This is topic From YouTube... American soldiers shooting civilians (?) in forum Politics/Religion/Current Affairs at The Geek Culture Forums!.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.geekculture.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000121

Posted by Snaggy (Member # 123) on March 26, 2007, 07:48:
 
Jace, is this a typical day in Iraq?

http://tinyurl.com/yveesc
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on March 26, 2007, 08:48:
 
Pretty typical I bet. It makes you wonder. If those fuckers are stupid enough to video tape something like that, what would do when the camera isn't rolling.

There have been all kinds of shit like this surface on the net. I remember seeing one where (US contractors?) were driving around on the freeways shooting at oncoming civilian vehicles and laughing like hell.

Here are some real fucking heros.
 
Posted by BooBooKitty (Member # 5566) on March 26, 2007, 10:31:
 
*sigh*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9A_vxIOB-I
 
Posted by Just_Jess_B (Member # 2161) on March 26, 2007, 10:35:
 
Stupidity + (Video) Cameras = Ability to See Worst in Humanity.

*sigh* indeed.
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on March 26, 2007, 16:41:
 
quote:
from an article Mar 26, 2007:

Terrorists in Iraq have passed an unthinkable threshold: They used two children to disguise a car bomb.... When the terrorists got to their target, they got out of the car and ran. They left the children behind in the car, and then blew it up.

(pictures of charred human flesh and twisted metal withheld)

Do Muslims worship god?

Why does god tell them to blow-up their children?

Why do Muslims kill so many Muslims?

I guess I'm a heretic ... that probably explains why I don't hear god telling me to kill Muslims or anybody else.

The news indicated that the people who murdered the children so they could kill many more people were dressed in ordinary civilian clothes. Terrorists are not wandering about in "I'm a terrorist" uniforms; they're typically in civilian clothes ... unless they specifically want to get shot and die alone (and god would hate them for not killing anyone else before dying).

Just for fun, why don't we put up some pictures of the Muslims that were mutilated and beheaded by other Muslims, or some car bomb pics where you can see a few body parts lying around.....
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on March 26, 2007, 16:53:
 
A similar horrible tale.

I have no words. ASM you should be ashamed of yourself trying to justify this. We managed to fight WW2 without setting up our own death camps.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on March 26, 2007, 19:08:
 
I blame the French, and the Russians, and the Chinese, the UN, Iran, Saddam, North Korea, and Darfur.

In fact, I blame everyone in the world except those brave American boys who pulled the trigger on some poor sod who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on March 26, 2007, 21:57:
 
Tony Benn (who is a little too left for my taste) schools Ex US ambasador Bolton. Great to watch. Will cheer one up after watching those other horrible videos.

Tony Benn schools Bolton
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on March 26, 2007, 22:04:
 
quote:
March 26, 2007 16:53
ASM you should be ashamed of yourself trying to justify this.

I'm not "justifying" it. I'm reminding a few people that if you really want to see blood and guts and senseless slaughter, check out some non-Americans over there.

I only watched a little of the video, but I noticed the troops had something like a LAW rocket. If they really wanted to create some carnage, wouldn't something that rips main battle tanks apart be better than a "two cent slug" that barely chips away at concrete?

quote:
March 26, 2007 19:08
I blame ..........................

You forgot to blame god. If you're an atheist, then that would be understandable, but otherwise, god seems to have provided the primary justification for Muslims being killed by suicide car bombs, and death squads from rival religious sects.

Just curious.... If a Muslim puts his children in a car filled with 500 pounds of plastic explosives and blows them apart so another two dozen Muslims are killed in the blast, does he go to heaven?

Why wouldn't someone else go to heaven for killing Muslims?
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on March 27, 2007, 07:13:
 
ASM [shake head]

I thought it was conservatives that despised moral relativism. One can also see many more hideous things if one looks at the films made when Dachau and Auschwitz were liberated. That makes anything the US does now OK. Right?
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on March 27, 2007, 08:05:
 
Question: How do we know that the people shot in that original video were innocent civilians? I get the feeling the video is picked up towards the middle or end of something else, and that there was more going on to the right. Without getting into the whole war issue, can we consider that maybe the video doesn't tell us the whole story?
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on March 27, 2007, 09:29:
 
Snaggy ------------------- I did not not watch the video, I can replay the real thing.

