THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Bush claims a 'mandate' ..... I fear the worst is yet to come!

Klik me

0 Replies

Aris Wrote:

Quote:

When I asked you to validate your questions, you avoided doing so.
When I asked you to justify your comment on how my "stance" condones crimes against humanity, again, you avoided doing so.
When I asked you to focus on what I am saying instead of trying to make it an issue of why am I saying anything, again you resorted to personal attacks and judgements.

It is thus obvious that not only are you rude, judgmental and thus immature, but you also lack the skills to debate your points effectively. And since you have failed to validate anything you have said, your arguments apparently must be full of hot air, else you would have had something to say aside from your rants about "the likes of me".

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so.

To get back on track:

From WH's post a while back

THIS is what we're doing in Iraq-

[quote[An Iraqi journalist tells the story of Abdullah al-Dulaymi, 45, a hard-drinking, womanizing blacksmith who had nothing to do with the resistance until April 13, when an American bomb fell on his house, killing his wife and children.

Three days later he had sworn off the bottle for good and found religion. He organized a group of fighters, mostly relatives and friends, and began launching attacks on U.S. forces.
[/quote]

THIS is why we're gonna lose if we keep up the way we are going in Iraq. We take normal citizens and turn them against us by killing their relatives. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that we can't win this by killing more and more people...

We've penetrated Fallujah; and there's noone there. Only token resistance. But, why should we have expected there to be anyone?

Memo to the US army: insurgencies don't stand and fight, they run and hide... and then hit you later on when YOU are weak.

They're having a hard time justifying the collateral damage in Fallujah, seeing as we haven't captured any real leadership, and now we have a really large problem.

Do we stick around in Fallujah? We become true occupiers, and open ourselves up to daily mortar and roadside bomb attacks as they bleed us.

Do we leave Fallujah? Then the insurgents move right back in.

Do we try and kill all of them? We just create more of them in the process, as well as destroying huge amounts of property, interrupting local prosperity, and increasing unintentional civilian casualties tenfold. This is hardly acceptable from a human rights standpoint...

We are in a precarious situation.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

This has got silly. Maybe I'm not reading slowly enough.
Have we stopped talking about the justification for this illegal invasion being the saving of millions of little girls from fundamentalist islam? Good.

You actually prefer this baiting behavior instead? Confused

I pointed out the error in your above premise... we are already there... so why latch onto this worthless part of the exchange instead? Read through, skipping this inane portion and you'll see business as usual.

McTag wrote:

Now see what you did, Bill. That was you.

Only insofar as I responded to the provocation at all, McTag. The post that disgusted me, was intended to do so, in order to encourage this type of exchange. Chop, chop? Rolling Eyes

His last post to me is nothing but one big attempt at further provocation, as well and even includes an admission that he loves it. I understand why Revel might latch onto something like that, but I'm surprised to see you defend it.

0 Replies

It's interesting - Bill is acting as a microcosm of our ruling party here.

He's unable to admit that he could have ANY fault at all for the situation (despite the continually condescending tone and poor debate skills) and continually blames others for the unrest caused by his actions.

No doubt Bill will see this as 'people trying to bait him again' instead of actually examining his own statements. Once again, eerily reminiscent of our foriegn policy.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Perhaps Canada, sitting atop the US, functions like that cheese atop Bill's noggin.

0 Replies

aris wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
As stated, it isn't worth my time. If you look through my history you'll see posts as long as some of the pages here to people who argue your side intelligently.

1) If it isn't worth your time, then don't speak at all to begin with, unless you feel you have the liberty to act like an ass to whoever's posts you disagree with.

Bill has no doubt written you off as a lost cause, not worthy of his time and efforts. When he's previously addressed the arguments you've put forth, the proponents of your position were far more articulate than you. You have probably not taken up his suggestion to look through any prior threads.

Your attempts at trying to bait O'Bill back to cuss and discuss with you have so far failed -- but I'd be careful what you wish for. It has been my observation, thus far, that he is quite capable to taking your arguments apart piece by piece, if he is so inclined. If you and Cyclops have concluded that he is lacking in debating skills, you have both obviously not been paying attention much.

Aris wrote:

My point was that people that work for the US occupational force are the ones that are getting beheaded whereas people such as Greek reporters are not, simply because we did not invade, plunder & pillage their nation so they see us as allies whereas YOU waged war on them so they are naturally going to be beheading you and not me. Comprende?

You make a silly point. How many of those that have been beheaded were pillaging Iraq? Many of the kidnapped hostages were trying to improve conditions in Iraq. The Greek reporters are not trying to improve Iraqi's conditions. If you can't see the folly of your point, you are truly beyond hope.

