THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

ICAN BELIEVES:

Quote:

1. People who mass murder civilians, or who abet such, or who advocate such, or who are silent witnesses to such, destroy their own humanity.

2. People who mass murder civilians, or who abet such, or who advocate such, or who are silent witnesses to such, are not civilians.

3. People who mass murder civilians, or who abet such, or who advocate such, or who are silent witnesses to such, are inhuman malignancies.

4. Civilians can be protected from inhuman malignancies without loss of their individual liberty by demanding their government murder (i.e., intentionally kill) inhuman malignancies.

5. Civilians can be protected from inhuman malignancies by surrendering their liberty to enable their government to adequately detect and prevent inhuman malignancies from murdering them.

6. Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who give up liberty for security will have neither liberty or security."

7. Because Benjamin Franklin is correct, inhuman malignancies should be murdered to protect the security of both civilian life and civilian liberty.

ican711nm wrote:

ICAN BELIEVES:

Quote:

1. People who mass murder civilians, or who abet such, or who advocate such, or who are silent witnesses to such, destroy their own humanity.

2. People who mass murder civilians, or who abet such, or who advocate such, or who are silent witnesses to such, are not civilians.

3. People who mass murder civilians, or who abet such, or who advocate such, or who are silent witnesses to such, are inhuman malignancies.

4. Civilians can be protected from inhuman malignancies without loss of their individual liberty by demanding their government murder (i.e., intentionally kill) inhuman malignancies.

5. Civilians can be protected from inhuman malignancies by surrendering their liberty to enable their government to adequately detect and prevent inhuman malignancies from murdering them.

6. Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who give up liberty for security will have neither liberty or security."

7. Because Benjamin Franklin is correct, inhuman malignancies should be murdered to protect the security of both civilian life and civilian liberty.

So this includes the people who advocate and bear silent witness to the malignancies cicerone listed on page 158. Yes or No

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my recollection that the malignancies cicerone was alleging were not people who were silent witnesses of those who mass murdered civilians (i.e., intentionally killed civilians). If I'm correct, then what ICAN BELIEVES does not include those people. It's late now. I'll checkout cicerone page 158 again tomorrow night to see if I'm right or wrong.

ican711nm wrote:

ICAN BELIEVES:

Quote:

1. People who mass murder civilians, or who abet such, or who advocate such, or who are silent witnesses to such, destroy their own humanity.

2. People who mass murder civilians, or who abet such, or who advocate such, or who are silent witnesses to such, are not civilians.

3. People who mass murder civilians, or who abet such, or who advocate such, or who are silent witnesses to such, are inhuman malignancies.

4. Civilians can be protected from inhuman malignancies without loss of their individual liberty by demanding their government murder (i.e., intentionally kill) inhuman malignancies.

5. Civilians can be protected from inhuman malignancies by surrendering their liberty to enable their government to adequately detect and prevent inhuman malignancies from murdering them.

6. Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who give up liberty for security will have neither liberty or security."

7. Because Benjamin Franklin is correct, inhuman malignancies should be murdered to protect the security of both civilian life and civilian liberty.

You must have missed my post ican inless you refuse to answer it. I ask again. Does this include the people who advocate and bear silent witness to the malignancies cicerone listed on page 158. Yes or No?
...

We murder civilians as well, Ican. You ignore this fact and hide behind the excuse of 'it's not on purpose.'
Yes, members of the US government have unintentionally killed civilians. Yes, they nonetheless save civilian lives by murdering those who would otherwise murder far more civilians.

The bombs we drop don't just kill terrorists.
True! Our bombs don't just kill terrorists. They kill civilians as well.

And we still drop 50+ bombs a day in Iraq.
I don't have any evidence to support or refute this claim.

You are nothing but an extremist, just like the enemy Terrorists.
Your accusation is an extreme accusation like that expected from an extremist.

It's always the other guys fault with extremists like you, never our fault, and we are not ever as bad as they are.
When the other guy repeatedly declares war against civilians, repeatedly wages war against civilians, and repeatedly murders civilians, it is undeniably the other guy's fault for murdering civilians.

The US government does not do all that and therefore in that regard at least is not as bad as the other guy.

There's no point having a discussion with you on the topic, which is why you are not taken seriously.
You nonetheless have taken me seriously enough to have this discussion with me.

You are worth having a discussion with in the hope that you aren't truly as extremist as you give evidence of being.

Cycloptichorn

Amigo wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

ICAN BELIEVES:

Quote:

1. People who mass murder civilians, or who abet such, or who advocate such, or who are silent witnesses to such, destroy their own humanity.