Timing is every thing, this may be out of context or just plain ruthless killing. I am not about to second guess what happoned or why, it happened, now there are more bodies to bury.

It seems that the Arabs have learned from the Vietnamiesse how to make something innocent very deadly, I lost a good friend to a booby traped kid, it hurts worse than if they had just shot him. That I could deal with but why kill the kid to get one US Soldier?
 
Posted by The Explainer (Member # 5716) on March 27, 2007, 11:21:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
if you really want to see blood and guts and senseless slaughter, check out some non-Americans over there.

Mr 65816 believes that any sin can be excused by reference to a worse sinner.

quote:
I noticed the troops had something like a LAW rocket. If they really wanted to create some carnage, wouldn't something that rips main battle tanks apart be better than a "two cent slug" that barely chips away at concrete?

Mr 65816 believes that any sin can be excused by claiming there's a worse sin you could have committed if you'd wanted to.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on March 27, 2007, 15:01:
 
In other news, it's ok to torture people, as long as they're not Americans

quote:
From TFA:
A US court has dismissed a lawsuit against former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld over claims prisoners were tortured in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The court accepted that the nine men who sued had been tortured - and detailed the torture in its ruling.

But Judge Thomas Hogan ruled the five Iraqis and four Afghans did not have US constitutional rights, and also that Mr Rumsfeld was immune from such suits.


 
Posted by WinterSolstice (Member # 934) on March 27, 2007, 16:31:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
In other news, it's ok to torture people, as long as they're not Americans

quote:
From TFA:
A US court has dismissed a lawsuit against former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld over claims prisoners were tortured in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The court accepted that the nine men who sued had been tortured - and detailed the torture in its ruling.

But Judge Thomas Hogan ruled the five Iraqis and four Afghans did not have US constitutional rights, and also that Mr Rumsfeld was immune from such suits.


Perhaps because that suit should come in a different court? I hope we see a war crimes tribunal at some point against some individuals.
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on March 27, 2007, 18:48:
 
quote:
Originally posted by WinterSolstice:
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
In other news, it's ok to torture people, as long as they're not Americans

quote:
From TFA:
A US court has dismissed a lawsuit against former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld over claims prisoners were tortured in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The court accepted that the nine men who sued had been tortured - and detailed the torture in its ruling.

But Judge Thomas Hogan ruled the five Iraqis and four Afghans did not have US constitutional rights, and also that Mr Rumsfeld was immune from such suits.


Perhaps because that suit should come in a different court? I hope we see a war crimes tribunal at some point against some individuals.
Like this clown?


 -
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on March 27, 2007, 19:00:
 
We have to impeach the bastard first. Either that or wait until he leaves office.
 
Posted by ScholasticSpastic (Member # 6919) on March 27, 2007, 22:38:
 
He's almost finished either way!!!!!
(yay!)
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on March 28, 2007, 02:03:
 
I just saw this on the UK MacUser web site. Check out the word "democracy" in the thesaurus of built in dictionary/thesaurus in MacOS X, either using the app itself or the widget. You'll get an interesting example sentence.
 
Posted by WinterSolstice (Member # 934) on March 28, 2007, 06:13:
 
Nice... try "president" [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on March 28, 2007, 07:25:
 
The Economist magazine initially supported the US invasion of Iraq. It is therefore interesting to read this perceptive analysis of how it all went wrong. The YouTube videos that are the subject of this thread are, of course, part of the collapse of US moral authority and prestige that this article delineates, and that ASM, is why they are both important, and so so depressing. Be grateful that the infrastructure of the country is still so messed up that few Iraqis will get to see them.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on March 28, 2007, 12:39:
 
Interesting article Calli, especially the part where only 43% of Iraqis want a democracy, with the rest favouring either a Saddam-style dictatorship, or Iranian-style theocracy.

Imposing democracy on people who don't want it is a contradiction in terms, and a recipe for disaster.
 
Posted by WinterSolstice (Member # 934) on March 28, 2007, 13:29:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
Interesting article Calli, especially the part where only 43% of Iraqis want a democracy, with the rest favouring either a Saddam-style dictatorship, or Iranian-style theocracy.

Imposing democracy on people who don't want it is a contradiction in terms, and a recipe for disaster.

Well, 43% (if the largest single group) makes a majority.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on March 28, 2007, 15:59:
 
quote:
Originally posted by WinterSolstice:
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
Imposing democracy on people who don't want it is a contradiction in terms, and a recipe for disaster.

