be no war."

Of course, I truly believe that if I was emperor of the US, things would be better. Are you going to tell your countrymen to roll over and behave as I invade? What about the ones the fight against my armies? Going to say "oh, well, they were causing trouble, collateral damage, not part of his strategy to take out innocent civillians" when I take out buildings in YOUR street being used by "terrorists" ? Are you not going to fight against your American countrymen who side with *my* occupying forces and start taking your neighbours away to prisons for doing nothing and torturing them?

What assurances do you have that the insurgents wouldn't fuck things up worse than they are?

So your argument is that US war-crimes are justified because, irrespective of who does what, the end result is better than the alternative? By that argument, the US government should reinstate Saddam, and start rebuilding his army, palaces, etc. Because it is going to take well over a decade to come close to rebuilding Iraq to that level, and the scars are going to last generations more.

how you could support the 'insurgents'.

I do not "support" them. I abhor all violence. I merely think that, objectively, when you strip out personal bias, the US is no better in any meaningful way. Any charge you can lay on the terrorists can be levelled at the US more so. Killing journalists? Done by the US. Killing civillians? Done by the US. Using weapons that are indescriminate in built up areas, thereby killing civillians? Done by the US. Breaking the articles of war? Ditto. Using proscribed WMDs? Done by the US, not done at all by the insurgents AFAIK.

And even if you want to argue the numbers (not a wise idea if you include the previous war too, reason enough for the anti-US sentiment found in Iraq), remember that all of these actions by the US are totally sanctioned and excepted by the US government. Oh, they won't record a video of them torturing suspects, but you know as well as I do that your government wouldn't be trying to legitimise torture and redefine it, etc etc etc if it wasn't for the cold simple fact that they are doing it, intend to do it, and have no qualms about doing it. The semantic wrangling doesn't CHANGE the nature of the US wrong-doing, it just performs a simple rhetorical task so that people like you don't have to live with the plain truth that all this nefarious shit is going on, and it refuses to be minimised and down-played, no matter HOW wishful your thinking is.

Why are their goals laudable?

Most of them are Iraqis trying to repel invaders from their homeland. People that have killed, tortured, falsley imprisoned, humiliated and debased their neighbours and family, pillaged and destroyed their land, instituted an unrepresentative non-functional puppet government, and paved the way for widespread sectarian violence.

What are the goals of a US jarhead? "To protect my family and country."

What's the difference? The Iraqis don't leave their country to protect it.

Of course, there are non-Iraqis over there (we know, as there are countless reports that the "Iraqis" who toppled the Saddam statue were actually foreign, and certainly not the local Bagdhadis), such as Jihadis.

What are their goals? Well, if you ask them, they'll tell you "repelling the crusader foreigners". Understandable, given the US's repeated interference with middle-eastern politics.

If China invaded the US, would you call Canadians fighting along side you "insurgent agent provocateurs" ? No, I'd wager not. You'd not say they are "trouble making Jihadi scum, who hate the Chinese way of life and want to kill all Chinamen!" You'd see them as brother north-americans, trying to help a buddy out, and fight for the freedom of their people, as well as the safety of their own homeland. Now, what can you imagine the Chinese saying about these people, violently attacking stuff outside their "greenzones" on the west coast, hmm?

And while the Jihadis are no doubt causing shit (not to downplay the Iraqi role in the sectarian violence), no-one can say for sure to what degree. The US, now occupying Iraq, clearly don't want to say "well, the people all hate us and have been trying to kill us from day one." So blaming some foreigners from "the axis of evil" is clearly a very useful political tool. Much more so than Bush saying "well, yeah, the Iraqis don't like our puppet government, and kill anyone who colaborates with our efforts. Guess we fucked it all up terribly. Still, maybe the next Republican president will know what to do!"

So, to sum up why I do not think the US is better than the terrorists:
"Whether longer range weapon, or suicide bomber / Wicked mind is a weapon of mass destruction."

