Murtha: Marines killed innocent Iraqi civilians IN COLD BLOOD

[FormerLurker]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A decorated Marine colonel turned anti-war congressman said Wednesday that Marines killed at least 30 innocent Iraqi civilians "in cold blood" in Haditha in November, suggesting the attack is twice as bad as originally reported.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, told reporters Wednesday that he got his information from U.S. commanders, who said the investigation will show that the Marines deliberately killed the civilians.

The U.S. Marine Corps has declined to comment on the report, which initially stated that 15 were killed.

"There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood," Murtha said.

"They actually went into the houses and killed women and children," Murtha said.

Glad to see a decorated Vietnam officer who did not forget the hard and ugly lessons learned there.

Very sad to see reports of such horrible acts by our troops, but I think Murtha is right in assigning at least partial blame to the incredible pressure they're under due to the endless string of screw-ups by the civilian (read: POLITICAL) leadership......

:mad:

[groverat]

I really wish I had the capacity to care. I have just lost the ability.

They've worn me down. I just can't feel anything for this but sadness and disappointment.

[southside grabowski]

See the video at "Expose the left"

http://www.exposetheleft.com/2006/05/17/murtha-haditha/

[segovius]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
See the video at "Expose the left"

http://www.exposetheleft.com/2006/05/17/murtha-haditha/

Hilarious site! Beyond parody! :lol:

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by groverat
I really wish I had the capacity to care. I have just lost the ability.

They've worn me down. I just can't feel anything for this but sadness and disappointment.

++

[Northgate]

I guess it's time to start swiftboating Murtha.

Because we've all learned from John Kerry that there is no worse crime than speaking out against the government and mentioning unmentionables to the public.

Murtha must be destroyed.

[tonton]

SDW> "TReaSon!!!1!!!!1!11111"

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by tonton
SDW> "TReaSon!!!1!!!!1!11111"

I wouldn't say treason, I just think Murtha is a fool. First he called for troops to be withdrawn, then he voted against his own idea when the Republicans put it on the table. Oh, but of course, he doesn't want to "retreat", he wants a "Strategic Redeployment."

As for this, I find it odd that Murtha feels the need to judge these military personnel without a trial or further investigation. Secondly, where is this "pressure" coming from on the troops? Isn't there always pressure in war? Is he saying that the pressure is due to not having enough troops...or that the "pressure" is due to mismanagment? Thirdly, is it really a good idea for him to be accusing soldiers of murdering civilians in cold blood, when he really doesn't know exactly what happened? Treason...no. Irresponsible? Yes.

[tonton]

Yeah, everybody knows, you don't criticize the current administration and military leadership in a time of war! It aids and abets the enemy! It's irresponsible!!!!

:rolleyes:

Whatever.

When leaders are fucking up, someone's got to point it out! To fail to do so is... get this... unamerican.

[southside grabowski]

No one is out to destroy him, but he will be held accountable. With Fox News, talk radio and conservative blogging, the once silent majority now has a loud and clear voice. This really perturbs the left who used to be able to say and do as they wanted without fear of being exposed. Today the left knows that the people are watching.

[Flounder]

Ahhh, there's the old Moe!

[Outsider]

Anyone familiar with Minneapolis Mike?

[southside grabowski]

I don't trust any of the anti-military propoganda. Take this Jesse Macbeth story, for example.

http://www.michellemalkin.com/

[Outsider]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
I don't trust any of the anti-military propoganda. Take this Jesse Macbeth story, for example.

http://www.michellemalkin.com/ That's a fine source there. The Michael Moore of the right.

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by Outsider
That's a fine source there. The Michael Moore of the right. That one got a chuckle out of me. I must admit.
The folks at mvg are also watching this:


http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/2006/05/22/#004957

[Northgate]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
I don't trust any of the anti-military propoganda. Take this Jesse Macbeth story, for example.

http://www.michellemalkin.com/

I don't trust pro-military propaganda. Like the Jessica Lynch story.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by tonton
Yeah, everybody knows, you don't criticize the current administration and military leadership in a time of war! It aids and abets the enemy! It's irresponsible!!!!

:rolleyes:

Whatever.

When leaders are fucking up, someone's got to point it out! To fail to do so is... get this... unamerican.

You don't call our own troops cold blooded killers. That has nothing to do with pointing out where we have "fucked up." In fact, most people critical of the war aren't pointing anything out that we've actaully done wrong. They're just against the war..period.

[vinea]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I wouldn't say treason, I just think Murtha is a fool. First he called for troops to be withdrawn, then he voted against his own idea when the Republicans put it on the table. Oh, but of course, he doesn't want to "retreat", he wants a "Strategic Redeployment."


As a republican I thought his idea had merit. It is greatly annoying to me that current so-called conservatives are poorly versed in both military and foreign affairs and listen to spin as opposed to look at the issues.

The problem with his plan was that you can't determine if a quick reaction force can do more than step on fires after they occur as opposed to protect reconstruction efforts which is critical. IF the Iraqi security forces could protect humanitarian and reconstruction efforts we could have pulled back to provide C4ISR, air and lastly a quick reaction force.

On the plus side it would reduce tension within the country to make it less favorable for the fanatics to recruit. Instead of war of freedom it would more clearly be seen as terrorism.

Its a different strategy and has positives but the preconditions for success weren't met. But it isn't the complete withdrawal that the Republicans put forward to quash all discussion and score points.

Secondly, where is this "pressure" coming from on the troops? Isn't there always pressure in war?


The pressures of conventional war is far different than the day in day out pressure of fighting an enemy that melts into the general population and fights using IEDs. This was the difficulty in Vietnam...anyone could be the enemy and often was. Thus there is great pressure to treat all indiginous population as hostile which leads to a larger probabilty of atrocities than you would typically see from a professional force like our military.

In a conventional war who the enemy is clear. The objectives more or less obvious (take berlin, take baghdad, etc) and typically you have lines of control where you know where the enemy is and you are supported be friendly units.

In an unconventional war you don't know who the enemy is. The objectives are far more nebulous (win hearts and minds) and you are injected into a population when you don't speak the language, you don't have good SA, anyone could be the enemy and you're spread around on convoy, patrol and other dispersed activities.

This SHOULD be obvious.


Is he saying that the pressure is due to not having enough troops...or that the "pressure" is due to mismanagment?


Both. And the above.


Thirdly, is it really a good idea for him to be accusing soldiers of murdering civilians in cold blood, when he really doesn't know exactly what happened? Treason...no. Irresponsible? Yes.

If he knows folks who witnessed the events then its pretty clear something is wrong. Covering it up won't help address the issues.

It was irresponsible and a bad idea for us to invade Iraq. At this point anything Murtha does is minor. IMHO the Iraq war will be marked as the point where America began to lose superpower status.

We're spending too much blood and coin for very little gain. We can't leave. We can't win quickly. China is getting stronger while we're getting weaker. The military is eating its seed corn (r&d dollars) and at the end of this we're going to have readiness and equipment issues on par with the 1970s.

All in all, its the kind of scenario you expect democrats to get the country into.

Vinea

[meelash]

Originally posted by vinea
All in all, its the kind of scenario you expect democrats to get the country into.

:lol: :lol: :smokey:

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by vinea
As a republican I thought his idea had merit. It is greatly annoying to me that current so-called conservatives are poorly versed in both military and foreign affairs and listen to spin as opposed to look at the issues.

The problem with his plan was that you can't determine if a quick reaction force can do more than step on fires after they occur as opposed to protect reconstruction efforts which is critical. IF the Iraqi security forces could protect humanitarian and reconstruction efforts we could have pulled back to provide C4ISR, air and lastly a quick reaction force.

On the plus side it would reduce tension within the country to make it less favorable for the fanatics to recruit. Instead of war of freedom it would more clearly be seen as terrorism.

Its a different strategy and has positives but the preconditions for success weren't met. But it isn't the complete withdrawal that the Republicans put forward to quash all discussion and score points.



The pressures of conventional war is far different than the day in day out pressure of fighting an enemy that melts into the general population and fights using IEDs. This was the difficulty in Vietnam...anyone could be the enemy and often was. Thus there is great pressure to treat all indiginous population as hostile which leads to a larger probabilty of atrocities than you would typically see from a professional force like our military.

In a conventional war who the enemy is clear. The objectives more or less obvious (take berlin, take baghdad, etc) and typically you have lines of control where you know where the enemy is and you are supported be friendly units.

In an unconventional war you don't know who the enemy is. The objectives are far more nebulous (win hearts and minds) and you are injected into a population when you don't speak the language, you don't have good SA, anyone could be the enemy and you're spread around on convoy, patrol and other dispersed activities.

This SHOULD be obvious.



Both. And the above.



If he knows folks who witnessed the events then its pretty clear something is wrong. Covering it up won't help address the issues.

It was irresponsible and a bad idea for us to invade Iraq. At this point anything Murtha does is minor. IMHO the Iraq war will be marked as the point where America began to lose superpower status.

We're spending too much blood and coin for very little gain. We can't leave. We can't win quickly. China is getting stronger while we're getting weaker. The military is eating its seed corn (r&d dollars) and at the end of this we're going to have readiness and equipment issues on par with the 1970s.

All in all, its the kind of scenario you expect democrats to get the country into.

