When are the liberals (for lack of a better word) going to realize that Radical Islamists do not give a rat's ass whether there is a democrat or a republican in office.
They are anti-West ? that includes liberalism itself.
Radical Islamic ideals are diametrically opposed to Western Liberal ideals.
You are sheep taking the side of the wolf.
It's not that liberals are "pro-terrorist". Don't play that game.
But they are just so forgiving of anyone anti-Bush/Republican it defies logic.
I think it's your brutal dismissal of civilian casualties and hostages' lives that bothered him. I'm just guessing but I assume if they took some American soldiers or "civilian contractors" hostage (in a Mosque or anywhere else) you wouldn't be advocating killing everyone in sight.
When are the liberals (for lack of a better word) going to realize that Radical Islamists do not give a rat's ass whether there is a democrat or a republican in office.
They are anti-West ? that includes liberalism itself.
Radical Islamic ideals are diametrically opposed to Western Liberal ideals.
You are sheep taking the side of the wolf.
It's not that liberals are "pro-terrorist". Don't play that game.
But they are just so forgiving of anyone anti-Bush/Republican it defies logic.
I am not forgiving of anything. I am trying to be realistic about the actual situation in Iraq, as opposed to pointless rah-rah about liberty and terrorism and the grand battle of the east and west.
The fact remains that we invaded this county for a set of reasons that are now entirely discredited, have found ourselves in an increasingly untenable position, and don't seem to have any fresh ideas about what to do.
Declaring whole chunks of the Iraqi population combatants in a historical battle of ideologies achieves what, exactly? The framework within which to level the country? How did we get from the "war on terrorism" to kicking the ass of Iraqis pissed about being occupied?
Which begs the question, what the hell are we doing there?
It's not that liberals are "pro-terrorist". Don't play that game.
But they are just so forgiving of anyone anti-Bush/Republican it defies logic.
Quote:
They are USING you, liberals and the press, as their weapons. They want YOU to protest over the civilian loss of life that they are allowing/causing to happen. They want YOU to oust Bush and have the troops leave, but only after they have forced the U.S. to shoot into mosques and after the insurgents have blown up civilians using suicide mobs and car bombs.
Oh, right, the liberals aren't pro terrorist, they're the willing dupes of terrorists.
If the Iraqi insurgents want to fight a war out in the desert between our troops and their troops, safely away from mosques and civilians then let's do it.
But, being the cowards that they are, they intentionally "melted away" and put up (again) nearly no actual military resistance on the battlefield, instead choosing to fight in the cities and mosques amongst the civilians, dressed as civilians.
They are USING you, liberals and the press, as their weapons. They want YOU to protest over the civilian loss of life that they are allowing/causing to happen. They want YOU to oust Bush and have the troops leave, but only after they have forced the U.S. to shoot into mosques and after the insurgents have blown up civilians using suicide mobs and car bombs.
Their tactic is to cause outrage!
The U.S. wants a fair fight and they not getting it! The onus is on the Iraqi militants to not hide amongst civilians and mosques.
"If the Iraqi insurgents want to fight a war out in the desert between our troops and their troops, safely away from mosques and civilians then let's do it."
...shit, never laughed and felt disgusted by something stated here until now...
"Their tactic is to cause outrage!"
...of course...
"The U.S. wants a fair fight and they not getting it!"
...really, has anyone here heard such bullsh!t in your life? Well, from scott (visably absent here) and he acheives that in one sentence.
Your brain has become so deformed the words that come from your pie-hole are alphabet soup vomit.
There IS no "fair" war, period. The people that were at the mosque were at afternoon prayers (seeking refuge...these ARE frightened disillusioned people). The Iraqi insurgents are playing it the way they know is to their advantage (sickening as it is). But if you toss 500lb bombs around a small and congested urban evironment...this horror happens.
We are playing checkers while they play chess. You and the soldiers are being USED.
A real stalemate could hamper this even more. Like having some of our soldiers captured...ooops!
If the Iraqi insurgents want to fight a war out in the desert between our troops and their troops, safely away from mosques and civilians then let's do it.