[Funkaloyd]

[Iraq's] healthcare system, for example, was first-rate. Now it is in ruins.I hear the trains ran on time, too.

[Ace42X]

I hear the trains ran on time, too.

Whereas now they do not run at all, and there are regular explosions in the street. Apparently deaths are up in Iraq this season.

[D_Raay]

with Ace, it's obvious....he hates all things american. period.
he thinks america is the devil.
if americans cured cancer tomorrow...Ace would theorize it to be an American capitalist ploy to imperialize the world while fileting small middle eastern children.

you, D, just love all things Liberal...and hate all things republican.
you remind me of my conspiracy-theory friends who believe in countless crazy tin-hat theories...not because they make any sense, but because it's just fun to believe....it gives them a sense of purpose, and of wonder.
you are much like that with your love for all-things-liberal.
you are infatuated with all this leftist, green, and remotely progressive....and while some of it is truly just common sense..that's really not why you support it. it just gives you a sense of worth and well-being....it gives you a "mission". the rational behind it, the likely hood of it's success are inconsequential to you.
and just like conspiracy-theorists...you will never yield, never question yourself or truly be objective about your beliefs...no matter how many times you are hammered down.
it's your religion.
you are the "guy at the concert" who knows the band ok, knows some of the songs, knows nothing about music....but just loves THE CROWD and the sense of purpose you feel being surrounded by like minded people. you're on a righteous mission....

schmeltz, hell....he confuses me. he's very intelligent....and more educated than many on here...and more level headed than many. but i think he still falls victim to the "liberal lemming rush"...and kinda follows and rationalizes liberal ideals just to give himself a sense of being enlightened.
i still value his thoughts on matters like this far more than you or Ace....

Hehe you are a whimsical fellow Q. I don't dislike you, however, even when I try because at least you are passionate about your beliefs and are willing to stand by them.

That being said, you couldn't be more wrong about me. My belief system is quite simple and antiquated. Respect my fellow human beings. That's it, that's all. If the liberals were pulling the same shit as this administration I would be the same toward them.

But in the here and now, they are not. If they happen to fall on my side than so be it.


I don't dislike conservatives at all either. Their balls seem to have shrunk up into raisins when it comes to the Administration. There are quite a few things I agree with conservatives on, but I won't bore you with that.

Just wanted to say you are right about one thing. I am on a mission. The truth is what is important. If I have one fault it would be that the last 6 years have brought the worst out in me. I cannot and will not believe anything that comes out of the government or, for that matter, the media either.
I know when I am being lied to. So, yes I may follow some misguided conspiracy theories, but to me there are more credible than what we have for a government right now.

You are never going to convince me that killing innocent people is ok, even in retaliation.

It is the sort of thing that we as a people are always striving to be; the truly enlightened , the rich of heart ,the follower of the path of righteousness (as the religious like to say); can never be with this revenge revenge attitude.

Oh and you are wrong about Ace. My opinion is that he is quite intelligent and knows bullshit when he sees it as well.
Hence the hating of the aggressive warmongering chicken hawks that are sullying good American's names'.

And with schmeltz, well you said it yourself, he is smarter than you...end of story.

[ericlee]

Brother will kill brother
Spilling blood across the land
Killing for religion
Something I dont understand

Fools like me,who cross the sea
And come to foreign lands
Ask the sheep,for their beliefs
Do you kill on gods command?

A country thats divided
Surely will not stand
My past erased,no more disgrace
No foolish naive stand

The end is near,its crystal clear
Part of the master plan
Dont look now to israel
It might be your homelands

Holy wars

Upon my podium,as the
Know it all scholar
Down in my seat of judgement
Gavels bang,uphold the law
Up on my soapbox,a leader
Out to change the world
Down in my pulpit as the holler
Than-thou-could-be-messenger of god

Wage the war on organized crime
Sneak attacks,repel down the rocks
Behind the lines
Some people risk to employ me
Some people live to destroy me
Either way they die