Vinea

The problem was not so much Murtha's suggestion. And by the way, the Republican resolution called for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Cheap trick or not, it was pretty much what Murtha proposed. My issue is with the vague attacks on the administration. If he would come out and say that we need more troops and that's contributing to pressure, that's a legitmate viewpoint. Or, if he wants to come and call for a redeployment and then explain that this would remove the targets from our soldiers backs, that's fine. He might win or lose that debate. But he didn't do that. He called our own troops cold blooded killers, then pinned it all on the admin by talking vaguely about "pressures" on them.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
He was talking about a specific incident in which even a military investigation will find those deaths unnecessary. While you're stroking your boner about the sanctity of "the troops" try to consider the people who needlessly died at their hands in this case.

The military is.

Why aren't you?

It's under investigation, Shawn. If they're guilty they will be punished as they should be. It's not Murtha's job to judge them and by extension harm the image of the US armed forces, which are currently engaged in a war. Even if they're found guilty, it's wholly inappropriate for a Representative of this country to call our own troops cold blooded killers. Let the verdict stand.

[meelash]

Originally posted by SDW2001
It's under investigation, Shawn. If they're guilty they will be punished as they should be. It's not Murtha's job to judge them and by extension harm the image of the US armed forces, which are currently engaged in a war. Even if they're found guilty, it's wholly inappropriate for a Representative of this country to call our own troops cold blooded killers. Let the verdict stand.

These troops killed some people in cold blood. That means they were innocent and without weapons and they were killed. Hence he described it as cold-blood killing. What's the problem??

[Northgate]

WE'RE AT WAR!!!!!!!

Well, not really. We're kinda in a police state thingy. Not a classically defined war.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER!!!! WE'RE AT WAR!!!!

And, of course, this war will never really end. Because it's The War on Terrah! Which is convenient for neo-con blowhards like Sean Hannity so they can unfairly mock and ridicule any dissent or criticism by pretty much anybody.

WE'RE AT WAR!!!

Come now. Say it with me. It'll make you feel good. It helps you hate your own countrymen and hate them with glee.

WE'RE AT WAR!!! YAY!

[curiousuburb]

My Lai... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre)

Actual atrocities, reported by soldiers, investigated by Colin Powell, echoed by Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh... denied (to this day) by fanatics who would blindly support the administration rather than admit errors can be made in a poorly planned, badly executed war...

Fast forward to Iraq...

Actual atrocities, reported by soldiers, Colin Powell has bailed rather than be associated with the same cadre of official deniers...

Spot the pattern.

[vinea]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The problem was not so much Murtha's suggestion. And by the way, the Republican resolution called for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Cheap trick or not, it was pretty much what Murtha proposed.


The point is that it is not "pretty much" what was proposed except in a 10 second sound bite. "Earliest practical date" isn't the same as immediate (despite his press briefs) and it was stipulated as "consistent with the safety" of the troops. An immediate withdrawal does none of that and the proposed measure short circuited any chance of discussion on shifting strategy.

My issue is with the vague attacks on the administration.


They've hardly been vague and frankly the administration deserves any flak that comes its way with the poor planning and execution of the occupation phase.

If he would come out and say that we need more troops and that's contributing to pressure, that's a legitmate viewpoint. Or, if he wants to come and call for a redeployment and then explain that this would remove the targets from our soldiers backs, that's fine.


"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis."

Gee, seems he did that once before and the entire debate got flushed down the toilet anyway...

It is the nature of this kind of combat that is causing the pressure. While more troops would be helpful it doesn't change the nature of the warfare.

He might win or lose that debate. But he didn't do that. He called our own troops cold blooded killers, then pinned it all on the admin by talking vaguely about "pressures" on them.

Perhaps it seem vague because the current adminstration and many current "conservatives" evidently skipped the Vietnam lesson.

Besides...what else would you call them? They killed 15 civs because their buddy bought it the day before. I can sympathize as to why but they seem to have done the deed.

"Military officials say Marine Corp photos taken immediately after the incident show many of the victims were shot at close range, in the head and chest, execution-style. One photo shows a mother and young child bent over on the floor as if in prayer, shot dead, said the officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity because the investigation hasn't been completed.

One military official says it appears the civilians were deliberately killed by the Marines, who were outraged at the death of their fellow Marine.

“This one is ugly," one official told NBC News.

Three Marine officers — commanders in Haditha — have been relieved of duty, and at least 12 Marines in all are under investigation for what would be the worst single incident involving the deliberate killing of civilians by U.S. military in Iraq."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343/

Gee...which other conflict comes to mind? This is likely the first bad incident and how we deal with it sets the tone. It cannot be tolerated, it cannot be downplayed and it IS an indicator that Iraq is turning into a second Vietnam unless fundamental shifts in strategy occurs. 15 is a far cry from My Lai but the pressures you seem to wish to ignore are the same. They build. That's how you get from 15 to 400.

Fixing this may mean full wartime mobilization (ie draft) to finish the job or it may mean pull out...worse choice but probably better than just sticking with the status-quo which is just going to spiral into an even worse mess IMHO. You can call it a "WAR" all you want but the populace is not in war mode.

We're in half-assed business as usual mode. Gee...like Vietnam. On Bush's watch. My party pisses me off to no end these days and its not because it isn't "conservative" enough but because it is composed of idiots who's opinions are directed by talk show hosts. The Baby Boomer Republican party. The one that can't remember the war that they grew up with.

I'd be a Libertarian if they weren't blue pixies.

Vinea

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by meelash
These troops killed some people in cold blood. That means they were innocent and without weapons and they were killed. Hence he described it as cold-blood killing. What's the problem??

Let the military determine that. It doesn't do any good to have a US Congressman get on TV and broadcast the accusation as fact before an investigation/trial is even completed. It's harmful to the United States in general. If they are guilty, then he can comment about how wrong their actions were. He still doesn't have to say "in cold blood." It's inflammatory and it helps no one.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Northgate
WE'RE AT WAR!!!!!!!

Well, not really. We're kinda in a police state thingy. Not a classically defined war.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER!!!! WE'RE AT WAR!!!!

And, of course, this war will never really end. Because it's The War on Terrah! Which is convenient for neo-con blowhards like Sean Hannity so they can unfairly mock and ridicule any dissent or criticism by pretty much anybody.

WE'RE AT WAR!!!

Come now. Say it with me. It'll make you feel good. It helps you hate your own countrymen and hate them with glee.

WE'RE AT WAR!!! YAY!

Shut up Northgate.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by vinea
The point is that it is not "pretty much" what was proposed except in a 10 second sound bite. "Earliest practical date" isn't the same as immediate (despite his press briefs) and it was stipulated as "consistent with the safety" of the troops. An immediate withdrawal does none of that and the proposed measure short circuited any chance of discussion on shifting strategy.



They've hardly been vague and frankly the administration deserves any flak that comes its way with the poor planning and execution of the occupation phase.



"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis."

Gee, seems he did that once before and the entire debate got flushed down the toilet anyway...

It is the nature of this kind of combat that is causing the pressure. While more troops would be helpful it doesn't change the nature of the warfare.



Perhaps it seem vague because the current adminstration and many current "conservatives" evidently skipped the Vietnam lesson.

Besides...what else would you call them? They killed 15 civs because their buddy bought it the day before. I can sympathize as to why but they seem to have done the deed.

"Military officials say Marine Corp photos taken immediately after the incident show many of the victims were shot at close range, in the head and chest, execution-style. One photo shows a mother and young child bent over on the floor as if in prayer, shot dead, said the officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity because the investigation hasn't been completed.

One military official says it appears the civilians were deliberately killed by the Marines, who were outraged at the death of their fellow Marine.

“This one is ugly," one official told NBC News.

Three Marine officers — commanders in Haditha — have been relieved of duty, and at least 12 Marines in all are under investigation for what would be the worst single incident involving the deliberate killing of civilians by U.S. military in Iraq."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343/

Gee...which other conflict comes to mind? This is likely the first bad incident and how we deal with it sets the tone. It cannot be tolerated, it cannot be downplayed and it IS an indicator that Iraq is turning into a second Vietnam unless fundamental shifts in strategy occurs. 15 is a far cry from My Lai but the pressures you seem to wish to ignore are the same. They build. That's how you get from 15 to 400.

Fixing this may mean full wartime mobilization (ie draft) to finish the job or it may mean pull out...worse choice but probably better than just sticking with the status-quo which is just going to spiral into an even worse mess IMHO. You can call it a "WAR" all you want but the populace is not in war mode.

We're in half-assed business as usual mode. Gee...like Vietnam. On Bush's watch. My party pisses me off to no end these days and its not because it isn't "conservative" enough but because it is composed of idiots who's opinions are directed by talk show hosts. The Baby Boomer Republican party. The one that can't remember the war that they grew up with.

I'd be a Libertarian if they weren't blue pixies.

Vinea

Whatever. He wanted an immediate withdrawal. He knows it wasn't going to pass..he should have just voted for the damn resolution.

Most attacks have been vague...just as your statement is above. Examples? I know of some, but I don't hear most anti-war zealots actually talk about them.

As for the Murtha quote, well if he would stick to stuff like that I'd have no problem. But you can't just ignore the things he has said.

We won't agree on the term he used for the troops. Even if it turns out they are guilty, he doesn't need to say that.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Shut up Northgate.

:lol: ;)

[tonton]

Oooh... now all you have to do to be exempted from prosecution for murder is join the military. Then no one can call you a murderer, because... well... I'm sure SDW knows the reason...

REASON IS TREASON! - Kasabian

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by SDW2001
It's under investigation, Shawn. If they're guilty they will be punished as they should be.

Yeah but, We Know That Our Troops Are Not Cold Blooded Killers so why even investigate? You claim that our troops are not cold blooded killers. If they're not, and you certainly seem to think so, why are we investigating this?

