Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on June 08, 2006, 03:03:08 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5058304.stm
-
Wohooo if this is actualy true then good one less terrorist leader to worry about. But will this have a lasting if any effect on the bommings and kidnapping in Iraq??
-
Well, I guess this is a good thing.
-
Too little, too late.
-
Do you hear that? It's the sound of most people not caring anymore.
-
umm I guess you are right i mean most of harm has been done and well its sad when people don care any more. But I guess i cant say that I blame them. I in a strange way kind of simpatise with them.
-
wow... nice, took long enough, maybe we can get bin laden sometime in the next decade?
-
Nee it wont take a decade but at least another year or so! Hopefully that will somehow diminish the terrorist threat!
-
all things aside, it took an airstrike to get him. :eek2:
-
all things aside, it took an airstrike to get him. :eek2:
why :eek2:?
It's pretty much standard practice for the US Army to use airstrikes rather than close in engagement; quite simply stops the enemy being able to shoot back. Unfortunately, it also leads to a lot of collateral damage because the insurgents simply adapt and use (invade) civillian houses instead.
-
It's pretty much standard practice for the US Army to use airstrikes rather than close in engagement; quite simply stops the enemy being able to shoot back. Unfortunately, it also leads to a lot of collateral damage because the insurgents simply adapt and use (invade) civillian houses instead.
F*** them civilians!! Let's bomb those f***ing A-rabs to hell!!!
(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/8772/drstrangelovemoreslimpickens20.jpg)
YEEEEEEEHAAAAWWWWW!!!
*Ahem*
Would I be correct in assuming this is how most of the world generally views the US Military?
-
Yep you would be correct! Didnt want to sound mean or anithing just saiing what other people think. at least some of the people I know. Can actualy speak for the whole world!
-
all things aside, it took an airstrike to get him. :eek2:
why :eek2:?
It's pretty much standard practice for the US Army to use airstrikes rather than close in engagement; quite simply stops the enemy being able to shoot back. Unfortunately, it also leads to a lot of collateral damage because the insurgents simply adapt and use (invade) civillian houses instead.
therin lies the rub.
-
actually, using an airstrike to take out a single person is another israeli tactic
they used it on this one old man they wanted to kill, as he was leaving a mosque. the point of doing it with an airstrike is so you can kill as many of the innocent people around the target, and then write it off as collateral.
as for the ramifications of zarqawi's death, well that just means we have a whole bunch of disorganized terrorists running around. does that make you feel more safe, or less safe?
-
actually, using an airstrike to take out a single person is another israeli tactic
they used it on this one old man they wanted to kill, as he was leaving a mosque. the point of doing it with an airstrike is so you can kill as many of the innocent people around the target, and then write it off as collateral.
That's more than a bit unfair, and seems like an accusation of attempted genocide, which I think is wrong.
The US (nor Israel) doesn't have any vested interest in killing civillians - it only makes it harder and harder for them to operate - it's simply down to the decision that a risk of Iraqi civillian deaths is regarded as being preferable to a risk of US combat deaths. Something that does make military sense, but in political terms stinks of hypocracy and racism.
-
And it only makes short-term military sense at that. Long term, it would result in fewer friendly deaths if they did what was needed to keep the population content-ish instead of seething with anger and on the verge of rebellion. If they'd played it right, respecting Iraqi lives as much as their own, Iraq might have ceased to be a major problem six months to a year ago, preventing hundreds of US casualties.
-
And it only makes short-term military sense at that. Long term, it would result in fewer friendly deaths if they did what was needed to keep the population content-ish instead of seething with anger and on the verge of rebellion. If they'd played it right, respecting Iraqi lives as much as their own, Iraq might have ceased to be a major problem six months to a year ago, preventing hundreds of US casualties.
No arguements here. It's a strategy purely intended to prevent short-term headlines, and made - like so much of the decisions in this fiasco - without any regard for planning as to the future of the country 'post war'. The problem is that, for all the bleating about 'freedom and democracy for Iraqis' (yeah, that's why they let Al-Sadrs Mafdi Army police poll booths during the last election....), the predominant aim of all US operations would seem to be avoiding too many US deaths, because that looks bad on TV.
-
Well as long as they didn't take out any civilians good riddence to bad rubbish I say. As long as he isn't replaced by someone worse than him I've got no problems with it. It's probably the only justice the families of his victims were going to get.
I doubt it will have any great effect on the situation in Iraq though. The US like to set up these bogeymen pulling the strings behind the scenes in every plot but the fact is that Zarqawi probably isn't responsible for even a tenth of the stuff that goes on in Iraq.
-
Maybe ! And if that is the case then it makes you wonder if its actualy zarqawi who was planning all those bommings or the civilians themselfs as some sort of paiback for someones lost mother or father or child. Something like revenge for the deaths of ones loved one!
Regardless of this the fact that they needed an airstrike to take him out just goes to prove that the US is nowhere near in control of the situation as it lets on to believe.
Also what dont the US or the CIA have some sort of hitmen to take him out with a sniper rifle from several hundreds of metters away..???
But still as long as no civilians got caough in the strike its all good!
