Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hippo on May 11, 2004, 02:42:01 pm
-
[q]Video Shows Beheading of American in Iraq
Civilian Was in Iraq Looking for Contract Work
By NIKO PRICE, AP
BAGHDAD, Iraq (May 11) -- A video posted Tuesday on an Islamic militant Web site showed the beheading of an American civilian in Iraq, and said the execution was carried out by an al-Qaida affiliated group to avenge the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers.
The video showed five men wearing headscarves and black ski masks, standing over a bound man in an orange jumpsuit - similar to a prisoner's uniform - who identified himself as Nick Berg, a U.S. contractor whose body was found on a highway overpass in Baghdad on Saturday.
''My name is Nick Berg, my father's name is Michael, my mother's name is Susan,'' the man said on the video. ''I have a brother and sister, David and Sarah. I live in ... Philadelphia.''
After reading a statement, the men were seen pulling the man to his side and putting a large knife to his neck. A scream sounded as the men cut his head off, shouting ''Allahu Akbar!'' - ''God is great.'' They then held the head out before the camera.
Berg's family said Tuesday they knew their son had been decapitated, but didn't know the details of the killing. When told of the video by an Associated Press reporter, Berg's father, Michael, and his two siblings hugged and cried.
''I knew he was decapitated before. That manner is preferable to a long and torturous death. But I didn't want it to become public,'' Michael Berg said.
On the Web site, one of the executioners read a statement:
''For the mothers and wives of American soldiers, we tell you that we offered the U.S. administration to exchange this hostage with some of the detainees in Abu Ghraib and they refused.''
''So we tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins ... slaughtered in this way.''
The video bore the title ''Abu Musab al-Zarqawi shown slaughtering an American.'' It was unclear whether al-Zarqawi - a lieutenant of Osama bin Laden - was shown in the video, or was claiming responsibility for ordering the execution.
The Web site on which the video was posted is known as a clearing house for al-Qaida and Islamic extremist groups' statements and tapes. An audiotape purportedly from bin Laden - which the CIA said was probably authentic - appeared on the same Web site last week.
Western officials say al-Zarqawi, whose real name is Ahmad Fadhil al-Khalayleh, is a lieutenant of bin Laden. The United States has offered $10 million for information leading to the capture or killing of al-Zarqawi, saying he is trying to build a network of foreign militants in Iraq to work for al-Qaida.
In the video, the speaker threatened both President **** and Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
''As for you **** ... expect severe days. You and your soldiers will regret the day you stepped into the land of Iraq,'' he said. He described Musharraf as ''a traitor agent.''
The slaying recalled the kidnapping and videotaped beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002 in Pakistan. Four Islamic militants have been convicted of kidnapping Pearl, but seven other suspects - including those who allegedly slit his throat - remain at large.
Suzanne Berg, the mother of the 26-year-old Berg, of West Chester, Pa., said her son was in Iraq as an independent businessman to help rebuild communication antennas. He had been missing since April 9, she said.
''He had this idea that he could help rebuild the infrastructure,'' she said.
The U.S. military Tuesday said an American civilian was found dead in Baghdad, but did not release his identity. State Department spokeswoman Susan Pittman said she couldn't release the name of the dead American, but said she not aware of more than one civilian found dead in recent days.
The military said there were signs of trauma to the body. Suzanne Berg said she was told her son's death was violent but did not want to discuss details.
Berg, who was in Baghdad from late December to Feb. 1, returned to Iraq in March. He didn't find any work and planned again to return home on March 30, but his daily communications home stopped on March 24. He later told his parents he was jailed by Iraqi officials at a checkpoint in Mosul.
''He was arrested and held without due process,'' his father, Michael Berg, told the Daily Local News of West Chester recently. ''By the time he got out the whole area was inflamed with violence.
The FBI on March 31 interviewed Berg's parents in West Chester. Jerri Williams, a spokeswoman for the Philadelphia FBI office, told The Philadelphia Inquirer the agency had been ''asked to interview the parents regarding Mr. Berg's purpose in Iraq.''
On April 5, the Bergs filed suit in federal court in Philadelphia, contending that their son was being held illegally by the U.S. military. The next day Berg was released. He told his parents he hadn't been mistreated.
The Bergs last heard from their son April 9, when he said he would come home by way of Jordan, Turkey or Kuwait. But by then, hostilities in Iraq had escalated.
Suzanne Berg on Tuesday said she was told her son's body would be transported to Kuwait and then to Dover, Del. She said the family had been trying for weeks to learn where their son was but that federal officials had not been helpful.
''I went through this with them for weeks,'' she said. ''I basically ended up doing most of the investigating myself.''
05/11/04 13:58 EDT
(http://cdn.news.aol.com/aolnews_photos/04/00/20040511143609990028)The man in the video identified himself as Nick Berg.[/q]
Sad...:doubt:
-
'Tis a shame. All civilian deaths are a tragedy. With that said, how many others like him do you reckon there are?
echos of Daniel Pearl anyone?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
'Tis a shame. All civilian deaths are a tragedy. With that said, how many others like him do you reckon there are?
echos of Daniel Pearl anyone?
What do you care? He's an evil American, isn't he? How about you send his family a card telling them they're next for aiding "The Evil Imperialists"?
-
I don't think Rictor hates Americans he hates the "American way".
Which I partially agree with.
-
Civilian deaths are always bad. Military deaths are bad as well, but a lot more acceptable. As for retaliating, Isreal/Palestine anyone?
Anyhow, this is the complete first I heard of it, the Dutch papers are all full of the first Dutch death of the war, some soldier getting a 'nade thrown at him.
-
sadly, i head of it through AOL... it even gives you the video (edited, and AOL for broadband only)...
-
ionia: shows how much you know about me. I dont hate Americans, thats far, far too broad a statement. Neither do I hate the "American way", though at times it royally pisses me off. What I do hate is the government and the military, this guy was connected with neither.
BTW, the Dutch have troops in Iraq? Hmmm, thats news to me.
-
Time for a good 'ol 'proportional response'. I think carpetbombing Fallujah might get the message across.
"I am not frightened. I'm going to blow them off the face of the earth with the fury of God's own thunder." - WW
-
Originally posted by Hippo
...the speaker threatened both President ****
so our president's name is a bad word now! :p :cool: LOL
Yeah. watch. this is just the beginning. sh1t's going to start hitting the fan now
-
I just realised how much of an arse someone in this thread is after reading some earlier posts. :lol:
-
Ugh...sad. :(
****'s approval's goin down the toilet now, at least we can hope he won't get re-elected.
-
Hmm, this is intersting. Apparently, the family is blaming the US government, saying he might still be alive had he not been ilegally detained in Iraq. Guess its not just the Iraqis, the GIs are also rounding up their own people.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/all-islamicsite-side-051104,0,7401208.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines
-
Good job with prison scandal, dudes! :cool: Glad you did it, because now every American/western captured has so much more chances to survive! :(
-
You realize of couse, that when they say it was because of Abu Gharib or whatever there lying? They killed him because he was american.
-
Oh yeah, and of course the family (AKA father) blames the government because he it staunchly anti-war, funny thing was that his son supported the war and wanted to help. Thats why he was over there (fixing antennas).
-
That's why he died in a country where he had nothing to do.
Smooth job. His father should be thankful, actually.
-
Originally posted by 01010
I don't think Rictor hates Americans he hates the "American way".
Which I partially agree with.
most americans are stupider than a Estonian highschool student :doubt: thats why i dont like them ... look at theyr president ffs :)
-
Meh, to be honest, all this fanatic has done is, in some small part, justify the American torture fiasco. The fact that he was sick enough to not only behead someone but to do it on video has done nothing to improve Iraqs situation in the worlds eyes, if anything, it will diminish sympathy for them. Apparently the medical report said that the American girl who was captured near the start of the war was drugged and sodomised, though I'm not sure how accurate that report is. So all this 'you started it' crap is getting on my nerves.
Besides, according to Bin Laden, Americans think that Muslim lives are worth less than Christian ones? According to this wanker, showing pictures of a muslim on a lead (not that I agree in any way with this behaviour) is worth beheading a American for? Remember, very little details are out regarding the deaths in the jails, and this was purely about the 'pride of muslim people', not their lives, so it seems Bin Laden's own Leiutenant has proven his leader a liar. If America had thought like this can you imagine how many dead there would be in Korea or Vietnam?
-
Originally posted by Ashrak
most americans are stupider than a Estonian highschool student :doubt: thats why i dont like them ... look at theyr president ffs :)
I think you meant "more stupid".
-
This sickens me. And it shows how barbaric the Militants are.
Break out the B-52s and lets get to bombin'. Two or Three more and I be ready to pull out the Finger of God class nukes.
Let them see that we are not going to be trifled with and that we can't be defeated and they'll fight all the harder and we'll kill them off faster.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
This sickens me. And it shows how barbaric the Militants are.
Break out the B-52s and lets get to bombin'. Two or Three more and I be ready to pull out the Finger of God class nukes.
Let them see that we are not going to be trifled with and that we can't be defeated and they'll fight all the harder and we'll kill them off faster.
Just for humor's sake, let me ask you something, since I've been suggesting nerve-gassing Fallujah to get the 'message' out for some time.
Let's say the coalition forces DID decide to do a disproportionate response, such as carpetbombing one of the insurgent towns. What do you think world reaction would be, honestly?
-
unpleasent
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Meh, to be honest, all this fanatic has done is, in some small part, justify the American torture fiasco. The fact that he was sick enough to not only behead someone but to do it on video has done nothing to improve Iraqs situation in the worlds eyes, if anything, it will diminish sympathy for them. Apparently the medical report said that the American girl who was captured near the start of the war was drugged and sodomised, though I'm not sure how accurate that report is. So all this 'you started it' crap is getting on my nerves.
Besides, according to Bin Laden, Americans think that Muslim lives are worth less than Christian ones? According to this wanker, showing pictures of a muslim on a lead (not that I agree in any way with this behaviour) is worth beheading a American for? Remember, very little details are out regarding the deaths in the jails, and this was purely about the 'pride of muslim people', not their lives, so it seems Bin Laden's own Leiutenant has proven his leader a liar. If America had thought like this can you imagine how many dead there would be in Korea or Vietnam?
You really, really shouldn't have picked Korea and Vietnam as examples.
I mean, there are reports of rape at Abu Ghraib, a woman being impregnated twice, several deaths during interogation etc, in addition to the bombing and occupation deaths. So, if you want to compare on a statistical scale (crimes of A vs crimes of B), well one side is still far ahead of the other.
But as I said, one crime doesn't justify another. This guy was an innocent.
-
and on the subject of Rictors hatred of America, I'll just leave it at this.
US soldgers make some Iraqi's stand naked, Rictors inital responce
"Bastards ought to be lynched."
matter of public record, look in the 'sad day to be a vet' thread,
his first responce to an American being beheaded
" 'Tis a shame."
you can make your own conclusions from this
-
Originally posted by Liberator
This sickens me. And it shows how barbaric the Militants are.