Investigation leads people to believe that there's at least a chance of troops being guilty for what they're acussed of. Plus, it's not like it's the first time they've killed someone in cold blood; Abu Ghraib, you forgot? Not only that, as the sick necrofiliac maniacs that they were (that group, anyway) they toyed with people's sexual organs and made them do sexual shit for their own pleasure.

Or do you think all those convictions are a Liberal Media conspiracy? With your MO, it wouldn't surprise me.

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yeah but, We Know That Our Troops Are Not Cold Blooded Killers so why even investigate? You claim that our troops are not cold blooded killers. If they're not, and you certainly seem to think so, why are we investigating this?

Investigation leads people to believe that there's at least a chance of troops being guilty for what they're acussed of. Plus, it's not like it's the first time they've killed someone in cold blood; Abu Ghraib, you forgot? Not only that, as the sick necrofiliac maniacs that they were (that group, anyway) they toyed with people's sexual organs and made them do sexual shit for their own pleasure.

Or do you think all those convictions are a Liberal Media conspiracy? With your MO, it wouldn't surprise me.

Yeeesh

Soldiers don't deserve due process? What is that? After a suitable investigation, those found to have done wrong should be punished. Why do you have such a vial hatred for our military?

[addabox]

Apparently senior Pentagon sources hate America and seek to undermine the troops.

From the story on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/26/marines.haditha/index.html):

An ongoing military investigation supports allegations that U.S. Marines in November killed 24 innocent Iraqi civilians without being provoked, senior Pentagon sources said Friday.

Pentagon sources calling them murderers. What terror loving bastards.

So when Murtha said the investigation would reveal that the toll was "higher than 15" dead initially reported, he was apparently right, and when he said the civilians were killed "in cold blood" he was speaking of murder, which it apparently was.

And when he said he knew these things because he had been told by U.S. commanders, he was apparently not lying.

But fuck him anyway. He's obviously consumed with irrational hatred of Bush and America and freedom. Ex-marines that express horror at atrocities committed in wars that they see as a needless waste of life can be so irritable.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Shut up Northgate.
Give him a reason?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by addabox
Apparently senior Pentagon sources hate America and seek to undermine the troops.

From the story on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/26/marines.haditha/index.html):



Pentagon sources calling them murderers. What terror loving bastards.

So when Murtha said the investigation would reveal that the toll was "higher than 15" dead initially reported, he was apparently right, and when he said the civilians were killed "in cold blood" he was speaking of murder, which it apparently was.

And when he said he knew these things because he had been told by U.S. commanders, he was apparently not lying.

But fuck him anyway. He's obviously consumed with irrational hatred of Bush and America and freedom. Ex-marines that express horror at atrocities committed in wars that they see as a needless waste of life can be so irritable.

The Pentagon can comment all it wants. Murtha is a lawmaker and is not in a position to judge these troops. He certainly shouldn't call them cold blooded killers even if they are guitly. Say they're guilty and move on. Let me ask you...why does he need to comment at all? What possible purpose can it serve, other than his own political agenda?

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by SDW2001
He certainly shouldn't call them cold blooded killers even if they are guitly.


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146

[addabox]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The Pentagon can comment all it wants. Murtha is a lawmaker and is not in a position to judge these troops. He certainly shouldn't call them cold blooded killers even if they are guitly. Say they're guilty and move on. Let me ask you...why does he need to comment at all? What possible purpose can it serve, other than his own political agenda?

My impression is that Murtha is an old marine whose pissed off at the misuse of the armed forces.

A lot of the non-active military, who are free to speak, have voiced similar sentiments about the war.

If by "political agenda" you mean "put pressure on Bush to get American service personal out of harms way", then sure, that's the purpose it serves.

I'm assuming the fact that you can't see that as anything but posturing--that the idea that a man who served his country with distinction might be actually and truly horrified at how the civilian leadership is using the lives of the American military for the crudest of political expediency is completely beyond you and the fact that he might consider it his duty to do everything he can to change those circumstances doesn't even occur to you--to be on account of your compulsion to defend Bush at any cost has actually killed your soul.

[vinea]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The Pentagon can comment all it wants. Murtha is a lawmaker and is not in a position to judge these troops. He certainly shouldn't call them cold blooded killers even if they are guitly. Say they're guilty and move on. Let me ask you...why does he need to comment at all? What possible purpose can it serve, other than his own political agenda?

Because Marines that would kill women and children in cold blood dishonor the Corps? Nah. So who better to judge fellow Marines than a former Marine that served in Vietnam? Some punk chickenhawk?

But yes, it's also for political gain. He is, after all, a politician and he's trying to push forth his agenda. Which is that this is a dumb assed war with disaster written all over it. The problem with the second gulf war was too many of the senior leadership didn't participate in Vietnam. This includes the senior military leadership aside from Gen. Franks and a few others. Plus the perspective of Vietnam as a 1st Lt is likely different than that of a Major then Colonel.

There was significant resistance, I think, to getting into the occupation scenario by the senior leadership in 1991 on the parts of Powell and Schwarzkopf. Had these two officers been particularly gung-ho about the idea I'm think they could have convinced Bush to continue who wisely decided not to keep going. We'd have one then too and with likely a better outcome in the post war period.

The saddest part of the current affair is the emasculation of Powell and the ignoring of the Powell Doctrine. We failed to use overwheming force and we failed to have a clear exist strategy, we failed to exhaust all our other options and we failed at extracting our military after the war operations were complete and we failed at gaining genuine broad international support (that last is arguably his fault as sec state but you play the hand POTUS give you). Specific enough?

The Rumsfled Doctrine in comparison has been a military success (helpful if the opposition is second string) but a post war fiasco. Had he gotten the 60K troops over the 140K troop that went in it would be worse than it is now. Had Franks gotten the 400K troops he requested and more in line with the Powell Doctrine things would likely be better.

Vinea

[meelash]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The Pentagon can comment all it wants. Murtha is a lawmaker and is not in a position to judge these troops. He certainly shouldn't call them cold blooded killers even if they are guitly. Say they're guilty and move on. Let me ask you...why does he need to comment at all? What possible purpose can it serve, other than his own political agenda?

News Conference (3 or 4 months from now)

Reporter: Mr. Murtha, what happened in the court today?
Murtha: These troops were found guilty.
Reporter: Guilty of what?
Murtha: Cold-blooded mur-... I can't say it..it would be unpatriotic...


HUH??? I really don't get why you can't allow someone to describe something for what it is? If it is an insult to these troops to have their actual actions described, then maybe they shouldn't have done it in the first place.

Why does Murtha need to comment at all? As a representative of the people it is his job to investigate these things and blow the whistle if things are going on that shouldn't be. It's called "checks and balances;" it's one of the basic structures that makes this country what it is.

[groverat]

If they're guilty they will be punished as they should be.

I take issue with this assertion.
There is absolutely no logical reason to believe that those involved will be punished in any fitting way. There is no historical precedent from which one can draw to support the idea that American soldiers will be punished for the slaughter of innocent civilians.

Let me ask you...why does he need to comment at all? What possible purpose can it serve, other than his own political agenda?

Because he sees a problem and wishes to speak on it.
Why do you post?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146

Oh please. I didn't say they shouldn't be punished or even that they weren't guilty.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by addabox
My impression is that Murtha is an old marine whose pissed off at the misuse of the armed forces.

A lot of the non-active military, who are free to speak, have voiced similar sentiments about the war.

If by "political agenda" you mean "put pressure on Bush to get American service personal out of harms way", then sure, that's the purpose it serves.

I'm assuming the fact that you can't see that as anything but posturing--that the idea that a man who served his country with distinction might be actually and truly horrified at how the civilian leadership is using the lives of the American military for the crudest of political expediency is completely beyond you and the fact that he might consider it his duty to do everything he can to change those circumstances doesn't even occur to you--to be on account of your compulsion to defend Bush at any cost has actually killed your soul.

Of course that's your impression, because you agree with his position. As for other "non-active military" that are "free to speak," well 1) Nice try with the old The Bush Administration is Surpressing All Free Speech Implication and 2) What is "a lot?"

As for a political agenda, I was more thinking along the lines of "I'm going with public opinion to try and help the Demcrats win back the house."

As for his overall motives, well no...I don't believe he is "horrified" at the use of the American military for "political expediancy." Why? Because that's stupid. It is not AT ALL poltically expediant for us to remain in Iraq. And if he believed in withdrawal, he'd have voted for his own idea regardless of whether or not it was a Republican ploy.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by vinea
Because Marines that would kill women and children in cold blood dishonor the Corps? Nah. So who better to judge fellow Marines than a former Marine that served in Vietnam? Some punk chickenhawk?

But yes, it's also for political gain. He is, after all, a politician and he's trying to push forth his agenda. Which is that this is a dumb assed war with disaster written all over it. The problem with the second gulf war was too many of the senior leadership didn't participate in Vietnam. This includes the senior military leadership aside from Gen. Franks and a few others. Plus the perspective of Vietnam as a 1st Lt is likely different than that of a Major then Colonel.

There was significant resistance, I think, to getting into the occupation scenario by the senior leadership in 1991 on the parts of Powell and Schwarzkopf. Had these two officers been particularly gung-ho about the idea I'm think they could have convinced Bush to continue who wisely decided not to keep going. We'd have one then too and with likely a better outcome in the post war period.