They killed my wife,and my baby
With hopes to enslave me
First mistake...last mistake|
Paid by the alliance,to slay all the giants
Next mistake...no more mistakes|

Fill the cracks in,with judicial granite
Because I dont say it,dont mean I aint
Thinkin it
Next thing you know,theyll take my thoughts away
I know what I said,now I must scream of the overdose
And the lack of mercy killings

[Qdrop]

Oh and you are wrong about Ace. My opinion is that he is quite intelligent and knows bullshit when he sees it as well.
Hence the hating of the aggressive warmongering chicken hawks that are sullying good American's names'. funny. you've said quite differant to me in the past...in PM's and such.
but whatever.

And with schmeltz, well you said it yourself, he is smarter than you...end of story. never said he was smarter than me.;)

[Funkaloyd]

Whereas now they do not run at all, and there are regular explosions in the street. Apparently deaths are up in Iraq this season.
But their soccer team went to the Olympics! They did really well!

[D_Raay]

funny. you've said quite differant to me in the past...in PM's and such.
but whatever.

never said he was smarter than me.;)
Actually no I didn't. I pmed you ONCE, a long time ago, when I didn't even know Ace, and commented that I was impressed you could so accurately peg his physical condition. In retrospect, afterwards I realized you probably already knew that fact, and the tip of the hat wasn't justified.

[Qdrop]

Actually no I didn't. I pmed you ONCE, a long time ago, when I didn't even know Ace, and commented that I was impressed you could so accurately peg his physical condition. In retrospect, afterwards I realized you probably already knew that fact, and the tip of the hat wasn't justified.

his PHYSICAL condition?
the wheelchair thing?
he's not in a wheelchair. that was a rumor HE incited with an analgoy he used in the 1st person. ("i'm in a wheelchair, and i find slam dunking in basketball to be offensive")
me and ali thought he was serious, but he had us on ignore so we couldn't confirm.
but i believe it has since been put to rest that he is not crippled.


I was referring to the PM's about complementing me about so quickly pegging Ace as a relentless ego whore who will argue any point until his dying breath, never letting anyone get the last word.
you said you had long since given up trying to engage in debate with him because of such.

now, he is suddenly something else to you.

whatever, this total highschool chick shit....enough.

[kaiser soze]

I have a couple questions about Zarqawi

1) Who was Zarqawi before the U.S. invasion of Iraq

2) Where was Zarqawi before the U.S. invasion of Iraq

3) What was Zarqawi before the U.S. invasion of Iraq

[D_Raay]

his PHYSICAL condition?
the wheelchair thing?
he's not in a wheelchair. that was a rumor HE incited with an analgoy he used in the 1st person. ("i'm in a wheelchair, and i find slam dunking in basketball to be offensive")
me and ali thought he was serious, but he had us on ignore so we couldn't confirm.
but i believe it has since been put to rest that he is not crippled.


I was referring to the PM's about complementing me about so quickly pegging Ace as a relentless ego whore who will argue any point until his dying breath, never letting anyone get the last word.
you said you had long since given up trying to engage in debate with him because of such.

now, he is suddenly something else to you.

whatever, this total highschool chick shit....enough.

I was complimenting you on pegging him as bitter and wheelchairbound if that is what he was, which turns out is not true? I care little and obviously don't know enough about it. Stop saying pm's when it was just one.

[K-nowledge]

I have a couple questions about Zarqawi

1) Who was Zarqawi before the U.S. invasion of Iraq

2) Where was Zarqawi before the U.S. invasion of Iraq

3) What was Zarqawi before the U.S. invasion of Iraq

October 20 1966 Born Ahmad Fadil Nazal al-Khalayel in the town of Zarqa, Jordan, into the Bani Hassan Bedouin tribe.
Late 1980s
Travels to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, although the war is almost over by the time he arrives.
1992-1998
He returns to his home town in Jordan, where he is arrested after guns and explosions are found at his home. He spends six years in prison where he is thought to have adopted an extremist strain of Islam.
2000
Having adopted the name Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, he returns to Afghanistan to set up a training camp, where he is believed to have been in contact with Osama Bin Laden.
2001
When the US attacks begin, he flees the country, probably to a small pocket of Kurdish-dominated northern Iraq held by al-Qaida sympathisers.
September 2002
Zarqawi returns illegally to Jordan, and a month later a US diplomat, Laurence Foley, is assassinated in the capital, Amman. He then sets himself up in Iraq, most likely in Falluja.