Well, 43% (if the largest single group) makes a majority.
Last time I checked, 'majority' meant 'more than half'.

I believe you're thinking of 'plurality'.
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on March 28, 2007, 17:08:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by WinterSolstice:
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
Imposing democracy on people who don't want it is a contradiction in terms, and a recipe for disaster.

Well, 43% (if the largest single group) makes a majority.
Last time I checked, 'majority' meant 'more than half'.

I believe you're thinking of 'plurality'.

Majority, like democracy has a different meaning in the US. Just look at the past two elections.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on March 28, 2007, 17:27:
 
Okay, a simple majority means just that - one option was more favored. If you have more than two options, you can have a simple majority with less than 50%.

That said, in Iraq, 43% of those who responded to the poll want a democracy. The other 57% are split between a couple other options. Which is an awkward position because, while democracy comes out the winner by a simple majority, you still have more than half the population wanting something else. That half, however, is split over what they want...

No wonder the place is such a mess.

I took a social and political philosophy course my senior year of college. The one thing I really remember about the class was the central question: what makes a government a legitimate government? In times of old, this question was answered by either brute force, or someone claiming that they had the mandate of heaven (or, as often as not, a combination of the two). Given that might makes right is unsound and the mandate of heaven is hard to swallow when there's no philosophical proof that heaven even gives mandates, these two answers are now sitting in the trash bin. The current thinking, as I understood the class, is that a legitimate government rules by the consent of the governed. Iraq does not currently have such a set up, nor will it until the US and the UK and the rest of the coalition get the fsck out. Change comes from within, and if the Iraqis didn't/don't want a democracy, that's their choice to make. The rest of the world is just going to have to figure out how to deal.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on March 28, 2007, 18:10:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
Okay, a simple majority means just that - one option was more favored. If you have more than two options, you can have a simple majority with less than 50%.

I was going to correct you on this, went-a-googling, and discovered this is yet another case of two nations divided by a common language. I hadn't realised that such basic words as 'majority' could mean different things in different (theoretically) English-speaking countries.

Here in oz, a 'majority' is >50%, the term 'simple majority' means the same thing, but is used to distinguish from the 'special majority' needed in some cases (eg 2/3 majority required to override a presidents veto in the USA).

The US usage of 'simple majority' in a 3-cornered contest isn't a term we have much need for, because our voting system doesn't suffer from the US/UK 'first-past-the-post' sillyness.
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on March 28, 2007, 18:34:
 
Part 1. You don't have a clue about "real lack of moral authority."
quote:
Mugged by reality -- Mar 22nd 2007
from The Economist print edition

Al-Qaeda is running a jihad against the Americans and Shias alike. By killing Shias, especially after blowing up their Askariyah shrine last February, al-Qaeda has succeeded in provoking a torrent of revenge killings.

"Jihad" indicates actions have moral authority by the perfect word of god, and carried out on behalf of God and Islam.

Al-Qaeda has been around almost 20 years, other terrorist groups have been around even longer; however, they all make it clear that god wants them to kill for him.

Does god want his believers to kill people?

For several of you, as long as no one that you care about is killed, or the killings are a good distance from your home, then the right thing to do mind your own business and not interfere. Then after a "tragedy" like Rwanda hits the news, you can boldly say "we'll never let that happen again" while killings begin in another place like Darfur.

Your mantra is "live and let die," but you never stop claiming how much you oppose "evil" by carrying on with hateful rants.
 

Part 2. "Typical" Killing
quote:
March 26, 2007 07:48
Is this a typical day in Iraq?

March 26, 2007 08:48
Pretty typical I bet.

Well, let's assume Rwanda is an indicator of how much people can kill, and make up some simulation numbers:
Since somebody probably thinks these figures are completely unrealistic, I'll make a sample argument for them:
quote:
ASM, only a total nut case would believe that one person given 24 hours could kill a whole human being. At best, a person might be able to kill 25% of another human being in one day.

Second, Rwandans are the perfect killing machines. They inhabit coastal waters and grow to lengths of 20 feet, often weighing 4,000 pounds. They have rows of serrated teeth, and when biting, shake their heads side to side so the teeth will act as a saw and tear off large chunks of flesh........