The saddest part of the current affair is the emasculation of Powell and the ignoring of the Powell Doctrine. We failed to use overwheming force and we failed to have a clear exist strategy, we failed to exhaust all our other options and we failed at extracting our military after the war operations were complete and we failed at gaining genuine broad international support (that last is arguably his fault as sec state but you play the hand POTUS give you). Specific enough?

The Rumsfled Doctrine in comparison has been a military success (helpful if the opposition is second string) but a post war fiasco. Had he gotten the 60K troops over the 140K troop that went in it would be worse than it is now. Had Franks gotten the 400K troops he requested and more in line with the Powell Doctrine things would likely be better.

Vinea

Murtha should not be judging him just because he used to be a marine. That's ridiculous. I don't completely disagree with the rest of what you posted.

[curiousuburb]

The English papers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/21/wirq221.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/21/ixnews.html) are reporting that the investigating panel will confirm:

There was no 'enemy fire'. Troops sent direct fire into civilians in retaliation for a dead marine killed earlier.

24 innocent civilians were murdered in cold blood.

Multiple marines will face murder charges.

Not My Lai scale (500 dead civilians), but clearly a war crime.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343/) appears to confirm this story.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by curiousuburb
The English papers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/21/wirq221.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/21/ixnews.html) are reporting that the investigating panel will confirm:

There was no 'enemy fire'. Troops sent direct fire into civilians in retaliation for a dead marine killed earlier.

24 innocent civilians were murdered in cold blood.

Multiple marines will face murder charges.

Not My Lai scale (500 dead civilians), but clearly a war crime.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343/) appears to confirm this story.

I don't see how that changes what Murtha said. I don't see how it makes his statement any more appropriate or necessary.

[jimmac]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/26/marines.haditha/index.html


Sounds pretty bad.

Coincidentally this sort of thing used to happen in Vietnam also.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The Pentagon can comment all it wants. Murtha is a lawmaker and is not in a position to judge these troops. He certainly shouldn't call them cold blooded killers even if they are guitly. Say they're guilty and move on. Let me ask you...why does he need to comment at all? What possible purpose can it serve, other than his own political agenda?

http://www.npr.org/politics/images/2004/sep/purpleheart140.040902.jpg

[groverat]

I really don't understand why Murtha needs defending.

He has undoubtedly received information on this from fantastic sources.

How happy the loyalists are to throw veterans under the bus the second they stop pushing the party line forward.

[sammi jo]

Considering that actual news reportage out of Iraq is somewhere between "sanitized" and "non-existent", is it surprising that this news item happened to slip past all the media razorwire? How many people are aware of what really happened in Fallujah in late 2004 around the time of the elections... very few because the military's ability to keep atrocities secret is pretty efficient. There is probably so much stuff of this nature going on in Iraq, most of which will never see the light of day.....but at some point, something has to filter through, just bearing the laws of probability in mind.

[vinea]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Considering that actual news reportage out of Iraq is somewhere between "sanitized" and "non-existent", is it surprising that this news item happened to slip past all the media razorwire? How many people are aware of what really happened in Fallujah in late 2004 around the time of the elections... very few because the military's ability to keep atrocities secret is pretty efficient. There is probably so much stuff of this nature going on in Iraq, most of which will never see the light of day.....but at some point, something has to filter through, just bearing the laws of probability in mind.

This is why Murtha needs to speak out when atrocities do occur. Because there are enough whackjobs that think the US is commiting widespread atrocities as it is.

We are not. If we were it would leak just like it did now. This is why these kinds of acts should always be condemned with the loudest possible (bi-partisan) voices and not covered up or minimized. It should be identified for what it is and no political correctness applied. Cold-blooded. Murder.

Yes, if it sounds like I'm accusing you SDW2001 of political correctness I am. It's not just a liberal affliction. It is just as dumb when we do it. Actually, twice as dumb as conservatives are always whining about it.

Vinea

[sammi jo]

Proud to be an American (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm)

In other words: "kill the ragheads for BushCorp"

[meelash]

Originally posted by vinea
This is why Murtha needs to speak out when atrocities do occur. Because there are enough whackjobs that think the US is commiting widespread atrocities as it is.

We are not. If we were it would leak just like it did now. This is why these kinds of acts should always be condemned with the loudest possible (bi-partisan) voices and not covered up or minimized. It should be identified for what it is and no political correctness applied. Cold-blooded. Murder.

Yes, if it sounds like I'm accusing you SDW2001 of political correctness I am. It's not just a liberal affliction. It is just as dumb when we do it. Actually, twice as dumb as conservatives are always whining about it.

Vinea

How can you be so sure that it would "leak just like it did not"?? History shows over and over again that the biggest atrocities of wars are hidden until after the wars are over, if they ever come out at all. SDW2001 is not the only person who thinks the way he is thinking; I'm sure there are many reporters in Iraq that think similarly.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by meelash
How can you be so sure that it would "leak just like it did not"?? History shows over and over again that the biggest atrocities of wars are hidden until after the wars are over, if they ever come out at all. SDW2001 is not the only person who thinks the way he is thinking; I'm sure there are many reporters in Iraq that think similarly.

I never said it shouldn't be reported. I have a problem with Murtha's comments, which came before any investigation. He is not the judge and jury here. His comments were premature, in bad taste and harmful to the image of the United States abroad. Once they're found guilty, he has every right to come and be thankful for their conviction. There was simply no reason to use the kind of rhetoric he did at the time he did so.

[curiousuburb]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I never said it shouldn't be reported. I have a problem with Murtha's comments, which came before any investigation. He is not the judge and jury here. His comments were premature, in bad taste and harmful to the image of the United States abroad.

Holy Blame the Messenger, Batman...

How about WAR CRIMES harming the image of the US abroad. Or attempts to cover them up?

Hadditha will likely displace Abu Ghraib on the top of the list of atrocities committed by the US in Iraq in the name of WMD^Y^Y^Y... er... spreading 'human rights, freedom and democracy and ending the tyranny of SH'. The perception may be "Welcome to US tyranny, instead".

But no, you'd rather shake a finger at the messenger than the alleged murderers... :rolleyes:

Once they're found guilty, he has every right to come and be thankful for their conviction. There was simply no reason to use the kind of rhetoric he did at the time he did so.

The UK media has reported all week that the US Military has been deliberately leaking info to folks like Murtha in order to "prepare the public for the real announcement" by 'softening the shock' of hearing officially that atrocities are still being committed... by folks who allegedly went in to end atrocities in Iraq.

To repeat... info was leaked by the military... intentionally... in the hopes Murtha'd repeat it and prepare people for the official military report.

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Proud to be an American (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm)

In other words: "kill the ragheads for BushCorp"


Not likely to be real. Why do you need to bring racial slurs into this? The left likes to do that for some reason.

[Northgate]

If you're an enlisted soldier then you must be coddled, cajoled, supported, praised and protected at all costs. However, if we get even a sense that you might be a liberal or a Democrat then you absolutely have to STFU.

And if you run for office as anything other than a Republican, well then, you must be destroyed. Your medals must be shat upon. Your heroics mocked by Chickenhawks like Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, Limbaugh.

Patriotism, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party.

Christianity, a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP and the NRCC.

Support the Troops, only if they're registered Republican.

[Aurora]

Just pull out of Iraq and let the islamic Nuts go after each other.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Aurora
Just pull out of Iraq and let the islamic Nuts go after each other.

You mean unlike what's going on now?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Northgate
Support the Troops, only if they're registered Republican.

http://images.littlemeanfish.com/pat_peale.jpg

[Northgate]

I'm still waiting for the conservatives on this board to rail against and demand the resignation and censure of Rep. John Kline who made the following statements:

"I was saddened, surprised and outraged that this could happen," Kline said. He said he thought the incident would be regarded as "a horrific aberration" for the Marines."

"This was not an accident. This was not an immediate response to an attack. This would be an atrocity."

Where's the outrage? Why aren't you guys all over this guy like a cheap suit? Like Murtha, Kline is a retired Marine. What is it about the leaving the Corps that makes you an American hater?

Oh. Wait. Sorry. Kline's a Republican.

I get it.

[southside grabowski]

Stray post

[midwinter]

What the hell did that have to do with anything?

[addabox]

Really. WTF? Is that supposed to be some kind of threat? "What happens when they get out of line"?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by addabox
Really. WTF? Is that supposed to be some kind of threat? "What happens when they get out of line"?

As near as I can tell, Moe is suggesting that protesters are the equivalent of a hand-picked delegate at the Republican National Convention.

[vinea]

Originally posted by meelash
How can you be so sure that it would "leak just like it did not"?? History shows over and over again that the biggest atrocities of wars are hidden until after the wars are over, if they ever come out at all. SDW2001 is not the only person who thinks the way he is thinking; I'm sure there are many reporters in Iraq that think similarly.

Because fundamentally American soldiers are good and don't commit atrocities except when put into scenarios that create the kind of pressure to treat everyone as an enemy. i.e. the kind of scenario that was Vietnam and is Iraq.

Atrocities beget atrocities and more casualties. That's understood and based on history US atrocities have leaked (as far as we know...which goes without saying).

It is a strength of a democracy run by independent thinking folks. Someone will talk and its hard to hide anything. Something the current adminstration and republican party forgets. Dissent is good. Even in wartime.

Vietnam protest driven by selfishness less useful, but IMHO that the same selfish generation in control of the Republican party today. Those that never served or avoided service in a war zone but are more than willing to repeat the same mistakes with other people's children.

Vinea

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by SDW2001
There was simply no reason to use the kind of rhetoric he did at the time he did so.