-
Maybe ! And if that is the case then it makes you wonder if its actualy zarqawi who was planning all those bommings or the civilians themselfs as some sort of paiback for someones lost mother or father or child. Something like revenge for the deaths of ones loved one!
The insurgency in Iraq is fairly nebulous; you have the foreign fighters/terrorists (a minority group, but who get a lot of publication as 'justification' for the war), the Saddam / shia loyalists, the Sunni groups (such as Al-Sadrs bunch), and also people who are simply common criminals (such as the many who kidnap for money; although foreign hostages get the most publicity, there is a shocking amount of kidnapping going on of Iraqis).
Regardless of this the fact that they needed an airstrike to take him out just goes to prove that the US is nowhere near in control of the situation as it lets on to believe.
Also what dont the US or the CIA have some sort of hitmen to take him out with a sniper rifle from several hundreds of metters away..???
But still as long as no civilians got caough in the strike its all good!
It's arguably a lot, lot harder to get someone like Al-Zaqwari with a sniper rifle. Even with distance, it's likely the area will be full of sympathisers or simply just ordinary Iraqis hostile to the Americans; securing a site for a sniper to base themselves could be very difficult depending on how urban it is (offhand I think this was more remote, so not so much). On top of that, there's a difficulty of timing - getting a sniper quietly infiltrated in time without spooking him (i.e. not choppering in near to the location - and odds are he won't stay there long before moving, so you need to move that sniper in quick).
Whilst the SAS in particular are very good at bunkering down somewhere, surveilling, and taking a shot, none of those are particualrly suited here; it's simply easier and - more importantly - quicker to send in a bomber than have a x man crew yomp across the desert, quite possibly only to find the target has buggered off into the sunset.
As an aside, I should probably note it is a good thing this murdering bastard is dead, even if my tone has been somewhat negative. The problem is that i know this will be turned into a whitewashing piece of propaganda, and that annoys me, because it's the actions of my country-and-others that allowed this guy to come to such prominance.
-
:yes:
-
Considering Zarqawi may have been dead for months, if not years, I'll take this with a grain of salt. I remember one Chechen leader was reported dead seven times before he was actually killed.
-
the Saddam / shia loyalists, the Sunni groups (such as Al-Sadrs bunch)
Think you've got your shia and sunni the wrong way round there :p
-
This is like the pronunciation of Uranus when Voyager went past it, I love the way Shi'ite has change to Shia ;)
-
Shia is the religion so it's a perfectly valid use of the word. I think the problem is simply that most people try to write Shi'ite, end up writing sheite, think "that's not right" and then use Shia because they can't misspell it :)
-
so, who knows the difference between the two?
(i do, i'm seeing if you do)
-
Did they actually find any remains of this guy?
-
Yeah, there are photos. His body is more or less completely intact, including his head which is remarkably whole.
Here's the picture, obviously don't click if you are easily grossed out.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/He219/notgonnadothismuchlonger/more/dingdongAZQisdead.jpg
-
the Saddam / shia loyalists, the Sunni groups (such as Al-Sadrs bunch)
Think you've got your shia and sunni the wrong way round there :p
Oh ****, not again.
Honestly, I wish they'd pick more different names. Greenies and Reddies - what's wrong with that? Nice and simple, doesn't confuzzle ole Aldo here. Hrmph.
-
W00t. Bout time. Best part is, I heard it took him 10 minutes just to DIE. He was pretty much alive when U.S. forces found the body *Joy*
-
Sorry, but I just don't consider that something to gloat over.
Removing a threat is one thing, gloating over his prolonged pain makes us no better than he is.
-
W00t. Bout time. Best part is, I heard it took him 10 minutes just to DIE. He was pretty much alive when U.S. forces found the body *Joy*
Imagine the same words said about, ooh, an American soldier or an Iraqi police recruit.
Lets try and keep the moral high ground, eh?
-
I wouldn't want to be in Bush's shoes (or any US poresident for that matter).
If you have too many soldier deaths, your public will want to crucify you.
If too many foregneirs (colateral damage) die, you are again be crucified by the media.
There's no way to make everyone happy. Franky, I don't know how US will be able to fight any wars in the future if this continues. 2000 US soldiers lost is too much foir them??
From a logical standpoint - in a war 2000 is nothing.
I understand the grieving families but bloody hell - your family/brother/father was a soldier!
-
I wouldn't want to be in Bush's shoes (or any US poresident for that matter).
If you have too many soldier deaths, your public will want to crucify you.
If too many foregneirs (colateral damage) die, you are again be crucified by the media.
There's no way to make everyone happy. Franky, I don't know how US will be able to fight any wars in the future if this continues. 2000 US soldiers lost is too much foir them??
From a logical standpoint - in a war 2000 is nothing.
I understand the grieving families but bloody hell - your family/brother/father was a soldier!
There is, of course, a very simple solution.........
Stop fighting pointless wars.
-
W00t. Bout time. Best part is, I heard it took him 10 minutes just to DIE. He was pretty much alive when U.S. forces found the body *Joy*
Imagine the same words said about, ooh, an American soldier or an Iraqi police recruit.
Lets try and keep the moral high ground, eh?