2. People who mass murder civilians, or who abet such, or who advocate such, or who are silent witnesses to such, are not civilians.

3. People who mass murder civilians, or who abet such, or who advocate such, or who are silent witnesses to such, are inhuman malignancies.

4. Civilians can be protected from inhuman malignancies without loss of their individual liberty by demanding their government murder (i.e., intentionally kill) inhuman malignancies.

5. Civilians can be protected from inhuman malignancies by surrendering their liberty to enable their government to adequately detect and prevent inhuman malignancies from murdering them.

6. Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who give up liberty for security will have neither liberty or security."

7. Because Benjamin Franklin is correct, inhuman malignancies should be murdered to protect the security of both civilian life and civilian liberty.

You must have missed my post ican inless you refuse to answer it. I ask again. Does this include the people who advocate and bear silent witness to the malignancies cicerone listed on page 158. Yes or No?
...

I re-read the article cicerone posted on page 158, specifically his post:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2035928#2035928

When I first read this article, I perceived it complied with the standard model for lying propaganda. That is, I perceived it to be an article based on true events with false characterizations of the causes of those events and false caracterizations of the consequences of those events. After a second reading, I continue to perceive this article the same way.

However, assuming my perceptions are wrong here and all of cicerone's post is true, then yes, ICAN BELIEVES:... would "include those people, if any, who are advocates of and/or silent witnesses to the mass murders of those civilians to which cicerone referred on page 158 of this forum.

...
You have no choice but to call the truth lying propaganda because you can't stand the failure in the imminent critique of what you beleive. Your not alone it's called you call it "Terrorist Malignancy" ...

Amigo wrote:

...
You have no choice but to call the truth lying propaganda because you can't stand the failure in the imminent critique of what you beleive. Your not alone it's called you call it "Terrorist Malignancy" ...

I think this accusation of yours applies to you not me. You continually behave like you are trapped in your own excuses for your own failures and are looking desperately to find others than yourself to blame and/or relieve you of responsibility for the consequences of your own behavior.

I would welcome valid evidence that the inhuman malignancy that has declarered war against us, wages war against us, and murderers our and other's civilians are, despite my beliefs, no longer any real danger to any of us survivors, or to any of our children, or to any our grandchildren, or in deed to any of our posterity. Welcome, hell! I'd celebrate my beliefs being wrong about that.

I'd welcome real persuasive evidence that our CIA past and/or present are inhuman malignancies, too. That would make it easier to eliminate the CIA and other federal agencies like it that are worthless at best, and destructive at worst.

ican, Just in case you missed it, we're sacrificing our children in Iraq now as we speak.
"Our children in Iraq" are voluntarily risking and sacrificing their lives to protect their families and their posterity at home

Bush put them in danger all by himself, and increased terrorism for everybody around the world.
Bush was not inaugurated until January 2001. Terrorism increased rapidly throughout the world before Bush was elected. Al-Qaeda trained 10,000 to 20,000 fighters from May 19, 1996 to September 11, 2001. These fighters then emigrated throughout the world (e.g., to Iraq, to Europe, to America, etc.).

Bin Ladin declared war on Americans and our allies in August 1996 and again in February 1998.

The idea that defending yourself against an enemy that has attacked you, by attacking that enemy, caused your enemy to attack you and to continue to attack you, is worse than dumb.

Talk about screwups, I don't think any other human in history has ever accomplished so much destruction and mayhem on this planet in such a short time with no end in sight.
I can think of a few humans in history that accomplished so much destruction and mayhem on this planet in such a short time with no apparent end in sight, until after the USA joined with allies to end that destruction and mayhem on this planet. Do the names Hirohito, Hitler, Stalin, Pot, Zedong, Minh, Hussein, ring a bell?.

ican711nm wrote:

Amigo wrote:

...
You have no choice but to call the truth lying propaganda because you can't stand the failure in the imminent critique of what you beleive. Your not alone it's called you call it "Terrorist Malignancy" ...

I think this accusation of yours applies to you not me. You continually behave like you are trapped in your own excuses for your own failures and are looking desperately to find others than yourself to blame and/or relieve you of responsibility for the consequences of your own behavior.
...

Now you try Ad Hominem attacks to avoid the truth. I am nothing more then a text on a screen. What are you attacking?
...

Ican, even if you were correct about the threat Iraq posed to the US pre-invasion, it is clear that now the threat is ten times worse than before with AQ basically having free reign in the country despite our best efforts and with the all but name civil war taking place and the government such as it is in chaos.
I disagree here only with your phrase "despite our best efforts." Had you written only despite our efforts, I would agree 100% with your sentence. There is too little about what we have done in Iraq that qualifies for the designation "our best efforts."