You are right, it was simply wrong and misleading to call these marines "coldblooded murderers".

As far as I know these marines acted clearly in revenge-mode, which is most of the time, and espescially in this one a pretty hotblooded activity.

Nightcrawler

[vinea]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Not likely to be real. Why do you need to bring racial slurs into this? The left likes to do that for some reason.

Seems real if you read the transcripts. The clip is just out of context and edited to support liberal bias and doesn't show the segment that explains that part of the exhilaration is the knowledge that you are still alive when the other guy was trying to kill you.

And it was aired on CNN contrary to the title of the site.

But as a whole it seems balanced in that it shows the remorse and pain that soldiers feel over the death they cause.

Vinea

[southside grabowski]

Let's hear from the troops themselves. Enough from the hate-the -military leftist media.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/05/the_history_of_.html


http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin053106.php3

http://michellemalkin.com/

[midwinter]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Let's hear from the troops themselves. Enough from the hate-the -military leftist media.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/05/the_history_of_.html


http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin053106.php3

http://michellemalkin.com/
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[southside grabowski]

Did the left miss this one?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197562,00.html

American troops helping people? How can that be? Maybe if you watch close enough one of them will mis handle a Koran

[Aurora]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Did the left miss this one?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197562,00.html

American troops helping people? How can that be? Maybe if you watch close enough one of them will mis handle a Koran What they should be doing is burning every Koran in Iraq. Its the root of their evil.

[addabox]

Shorter Michelle Malkin:

That maybe didn't happen although it probably did, but anyway it doesn't matter because shit happens when good Christian American boys have to deal with murderous ragheads all the live long day, and never forget: liberals hate the troops and love terrorists and really, truly deserve to be lined up and shot.

Even shorter Michelle Malkin:

I so fucking hate fucking liberals so fucking much can't we please round them up now and execute them all for treason those fucking motherfuckers.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by vinea
Because fundamentally American soldiers are good and don't commit atrocities except...

Say.. no... more!

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by addabox
Shorter Michelle Malkin:

That maybe didn't happen although it probably did, but anyway it doesn't matter because shit happens when good Christian American boys have to deal with murderous ragheads all the live long day, and never forget: liberals hate the troops and love terrorists and really, truly deserve to be lined up and shot.

Even shorter Michelle Malkin:

I so fucking hate fucking liberals so fucking much can't we please round them up now and execute them all for treason those fucking motherfuckers.

As usual, the left tells us "what we really meant" complete with ethnic slurs and profanity.

[addabox]

Hi, I'm addabox, AKA "the left". The "we" of Moe and Michelle is best left unexplored.

What part of my take on Malkin do you disagree with?

In the column you linked to she simply says outright that it maybe didn't happen, and if it did whatever concerns we might have are eclipsed by anecdotes regarding admirable American boys who are mightily stressed by fighting terrorists, who could be anyone at all in that godforsaken country. She winds up with the usual "liberals hate America, want us to lose in Iraq and care more for terrorists and despots than Our Brave Boys".

Hell, she's written an entire book to make it very clear that she really really really hates liberals and considers them traitors and terror lovers and is of the opinion that they will stop at nothing to weaken the United States and embolden terrorists and get American soldiers killed, which is, after all, treason, a crime punishable by death. Wait, I don't have to infer that, she just comes out and calls the left "treasonous".

So what am I missing? That when Malkin accuses the better than 60% of the United States that thinks Iraq is a huge mistake of "treason" she doesn't really mean it? Or that she really means it but figures it's enough to call people names, and that the treasonous should go unpunished? Or, as would be logically consistent, she thinks people on the left are committing treason and should therefore be arrested en mass and brought to justice via mass executions?

I'm just taking her at her word. You seem to be the one who wants to "tell us what she means".

[southside grabowski]

Even shorter Michelle Malkin:

I so fucking hate fucking liberals so fucking much can't we please round them up now and execute them all for treason those fucking motherfuckers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's all I objected to. The rest is you interpretation of her and you are more than welcome to it.

[southside grabowski]

Interesting interview with a marine

http://hotair.com/archives/top-picks/2006/05/31/video-marine-hit-by-ied-before-haditha-incident-speaks/

[addabox]

Got you. You find the use of profanity in internet chat forums to be unseemly while being entirely at ease with things like the execution of Iraqi civilians, accusing vast swaths of the population of capital crimes or the beating of anti-war protesters.

It's good to have priorities, I suppose.

Now, then, how is my description of Malkin's words "my interpretation"? I'm interested exactly where you think what I'm saying diverges from what she's saying.

I'm belaboring this somewhat because I think there is a game played by the right wherein a surrogate pundit class routinely says things that are utterly appalling, but when anyone on the left calls them out the conversation immediately turns to the incivility of the left.

Tell me how I'm misinterpreting Michelle Malkin, please. Better yet, tell me what you think she's actually saying. After all, you linked to her, so you must have some thoughts regarding her position.

[southside grabowski]

Malkin's take:

Something happened and folks died

We don't know what happened, yet

Investigation under way

We know area was (is) terrorist hotbed

Be cautious of those convicting the marines before the investigation is complete. There are folks who hate the President and the military so much that will use anything to try to get them. These folks enjoy (thrive on) disaster in Iraq as it is fodder for their case against the President.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by Northgate
I'm still waiting for the conservatives on this board to rail against and demand the resignation and censure of Rep. John Kline who made the following statements:

"I was saddened, surprised and outraged that this could happen," Kline said. He said he thought the incident would be regarded as "a horrific aberration" for the Marines."

"This was not an accident. This was not an immediate response to an attack. This would be an atrocity."

Where's the outrage? Why aren't you guys all over this guy like a cheap suit? Like Murtha, Kline is a retired Marine. What is it about the leaving the Corps that makes you an American hater?

Oh. Wait. Sorry. Kline's a Republican.

I get it.

I find it interesting that no conservative on this board has the balls to address this. Why does a Republican representative get a free pass for saying the same thing as Murtha?

Inconvenient?

[vinea]

Originally posted by Northgate
I find it interesting that no conservative on this board has the balls to address this. Why does a Republican representative get a free pass for saying the same thing as Murtha?

Inconvenient?

No, just the usual hypocrisy. What? Both liberals and conservatives are guilty of it.

Vinea

[vinea]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Did the left miss this one?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197562,00.html

American troops helping people? How can that be? Maybe if you watch close enough one of them will mis handle a Koran

Because we all know one awshucks cancels out a boatload of attaboys. This is why this cannot be mishandled and minimized by our party. We really need to hit it hard and say this is never acceptable and do whatever is required to keep it from happening again. No pussyfooting around, no PC crap about how this isn't murder. Spin will not help us in this scenario. Spin will just make it much much worse.

This kind of reaction is why I think "conservatives" are worse than liberals.

Vinea

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by Aurora
What they should be doing is burning every Koran in Iraq. Its the root of their evil.

No, it's not. I've read the Quran from front to end numerous times, in arabic and different european translations, and it's choke full of goodness.

Even the parts, about 10% of the Quran, that talk about fighting, by the way a historic fight started by polytheists from Mecca (and later joined by some christian and jewish tribes on the side of the polytheists) against prophet Muhammad and his followers in Medina, have the clear goal of goodness, ie. establishing peace, law and order in an already raging war. Similar to the just-war-theory.

To compare today's terrorists with prophet Muhammad and his followers back then in Medina, is a pretty dishonest and easily refuteable demonstration of propaganda.

Nightcrawler

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by vinea
Because we all know one awshucks cancels out a boatload of attaboys. This is why this cannot be mishandled and minimized by our party. We really need to hit it hard and say this is never acceptable and do whatever is required to keep it from happening again. No pussyfooting around, no PC crap about how this isn't murder. Spin will not help us in this scenario. Spin will just make it much much worse.

This kind of reaction is why I think "conservatives" are worse than liberals.

Vinea


After the investigation, action should be taken. Those who did wrong should be brought to justice. The trauma of war is not an excuse . I am also concerned with those on the left sector who hate the President and his Administration so much that they will exploit any hint of wrongdoing or failure by our military to slam the President. These people don't care about marines or iraqis. They celebrate these reports. They celebrate roadside bombings and the death of iraqi folk because it is more fodder in the Bush-hating furnace.

[addabox]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
After the investigation, action should be taken. Those who did wrong should be brought to justice. The trauma of war is not an excuse . I am also concerned with those on the left sector who hate the President and his Administration so much that they will exploit any hint of wrongdoing or failure by our military to slam the President. These people don't care about marines or iraqis. They celebrate these reports. They celebrate roadside bombings and the death of iraqi folk because it is more fodder in the Bush-hating furnace.

Oh, go fuck yourself Moe. You just got finished getting pissy about "the left" telling "us" what we "really mean", and then immediately return to your psychotic bullshit about how the left doesn't care about Marines or Iraqi and celebrates reports of atrocities and the death of American troops and Iraqi citizens.

Why don't you take your head out of your ass and stop mindlessly repeating the grotesque hate mongering you've laboriously sounded out on the whack-job right wing sites that serve as your only contact with the outside world?

You know what "concerns" me? How the right is sexually aroused by slaughter and jerks off to pictures of kids with their limbs blown off. How the right actually hates Jesus and can't stop chuckling over how stupid the rubes are while they're blowing Satan. How the right longs to see all the mud people in shackles, with a chance to buy the hotter women and teach them some manners. How the right only gets so fired up by queers because the right is longing for some hot cock up the right's ass.