Break out the B-52s and lets get to bombin'. Two or Three more and I be ready to pull out the Finger of God class nukes.
Let them see that we are not going to be trifled with and that we can't be defeated and they'll fight all the harder and we'll kill them off faster.
:lol: :lol:
If breaking out the bombers is what you would consider an appropriate response to the killing of a single America, I wonder what would be appropriate for 10,000 dead Iraqis. How does taking out the solar system sound?
-
Originally posted by sevral people
lets send a mesage!
NUKE Fallujah!!!11!!!1!
Fallujah is a city of nearly 500,000 people, there is maybe 2,000 people in there shooting at us, that means you'd be killing 498,000 people who have done nothing, what sort of measge are you trying to send again?
killing one or two inocent people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time to get someone important is one thing, but killing about a quarter million people isn't something that I think is going to get us what we want. wich is a peaceful democratic Iraq run by it's people, posably an ally, that is what we want right, right?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
and on the subject of Rictors hatred of America, I'll just leave it at this.
US soldgers make some Iraqi's stand naked, Rictors inital responce
"Bastards ought to be lynched."
matter of public record, look in the 'sad day to be a vet' thread,
his first responce to an American being beheaded
" 'Tis a shame."
you can make your own conclusions from this
Oh please. I'm taking two things into account here. The number of victims, and the severity of the crime.
One person was beheaded. Hundreds if not thousands were tortured and some died. Until such a time as the insurgents manage to get their paws on 10,000 American civies and execute 'em, they are statistically speaking, less evil. I value all life the same, no one more than other.
-
so there better people simply due to the fact that they are weaker?
:wtf:
-
Yes, I did want to pick those as examples, because they are both places where American 'Pride' was damaged. They both went in for the wrong reasons, did the wrong things, and were sent packing in front of the international community with their tails between their legs. If this guy had been President at the time, I don't doubt they would have both ended up nuked to attone for 'damaged pride' ;)
Yes, there are reports of terrible things at Abu Ghraib, some of them may be true, some of them may be scaremongering. Some of them will be lies made up by bitter prisoners and those who sympathise with the Iraqi resistance. But some of them WILL be true, and it is terrible, and justice must be done.
I don't actually want to do 'Does crime A > crime B' simply because Crime A = Crime B. I don't care who started it, we could chase the trail of lies and misdirection all the way back to the first gulf war and beyond most likely, and I'm not keeping score of the 'crimes', one death is too many, on either side.
What I care about, quite frankly, is the blatant, undeniable stupidity of two cultures racing headlong towards eventual collision in stupid, vicious, petty tit for tat actions such as the torture at Abu Ghraib, and this beheading.
Does being put in a position of power make peoples IQ's plummet exponentially or something? It seems the more responsibility you give a person, the more selfish they become? Sometimes it makes me want to get a big hammer.......
Not you Rictor, long day, letting off steam ;)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
so there better people simply due to the fact that they are weaker?
:wtf:
No no no! you took the wrong meaning from what Rictor said. What he meant is that he values all lives equally, unless they're American lives. If they're american, well, you know, they had it coming.
-
Well, IMO, both side are a bunch of morons. Both have stupidly exagerated pride, and are willing to humiliate, torture and kill to get their point across.
But then, it's not my country, and even less my war, so I'm not the one to make much comment...
-
The problem is Genryu is that it will involve everyone soon if something isn't done about it. I'm from one of the involved countries, I'm not happy about it, and if the British troops have been acting in a similar manner, I will be far more digusted in them than I am even of the American soliders who tortured prisoners, since ours are supposed to be trained for these situations.
And yes, I agree, the actions of both sides leadership displays only moronity and a complete disregard for life on either side. :(
-
Originally posted by Flipside
... I will be far more digusted in them than I am even of the American soliders who tortured prisoners, since ours are supposed to be trained for these situations...
So are ours. I mean come on. I was in the Navy. A SAILOR. Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum, and all that. I got training that said "this is the Geneva Convention. This is how prisoners of war are to be treated. These are the rights of the prisoners. These are the responisbilities of the jailers."
Now, if I got that training, as a sailor, and not even a master-at-arms, but a COMMUNICATIONS TECHNICIAN, explain to me how a bunch of MILITARY POLICE (this was a military police batallion after all) didn't get this critical bit of training? Especially when this sort of training is done in BOOT CAMP. BASIC TRAINING.
Bull**** they weren't trained. Bull**** they didn't know. They knew, and they did it anyway.
-
Wow, thats quite a time saver, mik. From now one, why waste tedious time actually posting. I'll just throw up the Bat signal, and you'll read my mind and post in my stead. I was under the impression that I didn't need a mouthpiece, but since when do I know anything?
When I say all life, I mean that in the very literal sense. I don't mean "all life provided they are exactly 5' 12" tall, and wearing a blue shirt." Oh, I should probably mention, excluding anyone who picks up and gun and goes off looking for a fight. But all civilians, yes. No one is better, either becuase they are weak or strong. I believe that no one "has it coming" simply becuase they are unable to protect themselves from harm at the hands of someone stronger, like the guy who was beheaded or the detainees at Abu Ghraib.
If I value all life equally, it follows that I will view harm done to many as a greater crime than harm done to one. So, as I said, until the Iraqis round up and murder as many civilians as the bombing+occupation has killed, "their side" has the moral "high ground".
If you think one death on your side is a tragedy, think of how the Iraqis feel.
__________
Flipside: right on.
-
Yes Mik, I'm not saying the soldiers did this in ignorance, they knew and they did it, and it's disgusting, but simply that the British army has always prided itself on it's diplomacy. It's the 'selling point' of our army these days, they don't 'defend the country', they help two tribes who are arguing about a well, if you believe the adverts. I was actually quite proud of our army the night of the riots after that Hamas leader was assasinated, they just stood there and took it and didn't respond. The next night, everyone realised it was pointless and didn't bother rioting.
That is why I would be far more disgusted in my own army. Not because I expect it of the American army, but because The Institution that is the British Army would be utterly humiliated in Britain by the actions of those people.
Britains pride in our army comes more from the belief that our men are some of the best trained general soldiers both physically and mentally to deal with situations like Iraq. If they are not, it will damage the Army phenominally, much as it probably will in the US.
Edit : Besides, they are my countrymen! I hate borders, but if someone is going to represent me, they damn well better not be doing it like that!
-
Originally posted by Liberator
This sickens me. And it shows how barbaric the Militants are.
Break out the B-52s and lets get to bombin'. Two or Three more and I be ready to pull out the Finger of God class nukes.
Let them see that we are not going to be trifled with and that we can't be defeated and they'll fight all the harder and we'll kill them off faster.
Yeah! Behave you moronic irakis, what do you think you're doing rebelling in Irak? Forgotten that's a US property now, you lowlife bums?
Really, they should all die, women, children, along with the extremists.
Really, I think some good kicks in the ass might be good for your sake, Lib :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Flipside
The problem is Genryu is that it will involve everyone soon if something isn't done about it.
Never said the contrary. I just pointed that I don't have the same POV of this war than people whose country is involved have.
:yes: , btw, Nico.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
This sickens me. And it shows how barbaric the Militants are.
Break out the B-52s and lets get to bombin'. Two or Three more and I be ready to pull out the Finger of God class nukes.
Let them see that we are not going to be trifled with and that we can't be defeated and they'll fight all the harder and we'll kill them off faster.
And the christian militant advocates the murder of millions of innocents to avenge the death of one person and then complains that THEY are barbaric. :rolleyes:
Can't you even live by the commandments you claim everyone else should?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
And the christian militant advocates the murder of millions of innocents to avenge the death of one person and then complains that THEY are barbaric. :rolleyes:
Can't you even live by the commandments you claim everyone else should?
Obviously we don't do a good enough job of that, seeing as we're expected to be perfect, omnipotent, infallible gods, so why not simply exceed everyone else's expectations and "do as they do", but on a signifigantly larger scale?
-
You should practice what you preach - or not preach at all. Even school children pick up on the fact that if an adult does something (despite them telling the child not to do it) then the child might gingerly try it as well.
Govern the world when you can govern yourselves. A moment before and you go from knowing adult to playground bully. If the human race is to survive the next ten years they'll have to realise a few hard to deal with truths.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
You should practice what you preach - or not preach at all. Even school children pick up on the fact that if an adult does something (despite them telling the child not to do it) then the child might gingerly try it as well.
Govern the world when you can govern yourselves. A moment before and you go from knowing adult to playground bully. If the human race is to survive the next ten years they'll have to realise a few hard to deal with truths.
We do practice what we preach as best we can. Sometimes we **** up royally, but it's easy to recognize those. It's harder to recognize when we do something right.
And we govern ourselves quite well. If we truly wanted legendary retaliation, we'd do it. We haven't. I'm hoping someone will acknowledge that.
-
I could stab my neighbour for running over my dog... I should be congratulated that I haven't.
Right?
(BTW, not trying to pick on you with this... just trying to point out that you - as a country - are not as right as you think you are. I'm not saying England is right either - it's not.)
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
I could stab my neighbour for running over my dog... I should be congratulated that I haven't.
Right?
(BTW, not trying to pick on you with this... just trying to point out that you - as a country - are not as right as you think you are. I'm not saying England is right either - it's not.)
naw, I don't take it personally. See your PM box for a response on this.
-
So tell me, how would you differentiate someone who is generally good, but ****s up every now and then, from someone who is generally bad, but does some good now and then? What is the defining quality?
-
I find a death as gruesome as this, and then saying you did it in the name of your religion thinking you have done something RIGHT, makes me wonder what the hell these guys smoke to keep them going. If you've seen the video hes alive when they do it and they cleave his head right off. Nasty... terrible.
I find anyone who does something as sick as this should be hunted down and shot on sight. They would do the same to you first chance they got.
-
That's the problem Tin Can, would you say the same of the American Soldiers who tortured people to death in Iraq? They may not have done it on camera, but they still did it.
This man is sick, and I suspect that Bin Laden will be very displeased with his lieutenant to be honest, it's actually served to distract people from the whole torture affair.
-
Time for some random perspective: The western nations have done far worse.
For example, the execution used in England for the crime of treason was to be hung, disembowled, beheaded, and torn apart by four horses (this practice was abolished in 1821).
For another example, take a look at the Spanish Inquisition.
Not that any of this was right, but it does provide perspective.
-
If you want worse actions by Western nations, no need to go back hundreds of years. Vietnam, Korea. Hell, just take a look at US military stations in foreign lands. Go back to the beggining of the century (the last one, not the 21st) and it gets worse. Colonialism, thats the name of the game.
Not that others haven't done worse that this. But it is absurd to judge someone based on the worst offences of someone else.
