Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

... (btw it's obfuscation to continually refer to "terrorists" when you mean muslim fighters.)

You aren't that obtuse McTag. I mentioned that because it was your implication that if Americans were in those buildings, we wouldn't bomb them and/or that it is only because they were not Americans that we did bomb them. That has to be at least the second or third silliest thing you've said in this debate since this particular discussion was started.

McTag wrote:

... (btw it's obfuscation to continually refer to "terrorists" when you mean muslim fighters.)

If you mean "terrorists," then the term "terrorists" is perfectly appropriate.

To me, the phrase, "muslim fighters," is nothing more than a euphemism designed to romanticize them, employed by someone who respects them or sympathizes with their cause.

It is a tactic, and an overall philosophy, of the invading (high-tech armed) forces to bomb wherever possible, in order to minimise infantry casualties.
But this maximises civilian casualties.
A hard choice for the commanders to take. And I think , dishonourable.

But inevitable. And that's why I demonstrated against the invasion in the first place.

Instead we patrol these places using armored vehicles and infantry -- and expose ourselves to IUDs,

Foxfyre wrote:

You aren't that obtuse McTag. I mentioned that because it was your implication that if Americans were in those buildings, we wouldn't bomb them and/or that it is only because they were not Americans that we did bomb them. That has to be at least the second or third silliest thing you've said in this debate since this particular discussion was started.

To be fair, I read his post differently, Foxy. I think when he referenced "killing Americans," he might have been referring to the alternative of using ground forces to rout the terrorists hiding in the buildings.

Ticomaya wrote:

McTag wrote:

... (btw it's obfuscation to continually refer to "terrorists" when you mean muslim fighters.)

If you mean "terrorists," then the term "terrorists" is perfectly appropriate.

To me, the phrase, "muslim fighters," is nothing more than a euphemism designed to romanticize them, employed by someone who respects them or sympathizes with their cause.

Or maybe he's trying to hold the line of demarcation between people who actually use terrorist tactics and those who don't. I confess that I don't actually know who's who in the Iraq conflict -- there are so many seemingly unrelated groups -- so I don't know who is a terrorist and who is not. I do think some people throw that term out a little too quickly when referring to basically anyone who is against us. It would be better if we used the term when we actuallly know an individual or a group are terrorists, and not just whenever it suits our argument.

Tico is right.

This may be a first.

georgeob1 wrote:

Instead we patrol these places using armored vehicles and infantry -- and expose ourselves to IUDs,

Sorry george, that was a very thoughtful post, but I lost it at this line. What an image!

"IUDs" - aren't they ....?

McTag, you (of all people) repeatedly and carelessly misuse words to create illogical comparisons and erroneous relative relationships.

Commanders simply don't use "bombs wherever possible". They use airstrikes far less than is "possible", mostly out of concern for collateral damage from the high energy weapons used by aircraft (accuracy is, for the most part, no longer a question. It is the radius of destruction of the weapons themselves.)

Further they don't attempt to "minimize" U.S. casualties. Instead they attempt to reduce them - there is a difference. We could quite easily level entire towns or parts of cities after surrounding them to ensure no one leaves. That would minimize our casualties.

Instead we patrol these places using armored vehicles and infantry -- and expose ourselves to IEDs, rocket and sniper fire in the process. More or less the same tactics the British Army used in the Six Counties of Ireland for so many years.

Do you believe that the actions of the British Army in Ireland were "dishonorable"? (I suppose one could also raise the same question concerning hundreds of your colonial wars, from the Transvaal to India, Kenya, Malaya and innumerable other places.)

My intent is not to insult, but it seems to me that in your hyperbole you display such remarkable degrees of ignorance of the realities you address, and sloppy, careless misstatements and comparisons, that one is inclined to believe it is all a deliberate attempt to deceive. (Even that offends - do you really expect thinking people to buy it?)

... yes. They can be very dangerous.

Foxfyre wrote:

You aren't that obtuse McTag. I mentioned that because it was your implication that if Americans were in those buildings, we wouldn't bomb them and/or that it is only because they were not Americans that we did bomb them. That has to be at least the second or third silliest thing you've said in this debate since this particular discussion was started.

To be fair, I read his post differently, Foxy. I think when he referenced "killing Americans," he might have been referring to the alternative of using ground forces to rout the terrorists hiding in the buildings.

Killing foreigners, even non-combatants, is more acceptable to the electorate than killing Americans.

That all makes me sound so awful . But my purpose here is to carry the message that the invasion is counter-productive and badly managed, but above all immoral and illegal. I am pleased to have the chance to do that.

I didn't think that remark in itself was stupid, I thought it was one of those things that didn't even need saying. Of course we find deaths of non Americans more acceptable than deaths of Americans. The rest of it is being quite reasonably debated, but that remark in itself didn't seem so outrageous to me.