 

Well in that case, assume that 50,000 Rwandans jump out of the ocean and attack Iraq.

In three years, they could kill 9 million people.

(helping "them" some more)
quote:
ASM, what part of "perfect killing machine" don't you understand?

Nothing you Americans have matches the killing power of a Rwandan.

 
Point: US soldiers "killing innocent civilians" is the exception rather than the rule, but the typical left-wing nuts will still believe the typical US soldiers spends his typical day killing civilians (because they can't comprehend math).
 

Part 3. Just Trying to Learn ......
quote:
Shia believed that leadership should stay within the family of the Prophet, and thus they were the partisans of Ali, his cousin and son-in-law.

Sunnis believed that leadership should fall to the person who was deemed by the elite of the community to be best able to lead the community.

Eventually, Ali was chosen as the fourth caliph, but not before violent conflict broke out. Two of the earliest caliphs were murdered. War erupted when Ali became caliph, and he too was killed in fighting in the year 661 near the town of Kufa, now in present-day Iraq.

To me, it looks like Sunnis started killing Shiites, and Shiites started killing Sunnis, a little more than a thousand years ago.

Is the murder of Muslims at the hands of Muslims the will of god?

quote:
March 28, 2007 07:25
... part of the collapse of US moral authority and prestige that this article delineates....

Would the killing of rival caliphs by other Muslims over a thousand years ago qualify as a "collapse of moral authority and prestige"?
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on March 28, 2007, 23:15:
 
ASM I battled through your usual formatting jungle in that last post, and I think I extracted the argument. I believe it is this:-

The US and it's military are fighting an enemy that is infintely more evil, and we must support them because there is no alternative, and errr.... that's it.

The first part of your argument has I believe been answered in previous posts, and the second part assumes that the war in Iraq can be won. If it can be won at all, it won't happen while US troops show so little respect for the people they are supposed to be protecting. "Hearts and minds" is more than just a catchphrase.

I suspect that your actual problem is that you, like many people on the right, have an almost religious faith in the military as the acme of all that is good about the US, which will not allow for the unpleasant reality revealed by these stories.
 
Posted by WinterSolstice (Member # 934) on March 29, 2007, 05:42:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
Okay, a simple majority means just that - one option was more favored. If you have more than two options, you can have a simple majority with less than 50%.

I was going to correct you on this, went-a-googling, and discovered this is yet another case of two nations divided by a common language. I hadn't realised that such basic words as 'majority' could mean different things in different (theoretically) English-speaking countries.

Here in oz, a 'majority' is >50%, the term 'simple majority' means the same thing, but is used to distinguish from the 'special majority' needed in some cases (eg 2/3 majority required to override a presidents veto in the USA).

The US usage of 'simple majority' in a 3-cornered contest isn't a term we have much need for, because our voting system doesn't suffer from the US/UK 'first-past-the-post' sillyness.

Perhaps you could think of it as a "voting block".

If there are 10 people, 4 of them want burgers, 2 of them want pizza, one of them wants noodles, and 3 of them want sandwiches you have a "simple majority" for burgers. Not because most people want burgers, but because the other groups can't get along. Since these 10 people are theoretically in one car travelling to points equidistant, you have to make a choice.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on March 29, 2007, 12:58:
 
quote:
Originally posted by WinterSolstice:
If there are 10 people, 4 of them want burgers, 2 of them want pizza, one of them wants noodles, and 3 of them want sandwiches you have a "simple majority" for burgers. Not because most people want burgers, but because the other groups can't get along. Since these 10 people are theoretically in one car travelling to points equidistant, you have to make a choice.

Yup, I understand the concept, it's just that here in oz we wouldn't use the word 'majority' for the 4 who wanted burgers. Thanks to the wonders of google, I now know you're using the word correctly in the US sense.

I thought I knew all the differences between English and whatever it is you merkins speak, just goes to show...

btw - in real life, and in the aussie political system, you'd then ask those who wanted pizza and noodles to pick which of the other options they prefer, that way at least half get something they're not too unhappy with.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on March 29, 2007, 13:19:
 
Oh you're just grumbling because you thought you had a chance to shoot me down and missed it. [Razz] [Wink]

I wouldn't call it a language difference. I was just doing math, that's all.

Sorry, rough week, grad school sucks, carry on...
 