No telling what is taking place between those who are not content in Iraq because of our presence and outside militants. We are less safe than we were before we invaded in terms of our security. It is clear that whatever we have been doing is not the answer as it hasn't worked yet so doing more of the same more than likely won't work either.
I agree.

(You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear; meaning that you can't make the unjustified war right).
The war is justified! Our tactics in fighting the war after removal of Saddam are not.

When the people attacked the British troops after they crashed (or shot down; I can't recall just now) it is very clear that we aren't wanted in Iraq by Iraqis. I know we hate to leave with our tails between our legs in defeat but what good are we doing? Can you honestly answer truthfully that our staying there another 5,10 or 20 years is going to make a difference?
No, not unless we fight this war the way we must to defeat the terrorist malignancy.

How much money and blood are we willing to sacrifice just so that the Bush Iraqi misadventure can be called a success?
I am not interested in whether or not Bush is called a success or a failure. I am interested in saving civilian lives. It is clear that some Iraqis want us to leave now, and some want us to stay until their own government can secure their liberty.

The regime is gone and we are never going to completely eradicate those might want to do us harm as it is more of movement than an army with a country, so we may as well leave as we ain't doing any good and go back to following terrorist leads. (speaking from the respective of those who supported the war in the first place; which isn't me)
I believe we should leave Iraq when the Iraq government asks us to leave Iraq, or when we have exterminated the terrorist malignancy there; whichever occurs first.

How's this for a bargaining position?

The USA will completely remove its military from Iraq and the rest of the middle east, when the terrorist malignancy declares peace not war, declares it will cease murdering civilians, and does in fact cease murdering civilians.

Otherwise, the USA will proceed ruthlessly without trial to systematically exterminate the murderers of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, and exterminate their abettors, advocates, and silent witnesses, however they are detected and wherever they may be found in the middle east.
...

ci wrote:
ican, Just in case you missed it, we're sacrificing our children in Iraq now as we speak.

ican wrote:
"Our children in Iraq" are voluntarily risking and sacrificing their lives to protect their families and their posterity at home

They are NOT protecting their families and their posterity at home. How in the world do you come to such stupid conclusions? Saddam never had the weapons or means to deliver them to US soil.
Saddam never had the weapons or means to deliver them to US soil on September 11, 2001, or on March 19, 2003 when we invaded Iraq. But al-Qaeda fled from our invasion of Afghanistan and established sanctuary in Iraq beginning December 2001. Saddam ignored our requests that he extradite the al-Qaeda leaders of that sanctuary. Al-Qaeda demonstrated on 9/11 its possession of the weapons (i.e., suicidal terrorists) it needed and its means to deliver them to US soil. Al-Qaeda also demonstrated its ability to grow rapidly and train 10,000 to 20,000 of its fighters within the five year, four month period from May 1996 to September 2001.

Terrorism around the world increased since our preemptive attack on Iraq.
Terrorism did not increase in the US. In fact terrorism has been zero in the USA since the USA invaded Iraq. Based on al-Qaeda's growth in size and terrorist acts prior to our invasion of Iraq, we have zero reason to believe that our failure to invade Iraq would not have led to an even greater increase in terrorism "around the world" than we are currently witnessing.

As for their "voluntary" service of our country, they are trained to follow any order whether it's on false justifications or not; they don't have a choice.
They have a choice not to re-enlist as so many of them have and continue to do.

Your responses get more idiotic the more you make excuses for Bush and this administration.
I have not made any excuses whatsoever for Bush and this administration. The most complementary comment that I have ever made about Bush is that he was clearly the least worse candidate compared to Gore and compared to Kerry. Your increasing number of false claims about me is increasingly idiotic.

...
John Stockwell is a 13-year veteran of the CIA and a former U.S. Marine Corps major. He was hired by the CIA in 1964, spent six years working for the CIA in Africa, and was later transferred to Vietnam. In 1973 he received the CIA's Medal of Merit, the Agency's second-highest award. In 1975, Stockwell was promoted to the CIA's Chief of Station and National Security Council coordinator, managing covert activities during the first years of Angola's bloody civil war. After two years he resigned, determined to reveal the truth about the agency's role in the Third World. Since that time, he has worked tirelessly to expose the criminal activities of the CIA. He is the author of In Search of Enemies, an exposé of the CIA's covert action in Angola.
...