But, being the cowards that they are, they intentionally "melted away" and put up (again) nearly no actual military resistance on the battlefield, instead choosing to fight in the cities and mosques amongst the civilians, dressed as civilians.
...
The U.S. wants a fair fight and they not getting it! The onus is on the Iraqi militants to not hide amongst civilians and mosques.
So you want them to engage US forces out in the open, in uniform.
Personally, I think French/Polish/whatever resistance during WWII were cowards, since they did not gather on a plain somewhere and slug it out in the open against a German armor division. Now *that* would have been fair. But no, the spineless pussies chose to engage in that "guerrilla warfare" thing, and the Germans were denied the victory they surely deserved because.. well, actually no one ever figured out why the Germans deserved the right to boss others around.
"US Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt said US forces dropped two 227kg (500-pound) bombs and fired rockets at the wall of the Abdul-Aziz al-Samarrai mosque in Falluja.
"My understanding is that we went after one set of insurgents that were hiding behind the outer wall of a mosque, not the mosque itself," he told CNN television from Baghdad.
The US Marine colonel said Sunni insurgents had been using the site to fire on US forces with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades.
"If they use the mosque as a military machine, then it's no longer a house of worship and we strike," said Lt Col Brennan Byrne.
But he later told the AFP news agency that despite reporting up to 40 insurgents killed, US forces did not find any bodies inside the mosque compound.
"When we hit that building I thought we had killed all the bad guys, but when we went in they didn't find any bad guys in the building," Col Byrne said.
He speculated that the insurgents had either escaped before the bomb attack, or that Iraqis had taken away the dead bodies in the 30-40 minutes before Marines entered the bombed area."
I was watching that chick Vester(sp?)on Fox today when she was "interviewing" a military guy and his sidekick from Iraq and she actually accused the "other news channels" of being "alarmists" and using "hyperbole" in their coverage of the fighting in Iraq. I kid you not.
It was like watching an infomercial. The military guy wasn't about to minimize the seriousness of it all and just replied by saying the situation was indeed serious.
So you want them to engage US forces out in the open, in uniform.
Personally, I think French/Polish/whatever resistance during WWII were cowards, since they did not gather on a plain somewhere and slug it out in the open against a German armor division. Now *that* would have been fair. But no, the spineless pussies chose to engage in that "guerrilla warfare" thing, and the Germans were denied the victory they surely deserved because.. well, actually no one ever figured out why the Germans deserved the right to boss others around.
So I think we're on the same page here...
Tsk tsk, Gon,
You are using up all your "so-and-so-country are the new Nazis" rhetoric too quickly. Keep some stored away for when there is an actual country that wants to invade it's neighbors for permanent occupation and commit a proper genocide. You folks tend to use genocide too lightly too. Careful. It tends to desensitize people if you use such words lightly. Colonialism, imperialism...the exaggerations go on and on.
But it will be a cry wolf situation of you abuse it.
You are using up all your "so-and-so-country are the new Nazis" rhetoric too quickly. Keep some stored away for when there is an actual country that wants to invade it's neighbors for permanent occupation and commit a proper genocide. You folks tend to use genocide too lightly too. Careful. It tends to desensitize people if you use such words lightly. Colonialism, imperialism...the exaggerations go on and on.
But it will be a cry wolf situation of you abuse it.
I wasn't making a nazi comparison there. Don't put words into my mouth.
What I wrote was just a historical analogy that most people here are familiar with, and that shows how friggin' ridiculous it is to demand that any sort of resistance, however "right" or "wrong" they may be, fight in the open. That's it. Ideologies be damned.
I think it's your brutal dismissal of civilian casualties and hostages' lives that bothered him. I'm just guessing but I assume if they took some American soldiers or "civilian contractors" hostage (in a Mosque or anywhere else) you wouldn't be advocating killing everyone in sight.
I could be wrong though.