And you are correct .... thus far nobody I've seen has yet called you "an America-hating foreigner." So why mention that fact? There are a lot of Americans that speak out against US foreign policy. There are a lot of A2K posters in this forum that are foreigners, and they are not bashful about speaking out in opposition to what they see as bad US foreign policy. So you are not in rare company by simply being a foreigner.

0 Replies

Quote:

If you and Cyclops have concluded that he is lacking in debating skills, you have both obviously not been paying attention much.

I've been watching him screw up his position for months before you even came around, Tico. Strangely enough, he used to be quite courteous, even to those he disagreed with. It's sad to see such a shift.

But, back to the topic:

Quote:

You make a silly point. How many of those that have been beheaded were pillaging Iraq? Many of the kidnapped hostages were trying to improve conditions in Iraq. The Greek reporters are not trying to improve Iraqi's conditions. If you can't see the folly of your point, you are truly beyond hope.

I see your point; but you don't see his.

See, it's a matter of OPINION whether or not someone is trying to help Iraq. You and I may think so; the Iraqis may not. You and I may think that aid workers over there are helping the situation; Iraqis may see people trying to destroy their society. Not that I agree with them, but my opinions don't change the fact that people are being kidnapped.

Seeing as THEY are the ones taking hostages, perhaps it would make sense to try and understand the reasons they do the things they do.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Once again, eerily reminiscent of our foriegn policy.

Cycloptichorn

Ya, I suppose that would be a pretty spooky to the author of this paranoid fantasy.
Don't think I lump you all together, either, because I don't. I don't join Cliques and I try not to address individuals as their collective either. For instance:

AU honestly admits to what I consider a deplorable position.

McTag, when pressed, will carefully consider his opponent's position before carefully responding. Usually wrong, IMO, but usually civil.

Cycloptichorn will carefully consider his own position only and can't be bothered to actually read the conversations that take place before his arrival. This exasperates the already circular nature of these discussions and makes him an undesirable opponent in debate, IMO.

This newcomer, Aris, is a clear cut Flame artist. Anyone who can't see the provocative nature of that disgusting chop chop business, isn't trying.

Revel is the real surprise... because she appears to see the light sometimes, briefly, but then slams the window shut in denial.

I don't think anyone here is too ignorant to know what the Islamic Extremists have in mind for those 5 million girls, 14 and UNDER.

I don't think anyone here is too ignorant to realize that if we leave now the mayhem would make the current situation seem like a peaceful memory.

I don't think anyone here is too ignorant to understand the context being from today.

Yet you continue to insist that we shouldn't be there when confronted with the obvious ramifications of leaving now... as if we could somehow go back in time and not be there. I did and do agree with the decision to remove Saddam, but that's not what the 5 million girl example is being used for.

We are there. Leaving now; would condemn them to a life you wouldn't want for your sister or daughter. If you would want such a life for you sister or daughter, than you are taking the side of the oppressors who would essentially enslave them. I will continue to take offense to people who do so, as that is taking the side of my natural enemy. No quantity of people agreeing with false assessments will sway me one iota.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

McTag, when pressed, will carefully consider his opponent's position before carefully responding. Usually wrong, IMO, but usually civil.

Well, when this is your definition of a civil engineer ... Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

Don't think I lump you all together, either, because I don't. I don't join Cliques and I try not to address individuals as their collective either. For instance:

AU honestly admits to what I consider a deplorable position.

McTag, when pressed, will carefully consider his opponent's position before carefully responding. Usually wrong, IMO, but usually civil.

Cycloptichorn will carefully consider his own position only and can't be bothered to actually read the conversations that take place before his arrival. This exasperates the already circular nature of these discussions and makes him an undesirable opponent in debate, IMO.

This newcomer, Aris, is a clear cut Flame artist. Anyone who can't see the provocative nature of that disgusting chop chop business, isn't trying.

Revel is the real surprise... because she appears to see the light sometimes, briefly, but then slams the window shut in denial.

And Bill... why, there's nothing wrong with Bill whatsoever.

Thank you for proving my point oh so well.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Blatham, what are you doing here? I hope you've come to relieve one of the Blame-America-First members with more cognizant representation.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Someone made the point before, I think it was blatham, that in Iraq, which was a largely secular state under Saddam, in which many religions co-existed, "little girls" and other females were far better off in that society than in the surrounding states. But a lot of them are dead now.

Whoever made that point neglected to think ahead to the probable consequences of US withdrawal. Iraq is not now another secular state. It is a state comprised of people some of whom currently have irreconcilable differences. Some of those differences are based on religion. So what Iraq was is less relevant than what Iraq is now and will become.

