1
   

U.S. Snipers Firing on Ambulances in Fallujah

 
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 11:21 pm
Yeah, if we make laws against terrorism then it won't hurt us, right?

To me it sounds more like dropping down into the trench and hoping the next trooper in line catches the bullet meant for you.
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 11:45 pm
Anywho, if your done with the national insults Tarantulas, can we get back to the matter of US forces shooting at ambulances?

There was this one from a few weeks ago. It wasn't in Fallujah but it was an ambulance.

Quote:
At Al -Thawra Hospital, I met Raad Daier, a 36-year-old ambulance driver with a bullet in his lower abdomen, one of 12 shots fired at his ambulance from a U.S. Humvee. According to hospital officials, at the time of the attack, he was carrying six people injured by U.S. forces, including a pregnant woman who had been shot in the stomach and lost her child.


Oh, and just so emclean knows, I don't think the worst of the troops. I just don't think very highly of the TACTICS.

edit to fix spelling.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2004 11:47 pm
Tarantulas wrote:
Or it could be pandering for votes.


Tarantulas, is there a form of government other than democracy that you advocate?

Quote:
Or it could be the idea that "if we just close our eyes maybe all the troubles will go away.


This is just more of the same Tarantulas, they have a different opinion that yours so you are characterizing them in these parodies as cowardly, naive and ilk.

Quote:
" Or it could be a leap onto the "we hate the US" bandwagon.


Tarantulas, one does not need to hate the US to neglect to support our war in Iraq.

Quote:
I believe the courage of the Operation Iraqi Freedom troops is being properly applied.


I can respect that, but others don't agree with you. And they are not necessarily cowards because of this.

Quote:
I don't believe in walking away from the problem before it's solved.


But you support the war, others don't and didn't want to go to war. Their governments took their people to a war against the wishes of the people in a democracy.

What we are discussing is the democratic process reacting to governments going against the will of the people.

Quote:
Pulling a "Spain" doesn't help anyone and actually hurts the fight against terrorism.


I don't think withdrawing troops will help, but I think the characterizations you offer in regard to the motivations for doing so are not reasonable.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 01:50 am
Tarantulas wrote:
Or it could be pandering for votes. Or it could be the idea that "if we just close our eyes maybe all the troubles will go away." Or it could be a leap onto the "we hate the US" bandwagon.

I believe the courage of the Operation Iraqi Freedom troops is being properly applied. I don't believe in walking away from the problem before it's solved. Pulling a "Spain" doesn't help anyone and actually hurts the fight against terrorism.



And the fact that Australia is a DEMOCRACY and a defeat of the Howard government will be a strong indicator that will of the people is to not support the action in Iraq means nothing to you? Thankyou for showing your true colours to everyone. You have confirmed my opinion of you and your ilk very strongly.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 01:53 am
We knew that already, Wilso, didn't we?

"Democracy American style"
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 02:02 am
Adrian wrote:
Anywho, if your done with the national insults Tarantulas, can we get back to the matter of US forces shooting at ambulances?

Just to be clear, any insults I might throw out are directed at governments, not citizens, and certainly not the brave soldiers who seem to be so often pawns in a game of politics, e.g., the Spanish government's shameful action.

Adrian wrote:
There was this one from a few weeks ago. It wasn't in Fallujah but it was an ambulance.

Quote:
At Al -Thawra Hospital, I met Raad Daier, a 36-year-old ambulance driver with a bullet in his lower abdomen, one of 12 shots fired at his ambulance from a U.S. Humvee. According to hospital officials, at the time of the attack, he was carrying six people injured by U.S. forces, including a pregnant woman who had been shot in the stomach and lost her child.

Now here's a specific accusation. Maybe. The shots came from a Humvee? Not a burned-out abandoned hulk, I hope. And the injuries were definitely due to the actions of US troops? If this is so, then charges should be brought and perpetrators should be punished. I hope the Iraqis know they can go to the Coalition commanders with charges of misconduct and get a fair hearing.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Tarantulas wrote:
Or it could be pandering for votes.

Tarantulas, is there a form of government other than democracy that you advocate?

They say that democracy is the worst form of government in the world except for every other type. I don't have a lot of experience with the other types, so I prefer democracy. Or maybe a benevolent dictatorship as long as I'm the one in charge. Trust me, you won't be mistreated much.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Or it could be the idea that "if we just close our eyes maybe all the troubles will go away.

This is just more of the same Tarantulas, they have a different opinion that yours so you are characterizing them in these parodies as cowardly, naive and ilk.

Well I only said it "could be." Perhaps the person challenging the Australian leader is thinking "Shhhh...everyone be really quiet and the terrorists won't know we're here. They will go bomb George Bush and Tony Blair and our echidnas and kookaburras will be safe." And for the record, I think there's a lot of ilk involved in this. A whole boatload of ilk, in fact.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
" Or it could be a leap onto the "we hate the US" bandwagon.

Tarantulas, one does not need to hate the US to neglect to support our war in Iraq.