[Schmeltz]

Damnable! I had a nice long reply to this thread typed up a couple of days ago on page 2, and now I see that it didn't even post! Well shit.

Just to reiterate, and to get this thread back on track a little: I wish I could believe in the American military as a guardian of the values - freedom, democracy, cooperation, respect for life, equality, happiness - that elevate our society above any other. That is exactly the role that it should serve. But it seems to me that American society itself is moving away from those values, under the guidance of a mind-bogglingly inept political and economic leadership dominated not just by bureaucracy but by a virulent, malignant, destructive ideology completely out of touch not only with the very Western values it supposedly champions but with basic reality in general.

This, in turn, has yielded a military misadventure in which American troops have come face to face with an enemy that has also moved away from a philosophy or ethical system with enormous potential for freedom, democracy, cooperation, respect for life, equality, and happiness (I refer, of course, to Islam) and toward a virulent, malignant, destructive ideology completely out of touch not only with the values that lie at its core but with reality in general. The radicals, the fundies, the terrorists have hijacked Islam and turned it into a weapon for the advancement of their bankrupt, regressive, empty ideology - just as the Bushies have done to our own values.

You can turn on the TV and watch Osama bin Laden asserting that true believers in the Islamic tradition have to strap bombs to their bodies and blast apart restaurants and marketplaces in order to safeguard their values and morals. Then you can change the channel and see George Bush assert that true believers in the Western tradition, if they won't take up arms themselves, have to at least be silent, follow unquestioningly, relinquish their right to dissent and criticism, and watch their countrymen machine-gun women and children in a ruined country across the world without protest or complaint.

Sorry, but to me there is no real difference. There is nothing inherently better in the actions of the leaders of the West because they have abdicated their position as keepers of our moral traditions. They no longer have any right to claim unquestioned confidence or belief, on our part, in their ability (or even desire) to protect our quality of life or make a better future for our children. They are interested only in the perpetuation of an appalling and bankrupt ideology guaranteed to make them wealthy and powerful - just like the fanatics and the fundies, who are concerned only with the maintenance of a twisted, horribly distorted version of religion that will deliver the lives of a billion people into their hands.

And in the middle we have two very distinct, but very interesting groups of people. Mostly young people who have grown up with this international power game raging around them, bereft of real role models to teach them the values that made their societies great in past lifetimes, and who now see little prospect for a peaceable future except to take up arms and go into battle on the strength of the promises made to them by the ideologists and fanatics I talked about above. The Marine and the suicide bomber. The kid from the projects or the small town who wants to serve his country and support his family. The kid from the madrassa who wants to restore a sense of honour to a rudderless society or a shattered family. The kids who should be playing sports and writing stories, working family businesses, getting educated, starting on careers, families, homes of their own. Living, learning, loving, laughing. Instead they're pawns in a sick and demented game between ignorant, self-interested power brokers looking to make a buck, with no consideration for turning things around and making the future look a little brighter - though of course they claim, always and forever, to just be looking out for us. So they drop phosphorus bombs on cities. And they blast their bodies apart in the marketplace.

All this back-and-forth about the moral high ground and political left-and-right is nothing but bullshit. I'm sick of hearing about how many people were gunned down by sectarian militants and how many people were gunned down by the Marines. The fact is that if the people in charge actually gave a shit about us, there would be no suicide bombers. And the Marines would not be over there incurring civilian casualties. If the leaders of our societies - Western and Islamic - could find it in themselves to see beyond their own noses for longer than two seconds and realize that they are creating a world that their children may not be able to salvage, maybe we could reverse direction.

