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

Ticomaya wrote:

You can't fool me into believing you are just trying to "understand the mind" of these terrorists. You are apologizing for their actions. You are trying to evoke empathy to their cause. And when I point that out to you, you try an divert that fact by claiming I'm losing objectivity and becoming emotional.

Well said. Having read a great deal from this poster, his intentions are quite transparent. As a matter of habit, he backs off and attempts to behave as if he's "just trying to understand the enemy" whenever his transparent sympathizing is pointed out to him.

Cyclops, don't hurt your self patting yourself on the back for "poking holes" in Tico's theories. You haven't. In reality, you spend more time digging holes for your own arguments to fall into.

Cyclops wrote:

I have no desire to sit around and debate world problems with someone who displays the black-and-white mentality of a 17 year old boy. Grow up.

These are the only opponents most of your arguments would stand up to. Tico's don't fit the bill.

0 Replies

gav wrote:

Tico I was merely explaining the thinking behind guerilla warfare - read my post as written dont add in what isn't there!!

I'm waiting (not holding my breath, mind you) to hear you denounce terrorism.

0 Replies

Here there are those with in the plethora of movements in Iraq that are driven by a bloodlust while others are driven to just get their country back. Those driven by a need for blood and just random blood I condemn. Those driven by a desire to remove what they see as an occupying force I do not condemn.

0 Replies

Well said, Gav.

Bill, Tico, the difference between you and I is that I can see why you feel the way you do without calling you an extremist, or telling you that you support the murder of innocents, or anything silly like that.

You, on the other hand, don't believe that anyone could even try to understand the other side of the argument from ours, at all; those who attempt are supporting terrorism and the insurgents implicitly by even bringing up the question of what motivates their actions.

Nice, mature worldview ya got there.

Cheers!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

gav wrote:

Here there are those with in the plethora of movements in Iraq that are driven by a bloodlust while others are driven to just get their country back. Those driven by a need for blood and just random blood I condemn. Those driven by a desire to remove what they see as an occupying force I do not condemn.

Since there are likely very few (if any) driven by a desire for "just random blood", that constitutes a ringing endorsement of the terrorist's activities. Rolling Eyes

Big surprise, that.
Anybody want to come clean, and second that statement?

0 Replies

Quote:

If you can't understand the logic of trying to know the mind of your enemy, then there's no real point in talking to you any farther. I have no desire to sit around and debate world problems with someone who displays the black-and-white mentality of a 17 year old boy. Grow up.

Sounds amazingly like the defeatist, whiny tone of the media and John Kerry.

Of course, that's merely my opinion.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

gav wrote:
Tico I was merely explaining the thinking behind guerilla warfare - read my post as written dont add in what isn't there!!

I'm waiting (not holding my breath, mind you) to hear you denounce terrorism.

gav wrote:

Here there are those with in the plethora of movements in Iraq that are driven by a bloodlust while others are driven to just get their country back. Those driven by a need for blood and just random blood I condemn. Those driven by a desire to remove what they see as an occupying force I do not condemn.

Cyclops wrote:

Well said, Gav.

Gav says he refuses to condemn those that kill innocent civilians if the ends justifies the means. If the ends are "to remove what they see as an occupying force," then the means of cutting the heads of innocent civilians is not to be condemned.

To which Cyclops says, "Well said, Gav."

If you don't condemn it, you condone it.

Don't ever try and tell me you don't support and condone terrorism, Cyclops.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well said, Gav.

Bill, Tico, the difference between you and I is that I can see why you feel the way you do without calling you an extremist, or telling you that you support the murder of innocents, or anything silly like that.

You, on the other hand, don't believe that anyone could even try to understand the other side of the argument from ours, at all; those who attempt are supporting terrorism and the insurgents implicitly by even bringing up the question of what motivates their actions.

Nice, mature worldview ya got there.

Cheers!