Maybe not, but it certainly seems to be fashionable these days, doesn't it? If you're not carrying a sign with a picture of George Bush portrayed as Satan, you're out of style. At least that's what the well-dressed weekend demonstrator carries in the US.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
I believe the courage of the Operation Iraqi Freedom troops is being properly applied.

I can respect that, but others don't agree with you. And they are not necessarily cowards because of this.

Not necessarily cowards, no. Perhaps greedy for votes or ignorant or deluded or peer pressured or many other possibilities. In the end, it doesn't matter much, does it? The only people who really matter in the equation are the Iraqis. The Coalition is staying there to get rid of the last group of bad guys so the country can be at peace. And when the Spanish troops get into their personnel carriers and drive away into the sunset, I'll bet many Iraqis see it as abandonment and cowardice.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
I don't believe in walking away from the problem before it's solved.

But you support the war, others don't and didn't want to go to war. Their governments took their people to a war against the wishes of the people in a democracy.

What we are discussing is the democratic process reacting to governments going against the will of the people.

And in this case I don't understand the will of the people. Didn't the Aussies lose a bunch of tourists in the bombing at Bali? Shouldn't they be outraged and shouting for their military to go fight against terrorism?

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Pulling a "Spain" doesn't help anyone and actually hurts the fight against terrorism.

I don't think withdrawing troops will help, but I think the characterizations you offer in regard to the motivations for doing so are not reasonable.

In the end it boils down to running away from a dangerous duty that needs to be performed. If the nations of the world are interested in wiping out terrorism, they all have to work together to do it. If a few countries refuse to participate or withdraw their support for the fight, the only benefit is to the terrorists for getting one more country to give up. Whether it's cowardice or political pandering doesn't matter. A difference which makes no difference is no difference. If the Australians pull out too, it's one more terrorist victory.
0 Replies
 
yilmaz101
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 04:23 am
"I hope the Iraqis know they can go to the Coalition commanders with charges of misconduct and get a fair hearing."

Hey buddy which fairy land are you living in. When was the last time US troops had to account for their crimes overseas during peace time, let alone war.
Remember those japanese and korean girls that were raped by us soldiers stationed in those countries. Hell we have enough problems with those stationed in incirlik and nothing ever comes out of complaints to their command.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 07:20 am
Tarantulas wrote:


What we are discussing is the democratic process reacting to governments going against the will of the people.
And in this case I don't understand the will of the people. Didn't the Aussies lose a bunch of tourists in the bombing at Bali? Shouldn't they be outraged and shouting for their military to go fight against terrorism?



This isn't a fight against terrorism. It was a dubious attempt to find WMD's which obviously don't exist. It wasn't until it was obvious that there weren't any that you conservatives conveniently rewrote the facts to suit your purposes, as you do quite consistently.
Those responsible for the Bali bombing have been caught, tried and sentenced, in a couple of cases sentenced to death. It's got nothing to do with following the shrub into his putrid attempt to bend the world to shape he wants using the might of the US military.
0 Replies
 
infowarrior
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 07:26 am
tarantulas opines, "I believe the courage of the Operation Iraqi Freedom troops is being properly applied. I don't believe in walking away from the problem before it's solved. Pulling a "Spain" doesn't help anyone and actually hurts the fight against terrorism."

Funny, but Bush secretly pulled funds and troops from the war in Afghanistan, a nation that provided safe harbor to Usama bin Laden as well as al Qaida terrorists, to use in his war against Iraq, a nation that had absolutely no ties to Usama bin Laden or al Qaida.

Now who is the real terrorist here?
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 07:28 am
infowarrior wrote:


Now who is the real terrorist here?


George W Bush.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 07:36 am
Oh my - we should invade Iraq because of Bali???

Oh boy....
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 07:42 am
Well, Bali hasn't any oil.....
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 07:46 am
And Indonesia is strong
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 08:51 am
yilmaz101 wrote:
"I hope the Iraqis know they can go to the Coalition commanders with charges of misconduct and get a fair hearing."

Hey buddy which fairy land are you living in. When was the last time US troops had to account for their crimes overseas during peace time, let alone war.

The accounting for the most recent incident started in January.

Wilso wrote:
This isn't a fight against terrorism. It was a dubious attempt to find WMD's which obviously don't exist. It wasn't until it was obvious that there weren't any that you conservatives conveniently rewrote the facts to suit your purposes, as you do quite consistently.

This is very much a fight against terrorism. I don't know what the Australian justification was for the war in Iraq, but here is Public Law 107-243 from October of 2002 that provides the US justification. Not only was the US Congress certain that Saddam had WMD, but also they knew that he was harboring Al Qaeda terrorists. The facts have not been rewritten since then, although it seems that some of the people who voted in favor of this public law have since changed their minds about their support for it.
0 Replies
 
emclean
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 08:55 am
Quote:
Oh, and just so emclean knows, I don't think the worst of the troops. I just don't think very highly of the TACTICS.