Posted by WinterSolstice (Member # 934) on March 29, 2007, 13:47:
 
Hehehe - time for a good ol' My Fair Lady quote [Big Grin]

"An Englishman's way of speaking absolutely classifies him,
The moment he talks he makes some other
Englishman despise him.
One common language I'm afraid we'll never get.
Oh, why can't the English learn to set
A good example to people whose
English is painful to your ears?
The Scotch and the Irish leave you close to tears.
There even are places where English completely
disappears. In America, they haven't used it for years!"
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on March 29, 2007, 23:26:
 
quote:
March 28, 2007 23:15
... fighting an enemy that is infinitely more evil,
... there is no alternative

The "revenge killing" has to stop; it's basically the root of "the evil," and it will never end as long people of authority preach "revenge killing is god's will," and people keep believing it.

"Revenge killing" is more of a misnomer. A typical situation is:
quote:
A _____ killed my brother.
Now I will go to a _____ neighborhood and kill a dozen _____s.
That will teach whoever killed my brother that he won't get away with murder,
    ... even if I don't get close to harming him or anyone he knows.

A better term would probably be "murderous venting."

On a local or small scale (like a city), "sectarian violence" that has killed thousands should make it clear that this mindset is unacceptable.

Then there is:
quote:
"The twelfth imam is expected to return and fulfill the long-awaited Islamic apocalypse, one that will reward the faithful and, with catastrophic violence, purge all infidels from the face of the Earth.” 
On a global or large scale, it should be clear that this mindset is unacceptable.

FWIW: I am well aware that many people consider apocalyptic destruction and death as desirable. However, if someone wants to defend that, I will probably use the thoughts of George Carlin in a manner that will be (very) offensive.
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on March 30, 2007, 08:56:
 
I wonder when ASM will realise he's just an asshat troll who we all just ridicule at this point because he has his head embedded so very far up his ass and go away..
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on March 31, 2007, 09:48:
 
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:
I wonder when ASM will realise he's just an asshat troll who we all just ridicule at this point because he has his head embedded so very far up his ass and go away..

I'm guessing never. For that I blame, Iran, Mc Donalds, North Korea, George Bush, Syria, The food for oil program, Clint Eastwood, Metallica, Saddam, China, Nazis, jews, Canada, incandescent light bulbs, Bin Laden, Bill Gates, near beer, Sunnis, cloning, meth, tofu, New Orleans, Monica Lewinski, Kurds, Star Wars I-III, Shia, kittens, Vista, the seal hunt, Hillary Clint, the blacks, The Blair Witch Project, Stephen Harper, the Leafs, global warming, SUVs.....and some other stuff.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on March 31, 2007, 15:53:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
The "revenge killing" has to stop; it's basically the root of "the evil," and it will never end as long people of authority preach "revenge killing is god's will," and people keep believing it.

"Revenge killing" is more of a misnomer. A typical situation is:
quote:
A _____ killed my brother.
Now I will go to a _____ neighborhood and kill a dozen _____s.
That will teach whoever killed my brother that he won't get away with murder,
    ... even if I don't get close to harming him or anyone he knows.

A better term would probably be "murderous venting."
Am I the only one who read the above as a passionate criticism of the Bush regimes invasion of Iraq?

Perhaps ASM has seem the light?

(Father forgive me, for I have fed the troll. I was surfing on Mrs Druids iBook, which doesn't have the ASM filter installed, and I couldn't resist... )
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on March 31, 2007, 19:57:
 
Point 1. How Stupid Do You Have to Be?

Let's imagine just the driver during this video:
quote:
Time: 00 seconds
    (sound in the distance: kak-kak-kak ... kak-kak ... kak-kak-kak-kak)
    Driver: Oh, what a lovely day.

Time: 10 seconds
    (sound getting louder: kak-kak-kak ... kak-kak ... kak-kak-kak-kak)
    Driver: Ooooo ... Smoke. I bet someone is cooking chicken.

Time: 20 seconds
    (sound: very loud continuous machine-gun fire)
    Driver: Mmmm. Chicken and a cup of tea would be wonderful right now.

Time: 30 seconds
    (sound: very loud continuous machine-gun fire continues)
    Driver: I will go the store straight in front of me.

Time: 40 seconds
    (sound: very loud continuous machine-gun fire continues)
    Driver: How strange, there are ringings in my ears.