-
I'll be glad to come to conclusions about the things you say any time you'd like, Rictor. You might not agree with my conclusions, but hey, they are based on what YOU say.
I mean, after all, you seem to come to random, baseless off the wall conclusions of what I believe from what I say (usually in direct contradiction to what I've actually said, but no matter).
-
I know there are soldiers who are complete bastards and if I found out under my command that some of them were torturing or raping someone I would have them court marshaled, and if I cant find a transport fast enough I would tie him up, gag him, and throw him in an APC along with the rest of his filth and then move on. The military of America doesnt reflect the people of America. Most people think that if the miilitary is evil sons a *****es, all the American Citizens are JUST as bad.
-
The military is not full of evil sons of *****es. It has its bad apples, to be sure, but it is NOT full of them.
-
I'm assuming it is roughly reflective of world society as a whole. Hence, you get people from all walks of life, and all sorts of personal defects, such as the ones exhibited here.
Most people don't seem to understand this concept, as shown by Tin Can's comments, and also a good deal of the comments posted on this board during the Catholic Church's recent scandal.
-
Some people seem to live in fantasy worlds. I can guarantee that no matter how hard you hope and pray, in war, some people will NOT play by the rules. It happens everywhere, whether you hear it or not, every military will and most likely has done it, and to think otherwise is to bull**** yourself. The people who do it are sick, violent bastards but, as sad as it is, I expect this crap to happen. :doubt:
It's horrifying when civilians are punished because militaries cant follow simple instructions and treat people humanely (i.e. not torture and kill them) but I think the guys who would do something as sadistic as hack a persons head off, videotape it, and post it on the internet are worse, ESPECIALLY if they try and excuse it with the 'religion card' :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Flipside
That's the problem Tin Can, would you say the same of the American Soldiers who tortured people to death in Iraq?
When? Where? I see lots of accusations, but little evidence. Where is the supposed torture?
Just so you know(Merriam-Webster definition):
Torture: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
So a few dudes were forced to get naked and be subservient to a woman. BIG @^#%#*@(#&$^ DEAL! They are killing US servicemen and MURDERING innocent bystanders who have committed no crime greater than trying to help put the G$% D@&^@# F*&(*&ING COUNTRY BACK TOGETHER. Let's get some perspaective here folks.
Do I support what happened at Abu Grayib(or however the hell it's spelled), not in the least. But those MFs are alive and will likely live a long time. The Sons of *****es are killing people in retaliation over some kind of perceived insult. We(the Coalition) need to take a lesson from the Israelis for dealing with the bastard Militants.(Notice the distinction, I didn't say Islamics, only their Militant Bastard cousins they secretly support when they think we aren't looking.)
-
the thing is, from the photos it truely looks like they were affording sadistic pleasure from what they were doing, wich is how it can be classified as Torture, it wasn't so much that they wer humiliated but that it was (at least aperas) simply done for the sport of it.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Do I support what happened at Abu Grayib(or however the hell it's spelled), not in the least. But those MFs are alive and will likely live a long time. The Sons of *****es are killing people in retaliation over some kind of perceived insult. We(the Coalition) need to take a lesson from the Israelis for dealing with the bastard Militants.(Notice the distinction, I didn't say Islamics, only their Militant Bastard cousins they secretly support when they think we aren't looking.)
Percieved insult? Invading their country, bombing their cities, locking up civilians without due process, murdering innocents by the thosands? Those are just percieved grievanced right? They have a right to fight an occupying power, its THEIR god damn country.
Let me ask you, if Russia suddenly invaded the US, I take it you would welcome them with open arms. And if their started killing and detaining Americans, you twidle your thumbs and do nothing? Don't think so.
The military isn't exactly known for their honesty and openness. Thats why the Taguba report had to be leaked, thats why the photos had to be leaked, thats why the Red Cross report was kept hushed. Even after the story was all over the news, US military personnel were told it would be illegal to read the Taguba report and not to visit Fox News (ha, thats a first). Can you honestly believe that the army would have come clean had the story not been leaked, being the nice chaps thats they are? I am being asked to take their good word on the claim that this was isoated and not systemic, which I just can not do.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
The military is not full of evil sons of *****es. It has its bad apples, to be sure, but it is NOT full of them.
Damn you, I just had to go and dig this up. You took 5 minutes of my life and want them baaaaack.
Liberator, let me tell you a little story about US Soldiers and how 'honorable' we are. See, I was stationed, among other places, in Japan. Whilst I was there, three marines kidnapped, raped, and murdered a twelve year old girl. Whilst I was there, two sailors stabbed their wives to death. One airman drowned his child, intentionally, at the base pool. American servicemen stole cars from japanese parking lots and sold them to japanese chopshops. US sailors on one base beat two guys from the JMSDF (Japanese maritime self defense forcE) so badly that one ended up in a coma (he eventually recovered) and both were returned to civilian life on medical discharges. At the same air base, more than 120 sailors were put out of the navy and remanded to civilian authorities for making and selling crystal meth.
EVERYONE illegally sold food and clothing on the black market. See, food at the base commisary and clothing at the base exchange were sold at US prices. The japanese have to import the same stuff from the US and it gets taxed by the japanese government. We could sell a $50 pair of Levi's for $300 easy. Rice? Man we got 25lb bags of rice for $4.50. The japanese paid $55 for the same bag. Cigarettes and alcohol were likewise excellent items.
All of that happened in peace time, away from anything remotely like a danger zone. If we soldiers and sailors do that kind of **** in a friendly country, I don't think we'd hesitate to do far worse in a hostile land to anyone who got in the way.
I'm not saying all soldiers and sailors are animals, but enough of us have impulse control problems, that I have absolutley no doubt that, training or no, religion or no, laws or no, they'll do absolutely EVERYTHING described by Mr. Kerry. Combat, especially the kind of combat seen in Vietnam, does terrible things to a man's sense of self and sense of civilization.
Incidentally, I asked my father, a vietnam veteran who doesn't like to discuss his time there, if any of what Mr. Kerry said was true. Like Mr. Kerry, my father has a purple heart, only his has several stars on it. He just looked at me when I asked, and said alot of it was. He won't tell me which parts though. He's never been keen about talking about the stuff he saw in the jungle.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Balala
They rapped women. You do know what happens to rapped women in muslim countries, right?
Also, you do know that psychological torture exists?
No, what would you know, all comfy in your house. You have no idea how hard this would be, living 24/24 in some dirty room, with soldiers insulting you all day long, and every once in a while, they come and take you to takes pics of you being humiliated.
Sure, BIG @^#%#*@(#&$^ DEAL!
"They are killing US servicemen and MURDERING innocent bystanders who have committed no crime greater than trying to help put the G$% D@&^@# F*&(*&ING COUNTRY BACK TOGETHER. Let's get some perspaective here folks."
Aren't we full of ourselves. You were there to kick Saddam out, right? You have Saddam, right? So what the **** are you still doing there? They don't WANT your help. ****ing pack up and go back home. You know, your militaries, your government knows perfectly well how mentality is in middle west countries. By staying there, they are ASKING for it.
Pssst, a little tip about why France still won't go: coz like for Vietnam, we can say "been there, done that", way before you, in Algeria: the war, oh, easy, a real slaughter, we crushed them. Then the war was "over" and, funnily, it went much less smoothly. What did we hear about then? Tortures on both sides, civilians slaughtered, retributions, etc. Wait, where have I heard of that before?
The outcome was obvious, much like it was in Vietnam.
You should save face before it's too late, pack, and leave. Coz you're gonna leave, the amount of time you spend there will only change one factor: the number of coffins you'll bring back with you.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
You realize of couse, that when they say it was because of Abu Gharib or whatever there lying? They killed him because he was american.
Whoa, I'm late. Maybe I still should contribute.
Most likely, but what happened in Abu Ghraib is a huge deal to muslims. To them it's worse than death. To them it's like making you eat your own **** or sodomize your kid (I may be exaggerating, but I am short of comparisons. Western people are accustomed to anything, we have no such large taboos as Muslims have with nudity and honour.)
The fact is that even though they propably killed him because he was American, they now can just point at Abu Ghraib and sprout out some stupid ****. There are excuses for everything, and the prison scandal gives an excellent one.
Also, US and British (also Australians wtf mate^^? ) psychologically torturing prisoners - an act also prohibited by Geneva Convention, btw - is a bit different thing than random proud reprazentas of allah akbar crew decapitating an American. Switching reasons to go to war is bad enough. Finally sticking to humanitarian reasons and then acting more like Sonderkommando Sturmbannführer is pretty much digging your own hole - USA is losing it's stance of morality and dignity, some things they hold dear and make people like Liberator sprout their retarded **** without any idea how world works outside whereever they are. Granted, this is not solely an American problem, but while representing a world's number one economical, military and cultural power one-eyed thinking looks just pretty goddamn stupid.
BTW: "OMG they're savages, let's nuke [insert token city] back into stone age" :rolleyes: ^the extreme
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Obviously we don't do a good enough job of that, seeing as we're expected to be perfect, omnipotent, infallible gods, so why not simply exceed everyone else's expectations and "do as they do", but on a signifigantly larger scale?
Cause christians claim that their God tells them not to "do as they do". You can't have it both ways. If you want everyone else to live by those commandments you should be seen trying to live by them first.
The simple fact is that Liberators comments have revealed that he isn't really a christian. Mearly someone dressed up in the retoric of one. A real christian would have listened to Jesus's message and wouldn't be advocating the deaths of thousends of men, women and children who've done nothing wrong other than be born in the proximity of terrorists.
:rolleyes: It's really getting bad when an atheist like myself understands the message of the bible better than a self proclaimed christian :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by karajorma
:rolleyes: It's really getting bad when an atheist like myself understands the message of the bible better than a self proclaimed christian :rolleyes:
Hammurab's Law is still somewhere in the old bible, IIRC. Maybe that's what they're after? Because, you know, in Old Testament God also supported genocide and incest. :confused:
-
Janos, we've been over that, Sesq did a wonderful job explaining that in this thread. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,23263.0.html)
Okay, I'll stop advocating mass aerial bombardment, when those bastards stop hiding behind the women and children, murdering innocent civilians and come out and fight like the men they claim to be! Oh, wait, they're primary weapons are children with bombs straped to their bodies.
BTW,
Christian != Pacifist;
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Okay, I'll stop advocating mass aerial bombardment, when those bastards stop hiding behind the women and children, murdering innocent civilians and come out and fight like the men they claim to be!
And thus you show your true colours. The fact that they hide behind women and children doesn't make it any more more christian for you to advocate the murder of those women and children
Originally posted by Liberator
Oh, wait, they're primary weapons are children with bombs straped to their bodies.
Rubbish. I'm not even aware of single time it was used in Iraq let alone having it as their primary weapon. Wipe the rabid foam from your mouth and try thinking about the issue instead.