I see no reason to, considering 90% of the world doesn't seem to think we have any claim to "moral high ground" at all. I mean, just take a look at the first of the posts in this thread :rolleye:. So, you go ahead and moan and cry, while I'll take THOROUGH, and I do mean thorough, pleasure in the fact that the scumbag is gone.
-
I don't see anyone expressing sadness that he's dead. But embracing the desire to take pleasure in death and suffering is sort of corrosive to the whole "civilization" thing.
-
W00t. Bout time. Best part is, I heard it took him 10 minutes just to DIE. He was pretty much alive when U.S. forces found the body *Joy*
Imagine the same words said about, ooh, an American soldier or an Iraqi police recruit.
Lets try and keep the moral high ground, eh?
I see no reason to, considering 90% of the world doesn't seem to think we have any claim to "moral high ground" at all. I mean, just take a look at the first of the posts in this thread :rolleye:. So, you go ahead and moan and cry, while I'll take THOROUGH, and I do mean thorough, pleasure in the fact that the scumbag is gone.
I very much agree with this. Zarqawi was a disgrace to humanity, and didn't show any restraint; the man chopped off the heads of POWs, planned bombings that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and plenty of American, British, and other Coalition servicemen, and didn't even show restraint when he bombed three targets in his own homeland.
Thoroughly disgusting animal. I'm very much comforted in the fact that he fittingly suffered a death much like he caused thousands of others to suffer. Proves that there's still justice in the world.
There's no way to make everyone happy. Franky, I don't know how US will be able to fight any wars in the future if this continues. 2000 US soldiers lost is too much foir them??
From a logical standpoint - in a war 2000 is nothing.
Very true. 2000 casualties is hardly anything, considering the US has been involved in far more costlier battles over shorter time spans (i.e. 7000 Marines in a matter of weeks at Iwo Jima, 12500 in two months at Okinawa), but it's the media coverage that has been primarily responsible for causing American queasiness when it comes to war. Add to that the Baby Boomer generation that seems interested in doing the complete opposite of what the greatest generation of Americans did...
-
Very true. 2000 casualties is hardly anything, considering the US has been involved in far more costlier battles over shorter time spans (i.e. 7000 Marines in a matter of weeks at Iwo Jima, 12500 in two months at Okinawa), but it's the media coverage that has been primarily responsible for causing American queasiness when it comes to war. Add to that the Baby Boomer generation that seems interested in doing the complete opposite of what the greatest generation of Americans did...
Yeah, damn the media for reporting Vietnam as the cluster **** it really was. And as for the Baby Boomers, it's their amnesia regarding Vietnam that provided a lot of the support for this war.
-
Very true. 2000 casualties is hardly anything, considering the US has been involved in far more costlier battles over shorter time spans (i.e. 7000 Marines in a matter of weeks at Iwo Jima, 12500 in two months at Okinawa), but it's the media coverage that has been primarily responsible for causing American queasiness when it comes to war. Add to that the Baby Boomer generation that seems interested in doing the complete opposite of what the greatest generation of Americans did...
Yeah, damn the media for reporting Vietnam as the cluster **** it really was. And as for the Baby Boomers, it's their amnesia regarding Vietnam that provided a lot of the support for this war.
And now it's the Baby Boomers' nostalgia for Vietnam that's bogging us down. Thirty-eight years ago in Vietnam, the media may have been right in reporting that the government and the military were messing up the war. The US military was still trying to fight the same war that they fought in Korea and WWII, where there was a known, defined enemy with a conventional military. The Communists in Vietnam changed the rules by fighting a guerilla war that the United States wasn't prepared for, and the media made that clear when the Tet Offensive came.
Now the media's doing the same thing with Iraq, even though the military has made good progress with training the Iraqi military and setting up a government voted in by the Iraqi people in a hostile zone. I don't particularly agree with a lot of the reasons that the war was initiated, but I even more disagree with the media and the "peace demonstrators" at home vehemontly criticizing the military, especially when they have neither the time, training, nor ability to determine if the war is winnable or not. I'd be glad to leave that to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the people trained in strategic thought.
It should be the media's job to report what's happening in the world, not selectively picking what it wants to tell the public and then telling the American people want to think (that goes for both the conservative and liberal media). But yes, that's just my idealistic view of the world taking over again...
-
I don't know about you, but I don't see peace demonstrators attacking the military; I see them attacking the government for its irresponsible use of the military. I think there's actually been relatively little hostility towards the military itself from the American public. I mean, one of the big catch phrases for the anti-war movement is "bring the troops home". People aren't against this war because they think the military is incompetent; they're against it because it was a stupid, stupid thing to do. It's the civilians in the Pentagon and the White House who are, and should be, coming under the heaviest fire.
-
W00t. Bout time. Best part is, I heard it took him 10 minutes just to DIE. He was pretty much alive when U.S. forces found the body *Joy*
Imagine the same words said about, ooh, an American soldier or an Iraqi police recruit.
Lets try and keep the moral high ground, eh?