Time: 45 seconds
    (sound: very loud continuous machine-gun fire continues)
    Driver: Aaaiiiigh ... my engine has blown and I cannot steer! I wish I had bought the extended warranty.

 
Someone would have to be crazy or very stupid to drive though the middle of a firefight with machine-guns shooting from the left and right.

TFD, if you decide to convince some of your left-wing friends that walking through a hail of machine-gun fire is quite sensible and intelligent, maybe it'll make a funny story someday.
 

Point 2. TFD: A Word Means What I Say It Means
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
Am I the only one who read the above as a passionate criticism of the Bush regimes invasion of Iraq?

Probably not. TFD, you frequently reach your own conclusion about statements when definitions of words indicate something completely different, but ... there are a few others that have delusions about Bush controlling and causing everything in some inconceivably vast conspiracy:
quote:
Headline: Global Warming
Left-wing loon: SEE IT'S BUSH !!! -- HE DID THAT !!!

Headline: Insurgents Bomb Askariya Shrine in Samarra
Left-wing loon: SEE IT'S BUSH !!! -- HE DID THAT !!!

Headline: Death Squads Run by Mahdi Militia
Left-wing loon: SEE IT'S BUSH !!! -- HE DID THAT !!!

 

Point 3. TFD: "Look It's a Typical Revenge Killing"

Yes, TFD, it's clear you sympathize with the driver of the white car. You look at that and see a "revenge killing."

For other people, some observations:

If I believe TFD, this has to be the first "revenge killing" where the "victim" knew people were being killed nearby, knew how people were being killed, was in a safe location, and voluntarily went to middle of the shooting to be killed.   [shake head]

I wonder what TFD would have done .... (imagine TFD telling us)
quote:
ASM, I didn't say I would do what that driver did.... If I heard machine-guns, I'd drive to the middle of the shooting, jump out of the car, cluck like a chicken, wave my arms, jump and scream "I'M FLYING!!! I'M FLYING!!!" until the gunfire stopped.

 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on April 01, 2007, 03:31:
 
I should have known ASM would 'play dumb' in interpreting my posting, and I know I shouldn't reply to his in(s)ane rants, but he was replying to me, so just this one time...

Let's fill in the blanks in ASMs earlier posting, shall we?

quote:
Originaly posted by ASM:
"Revenge killing" is more of a misnomer. A typical situation is:
quote:
A Muslim killed my brother.
Now I will go to a Muslim country and kill tens of thousands of Muslims.
That will teach whoever killed my brother that he won't get away with murder,
    ... even if I don't get close to harming him or anyone he knows.

A better term would probably be "murderous venting."
To make it even more specific, for the benefit of the comprehension-impaired...

Some Muslims from Saudi Arabia, currently based in Afghanistan, killed several thousand people in New York.
Now I will go to Iraq, a country which had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks, and kill tens of thousands of Muslims who had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks.
That will teach bin Laden that he won't get away with murder,
    ... even if it means letting bin Laden escape, because I've got so many troops tied up in the Iraq fiasco that I don't have enough left in Afghanistan to search for him.
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on April 01, 2007, 20:18:
 
Point 1. So You Think This Is Only About the September 11 Attacks
quote:
April 01, 2007 03:31
Now I will go to Iraq ...
That will teach bin Laden that he won't get away with murder,
    ... even if it means letting bin Laden escape....

You act as if there has been nothing other than the September 11 attacks that would be reason for the US to declare a "war on terrorism." In 1998, bin Laden was a co-signatory with Ayman Zawahiri to a fatwa put out in the name of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, declaring:
quote:
"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it...."
That doesn't even consider the fact that an "act of war" (nearly identical to 9/11) was made in 1993 when terrorists detonated a massive bomb in the World Trade Center, but failed to destroy it. There have been so many "acts of war" against the US by Islamic extremist terrorist groups over several decades that if I have to list them for you, then you don't have a clue about what's going on.

So you think Saddam wasn't involved in terrorism? He was publicly paying $25,000 per suicide bombing against Jews, while he was under UN sanctions. Let's imagine the US confronting the UN about it:
quote:
US: Saddam is funding international terrorism.
UN: We cannot interfere. There are no sanctions against him that forbid promoting the murder of civilians outside of Iraq.
US: Murder is a crime under international law.
UN: But we never told him that he was forbidden to incite murder and terrorism.