It's not much use talking to you folks about it since if I am specific and speak colloqially, in human terms, it will be called callous and insensitive, yet if I use elevated, abstract or technical terms I will just be flamed as another Bush DoD drone.
That these combatants are intentionally dressing like civilians and intentionally hiding in civilian structures is not the fault of the U.S. military.
Speaking generally (regardless of the details of today's incident), the U.S. military should stop only if it is clear that there are many innocent civilians at risk and only if the forces are not being fired upon.
If U.S. forces are fired upon it is self-defense to put an end to the fire regardless of what building it is coming from. If you are a civilian near them you might die, that is a cold hard fact, with no glee on my part. This includes your "American soldiers/civilian contractors-as hostage" example.
Radical Islam is a political ideology abusing religion as a motivating force. As such, it is not impossible for a religious structure to be abused as a headquarters or hideout or shield by armed militants. Firing from within or in front of a holy place puts innocent civilians, the militants, the holy place, the U.S. soldiers at risk.
If you can fire from within a structure then that structure is at risk of being destroyed.
I said that AND I also say Bush lied about the reasons to start the war, I want the Iraq war to end, I want the U.S. to focus on Al Qaeda, I want Bush to be another 1 termer, I am glad Saddam was ousted, I am glad Iraq has a new constitution and I hope that peace can come of all this crap.
I wasn't making a nazi comparison there. Don't put words into my mouth.
What I wrote was just a historical analogy that most people here are familiar with, and that shows how friggin' ridiculous it is to demand that any sort of resistance, however "right" or "wrong" they may be, fight in the open. That's it. Ideologies be damned.
Your analogy clearly places Radical Islamists as the sympathetic protagonists and implies the Americans are the Nazis.
That these combatants are intentionally dressing like civilians and intentionally hiding in civilian structures is not the fault of the U.S. military.
They send their apologies to you for not conforming to the 'rules'. They also said to mention that they couldn't afford the bright orange jumpsuits that you'd prefer to see them fighting in.
It's not much use talking to you folks about it since if I am specific and speak colloqially, in human terms, it will be called callous and insensitive, yet if I use elevated, abstract or technical terms I will just be flamed as another Bush DoD drone.
That these combatants are intentionally dressing like civilians and intentionally hiding in civilian structures is not the fault of the U.S. military.
Speaking generally (regardless of the details of today's incident), the U.S. military should stop only if it is clear that there are many innocent civilians at risk and only if the forces are not being fired upon.
If U.S. forces are fired upon it is self-defense to put an end to the fire regardless of what building it is coming from. If you are a civilian near them you might die, that is a cold hard fact, with no glee on my part. This includes your "American soldiers/civilian contractors-as hostage" example.
Radical Islam is a political ideology abusing religion as a motivating force. As such, it is not impossible for a religious structure to be abused as a headquarters or hideout or shield by armed militants. Firing from within or in front of a holy place puts innocent civilians, the militants, the holy place, the U.S. soldiers at risk.
If you can fire from within a structure then that structure is at risk of being destroyed.
I said that AND I also say Bush lied about the reasons to start the war, I want the Iraq war to end, I want the U.S. to focus on Al Qaeda, I want Bush to be another 1 termer, I am glad Saddam was ousted, I am glad Iraq has a new constitution and I hope that peace can come of all this crap.
Oooohhh what a callous nazi of me.
Nobody has accused you of being a Nazi. No one has bandied about "genocide" as per your earlier post.
"Radical Islam" as a sweeping justification for disproportionate military response doesn't cut it.
"That these combatants are intentionally dressing like civilians ..." is the whole crux of the matter. How do you know they aren't civilians? Because in this narrative, any Iraqi who takes up arms against an occupying army is an "enemy combatant".
Thus are the objects of our mercy converted to targets.
Comments
They are anti-West ? that includes liberalism itself.
Radical Islamic ideals are diametrically opposed to Western Liberal ideals.
You are sheep taking the side of the wolf.
It's not that liberals are "pro-terrorist". Don't play that game.
But they are just so forgiving of anyone anti-Bush/Republican it defies logic.