I see no reason to, considering 90% of the world doesn't seem to think we have any claim to "moral high ground" at all. I mean, just take a look at the first of the posts in this thread :rolleye:. So, you go ahead and moan and cry, while I'll take THOROUGH, and I do mean thorough, pleasure in the fact that the scumbag is gone.
Then you sink to his level simple as that. You take joy in the suffering of your enemies, you feel that his pain somehow gives you pleasure, next thing you know you'll be abducting random Muslims and cutting their heads off.
You want to carry the Flag of Freedom, want to represent the way of sanity and trust and understanding. Then damn-well act like it, not like some gibbering howling-for-blood maniac.
Yes I'm glad he's gone, but not for the suffering we caused him, because of the suffering he won't cause others.
If people walking round going 'Yay! He died in pain' then screw it, we did nothing of worth.
-
yay for basic morality!!
despite being so unnecessarily religious, that's something that this great nation has a sore lack of.
-
W00t. Bout time. Best part is, I heard it took him 10 minutes just to DIE. He was pretty much alive when U.S. forces found the body *Joy*
Imagine the same words said about, ooh, an American soldier or an Iraqi police recruit.
Lets try and keep the moral high ground, eh?
I see no reason to, considering 90% of the world doesn't seem to think we have any claim to "moral high ground" at all. I mean, just take a look at the first of the posts in this thread :rolleye:. So, you go ahead and moan and cry, while I'll take THOROUGH, and I do mean thorough, pleasure in the fact that the scumbag is gone.
Then you sink to his level simple as that. You take joy in the suffering of your enemies, you feel that his pain somehow gives you pleasure, next thing you know you'll be abducting random Muslims and cutting their heads off.
You want to carry the Flag of Freedom, want to represent the way of sanity and trust and understanding. Then damn-well act like it, not like some gibbering howling-for-blood maniac.
Yes I'm glad he's gone, but not for the suffering we caused him, because of the suffering he won't cause others.
Blow things out of proportion much? I'm glad a sicko suffered the same pain he caused so many others, so now I'm gonna be just like him, chopping off heads and directing Bombings. Yeah, right. Sometimes, Flipside, you speak sense, and obviously know what you're talking about. Other times...not so much, especially with that comment.
You'd like to know why I take pleasure in the fact that he suffered? Because he was an asshole, a murderer, and a terrorist. He caused so much pain to others, it's only just he suffers the same. I don't believe in this bullcrap that because I enjoy people getting their comeuppance, I'm just as bad as them. Theres a difference between what I'm doing, and what their doing (mainly, they're actively hurting and killing innocents, meanwhile I'm just enjoying the moment when karma comes back around and *****slaps them across the mouth).
-
If people walking round going 'Yay! He died in pain' then screw it, we did nothing of worth.
You read FAR to much into things. If nothing else, consider my attitude a counterbalance to this:
It's pretty much standard practice for the US Army to use airstrikes rather than close in engagement; quite simply stops the enemy being able to shoot back. Unfortunately, it also leads to a lot of collateral damage because the insurgents simply adapt and use (invade) civillian houses instead.
F*** them civilians!! Let's bomb those f***ing A-rabs to hell!!!
(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/8772/drstrangelovemoreslimpickens20.jpg)
YEEEEEEEHAAAAWWWWW!!!
*Ahem*
Would I be correct in assuming this is how most of the world generally views the US Military?
-
People aren't against this war because they think the military is incompetent; they're against it because it was a stupid, stupid thing to do.
Yes, but constantly and constantly reminding us that it was a stupid thing to do is in itself an indirect offense on the military; what do you think the troops on the ground think when they look back home and see the widespread protests of the war that the media is always anxious to broadcast? It's going to hurt morale, and when the media, politicians, and civilians start saying that the war is unwinnable, it only makes it worse. There's really not much more of an attack on the military than saying that they can't succeed at what they're doing, especially when no other real solution is being thrown forward other than to give up and bring the troops home.
You'd like to know why I take pleasure in the fact that he suffered? Because he was an asshole, a murderer, and a terrorist. He caused so much pain to others, it's only just he suffers the same. I don't believe in this bullcrap that because I enjoy people getting their comeuppance, I'm just as bad as them. Theres a difference between what I'm doing, and what their doing (mainly, they're actively hurting and killing innocents, meanwhile I'm just enjoying the moment when karma comes back around and *****slaps them across the mouth).
Indeed. There isn't a whole lot of true justice that ever comes in the world anymore; can't we just savor it when there really is something to be happy about?
yay for basic morality!!
despite being so unnecessarily religious, that's something that this great nation has a sore lack of.
Again, my point goes back to the Baby Boomers and the abundant drug use and rampant sexual promiscuity of the 60s that would have made Aldous Huxley blush. Morality was already on a decline, but it took the teenagers of the 60s to really knock it down a couple of dozen notches.
-
Savouring someone elses pain is the past-time of the phsychopath.
Like I said, the Military did what it had to do. It's war, people die. I can feel no more compassion for those who enjoyed the slaughter of the Fire-bombings than I feel for those who enjoyed the slaughter of Jews.
-
Savouring someone elses pain is the past-time of the phsychopath.
Or just appreciation of Karma. Depends on how you look at it, really. Tell you what, if I ever go around beheading Muslims and planting carbombs, I'll concede the point to you. Until then...