What? How do I know all this? Well, I can just kind of tell, plus I read these blogs where they say that a lot and all the people who leave comments think so too and really have a good time congratulating themselves for being disgusted by how depraved the right is.

Or, you could just fucking give it a rest.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by Nightcrawler
No, it's not. I've read the Quran from front to end numerous times, in arabic and different european translations, and it's choke full of goodness.

Even the parts, about 10% of the Quran, that talk about fighting, by the way a historic fight started by polytheists from Mecca (and later joined by some christian and jewish tribes on the side of the polytheists) against prophet Muhammad and his followers in Medina, have the clear goal of goodness, ie. establishing peace, law and order in an already raging war. Similar to the just-war-theory.

To compare today's terrorists with prophet Muhammad and his followers back then in Medina, is a pretty dishonest and easily refuteable demonstration of propaganda.

Nightcrawler What does Islam teach about the infidel? what does it teach about Jihad? Trying to throw a democracy on top of a muslim society is a waste of time unless you really want a theocracy. Islam isnt a tolerant religion by any stretch. Where Islam goes so does Extreme Islam just look at any Muslim country , then we could talk about what Islam teaches about women. Just another warped religion with primitives looking for their 17 virgins and martyrdom.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
After the investigation, action should be taken. Those who did wrong should be brought to justice. The trauma of war is not an excuse . I am also concerned with those on the left sector who hate the President and his Administration so much that they will exploit any hint of wrongdoing or failure by our military to slam the President. These people don't care about marines or iraqis. They celebrate these reports. They celebrate roadside bombings and the death of iraqi folk because it is more fodder in the Bush-hating furnace.

Then why have you continuosly avoided the reality that Republican congressmen are also outraged by these events and have publicly spoken out about it? Particularly Representative Kline.

Or is this some double standard where only "The Left" has an agenda?

Hmmm?

[shetline]

Originally posted by Aurora
What does Islam teach about the infidel? what does it teach about Jihad? Trying to throw a democracy on top of a muslim society is a waste of time unless you really want a theocracy.
What does Christianity teach about stoning your children to death if they're disobedient? What does it teach about slavery? What does it teach about the relationship of wife to husband being like that of husband to God? "Christian" societies can be and have been horrendously intolerant and very incompatible with democracy as well.

There are tolerant Muslims who aren't idiotically wed to inflexible (often supposedly literalistic) interpretations of their religion, and there are Christians and Jews and Hindus, etc, etc, who are. Religion itself isn't the problem -- or rather, religion is often at the root of many problems, but the specific religion hardly matters.

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by Northgate
Then why have you continuosly avoided the reality that Republican congressmen are also outraged by these events and have publicly spoken out about it? Particularly Representative Kline.

Or is this some double standard where only "The Left" has an agenda?

Hmmm?

I haven't commented about any members of Congress with regard to this issue.

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by addabox
Oh, go fuck yourself Moe. You just got finished getting pissy about "the left" telling "us" what we "really mean", and then immediately return to your psychotic bullshit about how the left doesn't care about Marines or Iraqi and celebrates reports of atrocities and the death of American troops and Iraqi citizens.

Why don't you take your head out of your ass and stop mindlessly repeating the grotesque hate mongering you've laboriously sounded out on the whack-job right wing sites that serve as your only contact with the outside world?

You know what "concerns" me? How the right is sexually aroused by slaughter and jerks off to pictures of kids with their limbs blown off. How the right actually hates Jesus and can't stop chuckling over how stupid the rubes are while they're blowing Satan. How the right longs to see all the mud people in shackles, with a chance to buy the hotter women and teach them some manners. How the right only gets so fired up by queers because the right is longing for some hot cock up the right's ass.

What? How do I know all this? Well, I can just kind of tell, plus I read these blogs where they say that a lot and all the people who leave comments think so too and really have a good time congratulating themselves for being disgusted by how depraved the right is.

Or, you could just fucking give it a rest.


I was not referring to all on the left, although my wording may have sounded that way. Should read "a sector of the left"

[Aurora]

Originally posted by shetline
What does Christianity teach about stoning your children to death if they're disobedient? What does it teach about slavery? What does it teach about the relationship of wife to husband being like that of husband to God? "Christian" societies can be and have been horrendously intolerant and very incompatible with democracy as well.

There are tolerant Muslims who aren't idiotically wed to inflexible (often supposedly literalistic) interpretations of their religion, and there are Christians and Jews and Hindus, etc, etc, who are. Religion itself isn't the problem -- or rather, religion is often at the root of many problems, but the specific religion hardly matters. You miss it 100%, Christianity if its really that follows the new testament, Jesus said love God, and each other as yourself. Dont confuse old testament based on the Jewish Bible and New testament of Jesus teachings. Jesus never taught harming anyone period! Islam on the otherhand is worse then the Old testament. By the way I support No religion. They all are mind control wanting your $$$ so in essence they all suck:smokey:

[segovius]

Originally posted by Aurora
What does Islam teach about the infidel? what does it teach about Jihad?

And what do you know about it - oh that's right fuck-all.

Carry on.

:D

[Aurora]

Jihad- a war by Muslims against unbelievers or enemys of Islam carried out as religious duty.

Infidel - a non believer

Those two definitions shows whats wrong with this fanatic thinking. As long as the brainwashing continues everything else is a waste of time. Bush and his team of draft dodging scum must have read Roves spin on these very important definitions. Where Islam goes so does the Jihad.:smokey:

[segovius]

Originally posted by Aurora
Jihad- a war by Muslims against unbelievers or enemys of Islam carried out as religious duty.

Infidel - a non believer

Those two definitions shows whats wrong with this fanatic thinking. As long as the brainwashing continues everything else is a waste of time. Bush and his team of draft dodging scum must have read Roves spin on these very important definitions. Where Islam goes so does the Jihad.:smokey:

Both utterly and laughably wrong. Well, it's not laughable really.

And it's 72 virgins not 17.

Oh and it doesn't exist anywhere in the Qur'an but is a late popular myth based on a mistranslation of an oral tradition.

Like I said: what do you know? But don't let that stop you - I know you won't!

:rolleyes:

[Aurora]

Originally posted by segovius
Both utterly and laughably wrong. Well, it's not laughable really.

And it's 72 virgins not 17.

Oh and it doesn't exist anywhere in the Qur'an but is a late popular myth based on a mistranslation of an oral tradition.

Like I said: what do you know? But don't let that stop you - I know you won't!

:rolleyes: Wrong ? thats funny I pulled both out of the Websters dictionary anyways like i said before religions want your mind & money and its very clear in Iraq that those folks are Islamic. No wonder they all been killing each other for centuries and even Sunni & Shiite both Islamic cant even get together for Iraqs sake. Pull Out with a note if we come back next time we wont be so ...nice.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Aurora
Wrong ? thats funny I pulled both out of the Websters dictionary....

Like I said - just proves you don't know anything about it.

[shetline]

Originally posted by Aurora
You miss it 100%, Christianity if its really that follows the new testament, Jesus said love God, and each other as yourself. Dont confuse old testament based on the Jewish Bible and New testament of Jesus teachings.
The New Testament isn't all sweetness and light, and it doesn't explicitly invalidate all of the OT, only selected parts.

Besides, what would a pissing match over which religion's dogma contains more bile than another matter? You could start a completely fluffy, warm and soft religion filled with parables about Care Bears, Smurfs, and Hello Kitty, yet eventually some person or culture would become convinced that the infidels must die and that masturbation offends Papa Smurf and must be punished by stoning or cutting off any body parts that were involved in the act.

I'd be happier if people would simply jettison religion and be done with it. But it's not going to happen. It takes a whole lot of rationalizing to accept religion in the first place. Fortunately, on the opposite side from intolerance and horror done in the name of religion, it's not all that rare for people to rationalize civility and tolerance out of whatever religious background they come from too.

[Aurora]

I am starting to think it took a Saddam to keep all those muslims under control.:mad:

[dmz]

Aurora, if my limited reading is starting to tell me anything, is that Islam for most of it's history, was much mellower than it is showing itself today. That said, the dhimmi and other 'delightful' practices were there -- so while it was not a panacea -- compared to Europe at the time, it wasn't quite as bad.

There has been a steady decline, though, in the Islamic world. 'They' are now not only buying their spare parts from the West, but now the Far East as well -- cultures that have hot lapped them on the world stage -- things like that are hammering home the state of Islam's decline.

What we are seeing now, is a growing attempt to return to the extreme fundamental basis of Islam -- as a solution to 'their' problem -- and that seems to be coupled with Naziesque Jew-hating rhetoric/paranoia, not to mention about 80-200 years of resentment. Guys like Ahmadinejad are not only behind the eight ball, they have a chip on their shoulder the size of Kansas.

This is going to get worse before it gets better, but what we are seeing, 9/11, etc. is a last-gasp attempt at relevancy.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Northgate
I find it interesting that no conservative on this board has the balls to address this. Why does a Republican representative get a free pass for saying the same thing as Murtha?

Inconvenient?

1) I didn't know about his comments

2) He didn't say anything close to what Murtha did.

"This *would be* an atrocity"

Tell me how that's the same as saying "Marines killed civilians in cold blood"

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
Aurora, if my limited reading is starting to tell me anything, is that Islam for most of it's history, was much mellower than it is showing itself today. That said, the dhimmi and other 'delightful' practices were there -- so while it was not a panacea -- compared to Europe at the time, it wasn't quite as bad.

There has been a steady decline, though, in the Islamic world. 'They' are now not only buying their spare parts from the West, but now the Far East as well -- cultures that have hot lapped them on the world stage -- things like that are hammering home the state of Islam's decline.