Cycloptichorn

The problem with that BS is that neither of us show any lack of understanding of the motivations of the insurgents or other terrorists. Neither does Ican for that matter. That's just your fallback position when you get called for sympathizing with the enemy. Most of your "understanding of the enemy" is undisputed... so there is no reason for you to spend so much time arguing their viewpoint... unless, of course, you agree with it. He who cuts off innocent's heads, regardless of his motive, is a blood thirsty murderer, plain and simple. There is no need to focus on his motivation unless you sympathize.

Should I be surprised you seconded Gav's clear endorsement of the terrorist's activities, before I even asked? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Quote:

The problem with that BS is that neither of us show any lack of understanding of the motivations of the insurgents or other terrorists. Neither does Ican for that matter. That's just your fallback position when you get called for sympathizing with the enemy. Most of your "understanding of the enemy" is undisputed... so there is no reason for you to spend so much time arguing their viewpoint... unless, of course, you agree with it. He who cuts off innocent's heads, regardless of his motive, is a blood thirsty murderer, plain and simple. There is no need to focus on his motivation unless you sympathize.

Should I be surprised you seconded Gav's clear endorsement of the terrorist's activities, before I even asked?

Do you believe every insurgent in Iraq is a terrorist?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Do you believe every insurgent in Iraq is a terrorist?

Nope.

0 Replies

Surely, then, you can see the merits of debating the following things, which I contend are NOT cut-and-dry issues:

-Motivations of the Insurgents
-Motivations of the Terrorists
-Goals of the Insurgents
-Goals of the Terrorists
-Relationship between the two
-Useful tactics against the insurgents
-Useful tactics against the terrorists
-And can the last two be accomplished simultaneously?

Am I supporting terrorism for even asking these questions? Am I supporting the insurgency by trying to figure them out?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
gav wrote:
Tico I was merely explaining the thinking behind guerilla warfare - read my post as written dont add in what isn't there!!

I'm waiting (not holding my breath, mind you) to hear you denounce terrorism.

gav wrote:
Here there are those with in the plethora of movements in Iraq that are driven by a bloodlust while others are driven to just get their country back. Those driven by a need for blood and just random blood I condemn. Those driven by a desire to remove what they see as an occupying force I do not condemn.

Cyclops wrote:
Well said, Gav.

Gav says he refuses to condemn those that kill innocent civilians if the ends justifies the means. If the ends are "to remove what they see as an occupying force," then the means of cutting the heads of innocent civilians is not to be condemned.

To which Cyclops says, "Well said, Gav."

If you don't condemn it, you condone it.

Don't ever try and tell me you don't support and condone terrorism, Cyclops.

0 Replies

Cyclops, your cover position has already been exposed. If you'd like to debate the issues you just listed off, you can probably find someone willing to do it with. I'm not buying that that was your intention from the get go. You are pretending that someone was arguing the other side of those issues, when no one was. Your arguing of the proponent position in the absence of opposition is sympathetic behavior.

As for confusing insurgency with terrorism:

You'll notice that I usually don't use the term terrorist in place of insurgent for that very reason. Some insurgents limit their attacks to military personnel and places of strategic military importance. They don't become terrorists until they start targeting civilians. From that point forward their motivations become irrelevant. Insurgency can, sometimes be justified. Terrorism cannot. You seem to disagree with this assessment, which is why I find your constant sympathizing so offensive.

0 Replies

Quote:

Gav says he refuses to condemn those that kill innocent civilians if the ends justifies the means. If the ends are "to remove what they see as an occupying force," then the means of cutting the heads of innocent civilians is not to be condemned.

To which Cyclops says, "Well said, Gav."

If you don't condemn it, you condone it.

Don't ever try and tell me you don't support and condone terrorism, Cyclops.

Kill and innocent by cutting off their head
Or kill them by dropping a bomb on their house

And they are still dead.

If you think that the ends never justify the means, you have a lot of condemning to do of the US Army.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Cyclops, your cover position has already been exposed. If you'd like to debate the issues you just listed off, you can probably find someone willing to do it with.

That is what was happening before you people turned this into a flame war by accusing people of supporting terrorism....