Originally posted by Liberator
BTW,
Christian != Pacifist;
I never said it was. But calling for the deaths of millions of innocents in order to kill scores of the guilty is so far from so-called christian values that it's not even funny.
Lets face it. Deliberately killing innocents in order to kill the guilty is murder. This is not a case of collateral damage where you accidently kill innocents while trying to take out a military target. This is a case of you saying I don't care how many innocents I kill as long as I get the guilty too. That is against your own 10 Commandments, one of the cornerstones of the faith you profess to having.
I really shouldn't have to be explaining to you why this is against your own religion Lib. :rolleyes:
-
I don't recall that Jesus ever declared war on anyone, or advocated murder or retaliation. Maybe I was away that day. Jesus was nothing if not a man of peace, and dictionary example of a pacifist.
And please don't feed me that BS that their primary weapons are children. Their primary weapons are guns, RPGs and homemade explosives. Whenever they use a child or woman as a walking bomb, the media is all over it and so you think thats the norm. Have you ever considered that it is perhaps more noble to sacrifice yourself then to drop bombs from 20 miles up in the air?
And as I've said numerous times, the insurgents in Iraq have yet to even come close to the American number of civilian killings. The fact that you claim they were unavoidable collateral damage isn't going to bring them back, nor is it a valid excuse. Practice what you preach.
-
Actually I wasn't including pacifism or collatoral damage in my definitions of what it means to be a christian. The bible is full of examples of war so you can make an arguement for either.
Murder of innocents however is against the supposed values of christianity though. The bible has plenty of examples of that too but even then it was directly ordered by God so unless Liberator is claiming to be be speaking directly to The Big Guy he really shouldn't be advocating it.
-
Al-Zarqawi's at it again is he, funny that, the guys hes supposed to be working with think hes dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3821536,00.html
This guy Berg seems like a bit of a strange guy:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040513/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_berg&cid=540&ncid=1480
And hez'bollah condemning the killing?
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/13/1084289801959.html
Conspiracy theorists will have a field day with this one.
-
Jesus went quietly, without a fight, and let himself be crucified. If thats not pacifism, I don't know what is.
The distinction is, in the Old Testament, God is a major badass. Then, come the New Testament, he gets shipped off to sensitivity training and comes back all kind and caring and purple rainbow chocolate smilies.
edit:
lets see, Israeli stamp on passport, got detained in Iraq for "suspicous activites" and visited several times by FBI agents (wtf is the FBI doing in Iraq?), asking him if he has ever built pipe bombs or been in Iran? Nooo, everything is fine, no need to pay any attention to this. Look, a bird!
-
Dont forget the anti-semitic and farsi literature. Kinda strange stuff to be carrying around when you're jewish.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092851/posts
bout halfway down,
Michael S. Berg, Teacher, Prometheus Methods Tower Service, Inc.,
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Rubbish. I'm not even aware of single time it was used in Iraq let alone having it as their primary weapon.
I never heard of it happening either, but a have heard several cases where childeren were use to smuggle weapons, including a kid who had an AK-47 strapped to the side of his body (leg to underarm). People got suspicious when they realized he was walking without bending his knee. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
including a kid who had an AK-47 strapped to the side of his body (leg to underarm). People got suspicious when they realized he was walking without bending his knee. :doubt:
Whoever made that one up was pretty stupid, the kid wouldnt have been able to move let alone walk.
-
I know, one of the more outrageous stories ( I think it was a Joke), but smaller arms are squeezed past security this way
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Okay, I'll stop advocating mass aerial bombardment, when those bastards stop hiding behind the women and children, murdering innocent civilians and come out and fight like the men they claim to be! Oh, wait, they're primary weapons are children with bombs straped to their bodies.
BTW,
Christian != Pacifist;
Two wrongs make one good.
WHAT
I am yet trying to find out the instances the Iraq insurgents (Shia, Sunni) use civilians as tools of their warfare. If I'm wrong, please give a source, then I can reconsider my stance and state myself as having been wrong. Claiming moral superiority while rambling that "they do perverse ****, let's kill them all [even those who have nothing to do with it, except living in an occupied area]" does not do wonders about your image.
According to your weirdo stance on Christianity - where pacifism is no good - should also directly lead you to condemning eating of pork and everyone who have touched your semen being unclean for [insert X number] days?
-
Gank: apparently, Free Republic has never heard of usability. Their website is crap, I can't figure out what if anything the news is about. Its just "here are the enemies" and some names of various organizations who endorse a protest that apparently happened on march 20th. What the hell are they trying to draw attention to, its beyond me.
also, from the comments (by the guy who posted the article):
"He is a man in uniform. He is supporting a march that is critical of our government and advocating bringing the troops home. Active duty military are not supposed to be involved in political action." :lol: :lol:
Janos: touched his semen? thats just plain wierd, even from you. :wtf: :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Janos: touched his semen? thats just plain wierd, even from you. :wtf: :wtf:
I was referring to his "christian != pacifist".
While that may be true in strictly literal form, it is against what majority of Christians consider to be right. In Old Testament there is quite long really interesting stuff about males and females, semen and "unclean". That is also literally true, though not nowadays considered "right". In some really vague way of thinking one might equalize the two. What is considered right in OT is not always right in modern world - but what is right in NT is not always a right thing to do either. If you get what I'm trying to say.
But granted, Lib's statement makes some sense. A personal belief structure does not necessarily overrun your political stances or thoughts about military force or conversion - let me use such a weird term, since I am not a native english speaker and am short of words.
-
Originally posted by Janos
But granted, Lib's statement makes some sense. A personal belief structure does not necessarily overrun your political stances or thoughts about military force or conversion - let me use such a weird term, since I am not a native english speaker and am short of words.
Really? Isn't god's word supposed to be above everything else? :p
Religion is so worthless, even those who go to the most stupid lenghts to defend their beliefs stamp happily on it when it's convenient for them. All that is bull****.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
If you think one death on your side is a tragedy, think of how the Iraqis feel.
think of how that guy felt as they prepared to hack off his head.
-
So this is still about 'who did it first and who did it most'?
(http://www.sectorgame.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/banghead.gif)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Janos: touched his semen? thats just plain wierd, even from you. :wtf: :wtf:
Lev.15:16-18 "And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even. The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even."
Just hope nobody looks at my google search history for a while or they're going to be wondering what on Earth I was looking for. :D
-
LOL
And should thy seed of copulation not wash out the bedclothes, shalt there be much wailing and gnashing of teeth ;)
Thanks for the explanation btw :D
-
I can just picture it now. Girlfriend goes to use the computer. "unclean blible semen! What the..."
-
Originally posted by Flipside
So this is still about 'who did it first and who did it most'?
(http://www.sectorgame.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/banghead.gif)
I understand where you're coming from, but as much as I'de like them too, parts the world is not going to stop attacking other parts of the world just cause its the right thing to do. Until that time, I have to keep track of "who did what and to whom", becuase nations have to be accountable.
One thing that I can't stand is hypocrites. I just can't let it go, when Liberator or ionia or whoever says these guys are beasts and barbarians, but the US has done much worse. If everyone just takes it lieing down, there is no pressure to the change murderous polcies. How mant times can you forgive and forget before you just can't do it anymore?
Thats like everytime the schoolyard bully beats up some kid for his lunch money, you say "well, we can't play the blame game, its all in the past". And the next time and the next time etc. Sure, its absurd to hold people accountable for things that happened centuries ago, but at least for the Spanish Inquisition you can say "well, that was another time, people wouldn't support that today", and you'de be right. But I doubt that US government's stance of foreign policy has changed from yesterday, so its not a different world, a different time, a different people.
Hope that makes some sort of sense.
-
Its always, "The US has done much worse". We've got to keep score, so we can make sure America is held accountable.
Wheeeeeee!
I thought you were going to shut up and let me make your statements for you?
-
It does make sense Rictor, I guess I just get annoyed, I suspect that the Spanish Inquisition, apart from a few sick people, actually knew at some level that what they were doing was morally 'wrong'. The same situation occurs here, Any American soldier that tortures/beats a prisoner, any American seargent that orders the torture/beats of prisoners, any American senator who knowingly passed orders to torture/beat these people did so knowing it was morally the wrong thing to do. Equally so, any Iraqi who tortures and mrders an American, any Iraqi leader who orders the torture or murder of an American etc is also doing so fully aware that what he is doing is morally wrong.
As Setekh said earlier, the creation of something in the name of 'Good' will all too often get twisted, good intention by good intention into something terrible. This is as true of Religion as of countries, if not, more so, since Religions have a larger common denominator, and a focus of manipulation already available.
I suppose I should remember the Pratchett Rule more often :-
The IQ of a mass of people = The IQ of it's stupidest member / 2
I suppose I just feel utterly frustrated at the supidity of it all, the invasion, the occupation, the retalliation, the counter-attack, the pre-emptive strikes etc etc etc So the roll-call goes for both sides. It looks utterly moronic, stupid and pointless, with people of all colours and religions being killed, in my opinion, over animals that themselves died millions of years ago. Death for death.
Please feel free to read Murder as 'Execute' and Beat as 'Actively Interrogate' as you see fit ;)
-
I like the alternate formulation of that rule, Flipside:
"The IQ of a group is inversely proportional to the number of people in the group."
-
Originally posted by Flipside
It does make sense Rictor, I guess I just get annoyed, I suspect that the Spanish Inquisition, apart from a few sick people, actually knew at some level that what they were doing was morally 'wrong'.
I don't think the average person involved in the Inquisition believed what they were doing was wrong anymore than a neo-conservative in the US feels that persecuting a homosexual is wrong.
On the other hand, the islamic militants do know what they are doing is wrong but they feel that it is a lesser evil to take those actions than to not react against globalization.
Of course since both groups use the same rhetoric, it's pretty hard to tell if either side actually knows what they're doing is wrong.
-
Wonder what that said about the general IQ of the forum then ;)
-
Originally posted by Liberator
This sickens me. And it shows how barbaric the Militants are.
Break out the B-52s and lets get to bombin'. Two or Three more and I be ready to pull out the Finger of God class nukes.
Let them see that we are not going to be trifled with and that we can't be defeated and they'll fight all the harder and we'll kill them off faster.
That wouldn't make a difference, these are holy wars, those wars cannot be won, the coalition and america cannot fight against invisible men, they will never win from the terrorist, that's impossible, remember that your fighting against most of the islam people and a war against the people is a lost one.
The best thing is to pull out every men and leave them for there own fate.
My personal opinion is that there just playing a big game, for money and oil. they start a war the big weapon factory's go running again, thousends of jobs get available, and that's good for the economy it's all about the money. befoore 11e sep i never heard about bin laden or al quida and all the sudden it's war against terrorists.
But i must say i disagree with the way they murder the americans, beheading is babaric, normal civilized people should know better, but it's war and in war you get casualties, and that's why i don't get it that our country (holland) makes such a fuzz because 1 soldier died.........that man knew the risks, and each day 10e of iraqi and american people die also.