But for now, I don't see a clash of civilizations or a battle for the moral high ground. I see young people being exploited and corrupted by greedy, arrogant, domineering ideologists determined to use us as just another resource; how many millions of soldiers and jihadists will it take to secure how many millions of barrels of oil that will make a few dozen people a little wealthier. Turning us into monsters. That's where the moral high ground turns: on the willingness of our own leaders to manipulate and exploit us to serve their worthless, empty interests.

That's how I see it anyway. I don't think I'm more or less intelligent than anyone else, nor are any of you, really. We think about things and express those thoughts differently. We all bring something else to the table. What I've got for the table is a growing sense of outrage at the mess in the world, combined with a growing detachment from a sense of these events as real, rather than as surreal abstractions indicative of a mounting collective insanity that bodes very, very ill for the future.

[EN[i]GMA]

Damnable! I had a nice long reply to this thread typed up a couple of days ago on page 2, and now I see that it didn't even post! Well shit.

Just to reiterate, and to get this thread back on track a little: I wish I could believe in the American military as a guardian of the values - freedom, democracy, cooperation, respect for life, equality, happiness - that elevate our society above any other. That is exactly the role that it should serve. But it seems to me that American society itself is moving away from those values, under the guidance of a mind-bogglingly inept political and economic leadership dominated not just by bureaucracy but by a virulent, malignant, destructive ideology completely out of touch not only with the very Western values it supposedly champions but with basic reality in general.

This, in turn, has yielded a military misadventure in which American troops have come face to face with an enemy that has also moved away from a philosophy or ethical system with enormous potential for freedom, democracy, cooperation, respect for life, equality, and happiness (I refer, of course, to Islam) and toward a virulent, malignant, destructive ideology completely out of touch not only with the values that lie at its core but with reality in general. The radicals, the fundies, the terrorists have hijacked Islam and turned it into a weapon for the advancement of their bankrupt, regressive, empty ideology - just as the Bushies have done to our own values.

You can turn on the TV and watch Osama bin Laden asserting that true believers in the Islamic tradition have to strap bombs to their bodies and blast apart restaurants and marketplaces in order to safeguard their values and morals. Then you can change the channel and see George Bush assert that true believers in the Western tradition, if they won't take up arms themselves, have to at least be silent, follow unquestioningly, relinquish their right to dissent and criticism, and watch their countrymen machine-gun women and children in a ruined country across the world without protest or complaint.

Sorry, but to me there is no real difference. There is nothing inherently better in the actions of the leaders of the West because they have abdicated their position as keepers of our moral traditions. They no longer have any right to claim unquestioned confidence or belief, on our part, in their ability (or even desire) to protect our quality of life or make a better future for our children. They are interested only in the perpetuation of an appalling and bankrupt ideology guaranteed to make them wealthy and powerful - just like the fanatics and the fundies, who are concerned only with the maintenance of a twisted, horribly distorted version of religion that will deliver the lives of a billion people into their hands.

And in the middle we have two very distinct, but very interesting groups of people. Mostly young people who have grown up with this international power game raging around them, bereft of real role models to teach them the values that made their societies great in past lifetimes, and who now see little prospect for a peaceable future except to take up arms and go into battle on the strength of the promises made to them by the ideologists and fanatics I talked about above. The Marine and the suicide bomber. The kid from the projects or the small town who wants to serve his country and support his family. The kid from the madrassa who wants to restore a sense of honour to a rudderless society or a shattered family. The kids who should be playing sports and writing stories, working family businesses, getting educated, starting on careers, families, homes of their own. Living, learning, loving, laughing. Instead they're pawns in a sick and demented game between ignorant, self-interested power brokers looking to make a buck, with no consideration for turning things around and making the future look a little brighter - though of course they claim, always and forever, to just be looking out for us. So they drop phosphorus bombs on cities. And they blast their bodies apart in the marketplace.