EDIT: One other point: You seem to think I enjoy the suffering of ALL people. This is a Generalization, and a wrong one, at that. I enjoy the suffering of those who truly deserve to suffer.
-
Yet, there is a big difference between being happy someone cannot cause anymore pain and being happy someone died.
-
Yes, he was an asshole, a murderer and a terrorist who took pleasure in other peoples suffering
-
Yes, he was an asshole, a murderer and a terrorist who took pleasure in other peoples suffering
Yes, he was, and now we take pleasure in the fact that he, a sick bastard, got his due and suffered in much the same way that his victims suffered. Much like how I take pleasure when a known child molestor finally goes to prison.
-
Then he's not suffering in the same way is he?
If we are to take the moral high ground in this, then we have to learn that what we hated him for was the fact he was an animal. We can either choose to be better than him or not.
-
Yes, but constantly and constantly reminding us that it was a stupid thing to do is in itself an indirect offense on the military; what do you think the troops on the ground think when they look back home and see the widespread protests of the war that the media is always anxious to broadcast? It's going to hurt morale, and when the media, politicians, and civilians start saying that the war is unwinnable, it only makes it worse. There's really not much more of an attack on the military than saying that they can't succeed at what they're doing, especially when no other real solution is being thrown forward other than to give up and bring the troops home.
Well the alternative is that we all purge ourselves of our thoughtcrimes and fall in line, and many people, myself included, don't think that we should stop asking for accountability from those in authority simply because the military might hear it.
-
Too little, too late.
And yeah, Strangelove is the portrait of the US military.
At this point in my life, I see that countries going to war is kind of a moot point, it's groups of people going to war. Right now fundi's are winning in the US and Iraq, and the ones in the US are trying to kill the ones in Iraq.
-
Then he's not suffering in the same way is he?
If we are to take the moral high ground in this, then we have to learn that what we hated him for was the fact he was an animal. We can either choose to be better than him or not.
I'm already better than him in that I don't commit the same despicable acts as him. You have no real point, Flip. 1: I don't enjoy EVERYONE's pain, just those who deserve it. 2: I don't commit the same acts as him. 3: I didn't inflict the pain.
Stop trying to accuse me of things I'm not really guilty of. It's rather annoying and disrespectful.
-
we should remember, the US invasion and occupation of iraq was what created al zarqawi.
he would have just been some guy, who probably would have been 'disappeared' secretly by sadaam's secret police, he would have never had the opportunity to become the evil feared terrorist that he was before somebody dropped a 500lb bomb on him. (see, saddam and osama were never on good terms, osama hated saddam almost as much as he hated america, he thought saddam was a bad muslim).
-
we should remember, the US invasion and occupation of iraq was what created al zarqawi.
he would have just been some guy, who probably would have been 'disappeared' secretly by sadaam's secret police, he would have never had the opportunity to become the evil feared terrorist that he was before somebody dropped a 500lb bomb on him. (see, saddam and osama were never on good terms, osama hated saddam almost as much as he hated america, he thought saddam was a bad muslim).
It was a 1000lb bomb (like it really mattered.)
-
Then he's not suffering in the same way is he?
If we are to take the moral high ground in this, then we have to learn that what we hated him for was the fact he was an animal. We can either choose to be better than him or not.
I'm already better than him in that I don't commit the same despicable acts as him. You have no real point, Flip. 1: I don't enjoy EVERYONE's pain, just those who deserve it. 2: I don't commit the same acts as him. 3: I didn't inflict the pain.
Stop trying to accuse me of things I'm not really guilty of. It's rather annoying and disrespectful.
Let me put it this way, if you saw Iraqis talking about the execution of an American Soldier on TV as 'Did you see how slowly he died? It was great! That'll teach those invading murdering bastards!' how would you feel? And yes, there are people in Iraq who consider the Americans invading murdering bastards. People who have never killed anyone in their life.
I can pretty much be certain the responses would be along the lines of 'They are just as bad as he is for saying that!'.
There is no justification for taking pleasure in another mans pain ever,
-
Then he's not suffering in the same way is he?
If we are to take the moral high ground in this, then we have to learn that what we hated him for was the fact he was an animal. We can either choose to be better than him or not.
I'm already better than him in that I don't commit the same despicable acts as him. You have no real point, Flip. 1: I don't enjoy EVERYONE's pain, just those who deserve it. 2: I don't commit the same acts as him. 3: I didn't inflict the pain.
Stop trying to accuse me of things I'm not really guilty of. It's rather annoying and disrespectful.
Let me put it this way, if you saw Iraqis talking about the execution of an American Soldier on TV as 'Did you see how slowly he died? It was great! That'll teach those invading murdering bastards!' how would you feel? And yes, there are people in Iraq who consider the Americans invading murdering bastards. People who have never killed anyone in their life.
I can pretty much be certain the responses would be along the lines of 'They are just as bad as he is for saying that!'.
Are you seriously comparing the average American soldier to ****ing Al-Zarqawi?! Holy ****. And here you were just a few minutes ago claiming you thought the U.S. should try to KEEP the "morale high ground." Jesus christ...
