0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 03:45 pm
Yep. Them mooslims hate us 'cause of Newsweek. Fer sher.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 03:57 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Meanwhile, the gov't has admitted that disrespect to the Qur'an has taken place... just not flushing it down a toilet.


Which might include accidentally or purposefully dropping the book on the ground, or touching it with "unclean" hands. Rolling Eyes


None so blind as he who will not see.

Tico, why would a non-muslim in a prison handle a copy of the Koran at all, except to insult, inflame and dishonour?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 04:09 pm
McTag wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Meanwhile, the gov't has admitted that disrespect to the Qur'an has taken place... just not flushing it down a toilet.


Which might include accidentally or purposefully dropping the book on the ground, or touching it with "unclean" hands. Rolling Eyes


None so blind as he who will not see.

Tico, why would a non-muslim in a prison handle a copy of the Koran at all, except to insult, inflame and dishonour?


I suppose for any number of reasons. The book had to get in the cell in the first place, right? Also, some here might be "blind" to the fact that prisoners like to hide contraband in their cells ... and some might be stunned to learn that a book can hide contraband. You might be willing to risk that the prisoner in a particular cell is so devout they wouldn't deface their own Koran to hide contraband, but I highly doubt your faith in that regard is shared by the average prison guard.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 04:26 pm
An easy solution would be to remove all copies of the Koran from the prison.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 04:27 pm
McGentrix wrote:
An easy solution would be to remove all copies of the Koran from the prison.


But then someone would have to touch them. Shocked
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 04:30 pm
A naked, menstruating jewish woman perhaps?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 04:43 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Meanwhile, the gov't has admitted that disrespect to the Qur'an has taken place... just not flushing it down a toilet.


Which might include accidentally or purposefully dropping the book on the ground, or touching it with "unclean" hands. Rolling Eyes


Or, which might not, just maybe. There ought to be a term for folks taking this sort of approach to perceiving the world. I think I'll go with "activist deniers".

Pentagon/FBI reports include the sworn testimony of a Defense Department civilian employee assigned to military intelligence units who described an incident where interrogators "took a Koran, threw it on the floor and stepped on it," document

Other evidence and reports (eg photo of the New Testament tank - recently scrubbed from the Marine Corps site...duh) - of acts guaranteed to engender hatred towards American forces (and America) are so numerous that the only strategy open to tico and company must center on willfull blindness and loud repetitive denial.

If US forces are going to shackle a young Afghan villager from the wire ceiling of his cell, for days, strike him more than 100 times in a single one of those days, beat his legs until the tissue, in the corner's words, "had basically been pulpified", then such acts will have consequences for how the Muslim world regards the US.

But tico blames Newsweek.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 05:00 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
revel wrote:
McG, even with the full paragraph, it still reads the same. Bush is telling any would be terrorist to come to Iraq and fight our military there where there are innocent Iraqi civilians.
...


No .... he conveyed the message that if you think attacking us is going to cause us to leave quickly, you are mistaken. Much as one might make a statement advising would be kidnappers that if you kidnap any US citizen, we will not negotiate with you and we won't pay any ransom. The intent of the message is to effect fewer kidnappings.


In the case of bush's braying of bring em' on, it didn't have the desired effect of having fewer terrorist coming to Iraq. So if that was his intent like everything else; he failed.

There was also comments made around the same time about it being better to fight the terrorist over in Iraq than here in our streets. I think this is along the same line as "bring em' on." I remember at the time I thought, "gosh, does everyone think everyone but Americans are expendible?"

Those terrorist were not Iraqi's and didn't have anything to do with Iraq and it was just awful to bring our fight with terrorist over into Iraq and then have the gall to say "better there than here." or "Bring em' on" with no consideration for the destruction it would cause or all the deaths it would cause to the Iraqi citizens.

I am not saying we could have prevented it in any case, but we didn't have to have such careless attitude about bringing terrorist into their country because they followed us in there and then saying, "bring em' on." It was a shameful thing to say.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 06:35 pm
blatham wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Meanwhile, the gov't has admitted that disrespect to the Qur'an has taken place... just not flushing it down a toilet.


Which might include accidentally or purposefully dropping the book on the ground, or touching it with "unclean" hands. Rolling Eyes


Or, which might not, just maybe. There ought to be a term for folks taking this sort of approach to perceiving the world. I think I'll go with "activist deniers".


What would be a good term for folks who believe every little bit of bad news about the Bush Administration that comes their way without question? "Gullible liberals"?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 06:36 pm
McGentrix wrote:
A naked, menstruating jewish woman perhaps?



Laughing
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 06:41 pm
Some people will continue to deny the responsibility at the very top of this administration for the tortures of prisoners at Gitmo, Abu Garaib, and Afghanistan, because they don't want to learn the truth. The simple fact of the matter is, anybody who has spent time in the service knows that lower-ranking military does not do anything unless told to do so. Denial by the very people responsible say much about their character and ethics; they have none. The following article was sent to me by a friend in Australia.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 06:48 pm
Walter.

You are misleading members by not telling the truth about how old that article is.

It is a year old. A year has made a huge difference in Iraq. Your article is not applicable to the discussion.

Here is an excerpt proving it:

The survey examined housing conditions and the availability of infrastructure and services, as well as environmental issues. Officials said the results could not be compared to previous statistics from Iraq, as the country is now entering a different era. They say previous numbers may not be as accurate.

A total of 21, 668 households in 18 Iraqi governorates were surveyed between April and May 2004 with the exceptions of Arbil and Dahuk in the north, where interviews took place in August 2004.

Electricity shortages, poor sewage systems and a lack of clean water were the overriding issues when it came to basic needs, according to the survey.
--------------

Yeah. A YEAR ago.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 06:51 pm
Torture goes on in every war.
Crimes are committed by individuals in every military.
You cannot accuse every President for these events. We would have each President impeached if we did.

Understand this line of ridiculous accusation is nothing but partisanship. It has no bearing in reality.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 07:39 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Lash
Quote:
It is undeniable the safety factor is at what is very close to it's worse. The insurgents are in their last gasp--and making the most of it.

They will be spent before much longer.
That will set rebuilding and improvements on a rapid pace.


What, pray tell, leads you to believe that the insurgents are in their 'last gasp'?

I mean, I'd just like to see the data that you would provide that would lead you to such an opinion. Because, yaknow, I can remember people saying that in Janurary. And last November. Also, last June. They were incorrect; what makes you believe that you are correct?

Cycloptichorn


I'll have to give you that.

Sometimes I word opinion that reads like fact.

My previous statement re the insurgency is my opinion.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 07:41 pm
If every president is responsible, they should be impeached. I see nothing wrong with that concept.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 07:56 pm
Lincoln too?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 07:57 pm
especially Lincoln
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 08:08 pm
CI-- None of them are responsible unless they enact rules that allow or require torture.

You can't blame them for every pimple on the ass of an enlisted man.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 08:27 pm
Sure you can, it's easily done. just take any president of a party you don't like and rip their asses from one end to the other. It's the american way just like truth and justice. Keep in mind the right wing fruit cakes blamed Eisenhower for Earl Warren and wanted him empeached as a communist sympathizer.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 09:47 pm
Lash, You've been missing all my posts on this thread. No wonder, you're still swimming the wrong way.
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 0.05 seconds on 10/07/2024 at 02:16:29