Originally posted by johnq
I make you vomit?
I think it's your brutal dismissal of civilian casualties and hostages' lives that bothered him. I'm just guessing but I assume if they took some American soldiers or "civilian contractors" hostage (in a Mosque or anywhere else) you wouldn't be advocating killing everyone in sight.
I could be wrong though.
Originally posted by johnq
When are the liberals (for lack of a better word) going to realize that Radical Islamists do not give a rat's ass whether there is a democrat or a republican in office.
They are anti-West ? that includes liberalism itself.
Radical Islamic ideals are diametrically opposed to Western Liberal ideals.
You are sheep taking the side of the wolf.
It's not that liberals are "pro-terrorist". Don't play that game.
But they are just so forgiving of anyone anti-Bush/Republican it defies logic.
I am not forgiving of anything. I am trying to be realistic about the actual situation in Iraq, as opposed to pointless rah-rah about liberty and terrorism and the grand battle of the east and west.
The fact remains that we invaded this county for a set of reasons that are now entirely discredited, have found ourselves in an increasingly untenable position, and don't seem to have any fresh ideas about what to do.
Declaring whole chunks of the Iraqi population combatants in a historical battle of ideologies achieves what, exactly? The framework within which to level the country? How did we get from the "war on terrorism" to kicking the ass of Iraqis pissed about being occupied?
Which begs the question, what the hell are we doing there?
Originally posted by johnq
You are sheep taking the side of the wolf.
It's not that liberals are "pro-terrorist". Don't play that game.
But they are just so forgiving of anyone anti-Bush/Republican it defies logic.
They are USING you, liberals and the press, as their weapons. They want YOU to protest over the civilian loss of life that they are allowing/causing to happen. They want YOU to oust Bush and have the troops leave, but only after they have forced the U.S. to shoot into mosques and after the insurgents have blown up civilians using suicide mobs and car bombs.
Oh, right, the liberals aren't pro terrorist, they're the willing dupes of terrorists.
Sorry.
Originally posted by johnq
The U.S. wants a fair fight and they not getting it!
A fair fight? No insurgent / rebel / terrorist / freedom fighter is going to engage a superior force in a 'fair fight.'
Originally posted by johnq
If the Iraqi insurgents want to fight a war out in the desert between our troops and their troops, safely away from mosques and civilians then let's do it.
But, being the cowards that they are, they intentionally "melted away" and put up (again) nearly no actual military resistance on the battlefield, instead choosing to fight in the cities and mosques amongst the civilians, dressed as civilians.
They are USING you, liberals and the press, as their weapons. They want YOU to protest over the civilian loss of life that they are allowing/causing to happen. They want YOU to oust Bush and have the troops leave, but only after they have forced the U.S. to shoot into mosques and after the insurgents have blown up civilians using suicide mobs and car bombs.
Their tactic is to cause outrage!
The U.S. wants a fair fight and they not getting it! The onus is on the Iraqi militants to not hide amongst civilians and mosques.
"If the Iraqi insurgents want to fight a war out in the desert between our troops and their troops, safely away from mosques and civilians then let's do it."
...shit, never laughed and felt disgusted by something stated here until now...
"Their tactic is to cause outrage!"
...of course...
"The U.S. wants a fair fight and they not getting it!"
...really, has anyone here heard such bullsh!t in your life? Well, from scott (visably absent here) and he acheives that in one sentence.
Your brain has become so deformed the words that come from your pie-hole are alphabet soup vomit.
There IS no "fair" war, period. The people that were at the mosque were at afternoon prayers (seeking refuge...these ARE frightened disillusioned people). The Iraqi insurgents are playing it the way they know is to their advantage (sickening as it is). But if you toss 500lb bombs around a small and congested urban evironment...this horror happens.
We are playing checkers while they play chess. You and the soldiers are being USED.
A real stalemate could hamper this even more. Like having some of our soldiers captured...ooops!
sorry for the spelling my hands are shaking.
Originally posted by johnq
If the Iraqi insurgents want to fight a war out in the desert between our troops and their troops, safely away from mosques and civilians then let's do it.