-
Would you mind pointing out where in my post I said that?
I said there are people in Iraq who have never killed a soul who view the occupying forces in a similar light. Don't twist my words.
Anyway, I'm out of this thread, it makes me feel physically sick.
-
Would you mind pointing out where in my post I said that?
I said there are people in Iraq who have never killed a soul who view the occupying forces in a similar light. Don't twist my words.
It's quite clearly implied in your post. You wrote about Iraqi's saying they enjoyed the pain of a U.S. soldier because "he was an invading murdering bastard," which is basically just a watered down version of my own list of grievances against Al-Zarqawi.
I didn't need to twist any words, the comparison's right there.
EDIT: Ciao. Sorry for being somewhat short with ya, but it's not everyday someone accuses me of being a potential psychopath. :) Cheers.
-
Very true. 2000 casualties is hardly anything, considering the US has been involved in far more costlier battles over shorter time spans (i.e. 7000 Marines in a matter of weeks at Iwo Jima, 12500 in two months at Okinawa), but it's the media coverage that has been primarily responsible for causing American queasiness when it comes to war. Add to that the Baby Boomer generation that seems interested in doing the complete opposite of what the greatest generation of Americans did...
Yeah, damn the media for reporting Vietnam as the cluster **** it really was. And as for the Baby Boomers, it's their amnesia regarding Vietnam that provided a lot of the support for this war.
And now it's the Baby Boomers' nostalgia for Vietnam that's bogging us down. Thirty-eight years ago in Vietnam, the media may have been right in reporting that the government and the military were messing up the war. The US military was still trying to fight the same war that they fought in Korea and WWII, where there was a known, defined enemy with a conventional military. The Communists in Vietnam changed the rules by fighting a guerilla war that the United States wasn't prepared for, and the media made that clear when the Tet Offensive came.
Now the media's doing the same thing with Iraq, even though the military has made good progress with training the Iraqi military and setting up a government voted in by the Iraqi people in a hostile zone. I don't particularly agree with a lot of the reasons that the war was initiated, but I even more disagree with the media and the "peace demonstrators" at home vehemontly criticizing the military, especially when they have neither the time, training, nor ability to determine if the war is winnable or not. I'd be glad to leave that to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the people trained in strategic thought.
It should be the media's job to report what's happening in the world, not selectively picking what it wants to tell the public and then telling the American people want to think (that goes for both the conservative and liberal media). But yes, that's just my idealistic view of the world taking over again...
It's the Damn Liberal Media again, you would win the war if you just didn't let the reporters in!
LIEBERAL
MEDIA
RAAARGH
-
One more thing-
Flipside, you asked me how I would feel if the U.S. soldier died in pain and people felt that way: My answere is that it would depend on what he did before hand. If he was, like say, one of those soldiers who went around killing innocents and non-combatants and what not, then yeah, I'd agree. He had it coming.
-
One more thing-
Flipside, you asked me how I would feel if the U.S. soldier died in pain and people felt that way: My answere is that it would depend on what he did before hand. If he was, like say, one of those soldiers who went around killing innocents and non-combatants and what not, then yeah, I'd agree. He had it coming.
This is going to sound really bad, but I don't know if most people in Iraq care, the only thing that matters is that he was an American and he died in pain, and I can't say I blame them considering what they've gone through because of Americans.
-
It was a hypothetical, mate. :rolleyes:
-
I'm already better than him in that I don't commit the same despicable acts as him. You have no real point, Flip. 1: I don't enjoy EVERYONE's pain, just those who deserve it. 2: I don't commit the same acts as him. 3: I didn't inflict the pain.
Stop trying to accuse me of things I'm not really guilty of. It's rather annoying and disrespectful.
Surely one of the fundamental problems of the terrorism/fundamentalism/etc type issue is where people are deciding that X deserves to feel pain and then, whether doing it themselves or encouraging a proxy, inflicting it. It's one thing to be glad he's dead. It's entirely another to gloat over how long he took to die, or how much pain he was in; I don't see the neccessity or value in metaphorically pissing over anyones corpse.
-
Umm i'm not even gooing to try and get cought into this moral issue. but however while the first instinct,especialy of those who had loved ones killed by such maniaks, will be to actualy fing joy in the fact that he suffered as much as posible before he died I believe the joy soon passes as you realise that that brings you no real comfort not even short term, for the loss of someone dear.
Also most of the time I just feel pitty for these kinds of people. Not pitty as in "poore bastard he died so bad" bu pitty in the sensce that they are not woth the emotional effort to feel anything for theyr death. And they will go down in history even among most of theyr fellow people as murederes and mad men.
I dont know if anyone will understand what i'm tring to say because of mi bad english but i gave it a try nonetheless.
-
I'm already better than him in that I don't commit the same despicable acts as him. You have no real point, Flip. 1: I don't enjoy EVERYONE's pain, just those who deserve it. 2: I don't commit the same acts as him. 3: I didn't inflict the pain.
Stop trying to accuse me of things I'm not really guilty of. It's rather annoying and disrespectful.