All this back-and-forth about the moral high ground and political left-and-right is nothing but bullshit. I'm sick of hearing about how many people were gunned down by sectarian militants and how many people were gunned down by the Marines. The fact is that if the people in charge actually gave a shit about us, there would be no suicide bombers. And the Marines would not be over there incurring civilian casualties. If the leaders of our societies - Western and Islamic - could find it in themselves to see beyond their own noses for longer than two seconds and realize that they are creating a world that their children may not be able to salvage, maybe we could reverse direction.

But for now, I don't see a clash of civilizations or a battle for the moral high ground. I see young people being exploited and corrupted by greedy, arrogant, domineering ideologists determined to use us as just another resource; how many millions of soldiers and jihadists will it take to secure how many millions of barrels of oil that will make a few dozen people a little wealthier. Turning us into monsters. That's where the moral high ground turns: on the willingness of our own leaders to manipulate and exploit us to serve their worthless, empty interests.

That's how I see it anyway. I don't think I'm more or less intelligent than anyone else, nor are any of you, really. We think about things and express those thoughts differently. We all bring something else to the table. What I've got for the table is a growing sense of outrage at the mess in the world, combined with a growing detachment from a sense of these events as real, rather than as surreal abstractions indicative of a mounting collective insanity that bodes very, very ill for the future.

Schmelzt, you are one eloquent motherfucker.

(y)

[Qdrop]

yeah, well put schmeltzy...

i am somewhat inline with your sentiments...
i guess my view is that America and America's military (stategy), while misguided by poor leadership at the moment, has not crossed into the deep sea of unethical violence that the muslim terrorists have.
America is certainly on the wrong path as far as our methods and diplomacy when using our military might....only an idiot would argue against that.

but i don't feel that Bush&co. have truly had enough time to turn this country and it's military agenda into a despotic warmachine that many on the far left claim it to be.
would they?
debatable.
i really don't know how far they would go.
and i don't want to find out.

[D_Raay]

Damnable! I had a nice long reply to this thread typed up a couple of days ago on page 2, and now I see that it didn't even post! Well shit.

Just to reiterate, and to get this thread back on track a little: I wish I could believe in the American military as a guardian of the values - freedom, democracy, cooperation, respect for life, equality, happiness - that elevate our society above any other. That is exactly the role that it should serve. But it seems to me that American society itself is moving away from those values, under the guidance of a mind-bogglingly inept political and economic leadership dominated not just by bureaucracy but by a virulent, malignant, destructive ideology completely out of touch not only with the very Western values it supposedly champions but with basic reality in general.

This, in turn, has yielded a military misadventure in which American troops have come face to face with an enemy that has also moved away from a philosophy or ethical system with enormous potential for freedom, democracy, cooperation, respect for life, equality, and happiness (I refer, of course, to Islam) and toward a virulent, malignant, destructive ideology completely out of touch not only with the values that lie at its core but with reality in general. The radicals, the fundies, the terrorists have hijacked Islam and turned it into a weapon for the advancement of their bankrupt, regressive, empty ideology - just as the Bushies have done to our own values.

You can turn on the TV and watch Osama bin Laden asserting that true believers in the Islamic tradition have to strap bombs to their bodies and blast apart restaurants and marketplaces in order to safeguard their values and morals. Then you can change the channel and see George Bush assert that true believers in the Western tradition, if they won't take up arms themselves, have to at least be silent, follow unquestioningly, relinquish their right to dissent and criticism, and watch their countrymen machine-gun women and children in a ruined country across the world without protest or complaint.

Sorry, but to me there is no real difference. There is nothing inherently better in the actions of the leaders of the West because they have abdicated their position as keepers of our moral traditions. They no longer have any right to claim unquestioned confidence or belief, on our part, in their ability (or even desire) to protect our quality of life or make a better future for our children. They are interested only in the perpetuation of an appalling and bankrupt ideology guaranteed to make them wealthy and powerful - just like the fanatics and the fundies, who are concerned only with the maintenance of a twisted, horribly distorted version of religion that will deliver the lives of a billion people into their hands.