-
Originally posted by USS Alexander
That wouldn't make a difference, these are holy wars, those wars cannot be won, the coalition and america cannot fight against invisible men, they will never win from the terrorist, that's impossible, remember that your fighting against most of the islam people and a war against the people is a lost one.
My friend Crash (formerly of IonStorm: Austin, now of Naughty Dog in Santa Barbara) and I discuss this one constantly. What it comes down to is that when you believe God is on your side, your brain shuts off. Look at Israel/Palestine. Both sides are certain that God is in their corner.
These terrorists who use Islam as a goad: the leaders might be cynical bastards, but they whip up fervor and fantaticism. They make the foot soldiers believe that they can't lose (or if they do it doesn't matter) because God is their Divine Backup.
You simply cannot fight against that sort of non-rationality. Even if one side is right and God IS on their side, you can't use reason or force to make a true-believer capitulate. Reason falls on deaf ears and losing only makes them fight harder.
I think we should colonize Mars, the Moon, etc. Let the zealots fight it out down here. The rational people can go somewhere else safer.
-
Bugger that. Shoot them into space instead. I'm not giving up a nice oxygen rich planet to go live in a fragile dome somewhere. ;)
Plus you know that it's only a matter of time before they'd come after us.
-
You realize that in about 50 years or so, we are going to have to start sending large numbers of people into space?
-
Not if we've already shot the religious nuts into space. :)
For one thing these people prevent the world from having proper birth control and sexual education.
-
You realize that probably around 90% of the population growth is in China and Southern Asia, not in the First World? Those are places where most religious nuts that people talk about don't have any power.
-
I just saw the video, and it makes me f*cking sick. Seeing them do that to a person, its just wrong, and you guys act like "Oh well, its a shame." It's about ten million times worse than a shame, its just plain wrong.
-
Its bad, but it didn't make me sick, adwight.
I lived in Saudi Arabia for a while. I, unfortunately, witnessed a public beheading one fine Friday morning outside one of the mosques in Jeddah. The four men were criminals, three drug dealers and one murderer.
Watching men get killed--guilty or innocent--doesn't make me sick any more. It just makes me angry or sad, depending on the circumstances. :(
-
No Mikhael, its not that, it's the people that don't even give a ****, like Rictor.
-
Meh. I could respond to that, but it'll come out like an attack on Rictor and half the board, so I won't.
-
Originally posted by Genryu
Wonder what that said about the general IQ of the forum then ;)
you don't wanna know :p
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
You realize that probably around 90% of the population growth is in China and Southern Asia, not in the First World? Those are places where most religious nuts that people talk about don't have any power.
I do realise. China in fact has gone a long way towards limiting population growth. The reason they got away with that is precisely because they aren't a religious country.
There are plenty of charities operating in the third world which try to promote birth control but every time they do the fanatics in the vatican or American government step in and get their funding pulled.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
My friend Crash (formerly of IonStorm: Austin, now of Naughty Dog in Santa Barbara) and I discuss this one constantly. What it comes down to is that when you believe God is on your side, your brain shuts off. Look at Israel/Palestine. Both sides are certain that God is in their corner.
These terrorists who use Islam as a goad: the leaders might be cynical bastards, but they whip up fervor and fantaticism. They make the foot soldiers believe that they can't lose (or if they do it doesn't matter) because God is their Divine Backup.
You simply cannot fight against that sort of non-rationality. Even if one side is right and God IS on their side, you can't use reason or force to make a true-believer capitulate. Reason falls on deaf ears and losing only makes them fight harder.
I think we should colonize Mars, the Moon, etc. Let the zealots fight it out down here. The rational people can go somewhere else safer.
yeb and that's why america wil never win. Those kind of poeple wil never give up they fight until the last man and there last breath, in a certain way they are the perfect soldiers. the strategies they use are perfect every thing they do has a impact on the morale of the us soldiers stationed in iraq, like the bombs in spain like 11 sep those are attacks wich will affect the soldiers and the people's morale and in time the morale is so low that the soldiers don't wanna fight anymore and then the terrorists wil win and that makes them fight even more cause then they know they defeated a superpower, i think bad times are coming and this iraqi thing wil escalate.
-
Originally posted by USS Alexander
in a certain way they are the perfect soldiers.
Except for their basic stupidity. Anyone with half a brain would have waited till June for the US to pull out before starting trouble.
This whole beheading thing is another example. Had they simply waited this situation could have gotten bad enough to cause major problems for the US and UK but their actions diverted attention away.
Oh well I suppose we should be glad that they are stupid really :)
-
They are stupid that's for sure. I workt about 6 months witch a few moslim people and they are studip indeed...
-
Hey be careful. My dad's a muslim.
Not all of them are. Just the fanatics. It's nothing to do with the religion. Christian Fundies are just as stupid.
-
WHAT YOU DARE TO CALL CHRISTIAN FUNDIES STUPID
I HAVE PROVE THEY ARE THE MOST INTELLIGENT CREATURES IN THE UNIVERSE (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~64~2147524,00.html)
caps lock 0wnZ y00
-
:lol: an amusing article :D
-
That takes patheticness to a new level. In fact that goes to such a level that we need to invent a new word...
What a complete pile of Blairs!
-
Originally posted by adwight
No Mikhael, its not that, it's the people that don't even give a ****, like Rictor.
Lets run through this again:
Its ONE person. During the bombing and occupation, THOUSANDS died.
The operative words here, in case you weren't paying attention, are ONE and THOUSANDS. The latter is a greater tragedy, by far, than the former.
I downloaded the video, yeah its pretty brutal. But do you think a bomb falling on your house, thats not brutal? Do you think getting a bullet through your chest, thats not brutal?
The difference between you and me is that I don't care that he's American. He could have been Siberian for all the difference it would make. I view the death of an American to be equally as tragic as the death of anyone else, not more or less, provided they are civilian. You, it would seem, disagree.
and yet, I get made out to be the bad guy. Perhaps the whole world ought to hold American lives in higher regard than anyone else, maybe that would make you happy?
-
Tsk. You've already forgotten. One death is a tragedy. Thousands is a statistic.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Hey be careful. My dad's a muslim.
Not all of them are. Just the fanatics. It's nothing to do with the religion. Christian Fundies are just as stupid.
I agree to that, there are good ones yes. Almost 60% or more of the criminals here in holland or of the people here causing problems are from middle east origin, thats a fact.
Every one who believes in some god that agrees with beheading and blowing up yourself and killing people is stupid no matter what the religion is, moslim, christian etc etc. I personaly don't believe in any of that but that's my personal vieuw of things.
-
Please tell me when it was that Stalin became the example we should strive to become? I must have been away that day. And while we're at it, I would also like to know why you would think Uncle Joe's little bits of worldy wisdom form the foundation of international law?
-
It's not that he died, it's how it happened, and showing it too. It was completely sick, ans no one, not even the worst person in the world, deserves that to happen to them and be humiliated like that.
-
That's true, although this could be offending to american people(and i don't mean it that way)lot's of you think your god and the only right way is the american way, a thing that will be causing lot's of problems for the US is the arrogance of their president, he thinks he's god and controls all, there's one statement that i won't forget he once said....if your not with us your against us. a thing he shouldn't have said. He thinks he's the most powerfull man of the world, the terrorist show it to him clearly that he's NOT.
And i don't know if the footage are true but if there are, then the most humiliated thing is the sexual abused iraqi prisoners by american soldiers. i find it personaly more humilating to be ***** in the ass al the time. i would rather be beheaded then that.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Please tell me when it was that Stalin became the example we should strive to become? I must have been away that day.
Who--besides you--suggested that I, or anyone else, did? I don't recall mentioning the Stalin as an example to strive to become. I don't remember suggesting that what I said had anything to do with becoming like Stalin. In fact, I just went and read it again, and I quite certainly did not.
And while we're at it, I would also like to know why you would think Uncle Joe's little bits of worldy wisdom form the foundation of international law?
Who--besides you--suggested that I, or anyone else, did? I don't recall mentioning the law. I don't remember suggesting that what I said had anything to do with the law. In fact, I just went and read it again, and I quite certainly did not.
I'm just checking, mind you. Is it nice in your fantasy world where people say what you think they do? Do you have to take many mind-altering drugs to go to this odd world of yours?
-
So, if I were to quote Hitler and say something like "But you're forgetting, Jews are a plague upon the Earth which must be cleansed by us, the superior race", that wouldn't imply that I actually agreed with that is being said? No, thats just a little nugget of information which happened to pertain to the discussion and also just happens to have been posted by you. It doesn't reflect your opinion in the slightest, thats why you took the effort to bring attention to it?
I say "a thousand deaths aer worse than one". And you say "a thousand is a just statistic, one is a tragedy", implying they thousand are of lesser value that the one.
something like that, maybe. That, or you have reached hitherto untold levels of subtelty.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
So, if I were to quote Hitler and say something like "But you're forgetting, Jews are a plague upon the Earth which must be cleansed by us, the superior race", that wouldn't imply that I actually agreed with that is being said? No, thats just a little nugget of information which happened to pertain to the discussion and also just happens to have been posted by you. It doesn't reflect your opinion in the slightest, thats why you took the effort to bring attention to it?
So what you're saying is that anything anyone says must be something they believe and support.
The moon is made of green cheese and shivans live there in the swiss like holes, happily munching away on the lovely verdent loaf.
Really. I said it, therefore I must believe it. Btw, I also believe that the chicked crossed the road to get to the other side, and that the man walked into the bar. Oh yeah! I also believe that we should hijack a plane and run it into a tower because its built by someone named bin Laden. Yep. And lets not forget the ever classic: I obviously believe in using taxis as ablative combat armor. And I believe that Metal Pr0n Solid: Sons of Libido is a REAL GAME. oh yeah. Goodtimes will steal your girlfriend. I believe all these things and more. Oh yeah.
I should smoke the crack YOU smoke.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I should smoke the crack YOU smoke.
NO you shouldn't. One person on that **** is bad enough. If there were two the rest of us would have to team up and get rid of one for the good of our sanity. :D
-
In that case, you must agree that thousands of deaths are a greater tragedy than a single one, and we're in agreement. Good, done.
And before you say that you neither agree nor disagree with the Stalin quote, this is one of those situtations where there is no middle ground. If someone is killing ducks, I either am for it or against it. If I am neutral, than my stance is essentially "for it", because my inaction is resulting in the continued killing of ducks. In any sitaution, neutrality ensures that what is happening continues to happen, which is in effect the same as supporting it. Of three choices, equally open to a person, one is against the current sitaution, and two are for it, since all three choices are equal possibilities.