In Saddam's Iraq those "little girls" were killed by the thousands for a secularist's reasons. Should it matter to "little girls" whether they are murdered for a secularist's or a jihadist's reasons? I think not!

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
If you and Cyclops have concluded that he is lacking in debating skills, you have both obviously not been paying attention much.

I've been watching him screw up his position for months before you even came around, Tico. Strangely enough, he used to be quite courteous, even to those he disagreed with. It's sad to see such a shift.

But, back to the topic:

Quote:
You make a silly point. How many of those that have been beheaded were pillaging Iraq? Many of the kidnapped hostages were trying to improve conditions in Iraq. The Greek reporters are not trying to improve Iraqi's conditions. If you can't see the folly of your point, you are truly beyond hope.

I see your point; but you don't see his.

See, it's a matter of OPINION whether or not someone is trying to help Iraq. You and I may think so; the Iraqis may not. You and I may think that aid workers over there are helping the situation; Iraqis may see people trying to destroy their society. Not that I agree with them, but my opinions don't change the fact that people are being kidnapped.

Seeing as THEY are the ones taking hostages, perhaps it would make sense to try and understand the reasons they do the things they do.

Cycloptichorn

NO! No we should NOT try to understand those people. We should kill them and be rid of their kind. We should be doing everything in our power to stop those maniacs.

I read in the news today that US troops found an Iraqi cab driver chained up in a house and he had been beaten and starved. There is no excuse in the world for that kind of crap.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
If you and Cyclops have concluded that he is lacking in debating skills, you have both obviously not been paying attention much.

I've been watching him screw up his position for months before you even came around, Tico. Strangely enough, he used to be quite courteous, even to those he disagreed with. It's sad to see such a shift.

But, back to the topic:

Quote:
You make a silly point. How many of those that have been beheaded were pillaging Iraq? Many of the kidnapped hostages were trying to improve conditions in Iraq. The Greek reporters are not trying to improve Iraqi's conditions. If you can't see the folly of your point, you are truly beyond hope.

I see your point; but you don't see his.

See, it's a matter of OPINION whether or not someone is trying to help Iraq. You and I may think so; the Iraqis may not. You and I may think that aid workers over there are helping the situation; Iraqis may see people trying to destroy their society. Not that I agree with them, but my opinions don't change the fact that people are being kidnapped.

Seeing as THEY are the ones taking hostages, perhaps it would make sense to try and understand the reasons they do the things they do.

Cycloptichorn

Wrong. I see his point. I disagree with his point. He has explained succinctly, as have you, the belief that we need to "understand the mind and goals of the enemy." You seem to recognize that understanding and condoning are different things. Please understand that I refuse to engage in moral relativism on this topic.

Shall we discuss the mindset of the serial killer in this manner? Because it might very well be the case that the serial killer murdered all his victims because he thought they were a danger to him, or he thought they were prostitutes and were destroying society, or he might have any number of "rationales" for why he killed everyone he did ("they was home"). But getting into the mind of a killer does not mean the mentality of the killer is right. Kidnapping Ms. Hassan is not right. None of it's "right." Should we feel pity for the serial killer? Should we empathize with his view of the world. No.

But even if they were over there kidnapping and killing military soldiers, instead of innocent civilians, businessmen, and care workers, even then it is not right. To sit here and apologize for the actions of those that would do such barbaric things ... to take any stance other than to say in clear stark terms that the beheadings are evil and wrong, is abhorrent.

Quote:

Dublin-born charity worker Margaret Hassan has lived in Iraq for 30 years, and began working for Care International soon after it began operations there in 1991.

Please explain and excuse the mentality of those that would kidnap Margaret Hassan.

0 Replies

I have no intention of explaining NOR excusing the actions of ANY kidnapper.

UNDERSTANDING the reasoning behind it, however, can help us prevent it from happening in the future; formulate tactics for dealing with the problem; and identify those who are likely to BE kidnapped in order to better protect them. It also allows us to see what the true problems/demands of these thugs are in order to better understand the situation.

You see, Tico, there's never such a thing as too much information (outside of certain sexual conversations that one's friends invariably initiate). We can only profit from trying to understand the mind of the enemy, even if it is only to destroy him more quickly.

You say

Quote:

Shall we discuss the mindset of the serial killer in this manner? Because it might very well be the case that the serial killer murdered all his victims because he thought they were a danger to him, or he thought they were prostitutes and were destroying society, or he might have any number of "rationales" for why he killed everyone he did ("they was home"). But getting into the mind of a killer does not mean the mentality of the killer is right. Kidnapping Ms. Hassan is not right. None of it's "right." Should we feel pity for the serial killer? Should we empathize with his view of the world. No.