 

Point 2. The Actions of Governments
quote:
Some Muslims from Saudi Arabia, currently based in Afghanistan, killed several thousand people in New York.
Although several of the 9/11 terrorists were Muslims from Saudi Arabia, the government of Saudi Arabia "quickly" chose to cooperate with the US government.

Saddam essentially did nothing but look for ways to openly violate UN sanctions, international law, and cause trouble with impunity.

TFD, if you want, you can respond with something like:
quote:
ASM, it doesn't matter how much the government of Saudi Arabia cooperated to interfere with terrorism against the US, the US should have started killing thousands of Saudis.... That's what I would have done.

 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on April 01, 2007, 23:02:
 
(sigh) Logic according to ASM: If TFD doesn't want to kill thousands of innocent Iraqis, he must want to kill thousands of innocent Saudis instead.

End of pointless discussion.

/me re-enables the ASM filter
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on April 02, 2007, 03:26:
 
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:
I wonder when ASM will realise he's just an asshat troll who we all just ridicule at this point because he has his head embedded so very far up his ass and go away..

Curiously I am convinced that ASM sees his contributions as logical responses to the other posts. It is notable however that in a thread like this one, his blind and total loyalty will not allow him to engage with the subject of the thread, which is of course the serious detrimental effect that these incidents, together with Abu Graib have had on the ability of the US to bring Iraq to any kind of stability. The only positive side that I see is that the longer the thread goes on the more incomprehensible his posts become, and I hope this indicates that there may be some internal conflicts happening within him, indicating that perhaps a glimmer of reality is getting through.

Any political faith like his which defines itself chiefly by its enemies, while it can be extremely dangerous for a while, will, like fascism and communism always ultimately fail.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on April 02, 2007, 09:05:
 
Yeah, but living through the period when it's not failing kinda sucks.
 
Posted by WinterSolstice (Member # 934) on April 02, 2007, 09:16:
 
Well, "Ultimately" is a long time... after all, many Greek City-States had Democracy and it "Ultimately" failed. They went despotic/fascist pre-dark age, then monarchist, fascist, and now republican.

I'd say it all depends - every society changes models all the time. The ultimate winner is far from decided. I'm still hoping for an eventual wide republic (wider than the US - with more people arguing over stuff). I figure government always corrupts, so the more you have to convince the better [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Stereo (Member # 748) on April 02, 2007, 09:56:
 
quote:
Originally posted by WinterSolstice:
I figure government always corrupts, so the more you have to convince the better [Big Grin]

On the downside, if there is corruption in such a large republic, the perpetrator would have access to more money. The upside is, there are less places left to flee to.

(Cued by: the recent healine that Mr. Lafleur, who is now officially accused of corruption, can't be found. The last place he was heard of is Costa Rica.)
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on April 02, 2007, 12:42:
 
Hi All ____________________ Snaggy posed a question to Jace, that has not been answered. I have a question of all of you, "How many Iraq's died in the US civil war 1860/64?" Second question what is being done about UBL?
 
Posted by Stereo (Member # 748) on April 02, 2007, 13:20:
 
What is being done about UBL: for what I know, the canadian troops - and other troops from the OTAN - between securing some areas and their population (or trying, at least), delivering emergency supplies (and other kind of supplies, like school items), fighting talibans and warlords, escorting reconstruction teams and surviving any attacks and traps set upon them, are still keeping an eye open in case they would find him. I'd still have to hear the definitive opinion of Mr. Amid Karzai about their presence (not so long ago, he asked for them being recalled, then asked their presence to continue - how much of that flip-flop is due to diplomatic pressure I don't know) to decide if I personnaly support their mission or not, but that's not the point.

Now, about your first question, I'd have to properly understanding it, for a starter. First, I'll take that you meant Iraqis rather than Iraq's. Second, as far as I know, Iraq wasn't yet a country during the US civil war. Third, I don't think there was many citizen of persian descent by then in the US, and if there were, I don't think they were important enough to historical facts to have their own body count. And last, though my US history is lacking, I don't remember ever hearing the US civil war was started by ottoman troops toppling the US governement - so what does it have to do with the current subject? [crazy]

(And me not being Jace nor in Iraq, I can't answer Snaggy's question. [Big Grin] )
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on April 02, 2007, 13:49:
 
Stereo ___________________________ My point was what did Iraq have to do with the "FLY INTOS" so why are we involved with their civil war. We do have a right to chase UBL all over the globe and hunt him down like a rabid dog, So why are we in IRAQ?
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on April 02, 2007, 13:50:
 
Stereo: You go girl! [Applause]

Moman: Don't forget it was your country's military intelligence (the same ones who claimed WMD in Iraq) who fingered OBL for 911 then quickly did the switcheroo leaving the 'coalition of the willing' in Afghanistan while y'all chased down Saddam in Iraq so shrub could do his daddy proud.