But anyway, its a moot point, international law (or any modern law for that matter) is quite clear on the subject.
edit:
you can not at the same time support thousands of deaths, while condemnding one (provided all of the deceased were equally innocent), without being a hypocrite.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
In that case, you must agree that thousands of deaths are a greater tragedy than a single one, and we're in agreement. Good, done.
Actually, no, we're not in agreement.
And before you say that you neither agree nor disagree with the Stalin quote, this is one of those situtations where there is no middle ground. If someone is killing ducks, I either am for it or against it. If I am neutral, than my stance is essentially "for it", because my inaction is resulting in the continued killing of ducks. In any sitaution, neutrality ensures that what is happening continues to happen, which is in effect the same as supporting it. Of three choices, equally open to a person, one is against the current sitaution, and two are for it, since all three choices are equal possibilities.
Ah, see, here we go again. If you're not for it, you're against it, and if you're neutral, you're aligned with whatever opinion Rictor doesn't agree with.
Sorry, this is what's called "false dilemma". I refuse to reduce anything as complex as the interactions between human beings to a mere two possibilities. I can see where you're unable to encompass more than one or two possibilities, but I, and likely the rest of us, are not similarly limited.
But anyway, its a moot point, international law (or any modern law for that matter) is quite clear on the subject.
Really? what are the statutory requirements for declaring something a 'tragedy'? Could you quote me the pertinent passages and publications? Somehow, I don't think any of them say "One person is 'a tragedy'. Three people is a 'tragedie-a-trois'. Six or more is 'le petit mort'. 12 or larger is 'Get the thirteenth free'."
I suspect we're dealing with your opinion again, which is worth... well, exactly what any one man's opinion is worth.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Ah, see, here we go again. If you're not for it, you're against it, and if you're neutral, you're aligned with whatever opinion Rictor doesn't agree with.
Sorry, this is what's called "false dilemma". I refuse to reduce anything as complex as the interactions between human beings to a mere two possibilities. I can see where you're unable to encompass more than one or two possibilities, but I, and likely the rest of us, are not similarly limited.
A man on the street is about to shoot child. If you do nothing, you implicity support the killing of the child. Especially, if you are the one who has bought the gun and given it to the man.
Inaction support whatever is already happening. Think intertia.
___________________________
How many courts in the world will give out the same sentence for the murder of a single person and for the murder of a thousand people?
Its just that, you quite succesfully manage to sidetrack even the worthiest arguements with semantics and discussions on broad, vague issues. And I fall for it like an idiot each and every time.
And whenever it comes to a situation where you would have to say something condemnding ("yeah, sure, Iraqi lives are worth about as much as a dog's to me, possibly less"), you just claim it a complex issue and I'm perverting you statements blabla.
Either, you (and the US government) stop being a hypocrite, or stop talking in terms of human rights, freedom, demcracy, justice and start talking in terms of "we can do what we want, cause we have the guns. Don't like it? Not fair? Not just? Go **** yourself, no one gives a ****."
The sad thing is, throughout all of this, I sit here with a big dumb grin on my face and try to argue, when obviously one side has no interest in that. I'm quite sure that I could argue that child molestation is wrong, and it would fall in to the same pattern.
and as fair warning, from now one, I will assume that when you quote something, especially in a political debate, which directly contradicts something which I have said, you are in agreement with said quote. Its not unreasonable.
-
I'm of three minds:
1) I cheer for the shooter. Children suck ass and need to die. I'm for it!
2) I do something to save the child. Children are good. I'm not for children being shot!
3) I act in rational self interest. My life is more important than any child's. I don't support shooting the child, but I don't support getting shot, either.
Check it out: I might be all, none, or any of the above at any point. Wait a minute! There's other possibilities!
4) I sell tickets! I'm not for killing children, but you know, I might profit from it.
5) I bless the child! Sure, it won't save the kid, but they'll go to Heaven, and that's what's important right?
6) I shoot the shooter! Of course, I didn't know that he had a water gun and now, by the standards of the area in which I live, I'm a murderer.
Of course, I've never been, and likely never will be in that situation, and what I would do at that moment is not something that you, or I, can predict. I like the tickets one.
-
You still haven't pointed out where in International Law they codify "tragedy".
-
Again, semantics. I was not reffering to the letter of the quote (in regards to international law), I was reffering to the meaning of it. Value of human like is codified in law, and its quite clear that taking several is a greater crime than taking one.
Also, you seem to think that you are not responsible for your actions. If you lived your entire life on a deserted Pacific island, you would not be held responsible for the actions of the United States government. However, you have paid taxes, and continue to do so (I assume, if not you've got bigger problems than debating politics), and have also as far as I know served in the military. You provide the means for the United States government to wage war, which is money, so you are responsible. Its similar to buying a man a gun, knowing that he has something of a history of misusing it. The next person he goes out and shoots, the blood is partly on your hands.
But, lets play it your way. How about something a little closer to home.
As a result of US military action, around ten thousand civilians die in Iraq. As a result of the actions of Osama bin Laden and al Queda, three thousand civilians die in the WTC attacks.
1) You condemn both al Queda and the US military equally, because you believe that American lives are of greater worth.
2) Condemn al Queda more strongly, because you believe that American lives are of greater worth.
3) Condemn the US military more strongly than al Queda, because you believe that all life is of equal worth.
4) Neither condemn nor support either faction, because you believe that all life is of equal worth.
5) Support both factions equally, because you believe that American lives are of greater worth.
6) Support the US military more strongly, becuase you believe that American lives are of greater worth.
7) Support al Queda more strongly becuase you believe that all life is of equal worth
8) Support both factions, because you just like to see people die, no matter who is doing it.
9) Condemn both factions, because you just despise killing and even one death is too many. Flipside)
which category do you fall in to I wonder?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Again, semantics. I was not reffering to the letter of the quote (in regards to international law), I was reffering to the meaning of it. Value of human like is codified in law, and its quite clear that taking several is a greater crime than taking one.
I'm still waiting.
Also, you seem to think that you are not responsible for your actions. If you lived your entire life on a deserted Pacific island, you would not be held responsible for the actions of the United States government. However, you have paid taxes, and continue to do so (I assume, if not you've got bigger problems than debating politics), and have also as far as I know served in the military. You provide the means for the United States government to wage war, which is money, so you are responsible. Its similar to buying a man a gun, knowing that he has something of a history of misusing it. The next person he goes out and shoots, the blood is partly on your hands.
I take responsibility for MY actions. I do not take responsibility for anyone else's. A terrorist might say "release this prisoner or we will kill our hostages!". I will not release the prisoner and that doens't make me responsible for the deaths of the hostages. That makes the terrorists responsible for the deaths of the hostages. Any other interpretation is madness.
But, lets play it your way. How about something a little closer to home.
As a result of US military action, around ten thousand civilians die in Iraq. As a result of the actions of Osama bin Laden and al Queda, three thousand civilians die in the WTC attacks.
This should be fun.
1) You condemn both al Queda and the US military equally, because you believe that American lives are of greater worth.
Yes.
2) Condemn al Queda more strongly, because you believe that American lives are of greater worth.
Yes.
3) Condemn the US military more strongly than al Queda, because you believe that all life is of equal worth.
Yes.
4) Neither condemn nor support either faction, because you believe that all life is of equal worth.
Yes.
5) Support both factions equally, because you believe that American lives are of greater worth.
Yes.
6) Support the US military more strongly, becuase you believe that American lives are of greater worth.
Yes.
7) Support al Queda more strongly becuase you believe that all life is of equal worth
Yes.
8) Support both factions, because you just like to see people die, no matter who is doing it.
Yes.
9) Condemn both factions, because you just despise killing and even one death is too many.
Yes.
which category do you fall in to I wonder?
Depends on how I feel at the EXACT moment you ask me the question and what factors I'm weighing at the EXACT moment you ask me the question.
Btw, you forgot these one:
10) Don't give a damn, because you don't care if people on the other side of the planet kill each other.
11) Don't give a damn, because you're busy trying to solve your problems at home before you attempt to solve problems somewhere else.
12) Just like to argue and willing to take any stance, depending on your mood.
13) Bitter, because Shrike says so, damnit, and he's always right (this has nothing to do with you, Rictor).
People aren't machines, and they are nondeterministic and they are very definately not simple.
-
You can't generalize anything either, Rictor. The world is not black and white. All you can hope for is to aim for the shade of grey that seems smartest at the time and hope for the best.
Also, what right have we to condemn anyone for their actions in the first place? What's that quote again? "Let those without sin cast the first stone"?
-
Originally posted by USS Alexander
That's true, although this could be offending to american people(and i don't mean it that way)lot's of you think your god and the only right way is the american way, a thing that will be causing lot's of problems for the US is the arrogance of their president, he thinks he's god and controls all, there's one statement that i won't forget he once said....if your not with us your against us. a thing he shouldn't have said. He thinks he's the most powerfull man of the world, the terrorist show it to him clearly that he's NOT.
And i don't know if the footage are true but if there are, then the most humiliated thing is the sexual abused iraqi prisoners by american soldiers. i find it personaly more humilating to be ***** in the ass al the time. i would rather be beheaded then that.
He is the most powerful man on the world... Just look what he's the president of.
-
Scary but True, did you know that an Anagram of George W **** is OWES BERG HUG.
The truth was that I was looking for some way to link him to Aliens, but when I ran the anagram creator, that's what popped up :)
It's terrible what happened, but I had to post that.
Edit : Oh, and it's BEGS HUGE ROW as well ;)
-
Originally posted by adwight
He is the most powerful man on the world... Just look what he's the president of.
A country that passed it's economic peak about 20 years ago?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
A man on the street is about to shoot child. If you do nothing, you implicity support the killing of the child. Especially, if you are the one who has bought the gun and given it to the man.
Inaction support whatever is already happening. Think intertia.
(I was just skimming and saw this... maybe you were being sacastic or something... )
so sounds like you've changed you mind and suported our overthroughing of Sadam.
-
Originally posted by adwight
He is the most powerful man on the world... Just look what he's the president of.
Exactly my point of the arrogance of most of the american people.
You people believe to be invinceble and that wil be your downfall.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
(I was just skimming and saw this... maybe you were being sacastic or something... )
so sounds like you've changed you mind and suported our overthroughing of Sadam.
I've always supported overthrowing Saddam. I don't know why you would think otherwise.
condemn invasion != support Saddam
It just don't think it should have come at the expense of the Iraqi people, who have suffered enough. Now, maybe you're a great believer the in decency and kind-heartedness of the government, but I can't bring myself to believe that this (the invasion) was done for selfless ends.
the Nuremburg trials condemn the invasion of a sovereign nation as the greatest war crime in existance, and I would pretty much (though not totally) tend to agree.
It was, as was Afghanistan, done in order to establish a US military presence in the area, and specifically in the case of Iraq, to eliminate one of Israels long standing enemies. Kind of hard to claim otherwise when several of the architects of the war in Iraq have plainly stated that it is so (A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm). Though they never planned for the whole "exporting democracy" thing, the plan was to reinstall the old Hasshemite (sp?) monarchy, which could hardly be considered democratic.