Surely one of the fundamental problems of the terrorism/fundamentalism/etc type issue is where people are deciding that X deserves to feel pain and then, whether doing it themselves or encouraging a proxy, inflicting it. It's one thing to be glad he's dead. It's entirely another to gloat over how long he took to die, or how much pain he was in; I don't see the neccessity or value in metaphorically pissing over anyones corpse.
Mm-hm. I don't suppose there is any tangible benefit to it. Just satisfaction in people getting their just desserts.
It's not terribly hard to figure out. Al-Zarqawi -> Had hundreds killed (often painfully, sometimes inducing great fear and terror just before killing them). Therefore, I derive satisfaction from the fact that he got what was coming to him: A painful death, at the VERY least.
When it comes to matters of "this guy's a mass murderer," I just don't see why people act like pussies about it. "Oh, don't make the poor dear suffer!" Makes me kinda sick. I suppose it comes down to the fact that I'm an eye-for-an-eye kinda guy.
-
An eye-for-an-eye makes the whole world blind.
Or one-eyed.
-
An eye-for-an-eye makes the whole world blind.
Would someone please explain how that's supposed to make sense? I've never understood it.
Perhaps I just define punishment more rationally...
-
An eye-for-an-eye makes the whole world blind.
Would someone please explain how that's supposed to make sense? I've never understood it.
Perhaps I just define punishment more rationally...
It doesn't, unless you assume the world is fighting with itself.
How it should actually go is "An eye-for-an-eye means you now have one eye, but so does the son of a ***** that took your eye in the first place."
-
:) As soon as the nukes start fallin none o fthis will matter :lol:
-
An eye-for-an-eye makes the whole world blind.
Would someone please explain how that's supposed to make sense? I've never understood it.
Perhaps I just define punishment more rationally...
It's really quite simple.
Revenge is cyclical. Unless the initial perpetrator of 'some' act recognises it was unjustified, they will feel wronged and lash out accordingly. Invariably, someone else gets hurt; either accidentally, or as being seen as facilitating the previous act of revenge - the taking of the eye so to speak. And because human nature is not to accept punishment as 'fair enough', it just builds up and up.
Just look at, well, any modern problem - terrorism, Israel-Palestine, gang-warfare, etc. Always characterised by rightous ire and the refusal to accept responsibility or, for lack of a better term, attempt to 'defuse' the situation.
-
Theres a fair bit of it all over, Not just in revenge, human nature is impertinant.
If office politics applied itself to the net and to world politics, It WOULD be a more palateable planet. (unless you work for a $h1t company or a law firm)
-
So, Jetmech, you seem pretty comfortable that Zarqawi "deserved" to suffer for his crimes. But, let me ask you, do you believe that the child killed in the bombing that killed Zarqawi deserved to die as well? Does the man who dropped the bomb deserve to die a painful death for killing the five people in the general vicinity of Zarqawi? But then, why stop there, what about the mechanics who fueled the planes that dropped the bomb? What about the commanding officer of the airbase said planes were launched from? What about General Casey who authorised the bombing? They killed these people in a fashion rather similar to Zarqawi's acts, so do they all 'deserve' to die a painful death?
It's not terribly hard to figure out. Al-Zarqawi -> Had hundreds killed (often painfully, sometimes inducing great fear and terror just before killing them). Therefore, I derive satisfaction from the fact that he got what was coming to him: A painful death, at the VERY least.
The previously mentioned General Casey, commander of all US forces in Iraq, has ordered the deaths of thousands, often in painful fashions inducing both fear and terror [they've made a point of mentioning this in regard to using bombings and cruise missiles]. By your standards this man should deserve a much more painful death than Zarqawi, so why aren't you howling for his blood?
-
It's quite clearly implied in your post. You wrote about Iraqi's saying they enjoyed the pain of a U.S. soldier because "he was an invading murdering bastard," which is basically just a watered down version of my own list of grievances against Al-Zarqawi.
I didn't need to twist any words, the comparison's right there.
Let me put it this way, if you saw Iraqis talking about the execution of an American Soldier on TV as 'Did you see how slowly he died? It was great! That'll teach those invading murdering bastards!' how would you feel? And yes, there are people in Iraq who consider the Americans invading murdering bastards. People who have never killed anyone in their life.
Quoted above is what I said (I've bolded some relevant words), I don't know where you got the idea that I am saying that American soldiers are as bad as Terrorists, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is twisting my words to try to demonise me.
So, what you are saying is that America's Christian values are only valid when not applied to the real world? I don't accept that.
Oh, and before you accuse me of trying to Demonise you, let me quote your first post again....
W00t. Bout time. Best part is, I heard it took him 10 minutes just to DIE. He was pretty much alive when U.S. forces found the body *Joy*
Do you really think of that as being a reasonable way of thinking?
Oh, and finally, had there been Iraqis on TV saying such a thing about an American Soldier, I would have agreed that they were just as bad.