But, being the cowards that they are, they intentionally "melted away" and put up (again) nearly no actual military resistance on the battlefield, instead choosing to fight in the cities and mosques amongst the civilians, dressed as civilians.
...
The U.S. wants a fair fight and they not getting it! The onus is on the Iraqi militants to not hide amongst civilians and mosques.
So you want them to engage US forces out in the open, in uniform.
Personally, I think French/Polish/whatever resistance during WWII were cowards, since they did not gather on a plain somewhere and slug it out in the open against a German armor division. Now *that* would have been fair. But no, the spineless pussies chose to engage in that "guerrilla warfare" thing, and the Germans were denied the victory they surely deserved because.. well, actually no one ever figured out why the Germans deserved the right to boss others around.
So I think we're on the same page here...
"US Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt said US forces dropped two 227kg (500-pound) bombs and fired rockets at the wall of the Abdul-Aziz al-Samarrai mosque in Falluja.
"My understanding is that we went after one set of insurgents that were hiding behind the outer wall of a mosque, not the mosque itself," he told CNN television from Baghdad.
The US Marine colonel said Sunni insurgents had been using the site to fire on US forces with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades.
"If they use the mosque as a military machine, then it's no longer a house of worship and we strike," said Lt Col Brennan Byrne.
But he later told the AFP news agency that despite reporting up to 40 insurgents killed, US forces did not find any bodies inside the mosque compound.
"When we hit that building I thought we had killed all the bad guys, but when we went in they didn't find any bad guys in the building," Col Byrne said.
He speculated that the insurgents had either escaped before the bomb attack, or that Iraqis had taken away the dead bodies in the 30-40 minutes before Marines entered the bombed area."
"bad guys"
Are we done presuming I am pro-Bush, pro-war yet?
I can all at the same time be anti-Bush and anti-Iraqi insurgents using civilians as shields, hiding in mosques.
Whatever. You only want to hear from the fellow converts and 100% adherence to your view is mandatory or else be quiet, right?
endless...
Originally posted by Scott
Boy you armchair generals are in rare form today. We're looking at the last battle of Iraq and everyone?s panties are in a bunch over it.
Thanks for joining in scott. I missed your condensed soup version of bullsh!t.
It was like watching an infomercial. The military guy wasn't about to minimize the seriousness of it all and just replied by saying the situation was indeed serious.
Originally posted by johnq
Okay folks.
Are we done presuming I am pro-Bush, pro-war yet?
I can all at the same time be anti-Bush and anti-Iraqi insurgents using civilians as shields, hiding in mosques.
Whatever. You only want to hear from the fellow converts and 100% adherence to your view is mandatory or else be quiet, right?
endless...
Just read what you type. All opinions matter. Apologies for the rant. But for what you wrote you deserved it.
I'm Pro-Humanity. Still waiting for that.
Originally posted by Scott
Boy you armchair generals are in rare form today. We're looking at the last battle of Iraq and everyone?s panties are in a bunch over it.
Ok Scott...go out on a limb. When is this "last battle" going to be over?
Originally posted by Gon
So you want them to engage US forces out in the open, in uniform.
Personally, I think French/Polish/whatever resistance during WWII were cowards, since they did not gather on a plain somewhere and slug it out in the open against a German armor division. Now *that* would have been fair. But no, the spineless pussies chose to engage in that "guerrilla warfare" thing, and the Germans were denied the victory they surely deserved because.. well, actually no one ever figured out why the Germans deserved the right to boss others around.
So I think we're on the same page here...
Tsk tsk, Gon,
You are using up all your "so-and-so-country are the new Nazis" rhetoric too quickly. Keep some stored away for when there is an actual country that wants to invade it's neighbors for permanent occupation and commit a proper genocide. You folks tend to use genocide too lightly too. Careful. It tends to desensitize people if you use such words lightly. Colonialism, imperialism...the exaggerations go on and on.
But it will be a cry wolf situation of you abuse it.