Think about this. Whenever someone invades a country, the President and his crew are always the last to get it. He (Saddam) has billions in looted money with which to make an escape. Perhaps the US shouldn't have armed him and supported him, well after it became evident that he was a despot. Perhaps, when they already went ahead and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqs in 91, they should have supported the rebellion ready to topple Saddam. There are a million ways to overthrow a government, particularly when you happen to be the US, which do not involve bombing, invasion, the siezure of oil resources, the setup of four (I think its four) permanent military bases, the handover of Iraq to the circling vultures of Halliburton & Co.
There is this great myth that the US must bring the flame of hope and freedom to the benighted, backwards people of the world. Ignoring for a second that in many cases, the US is directly responsible for their condition in the first place, the people can mange just fine - thanks.
edit:
that come out less clearly then I intended it to. Essentially, I support the overthrow of despotic regimes whereever they may be, but by legitimate means and by legitimate people. Thats the basic jist of it.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I've always supported overthrowing Saddam. I don't know why you would think otherwise.
condemn invasion != support Saddam
If you don't support invading Iraq, then you support Saddam. That's the only two possibilities. Even if you don't support Saddam, by not supporting invasion, you passively support Saddam and that's the same thing.
You're responsible for every dead Kurd and tortured Iraqi because you didn't support invading Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
A country that passed it's economic peak about 20 years ago?
No, a country with every aspect of its military the most powerful in the world.
don't even try to argue it. it's a fact, not an opinion
-
Back to the might is right mentality, so I see. ;)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
If you don't support invading Iraq, then you support Saddam. That's the only two possibilities. Even if you don't support Saddam, by not supporting invasion, you passively support Saddam and that's the same thing.
You're responsible for every dead Kurd and tortured Iraqi because you didn't support invading Iraq.
what the ****ing **** are you sprouting
-
Originally posted by Janos
what the ****ing **** are you sprouting
He's paraphrasing the ****ing **** that Rictor sprouts all the time and using his own weapon against him.
Mik believes that there are shades of grey in the world but Rictor only believes in black or white. So I'm interested in hearing how he's going to explain this one away without refuting what he said earlier.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
No, a country with every aspect of its military the most powerful in the world.
don't even try to argue it. it's a fact, not an opinion
Never said yours was wrong. I was just stating fact. The US economy is, and has been, in a decline.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
He's paraphrasing the ****ing **** that Rictor sprouts all the time and using his own weapon against him.
Mik believes that there are shades of grey in the world but Rictor only believes in black or white. So I'm interested in hearing how he's going to explain this one away without refuting what he said earlier.
Huh. I got scared and thought we have a real lunatic. My sarcasm-o-meter was broke.
Grey is good. Grey is of the Path.
-
yes I am interested my self, as that was the exact point I too was trying to make.
just couldn't let such a hypocritical statement go by.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
The US economy is, and has been, in a decline.
Have you even looked at recent numbers? Jobs are up, market's are up. The Clinton Recession is ending.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
...if the British troops have been acting in a similar manner, I will be far more digusted in them than I am even of the American soliders who tortured prisoners, since ours are supposed to be trained for these situations.
So are ours, Flipside. At least they're supposed to be, particularly military police units. If I remember correctly, the United States is not bound by the Geneva Convention, as we never signed it. Also, non-uniformed troops are manifestly not protected. Spies, for example, are executable, right there, no questions asked as far as international law is concerned.
I do not like what has happened. This is merely a statement of facts. While I approve, to a cautions extent, of the war itself, the way it has been conducted is appalling at times and just plain stupid at others. There have been bungled decisions that have cost us and the Iraqi people a great deal. This includes the stated reasons for going to war. While I believe, in the long run, as do many Iraqis, that this conflict will benefit the Iraqi people by liberating them from Sadaam, the road to that day is going to be long, bloody, and hard, and the situation is not improving.
The concept of jus en bellum, justice in war, has usually been one that the US has tried to uphold. We have stumbled, and we will again. But we must struggle to uphold that ideal, for without it, how can we accomplish a thing?
Remeber this, however: war is bloody and hard. It exacts a severe price on it's participants and is, in the end, dehumanizing and cruel. As someone once stated, it is shocking how cruel man can be to his fellow man.
Let us also remember that debating whether or not we should have moved is a purely academic, historical debate. The situation exists. What is now of immediate concern is how best to deal with it to the benefit of all parties involved. I am ashamed of the things that have happened at Abu Gharhaib, and appalled at the actions extremists who pervert the meaning of a noble faith to their own corrupt ends. Let us end this fight, but end it to the benefit of all mankind.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Have you even looked at recent numbers? Jobs are up, market's are up. The Clinton Recession is ending.
Assumption. Unjustified and unproven. A temporary climb in numbers is not a recovery, it is a sign of hope. This does not necessarily mean you are wrong, however, simply a little presumptious in naming both cause and effect.
-
The EU is now the greatest economic force in the world. :)
-
*cocks eyebrow* Interesting. It helps when you have well over twice the population of the US to begin with. By the way, I would keep a wary eye on China.
*shrugs* Not that I care beyond a certain nationalistic pride. At least Europe actually involves itself in true trade, unlike other regions that will go unnamed. *coughs*China and Japan*cough*cough*
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Have you even looked at recent numbers? Jobs are up, market's are up. The Clinton Recession is ending.
All I know about the "Clinton Recession" is that I had a job when Clinton was President. My sector of the economy was growing when Clinton was president. My profession was in demand when Clinton was president.
Under ****, I was unemployed for four months. Under ****, when I finally did find a job, it was with a literal (I do mean LITERAL) 50% pay cut from what I was earning when Clinton was president.
The Clinton Recession is ending, but the **** Depression is beginning.
(Lib, I know I'm exaggerating, but so were you, whether you'll admit it or not. There was no "clinton recession").
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Have you even looked at recent numbers? Jobs are up, market's are up. The Clinton Recession is ending.
Didn't Clinton quit the White House with its budget in the green ? I don't call this a recession, but heck, if your perceptions are that warped, there's nothing that can be be done
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Have you even looked at recent numbers? Jobs are up, market's are up. The Clinton Recession is ending.
KKKlinton!
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Have you even looked at recent numbers? Jobs are up, market's are up. The Clinton Recession is ending.
irrelevant to what Greywolf is implying.
In absolute numbers the Us economy may be bigger than ever before but in relative numbers the US economy has been in decline ever since the 50s
The US economy used to represent 50% (or more) of the world's economy. Nowadays that's around 20% or so iirc.
Hence decline. Not because the US stopped growing but because the world is catching up faster than the US economy can leap away.
-
The problem of the US is ****. first off you are not the most powerfull army of the world, again like vietnam you occupie a country in the wrong way, now bit by bit the us army will be defeated because of the iraqi people who most of them are against the us now.
Just like hitler and many other you are making the same mistake of not trying to win the people for you, one of the most important thing well....THE most important thing when occupiing a country.
If the US would have sended tons and tons of food to iraq and made good paying jobs available for the iraqi's enz enz there would be no problems, the iraqi people then would have loved **** and the terrorist would eventualy also die out of the lack of support, thats what the US should have done, let those trucks with food be driven by iraqi people and give him 1400$ a month salary there would be no problems then................cause that's the way to occupie a country and fight against terrorist not with boms and bullets, cause there is no army on the world that can defeat the people. **** sucks he only thinks of money and war and he aint a good president, clinton whas a good man also for the world.
-
Clinton was crap. But **** is worse.
-
Alexander, while you make some good points about what we should be doing, if all the Iraqi people were against us, then there would be no way that we could hold that place for a day, let alone a year. I'm not saying it won't happen and the way Bush has been ****ing up so regularly it probly will soon enough, but don't jump the gun.
-
Speaking of the Totally Innocent Iraq and ****'s Imaginary Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Stick THIS in your peace pipe and smoke it (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/17/iraq.main/index.html)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Clinton was crap. But **** is worse.
Correct. At least good 'ol Adolf had integrity, right?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
Alexander, while you make some good points about what we should be doing, if all the Iraqi people were against us, then there would be no way that we could hold that place for a day, let alone a year. I'm not saying it won't happen and the way Bush has been ****ing up so regularly it probly will soon enough, but don't jump the gun.
Not all of them are against the us no, but it's not good to see the situation escalating day after day, **** should realy do something.
-
yes he should, as I've said a number of times it's like he's _trying_ to lose
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Correct. At least good 'ol Adolf had integrity, right?
What the hell are you barking at now? :confused:
Clinton was a lying, womanising scumbag but the fact is that he was at least somewhat competent. **** on the other hand is - and lets be fair to him - a complete idiot.
There is a reason why he never speaks in public without having had time to prepare. It's cause he is incapable of thinking on his feet. That's a really bad flaw in the man who runs any country let alone the USA.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
What the hell are you barking at now? :confused:
Clinton was a lying, womanising scumbag but the fact is that he was at least somewhat competent. **** on the other hand is - and lets be fair to him - a complete idiot.
There is a reason why he never speaks in public without having had time to prepare. It's cause he is incapable of thinking on his feet. That's a really bad flaw in the man who runs any country let alone the USA.
See, here we go. Amazing that you would sympathize with a guy who nerve-gassed his own citizens for disagreeing with him, and you'd poo-poo the guy who went further than anyone ever has to resolving that Israel-Palestine issue to everyone's benefit.
Clinton was brilliant. His stunt with the 'cigar' was the only thing he did that can be referred to as 'idiotic'. and that's simply because he got caught. He did an awesome job helping us recover from the Reagan/**** years economically, his foreign policy was as good as it gets, and he was a genuinely decent human being who gave a **** about the opinions of people making less that 200,000 dollars a year.
The comment about "never speaking in public without time to prepare" is pure stupidity. I expected better.
-
What the hell are you on about now? You're just making this **** up as you go along aren't you?
**** solve the Israel-Palestine issue? Ha. I see absolutely no difference now from 5 years ago. A settlement is still as far away as before.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
What the hell are you on about now? You're just making this **** up as you go along aren't you?
**** solve the Israel-Palestine issue? Ha. I see absolutely no difference now from 5 years ago. A settlement is still as far away as before.
I thought this might be lost on you, but that's okay. I understand your true position much more than before.
Clinton came close to getting that Israel/Palestine thing fixed. Two problems though
Arafat backing out at the last minute, and the Israel guy being killed by one of his own people, neither of which were in our control.
-
As far as I was aware, until the last few months of his existence in the White House, Clinton passed just as many dodgy environmental bills as **** does. It was Clinton who blocked the rule on minimum MPG's for SUV's, and don't even mention mercury dumping :(
It was only after it was clear that he was leaving that Clinton passed a pi;e of environmental laws that he knew would have to be revoked by his replacement, since they meant that industry would be getting, quite frankly, less money, and industries certainly don't give a ****e about the American enivronment, but they DO give a ****e about getting less money.