Quote:

I'm not buying that that was your intention from the get go. You are pretending that someone was arguing the other side of those issues, when no one was. Your arguing of the proponent position in the absence of opposition is sympathetic behavior.

No, it isn't. You don't understand what the hell you are talking about. Which really isn't that surprising to me, yaknow?

Quote:

You'll notice that I usually don't use the term terrorist in place of insurgent for that very reason. Some insurgents limit their attacks to military personnel and places of strategic military importance. They don't become terrorists until they start targeting civilians. From that point forward their motivations become irrelevant. Insurgency can, sometimes be justified. Terrorism cannot. You seem to disagree with this assessment, which is why I find your constant sympathizing so offensive.

I do not disagree with your sentiment. I have repeatedly said that THEY, the insurgents, disagree with your sentiment. You seem to be unable to understand the concept of objectivity, you really should look it up.

I couldn't give a tin sh*t if you find what I say offensive, Bill, I came to this thread to discuss what is going on in Iraq, and I'll be damned if I'm not going to continue doing so, no matter whether you like what I say or not.

If you can't handle that, go find some other thread to troll up.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

revel wrote:
I said that I felt sorry for Arafat because he was under house arrest for so long at the end of his life...

You feel sorry for him because he spent years on house arrest?
Yasir Arafat, the Murderer of Munich should have been executed decades ago. At the very least he should have died rotting away in a jail cell... not house arrest. You do know he was behind the 1972 Murders of 11 Israelis(some Olympic athletes for crying out loud) and a German Policeman, don't you? You have a strange way of distributing your sympathies. That piece of sh!t isn't worthy.

revel wrote:
What I am talking about is more than just people talking on an internet message board. People in the world are dying and we are the ones killing them. That matters to me.
Yeah, right. You feel sorry for a murderous terrorist because he was forced to live on his compound, while stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from the people he supposedly murders for but at the same time you condemn the actions of the brave soldiers who pursue such murderers in other theatres. What kind of morality is that?

I do not know the history of Arafat or any of the things you all claim he had done. I did not kept up with it in the past. All I know is that he was a poor leader because he did not acomplish his goals of having freedom from Israel for his people. I sort of wish I could take back that statement of feeling sorry for Arafat that i said on the fly on another thread that is being used to batter me from someone who seems to have it in for me for some odd reason. boo hoo I guess.

The Palestinians are fighting for a just cause, the Iraqis are fighting for a just cause. I don't condone some of their methods but I understand why they employ them when they don't have all of the sophisticated weapons of mass destruction that the US and Israel has they have depend on crude methods like bombings. I don't condone at all the kidnapping of innocent people and killing them, there is no justiication for that and the ones doing that are nothing but criminals. However, we are the aggressors in Iraq and we are killing hundreds of innocent people in an unjust war. That is wrong on our part therefore we have no moral high ground to be talking about the crude methods that the insurgents use.

0 Replies

I contend that many of our 'armchair generals' need to pick up a gun and go fight if they believe in what we are doing so damn bad. Doubt it will happen though.

In the meantime, here's a letter from Fallujah (Via www.metafilter.com). It's a jpeg scan of a real letter, so follow the link.

http://www.violane.com/public_html/mark/fallujahletter.jpg

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Kill and innocent by cutting off their head
Or kill them by dropping a bomb on their house

And they are still dead.

If you think that the ends never justify the means, you have a lot of condemning to do of the US Army.

Cycloptichorn

As the whole gets deeper...

0 Replies

earlier, OCCOM BILL wrote:

(Note to any and all idiots that are incapable of understanding the importance of intent [if there are any present]: Please spare me the "America kills innocents too" crap. If intended targets and collateral damage were the same thing: every army of every side of every war that ever took place in a populated area could be considered murderers. Please leave that crap in the philosophy forums where it belongs.)

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Kill and innocent by cutting off their head
Or kill them by dropping a bomb on their house

And they are still dead.

If you think that the ends never justify the means, you have a lot of condemning to do of the US Army.

Cycloptichorn

As the hole gets deeper...

My thoughts exactly.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know