It is the troops that are using the tactics, they go together. I do not know how you separate the person from the acts.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 08:59 am
Tarantulas: Our "justification" was the same as that of the US - and totally unconvincing.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 11:01 am
Tarantulas wrote:

Well I only said it "could be."


The implication is clear. It would be like saying:

"Person A 'could be' an idiot, a child molester or a lover of camels."

You took the implication once removed from a direct charge but that all your "could be"s were regatives was indicative of the manner of characterization you prefer.

Quote:
Perhaps the person challenging the Australian leader is thinking "Shhhh...everyone be really quiet and the terrorists won't know we're here.


Yes, "perhaps" "the person challenging the Australian leader" is Elmer Fudd.

You do, of course, realize that they have already been attacked and that many do not share your opinion that invading Iraq is a valid extention of the war on terror?

All of your "could be"s assume both that your position is correct and that Iraq is a valid part of the "war on terror" and also assume that those who disagree are naive cowards.

As you can probably tell I think you are making a cartoonish characterization of those who feel differently about the merit of this war and I think it unfair to assume that your position is valid in arguments about said position if the very validity of said position is being disputed.


Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
" Or it could be a leap onto the "we hate the US" bandwagon.

Tarantulas, one does not need to hate the US to neglect to support our war in Iraq.

Maybe not, but it certainly seems to be fashionable these days, doesn't it? If you're not carrying a sign with a picture of George Bush portrayed as Satan, you're out of style. At least that's what the well-dressed weekend demonstrator carries in the US.


It seems just as fashionable to try to write off dissenting opinions as being a manifestation of the most extreme cartoonish infdividuals, it's the most common manifestation of straw men.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
I believe the courage of the Operation Iraqi Freedom troops is being properly applied.

I can respect that, but others don't agree with you. And they are not necessarily cowards because of this.

Not necessarily cowards, no. Perhaps greedy for votes or ignorant or deluded or peer pressured or many other possibilities.[/quote]

Many other <negative> possiblilities?

Quote:
In the end, it doesn't matter much, does it?


To me, the level at which we discuss things and the standards we accept for arguments do, in fact, matter.

Quote:
Didn't the Aussies lose a bunch of tourists in the bombing at Bali? Shouldn't they be outraged and shouting for their military to go fight against terrorism?


Again there's that assumption that invading Iraq was a legitimate extension on the war against Al Quaeda.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
Pulling a "Spain" doesn't help anyone and actually hurts the fight against terrorism.

I don't think withdrawing troops will help, but I think the characterizations you offer in regard to the motivations for doing so are not reasonable.

In the end it boils down to running away from a dangerous duty that needs to be performed.


Again the assumption that your position is not only correct, but now necessary.

This level of discussion only works when others accept your assumption that your position is correct because all your arguments already assume it instead of making the case for it.

Quote:
And when the Spanish troops get into their personnel carriers and drive away into the sunset....


Well Tarantulas, I'll have to cut this short, I had no intention to just set the stage for more cartoons.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 11:44 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
As you can probably tell I think you are making a cartoonish characterization of those who feel differently about the merit of this war and I think it unfair to assume that your position is valid in arguments about said position if the very validity of said position is being disputed.

Yes, some of my posts were meant to be humorous. As long as it's not prohibited, I'll continue posting humor.

Craven de Kere wrote:
It seems just as fashionable to try to write off dissenting opinions as being a manifestation of the most extreme cartoonish infdividuals, it's the most common manifestation of straw men.

That's not a "straw man" argument. It's just plain old ordinary ridicule.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Again there's that assumption that invading Iraq was a legitimate extension on the war against Al Quaeda.

It's a valid assumption, shared by the majority of our country's Congress. If they didn't believe it, they never would have voted for this measure. Al Qaeda is directly mentioned in that bill as one of the reasons for the use of force in Iraq. And it doesn't matter how many times some people deny that fact. It still remains a fact. Al Qaeda was in Iraq and Saddam supported terrorism.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Again the assumption that your position is not only correct, but now necessary.

This level of discussion only works when others accept your assumption that your position is correct because all your arguments already assume it instead of making the case for it.

There's no question that it was necessary. The United Nations had years worth of resolutions documenting its necessity. And a coalition of countries got together and did what had to be done. It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 11:49 am
Let's just ignore the 25 years of unforced resolutions against Israel shall we.

And ignore the fact that the shrub attempted to get a new resolution from the UN authorising military action, then when it became obvious that he wasn't going to get it, somehow interpreted the current ones as being enough. This action is not authorised by the UN, and no amount of your bleating will change the fact of that. But since your obviously not concerned with anything remotely resembling the truth, I'll leave you to continue pissing on this bonfire.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 11:50 am
Well Tarantulas, if you are saying it should be given no more credence than quotidian ridicule then I can live with that.

But I would still disagree with your claim that the validity of invading Iraq as well as the necessity is "fact". I think you are calling a highly disputed opinion a fact.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 02:22:59