Remember, this was the President who stated that because Germany had produced way below their 'allowed' sulphur emissions under UN convention, that is was perfectly reasonable for America to take the 'leftover' and add it to their own tally.
Ah well, debating then won't fix now I guess :(
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Clinton came close to getting that Israel/Palestine thing fixed. Two problems though
Arafat backing out at the last minute, and the Israel guy being killed by one of his own people, neither of which were in our control.
I agree 100% about that. Clinton came much closer to ending that whole nonsense than anyone since. That's one of the reasons I say he was better than **** ever will be.
Originally posted by ionia23
See, here we go. Amazing that you would sympathize with a guy who nerve-gassed his own citizens for disagreeing with him, and you'd poo-poo the guy who went further than anyone ever has to resolving that Israel-Palestine issue to everyone's benefit.
Look Ionia. You can't just make up **** to justify your arguement. When have I ever said I sympathise with anyone who'd use nerve gas? Either you're mixing me up with someone else or you're just inventing entire postings that never happened so you can argue against them.
In fact you're the person who keeps on saying the US should use nerve gas in Iraq. I'm against that. For you to turn around and claim that I supported the use of nerve gas is rank hypocrisy. You really need to decide which side of the fence you're sitting on here.
As for Clinton he's a tosser. Just like almost every single other politician in the world. He's just less of a tosser than most and a positive saint when compared to the moron you've got leading your country at the moment.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I agree 100% about that. Clinton came much closer to ending that whole nonsense than anyone since. That's one of the reasons I say he was better than **** ever will be.
Good, that's settled.
Look Ionia. You can't just make up **** to justify your arguement. When have I ever said I sympathise with anyone who'd use nerve gas? Either you're mixing me up with someone else or you're just inventing entire postings that never happened so you can argue against them
Well, if the shoe fits...I see plenty of critiquing of US actions everywhere in the world. I never see critiques of anyone elses, least of all these fruit loops who are under the impression suicide bombings will actually work (in a political sense). *shrug*
In fact you're the person who keeps on saying the US should use nerve gas in Iraq. I'm against that. For you to turn around and claim that I supported the use of nerve gas is rank hypocrisy. You really need to decide which side of the fence you're sitting on here.
Funny. And all this time I was under the impression British humor was based on sarcasm and irony. Go figure. I do what I do, but I don't always do what I say. There's no American flag on MY fuel efficient import vehicle. Think about it.
As for Clinton he's a tosser. Just like almost every single other politician in the world. He's just less of a tosser than most and a positive saint when compared to the moron you've got leading your country at the moment.
Hey now, I didn't vote for ****, don't pin this stuff on me. Republicans, by nature, can't be trusted. Then again, neither can anyone who has to deal in abstracts. You said 'almost every other politician in the world'. Can you name any that don't meet the 'tosser' requirement?
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Well, if the shoe fits...I see plenty of critiquing of US actions everywhere in the world. I never see critiques of anyone elses, least of all these fruit loops who are under the impression suicide bombings will actually work (in a political sense). *shrug*
Then you need to look harder. I'm not to blame for your laziness. I was actually for the war. Feel free to check. What I doubted was **** & Blair's ability to run the war properly and more importantly to secure peace in the region afterwards. The fact that there doesn't even appear to have been a plan for what to do in the region after the war ended beyond what a 15 year old could scribble down on a post it note pretty much proves what I thought.
The simple fact is that I do believe that the US and UK did have a moral duty to go into Iraq. We created Saddam and it was our responsibility to remove him.
My whole issue is with how they planned to clean up afterwards. I don't think anyone should have gone in until they had a concrete plan of how to deal with rebels and how to win the hearts and minds they claimed they wanted to win. Cause the attempt they did make was pathetic.
Originally posted by ionia23
Funny. And all this time I was under the impression British humor was based on sarcasm and irony. Go figure. I do what I do, but I don't always do what I say. There's no American flag on MY fuel efficient import vehicle. Think about it.
The basis is being funny. You weren't. At all.
Your calls for nerve gassing, ignoring the Geneva conventions and beheading iraqis just make you look like the emotionally stunted American idiots who believe in that sort of thing.
Notice any difference between your post suggesting the use of nerve gas and Lib's one suggesting using nukes? I suppose he was being sarcastic too. I'd knock it off if I were you unless you want to find yourself lumped in with people like him all the time cause you're not actually that good at british style sarcasm.
Originally posted by ionia23
Hey now, I didn't vote for ****, don't pin this stuff on me. Republicans, by nature, can't be trusted. Then again, neither can anyone who has to deal in abstracts. You said 'almost every other politician in the world'. Can you name any that don't meet the 'tosser' requirement?
I'm not blaming you for ****. Didn't say you voted for him either.
As for politicians who aren't tossers. I doubt I could find anyone who's perfect but Ghandi was pretty good. I've heard very little bad about Nelson Mandela either. Give me a while and I could probably come up with a few more but lets face it, it's a small number. To get anywhere in politics these days you have to be a backstabbing cockbite.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Then you need to look harder. I was actually for the war. Feel free to check. What I doubted was **** & Blair's ability to run the war properly and more importantly to secure peace in the region afterwards. The fact that there doesn't even appear to have been a plan for what to do in the region after the war ended beyond what a 15 year old could scribble down on a post it note pretty much proves what I thought.
That's because we (the subjective 'we', i.e. the coalition forces) don't seem to understand the difference between a military victory and a political one. You can win one, you can win the other, you cannot win both at the same time. 'They' figured with the defeat of Saddam's armies, the war would be won. I imagine for a great majority of Iraqis, they believe they are better off without him. Now we're left dealing with those who benefitted from his rule, and those who just plain hate the west. Normally, I'd have no issue whatsoever with blowing them off the face of the earth, however, there's a whole bunch of non-combatants inbetween us and and the bad guys, and the bad guys know we won't just write the whole of them off as 'collateral damage', no matter how much the left wants to say we will. It's weakness in us that they will exploit (and have) with impunity.
I'd back all this more if we didn't have President George "He Tried To Kill My Daddy" **** running the disaster.
The simple fact is that I do believe that the US and UK did have a moral duty to go into Iraq. We created Saddam and it was our responsibility to remove him.
A moral responsibility? Sure. We 'created' him? With all due respect, excrement. Seeing as every time I have to have this argument I have deal with issues starting 50-100 years ago, I'm not going to put it all into this post. I already had this argument with someone elsewhere.
If you're interested (http://personal.riverusers.com/~ashengrace/images/private/Iraq%20Explained.txt)
My whole issue is with how they planned to clean up afterwards. I don't think anyone should have gone in until they had a concrete plan of how to deal with rebels and how to win the hearts and minds they claimed they wanted to win. Cause the attempt they did make was pathetic.
On that I wholeheartedly agree.
The basis is being funny. You weren't. At all.
Anything that mocks patriotic zealotry is funny to me. If someone actually believes I think that way, it's even more funny.
Your calls for nerve gassing, ignoring the Geneva conventions and beheading iraqis just make you look like the emotionally stunted American idiots who believe in that sort of thing.
Heh, that's assuming I'm trying to win some kind of popularity contest by having views in line with the majority. If someone gives a hoot enough to find out what I really think of something, they're welcome to simply ask. I certainly won't lie. I already skirted too close to the mod's edge of tolerance once and I got 'creatively' punished for it (yes, I noticed, that was smooth :).
Notice the difference between your post suggesting the use of nerve gas and Lib's one suggesting using nukes? I suppose he was being sarcastic too. I'd knock it off if I were you unless you want to find yourself lumped in with people like him all the time cause you're not actually that good at british style sarcasm.
Advice well taken, but I've learned that it really doesn't matter what I say, someone will take offense to it no matter what. In ways, I agree with bits and pieces of what everyone has to say, whether they like it or not :lol: .
I'm not blaming you for ****. Didn't say you voted for him either.
Thanks. i'll do me best with my vote in November, though I don't expect our alternate choices will be that much better. Democracy is empowerment for idiots (that's just a little joke...or is it...)
As for politicians who aren't tossers. I doubt I could find anyone who's perfect but Ghandi was pretty good. I've heard very little bad about Nelson Mandela either. Give me a while and I could probably come up with a few more but lets face it, it's a small number. To get anywhere in politics these days you have to be a backstabbing cockbite.
By the time these people reach a position of true authority, they've made so many little 'deals' along the way they don't even know what they believe anymore. That's what happens when you deal with abstracts.
Example: Kerry. I would vote for this guy. His plan on outsourcing is brilliant. Companies in the US the outsource overseas will not only have to disclose that they do it, but they lose all tax breaks for doing it. Sounds great. Yeah. You watch him try to get that through a Republican congress. It's smoke and mirrors, nothing more.
I'd rather vote for Jello Biafra. I think forcing businessmen to wear clown suits between the hours of 8am and 5pm is a great idea.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
A moral responsibility? Sure. We 'created' him? With all due respect, excrement. Seeing as every time I have to have this argument I have deal with issues starting 50-100 years ago, I'm not going to put it all into this post. I already had this argument with someone elsewhere.
If you're interested (http://personal.riverusers.com/~ashengrace/images/private/Iraq%20Explained.txt)
By create I mean that we helped create the problem by helping him. I'm sure he would caused problems without our help but we definately made him worse.
As for the link, I'll read that if you clean up the HTML. It's virtually unreadable at the moment. :D
Originally posted by ionia23
Advice well taken, but I've learned that it really doesn't matter what I say, someone will take offense to it no matter what. In ways, I agree with bits and pieces of what everyone has to say, whether they like it or not :lol:
Yeah but who'd you rather have annoyed with you. The sensible rational side or the idiots?
Actually it's the idiots isn't it, since Guardian-reading liberals won't try to kill you :D
Originally posted by ionia23
Thanks. i'll do me best with my vote in November, though I don't expect our alternate choices will be that much better. Democracy is empowerment for idiots (that's just a little joke...or is it...)
I don't think of it as a joke, more of a tragedy. Logically 50% of the population must be below average intelligence. These people can vote.
There really needs to be an IQ test before you're allowed to vote, or at least a test to see if you understand the issues you're voting on.
Originally posted by ionia23
By the time these people reach a position of true authority, they've made so many little 'deals' along the way they don't even know what they believe anymore. That's what happens when you deal with abstracts.
Yep. That's basically the problem I was on about. You have to pretty much give up any principles to get anywhere.
-
Bloody hell just go play nationstates.net and get it over with!
-
LOL I just tried that place out, that was FUN! :D
I now run a nation :) Be very very afraid.... :nervous:
-
Whats it called?
-
I called it Teldarkia, I'm still learning my way round the system, but it looks fun :)
-
It can be a laugh, especially if u make the wrong policy decisions.