And in the middle we have two very distinct, but very interesting groups of people. Mostly young people who have grown up with this international power game raging around them, bereft of real role models to teach them the values that made their societies great in past lifetimes, and who now see little prospect for a peaceable future except to take up arms and go into battle on the strength of the promises made to them by the ideologists and fanatics I talked about above. The Marine and the suicide bomber. The kid from the projects or the small town who wants to serve his country and support his family. The kid from the madrassa who wants to restore a sense of honour to a rudderless society or a shattered family. The kids who should be playing sports and writing stories, working family businesses, getting educated, starting on careers, families, homes of their own. Living, learning, loving, laughing. Instead they're pawns in a sick and demented game between ignorant, self-interested power brokers looking to make a buck, with no consideration for turning things around and making the future look a little brighter - though of course they claim, always and forever, to just be looking out for us. So they drop phosphorus bombs on cities. And they blast their bodies apart in the marketplace.

All this back-and-forth about the moral high ground and political left-and-right is nothing but bullshit. I'm sick of hearing about how many people were gunned down by sectarian militants and how many people were gunned down by the Marines. The fact is that if the people in charge actually gave a shit about us, there would be no suicide bombers. And the Marines would not be over there incurring civilian casualties. If the leaders of our societies - Western and Islamic - could find it in themselves to see beyond their own noses for longer than two seconds and realize that they are creating a world that their children may not be able to salvage, maybe we could reverse direction.

But for now, I don't see a clash of civilizations or a battle for the moral high ground. I see young people being exploited and corrupted by greedy, arrogant, domineering ideologists determined to use us as just another resource; how many millions of soldiers and jihadists will it take to secure how many millions of barrels of oil that will make a few dozen people a little wealthier. Turning us into monsters. That's where the moral high ground turns: on the willingness of our own leaders to manipulate and exploit us to serve their worthless, empty interests.

That's how I see it anyway. I don't think I'm more or less intelligent than anyone else, nor are any of you, really. We think about things and express those thoughts differently. We all bring something else to the table. What I've got for the table is a growing sense of outrage at the mess in the world, combined with a growing detachment from a sense of these events as real, rather than as surreal abstractions indicative of a mounting collective insanity that bodes very, very ill for the future.
Thank you schmeltz, you are much better with words than I am.

[Ace42X]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5073092.stm

[Ace42X]

GMA']

But why has it killed more civilians, if indeed it has? Because of the terrorists.

The US IS on higher moral ground than the terrorists

I don't know why I have to explain this out; it should be obvious.

Almost no American soldier would do that.

The intent is entirely different, and in any moral question, intent matters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5077858.stm

The US marines have launched a probe into a video posted on the internet that apparently shows a serving marine singing about killing Iraqi civilians.

And if it proves to be genuinely a marine?

[EN[i]GMA]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5077858.stm



And if it proves to be genuinely a marine?

Uhh, we have a new American Idol?

Seriously, nothing probably happens. Maybe a punishment of some sort to the marine involved, but no real change to policy or any meaningful difference made. A drop in the bucket.

But while we're on the topic: http://www.immortalia.com/html/categorized-by-song/napalm-sticks-to-kids.htm which is apparently an actual military 'cadence'.

Or maybe this is the real one: http://www.immortalia.com/html/cadences/napalm-sticks-to-kids/index.htm

Who can tell?

[Ace42X]

So your answer is "well, they are STILL morally superior, irrespective of intent" ?

[Qdrop]

So your answer is "well, they are STILL morally superior, irrespective of intent" ?

give it up.

[EN[i]GMA]

So your answer is "well, they are STILL morally superior, irrespective of intent" ?

You could divine that through my intentionally misdirecting and offtopic post?

You truly are a man of many talents.