Fast forward a couple years since your prez hung the 'mission accomplished' banner on the air deck and a couple hundred thousand people are dead. A region is destabilized, a few trillion US dollars have been wasted and the US is a bigger target than it ever was. Why anyone would still stand behind a man guilty of misleading the world, killing hundreds of thousands in the name of god is beyond me.
 
Posted by GMx (Member # 1523) on April 02, 2007, 14:48:
 
And the U.S. started the civil war by destabilizing the government, no matter how bad it was, and without any definitive plan of what to do once Saddam was overthrown.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on April 02, 2007, 14:49:
 
Why is the US in Iraq?

Shortly before the invasion the author (and former spy) John LeCarre wote a newspaper article entitled "America has gone mad". Seems a fair explanation.
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on April 03, 2007, 00:27:
 
quote:
April 02, 2007, 14:49
Why is the US in Iraq?

 
Why is it that no one blames Muslims for killing Muslims?

    (I really want to know.)

As for your question: The UN displayed excessive, unbridled corruption and Saddam had spent decades causing international trouble (in addition to being "just plain evil").

Looking back, maybe the US should have sent an armored division into the UN and shut them down for being an accessory to genocide on multiple occasions. Specifically in Darfur, the UN has taken the position "it looks like genocide, it sounds like genocide, it smells like genocide -- it's not genocide."

... but going back to my question ...

I read reports in the news that clearly indicate where Muslims were killed by another Muslim, so some people's conclusions seem irrational.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on April 03, 2007, 03:30:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
Why is it that no one blames Muslims for killing Muslims?

    (I really want to know.)

Nobody here is arguing that the people doing the killing (whatever their religion) are devoid of blame. On the other hand that does not absolve the US from responsibility in creating this situation, which even a cursory reading of recent history would tell you was completely predictable before the invasion. If you came into my back yard and kicked over a nest of hornets, I would not be impressed if you told me that you were just giving them their freedom and were not responsible for what they did with it.

quote:
As for your question: The UN displayed excessive, unbridled corruption and Saddam had spent decades causing international trouble (in addition to being "just plain evil").

Looking back, maybe the US should have sent an armored division into the UN and shut them down for being an accessory to genocide on multiple occasions. Specifically in Darfur, the UN has taken the position "it looks like genocide, it sounds like genocide, it smells like genocide -- it's not genocide."

As for the UN, I suggest you stay quiet about the oil for food scandal, as it looks like a children's tea party when compared to what has happened since the invasion, and under the direct responsibility of people hand picked by the administration to ensure they had the "correct" political beliefs. Accounting controls over Iraq's oil revenues are so lax that (as of last year anyway) nobody even knows how much oil has been been sold.

As for Darfur, Rwanda etc. assuming a minimal degree of intelligence on your part, you must be aware that the UN is primarily a talking shop, justified in the words of Winston Churchill by the idea that "jaw-jaw is better than war-war", a notion that you clearly believe outmoded, but that is still popular among those that enjoy life more than a killing spree. Naturally as any UN peacekeeping operation needs collective agreement, the moral responsibility for lack of action is also collective, but if we have to allocate a lion's share it should certainly belong to the nation, that (when not withholding its contribution) is the largest monetary contributor to the UN, and without whom no military involvement is possible. I have not noticed your government campaigning very actively or publicly for international involvement in Darfur. Shame really.

Lastly as I have given you what I hope is an answer to your question, would you kindly favour me with an answer to mine. Do you consider the behaviour shown in these videos and the things that went on in Abu Graib regrettable and a matter for serious concern, or are they just the kind of stuff that will happen in any war, and of little real importance?
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on April 03, 2007, 04:07:
 
Callipygous ________________________ I am not going to say that this is war and DooDoo happens, this country has swung so far to the right, I am afraid it will capsize. The moal majority is neither moral nor the majority.
 


© 2018 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0