What we are seeing now, is a growing attempt to return to the extreme fundamental basis of Islam -- as a solution to 'their' problem -- and that seems to be coupled with Naziesque Jew-hating rhetoric/paranoia, not to mention about 80-200 years of resentment. Guys like Ahmadinejad are not only behind the eight ball, they have a chip on their shoulder the size of Kansas.

This is going to get worse before it gets better, but what we are seeing, 9/11, etc. is a last-gasp attempt at relevancy.

1) Dhimmi: the legal recognition of Jews and Christians conferring the right of practicing their won religion in their own places of worship.

Of course at the time the Jews and 'non orthodox' Christians were being massacred by the tens of thousands throughout Christendom but hey, let's talk about 'dhimmis' - those raghead fascists actually had a word for a status.

Btw - these 'dhimmis' were so oppressed that one of them (a practicing Jew) actually was the general in command of all the Muslim armies of Spain!

2) Ahmadinejad : never said he denied the Holocaust.

Never said he wanted Israel 'wiped of the map' but hey, Memri says he did so that's good enough for the sheep - and it isn;t like we aren't going to massacre thousands of Iranians soon anyway so, doesn't really matter in the big scheme does it?

It's all really exciting - almost like the heady days of the Crusades all over!

Carry on - don't let reality intrude too much - it can really get in the way.

[addabox]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
I was not referring to all on the left, although my wording may have sounded that way. Should read "a sector of the left"

Fair enough. Which sector of the left has declared itself as not caring about marines or the Iraqi people and celebrates road side bombings and the death of civilians?

Conversely, if no sector of the left is saying anything like this in public, or even amongst themselves, how do you know it's what they think?

Are there really angry leftists that shout out intemperate things in the grocery lines, where you are?

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius
1) Dhimmi: the legal recognition of Jews and Christians conferring the right of practicing their won religion in their own places of worship.

Of course at the time the Jews and 'non orthodox' Christians were being massacred by the tens of thousands throughout Christendom but hey, let's talk about 'dhimmis' - those raghead fascists actually had a word for a status.

Btw - these 'dhimmis' were so oppressed that one of them (a practicing Jew) actually was the general in command of all the Muslim armies of Spain!

2) Ahmadinejad : never said he denied the Holocaust.

Never said he wanted Israel 'wiped of the map' but hey, Memri says he did so that's good enough for the sheep - and it isn;t like we aren't going to massacre thousands of Iranians soon anyway so, doesn't really matter in the big scheme does it?

It's all really exciting - almost like the heady days of the Crusades all over!

Carry on - don't let reality intrude too much - it can really get in the way.
You're letting yourself get in the way of understanding what I wrote.

To clarify what I wrote: Essentially the dhimmis had the tax, etc. but they were left alone, hence that phrase "compared to Europe at the time, it wasn't quite as bad."

Secondly, it is irrelevant what Ahmadinejad has said -- he's not crazy/insane/Hitler -- he is locked in a desperate attempt to bring religious/national pride back to his neck of the woods. This business with nuclear weapons probably has more to do with showing off his technical huevos than anything else. The Soviets used to do the same thing.

The point is that he sees 'the problem', and he believes in a 'great leap forward' in both technical prowess and conservative values -- although he is acting as if he's hanging on to both goals by his fingernails.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by SDW2001
1) I didn't know about his comments

2) He didn't say anything close to what Murtha did.

"This *would be* an atrocity"

Tell me how that's the same as saying "Marines killed civilians in cold blood"

Oh, come on! Murtha's said a LOT LESS inflammatory stuff in the past and you guys jumped all over him. So let's not pretend that if Murtha exactly what Kline said you'd be a-okay with it. Please.

[vinea]

Originally posted by SDW2001
1) I didn't know about his comments

2) He didn't say anything close to what Murtha did.

"This *would be* an atrocity"

Tell me how that's the same as saying "Marines killed civilians in cold blood"

Representative John Kline, a Minnesota Republican who is a retired Marine colonel, said that the allegations indicated that "this was not an accident. This was direct fire by marines at civilians." He added, "This was not an immediate response to an attack. This would be an atrocity."

Your context leaves something to be desired. In context there is less (no) doubt in his statements.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/26/world/middleeast/26haditha.html?pagewanted=print

"There is no question that the Marines involved, those doing the shooting, they were busy in lying about it and covering it up -- there is no question about it," Kline said. "But I am confident, as soon as the command learned there might be some truth to this, they started to pursue it vigorously. I don't have any reason now to think there was any foot dragging."

http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-timesmarinesmurder,0,2474454.story?coll=ktla-news-1

He calls them liars to boot.

I will say that I believe at this point that the senior marine leadership did move as quickly as any beauracracy can once they learned what happened. The delay is unfortunate which means the response will need to be much more vocal/harsh and yet still be less effective.

Comments by our conservative talk show hosts (and folks like you) only plays into the hands of those that would portray our country and military as prone to covering up atrocities.

Given that many militaries ARE prone to atrocities its easy for Iraqis and other muslims to believe that ours would be the same. The denounciation should be loud and universal that it is not tolerated by the US.

No pussy footing around or partisan BS. No PC crap about presumed innocence. The Marines don't go for this much damage control if they don't believe something really bad did happen.

Vinea

[segovius]

Just hearing on BBC Radio that a film has come to light that confirms that the Iraqi police story is true.

The film is apparently too gruesome to be shown but confirms that 11 people were killed (as opposed to the 4 claimed by the US) and that they were the victims of a sustained attack rather than being killed by a wall falling on them and in crossfire as also claimed by the military.

Looks like this now is going up a level - seems the US military is taking it seriously too.......

[Aurora]

Vietnam,Iraq,whats the difference. We had idiots killing Americans for their stupid stupid policy in Vietnam. Today we have idiots killing Americans for stupid stupid policy. Its so easy when your not the one driving over those roadside bombs.
I have no idea but it wouldnt surprise me that those Marines were retaliating against a nearby building. Im sure Iraqi's see these things put into the roads all the time and say nothing to those troops. But really who can blame them, how many of their relatives did george bush kill and Saddam had no WMDs? Murtha is right, get the heck out of there. This president & his league of draft dodgers he surrounded with are trying to save face at the cost of billions, and the deaths of thousands. Bush could be tried for crimes against humanity right along Saddam if you think about it.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by SDW2001
1) I didn't know about his comments

2) He didn't say anything close to what Murtha did.

"This *would be* an atrocity"

Tell me how that's the same as saying "Marines killed civilians in cold blood" :rolleyes: :no:

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Northgate
Oh, come on! Murtha's said a LOT LESS inflammatory stuff in the past and you guys jumped all over him. So let's not pretend that if Murtha exactly what Kline said you'd be a-okay with it. Please.

Stick to the point.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Gilsch
:rolleyes: :no:

Nice post.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by vinea
Representative John Kline, a Minnesota Republican who is a retired Marine colonel, said that the allegations indicated that "this was not an accident. This was direct fire by marines at civilians." He added, "This was not an immediate response to an attack. This would be an atrocity."

Your context leaves something to be desired. In context there is less (no) doubt in his statements.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/26/world/middleeast/26haditha.html?pagewanted=print

"There is no question that the Marines involved, those doing the shooting, they were busy in lying about it and covering it up -- there is no question about it," Kline said. "But I am confident, as soon as the command learned there might be some truth to this, they started to pursue it vigorously. I don't have any reason now to think there was any foot dragging."

http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-timesmarinesmurder,0,2474454.story?coll=ktla-news-1

He calls them liars to boot.

I will say that I believe at this point that the senior marine leadership did move as quickly as any beauracracy can once they learned what happened. The delay is unfortunate which means the response will need to be much more vocal/harsh and yet still be less effective.

Comments by our conservative talk show hosts (and folks like you) only plays into the hands of those that would portray our country and military as prone to covering up atrocities.

Given that many militaries ARE prone to atrocities its easy for Iraqis and other muslims to believe that ours would be the same. The denounciation should be loud and universal that it is not tolerated by the US.

No pussy footing around or partisan BS. No PC crap about presumed innocence. The Marines don't go for this much damage control if they don't believe something really bad did happen.

Vinea

Fine...but again...are his comments the same as Murtha? You don't look at them and find them more reasonable?

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Fine...but again...are his comments the same as Murtha? You don't look at them and find them more reasonable? :lol: :no:

[vinea]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Fine...but again...are his comments the same as Murtha? You don't look at them and find them more reasonable?

I dunno, I would say that categorizing the event as an atrocity to be worse than cold blooded murder if possibly more accurate. Atrocity conveys an uglier intent/event than murder IMHO. Add the cover up accusation and its definately stronger.

All it appears at this point is partisanship in a time where there should be unity. You (and other "conservatives") are still trying to score points against Murtha and frankly I could care less about the guy. I think most folks would go along with that sentiment.

If they violated UCMJ Article 118 what should be suitable "justice"? I notice all the "hard on crime" conservatives talking heads are steadfastly ignoring that ugly question. Ugly and hard question it is too.

Vinea

[segovius]

Just to get this straight in my own head:

So there are two massacres now - neither 'cold blooded murder' both the fault of 'other people' or even the victims.

The first , the murder of the 24 civilians at Haditha.

The second - to which the new film relates - is the slaughter of 11 people including women and children at Ishaqi where the family were herded into a room and summarily executed.