You see, plenty of people do just that for a living: analyze and discuss the mindset of serial killers. This doesn't mean they are apologists for them, or condone what they do or why they do it, it merely is an attempt to UNDERSTAND why they did the things they did, in order to better defend/prosecute/cure people from the same problem in the future.

Trying to understand the motives of the kidnappers is an analogous situation.

Yaknow, everyone who doesn't automatically say 'terrorists are scum, we should kill them all, why bother trying to understand them' isn't neccessarily on the side of the terrorists...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

You see, plenty of people do just that for a living: analyze and discuss the mindset of serial killers. This doesn't mean they are apologists for them, or condone what they do or why they do it, it merely is an attempt to UNDERSTAND why they did the things they did, in order to better defend/prosecute/cure people from the same problem in the future.

Yes ... I know people do that for a living. And if those people discover the reason the serial killer murdered 35 young women was because they were prostitutes, they might explain that is the reason the killer acted the way he did, but they do not, as a rule, tell the world or the families of the victims that the death of their loved one was unfortunate, but they were, after all, prostitutes. They do not, after all, go on to blame the women for being prostitutes, or for being out after dark.

And I'm not speaking on this point as much to you as I am to Aris.

0 Replies

Come on Cyclo; please snap out of it. There's a big difference between not saying:

Quote:

Yaknow, everyone who doesn't automatically say 'terrorists are scum, we should kill them all, why bother trying to understand them' isn't neccessarily on the side of the terrorists...

and saying:

Quote:

It would seem that the barbarians in Iraq don't exactly find these people innocent, hmmm?

Something to do with them being accessories to crimes against their nation...

Haven't heard of them beheading any freelance Greek reporters there.

You're a mercenary? Guilty, chop chop.
You're a worker for an American corporation that is stealing their resources while your army invades and kills their families? Guilty, chop chop.

You're an Iraqi that is working with the occupiers? Guilty, chop chop.

You consider that some insightful analysis? Does that help you understand anything better? How ignorant would you have to be in the first place in order to consider that helpful in your pursuit to "UNDERSTAND" the minds of the terrorists? You do yourself no favors by apologizing for the apologists.

0 Replies

Bill
Maybe I missed it but is anyone advocating that we pull out at this juncture. Certainly not I. However, the fact remains that our actions in Iraq is not endearing us to the Iraqi populace. Not even your 14 year olds.
Regarding Bush's ill conceived adventure I believe it was mistake of the first order based on bogus information. I also believe that Bush and his flunkies knew it was bogus.
I would ask again do you believe that if the Congress and the American people were told we are invading Iraq to get rid of Saddam because he was a bad guy they would have approved of this adventure? Would you?
Presently we are thanks to Bush between a rock and a hard place with no end in sight.
As to the Iraqi people they from the reports I have seen consider us foreign occupiers.

0 Replies

Quote:

You consider that some insightful analysis? Does that help you understand anything better? How ignorant would you have to be in the first place in order to consider that helpful in your pursuit to "UNDERSTAND" the minds of the terrorists? You do yourself no favors by apologizing for the apologists.

It's at least as insightful as an argument based upon the (unknowable) outcome of events as pertaining to girls under the age of 14.

I believe that what was written, though you find it personally offensive for some strange reason, is a realistic description of the mindset of the people we are dealing with. You ask how ignorant one would have to be to find this helpful; many posters display their willful ignorance on subjects such as this all the time.

Statements such as 'terrorists are evil' and 'statements such as this don't help anyone understand the terrorist mind' are opinions. I don't have a problem that you hold said opinions; it is of course your right to do so. But they do not hold up in an argument when the topic of discussion is the understanding of the reasoning behind why terrorists kidnap and behead people who are obviously there to help their own country.

Note that one could have used a greater dosage of tact in the composition of said message which has offended you; but the argument, to this point, hasn't been about the lack of tact, it's been about the accuracy and veracity of the message presented.

Oh, how about we all quit fighting for a while and go back to policy discussion? That would be fun.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

They are kidnapping innocent people because they want the US to leave. They don't want a freely elected democracy in Iraq. They don't see that as helpful to their cause. So they think if they kill many of those that are over there in an atrocious manner - beheading them - that will shock the US, its allies, and the companies that have risked their personnel to go to Iraq to help build that country better than it was before the war. Their aim is to cause any of the above to leave. That is their goal. That is why they do the things they do.

Do you disagree? Need we carry on any further discussion into the mindset of the terrorists? They have an agenda; that is their method of achieving their goals. It is heinous and barbaric, and should be condemned in the strongest possible way by everyone.

Terrorists are evil, and I don't for a second harbor any belief that to say as much assists in understanding the mind of the terrorists. It is my opinion they are evil. That, apparently, is not an opinion, Cyclops, which you share.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know