-
So, Jetmech, you seem pretty comfortable that Zarqawi "deserved" to suffer for his crimes. But, let me ask you, do you believe that the child killed in the bombing that killed Zarqawi deserved to die as well? Does the man who dropped the bomb deserve to die a painful death for killing the five people in the general vicinity of Zarqawi? But then, why stop there, what about the mechanics who fueled the planes that dropped the bomb? What about the commanding officer of the airbase said planes were launched from? What about General Casey who authorised the bombing? They killed these people in a fashion rather similar to Zarqawi's acts, so do they all 'deserve' to die a painful death?
For the Child, again, it depends. I'll assume he was just an innocent bystander, as I believe that's the point you're trying to make. No, probably not, and I take no satisfaction in his fate. But that's collateral damage for you. That's what happens when you decide to avoid detection by trying to blend in with innocents.
For the man, depends. His main target was Al-Zarqawi, the rest likely collateral. Why should I blame him for eliminating a monster at the behest of his superiors?
For the Rest, the only person on your list I can say I despise would be those who gave the orders at the top of the line.
The previously mentioned General Casey, commander of all US forces in Iraq, has ordered the deaths of thousands, often in painful fashions inducing both fear and terror [they've made a point of mentioning this in regard to using bombings and cruise missiles]. By your standards this man should deserve a much more painful death than Zarqawi, so why aren't you howling for his blood?
I suppose by some reasoning, he would deserve it, but at this point you're venturing into the realm of personal intentions (Why Zarqawi/Casey did what they did) and the Public Opinion of each Organization (Al Qaeda/U.S. Military), which rather pollutes the discussion and diverges from the main point: I'm happy that a man such as Al-Zarqawi got his karmic retribution. :)
Quoted above is what I said (I've bolded some relevant words), I don't know where you got the idea that I am saying that American soldiers are as bad as Terrorists, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is twisting my words to try to demonise me.
So, what you are saying is that America's Christian values are only valid when not applied to the real world? I don't accept that.
I'll just take you're word for it that it was a misunderstanding.
And I don't understand what America's Christian Values have to do with this?
-
Do you really think of that as being a reasonable way of thinking?
Between you and me? I exaggerated that a bit to piss off all the people ragging on the U.S. earlier in the thread, with the "trigger happy morons" implications. Why not show them what they want to see?
Make no mistake, I stand by my statements that Zarqawi was a piece of **** and deserved everything he got and maybe a little more. But just clarifying for you.
-
Fair enough, but I will say this, as I posted elsewhere....
I'm not Christian, I'll be the first to admit, but I did have Christian values taught to me, and being a Christian is more than simply reading the Book. You have to struggle to understand and live by what it taught. It's not easy, but no-one said it would be. The Bible was the story of Christs' struggle against his own 'Human' instincts. Our lives are the same story.
It's difficult to stand by your own Morals when the chips are down, but if we dont, then we throw away everything we stand for. That's why I'm so vehement about this. It can't be stressed enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, enough arguing, I'm willing to let it rest at 'agreeing to disagree' :)
-
Interesting... the difference betwene general Casey and Al-Zarqawi is that the US targets terrorists and only terrorists, trying to avoid any civilian casualties, often waiting with an attack for the target area to clear up a bit, so there are less people.
Terrorists like that bastard don't (mostly) target soldiers or people that can actually cause them harm - they specificly target civilians, women and children and try to kill off as many as possible.
-
FYI, the initial reports were incorrect. No child died in the bombing, only 3 men and 3 women all of whom are linked to zarqawi. No collateral damage = a job well-done from the USAF.
-
Also a more interesting thing has turned up, as Jet said he didn't die until after they got there, like the terrorist networks said, he tried to get off the stretcher they had put him on and after they strapped him down then he died.
Makes me wonder if he took some kind of poison, to kill him where he wouldn't be captured. It would explain the reason they wanted to get out that he died in the bombing itself, cause otherwise he would look like a coward.
-
I think maybe the US killed him, Saddam's trial didn't go too well, maybe they're trying to avoid repeat.
-
Or perhaps having shrapnal fly through your midsection is not condusive to living?
-
So, what you are saying is that America's Christian values are only valid when not applied to the real world? I don't accept that.
Your acceptance or denial is irrelevant.
The universe itself knows that fundamentalist Christian, and fundamentalist Muslim values too, when applied to the real world are invalid.
Of course, the solution is quite simple: live in a bubble like the president! ;)
-
LOL True, but I haven't sunk so far into exasperation that I believe all of the US is Fundamentalist ;) Not yet, at least.
-
it's about 40%
-
More than enough to win an election. Well, an American election, anyway.
-
remember when they said this may be the first war with no "collateral damage" ?
-
Terrorists like that bastard don't (mostly) target soldiers or people that can actually cause them harm - they specificly target civilians, women and children and try to kill off as many as possible.
Incorrect. Terrorists (at least the more effective ones) choose their targets to have an effect.
Between you and me? I exaggerated that a bit to piss off all the people ragging on the U.S. earlier in the thread, with the "trigger happy morons" implications. Why not show them what they want to see?
Because all you're doing is making yourself a servant to their way of thinking, and reinforcing their negative stereotypes at the same time. :)
-
http://zarqawimped.ytmnd.com/
this is real footage of the airstrike.
-
Hold on a sec - surely the arguement is not over how evil this guy is, but whether it is right to cheer and celebrate someones' suffering death?