I've given up any hope of outrage or condemnation of such incidents from wingers - of course they probably feel none for whatever reason (and I don't want to know why) but still, a study of their justifications is always interesting. One should know one's enemy - especially when things have gone past the point of being salvaged and the gloves will eventually need to come off.

So in the light of that - let's put this in the spotlight to hear the obfuscations re the BBC discovers film confirming massacre (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5039714.stm):

The video pictures obtained by the BBC appear to contradict the US account of the events in Ishaqi, about 100km (60 miles) north of Baghdad, on 15 March 2006.

The US authorities said they were involved in a firefight after a tip-off that an al-Qaeda supporter was visiting the house.

According to the Americans, the building collapsed under heavy fire killing four people - a suspect, two women and a child.

But a report filed by Iraqi police accused US troops of rounding up and deliberately shooting 11 people in the house, including five children and four women, before blowing up the building.

The video tape obtained by the BBC shows a number of dead adults and children at the site with what our world affairs editor John Simpson says were clearly gunshot wounds.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by Aurora
You miss it 100%, Christianity if its really that follows the new testament, Jesus said love God, and each other as yourself. Dont confuse old testament based on the Jewish Bible and New testament of Jesus teachings. Jesus never taught harming anyone period! Islam on the otherhand is worse then the Old testament. By the way I support No religion. They all are mind control wanting your $$$ so in essence they all suck:smokey:

You are comparing apples with oranges. You can't compare Islam with the old testament. One is a religion, the other is a holy book.

If you want to compare something, then you have to compare the Quran with the old and new testament.

The religions themselves, christianity and islam, were most of the time both much more violent and definitely on another road than their respective holy books called its readers to follow.

That shouldn't be a surprise, religions, ie. religious doctrines, practice... were always a compromise between the scriptures and political realities as well as fallible humans.

Given that both religions have and had its problems, the compromise christianity had reached during its heyday was much worse than the one islam had reached in its heyday, regarding everything from women's rights, to human's rights, to the treatment of other religions...

Nightcrawler

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by Aurora
What does Islam teach about the infidel? what does it teach about Jihad? Trying to throw a democracy on top of a muslim society is a waste of time unless you really want a theocracy. Islam isnt a tolerant religion by any stretch. Where Islam goes so does Extreme Islam just look at any Muslim country , then we could talk about what Islam teaches about women. Just another warped religion with primitives looking for their 17 virgins and martyrdom.

Does this warped nonesense even deserve a coherent reply?

If you want to talk about extremistic Islamism, fine, but you wouldn't like the surprises.

What I'm getting at though, is that the Quran is not = Islam, and Islam is not = Islamism, and Islamism is not = extreme Islamism...

Current, orthodox sunni Islam is loosely based upon a doctrine created about 300 years after prophet Muhammad died by four legal scholars that wanted to legislate a definitive law-system for the islamic empire, and that took as inspiration the Quran but more important and more often, the Hadith-collections, that recorded about 200 years after the prophet died, what he supposedly said, ie, his sayings that are not part of the Quran.

The Hadith-collections were written down after scanning hundreds of thousands supposed sayings, that were supposedly transferred orally from generation to generation, starting ideally with one of the companions of the prophet who supposedly witnessed the saying and memorised it...

Naturally these hadiths contradicted not only with the Quran, but also with each other often enough, but as long as the witness-chain of oral transferration was complete and none of the witnesses in the chain was known as being a liar or an apostate, the sayings were accepted as genuine and of nearly equal worth as the Quran.

Personally I view the Hadith-collections as fairy-tales at best, at worst as political instruments to impose a certain interpretation and point of view, but still the sharia-law-system was developed based mostly upon these Hadiths and superficially on the Quran.

But that is all beside the topics that are really interesting: What does the Quran say about infidels, and what is jihad all about?

Interesting enough and counter to many translations, "kufar" doesn't translate as neither infidel nor unbeliever, in the sense of an atheist, but as an polytheist who believed in God, but who also believed that He has partner-deities to worship beside him, and actively denied the prophet's message while the prophet was directly and face-on recitating the message of monotheism, and who then became hostile against the monotheistic messenger and his message and its followers and started to polemise against the prophet and his followers, to discriminate them, to oppress them and at the end to fight and kill them.

And everything only because the "kufar" didn't want to adhere to the message of not killing, not stealing, not adultering, and practicing charity, mercy and love.. that is strongly interwoven with the monotheistic message.

And now we come fittingly to the second very important term, namely jihad: Prophet Muhammad and his followers were called by God to perform jihad, ie. to struggle on the path of God against all odds, ie. to preach monotheism to the polytheists, to call for and practice themselves charity, love, mercifulness, to help the weak and poor and to warn before judgment day... eventhough the polytheists would redicule them, offend them, oppress them and terrorise them..

Jihad is the ultimate expression of loving the next like yourself, and generally non-violent. But when the polytheists weren't just content with normal harrassment, oppression and terror, but called for a complete war to kill the prophet and his followers and by this trying to eradicate the monotheistic message from Arabia, the jihad became a defensive war, a just war to establish peace, law and order in an already started war.

And this violent form of the jihad was equally an expression of loving the next like yourself, by ending a war, stopping the warmongerers and saving lifes of others, even if it meant to lay down the own life for helping to save many other lifes.

Nightcrawler

[segovius]

Originally posted by Nightcrawler
You are comparing apples with oranges. You can't compare Islam with the old testament. One is a religion, the other is a holy book.

If you want to compare something, then you have to compare the Quran with the old and new testament.

The religions themselves, christianity and islam, were most of the time both much more violent and definitely on another road than their respective holy books called its readers to follow.

That shouldn't be a surprise, religions, ie. religious doctrines, practice... were always a compromise between the scriptures and political realities as well as fallible humans.

Given that both religions have and had its problems, the compromise christianity had reached during its heyday was much worse than the one islam had reached in its heyday, regarding everything from women's rights, to human's rights, to the treatment of other religions...

Nightcrawler

Let me get this straight:

Christianity explicitly prohibits killing.
'The West' nominally espouses Christian values.
'The West' accepts the need for mass killing in war although always 'regretfully as a last resort'.

Islam accepts war may be necessary and you can kill to defend yourself.
Muslims accept this and act accordingly.
So that makes them 'hypocritical evil bastards who must be dealt with violently because of this by Christians who believe in peace'.

Right. Got it.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Nightcrawler
Does this warped nonesense even deserve a coherent reply?

Gee, let me think.....

Err.....no.

:rolleyes:

[southside grabowski]

http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/02/tuning-out-henninger-on-haditha-and-the-anti-war-left/



Allahpundit continues to watch these developing stories.

[segovius]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/02/tuning-out-henninger-on-haditha-and-the-anti-war-left/

Allahpundit continues to watch these developing stories.

Yeah good thing he's 'watching' - it's just a pity his eyesight is slightly less effective than than that of a bat in a coma wearing shades in a very dark subterrenean cavern.

On the other side of a black whole at the outer reaches of the universe.

Still - probably seem like Einstein peering through Hubble to his readers.

[sammi jo]

But wait...there's more (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5039420.stm)

Ghastly as it might be, it's routine stuff in warfare. But don't blame the troops, who sees everyone there as a potential enemy; blame the mainstream weasel-media and the corrupt politicians/corporate executives who sent them there.

[segovius]

Originally posted by sammi jo
But wait...there's more (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5039420.stm)

Ghastly as it might be, it's routine stuff in warfare. But don't blame the troops, who sees everyone there as a potential enemy; blame the mainstream weasel-media and the corrupt politicians/corporate executives who sent them there.

And 'anti-war lefties' - blame them a bit too.....

[shetline]

It's a good thing we don't have to worry about Christians, especially in our enlightened democracy, thinking like those murderous, infidel-killing Muslims. (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/29/195855/959)

Praise Jeebus and pass the ammo! Yeehah!

[segovius]

Originally posted by shetline
It's a good thing we don't have to worry about Christians, especially in our enlightened democracy, thinking like those murderous, infidel-killing Muslims. (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/29/195855/959)

Praise Jeebus and pass the ammo! Yeehah!

Hey! It's Luce and the Teen Maniacs again!

:wow:

[southside grabowski]

Stray Post

[vinea]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
The biggest mistake here was our initial soft approach. Those towns known to be hot beds for SH supporters and terrorists should have been heavilly bombed very early on (completely bombed out). We let the war become an urban door to door war and that has doomed us to situations like those under discussion here. We should be buldozing charred rubble in these towns, not looking door to door for terrorists.

Yah, ruthlessness worked great for the Russians in Afghanistan...oh wait...

Vinea

[southside grabowski]

The troops are being cleared of some of this.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060602/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_us_troops_clearedThe investigation concluded that the U.S. troops followed normal procedures in raising the level of force as they came under attack upon approaching a building where they believed an al-Qaida terrorist was hiding, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the results had not been publicly released.

The Army's Criminal Investigation Division reviewed the results of the investigation and found no reason to probe further, the officials said.

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by vinea
Yah, ruthlessness worked great for the Russians in Afghanistan...oh wait...

Vinea


Different landscape. In Iraq, we have fought with our hands behind our backs.

[addabox]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
The biggest mistake here was our initial soft approach. Those towns known to be hot beds for SH supporters and terrorists should have been heavilly bombed very early on (completely bombed out). We let the war become an urban door to door war and that has doomed us to situations like those under discussion here. We should be buldozing charred rubble in these towns, not looking door to door for terrorists.

Since you seem to have moved on, I'll ask again: which sector of the left has declared itself as not caring about marines or the Iraqi people and celebrates