Originally posted by johnq
Tsk tsk, Gon,
You are using up all your "so-and-so-country are the new Nazis" rhetoric too quickly. Keep some stored away for when there is an actual country that wants to invade it's neighbors for permanent occupation and commit a proper genocide. You folks tend to use genocide too lightly too. Careful. It tends to desensitize people if you use such words lightly. Colonialism, imperialism...the exaggerations go on and on.
But it will be a cry wolf situation of you abuse it.
I wasn't making a nazi comparison there. Don't put words into my mouth.
What I wrote was just a historical analogy that most people here are familiar with, and that shows how friggin' ridiculous it is to demand that any sort of resistance, however "right" or "wrong" they may be, fight in the open. That's it. Ideologies be damned.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I think it's your brutal dismissal of civilian casualties and hostages' lives that bothered him. I'm just guessing but I assume if they took some American soldiers or "civilian contractors" hostage (in a Mosque or anywhere else) you wouldn't be advocating killing everyone in sight.
I could be wrong though.
It's not much use talking to you folks about it since if I am specific and speak colloqially, in human terms, it will be called callous and insensitive, yet if I use elevated, abstract or technical terms I will just be flamed as another Bush DoD drone.
That these combatants are intentionally dressing like civilians and intentionally hiding in civilian structures is not the fault of the U.S. military.
Speaking generally (regardless of the details of today's incident), the U.S. military should stop only if it is clear that there are many innocent civilians at risk and only if the forces are not being fired upon.
If U.S. forces are fired upon it is self-defense to put an end to the fire regardless of what building it is coming from. If you are a civilian near them you might die, that is a cold hard fact, with no glee on my part. This includes your "American soldiers/civilian contractors-as hostage" example.
Radical Islam is a political ideology abusing religion as a motivating force. As such, it is not impossible for a religious structure to be abused as a headquarters or hideout or shield by armed militants. Firing from within or in front of a holy place puts innocent civilians, the militants, the holy place, the U.S. soldiers at risk.
If you can fire from within a structure then that structure is at risk of being destroyed.
I said that AND I also say Bush lied about the reasons to start the war, I want the Iraq war to end, I want the U.S. to focus on Al Qaeda, I want Bush to be another 1 termer, I am glad Saddam was ousted, I am glad Iraq has a new constitution and I hope that peace can come of all this crap.
Oooohhh what a callous nazi of me.
Originally posted by Gon
I wasn't making a nazi comparison there. Don't put words into my mouth.
What I wrote was just a historical analogy that most people here are familiar with, and that shows how friggin' ridiculous it is to demand that any sort of resistance, however "right" or "wrong" they may be, fight in the open. That's it. Ideologies be damned.
Your analogy clearly places Radical Islamists as the sympathetic protagonists and implies the Americans are the Nazis.
Be coy but don't be coy about being coy.
But I will hesitantly take your word for it.
Originally posted by johnq
That these combatants are intentionally dressing like civilians and intentionally hiding in civilian structures is not the fault of the U.S. military.
They send their apologies to you for not conforming to the 'rules'. They also said to mention that they couldn't afford the bright orange jumpsuits that you'd prefer to see them fighting in.
Originally posted by johnq
It's not much use talking to you folks about it since if I am specific and speak colloqially, in human terms, it will be called callous and insensitive, yet if I use elevated, abstract or technical terms I will just be flamed as another Bush DoD drone.
That these combatants are intentionally dressing like civilians and intentionally hiding in civilian structures is not the fault of the U.S. military.
Speaking generally (regardless of the details of today's incident), the U.S. military should stop only if it is clear that there are many innocent civilians at risk and only if the forces are not being fired upon.
If U.S. forces are fired upon it is self-defense to put an end to the fire regardless of what building it is coming from. If you are a civilian near them you might die, that is a cold hard fact, with no glee on my part. This includes your "American soldiers/civilian contractors-as hostage" example.
Radical Islam is a political ideology abusing religion as a motivating force. As such, it is not impossible for a religious structure to be abused as a headquarters or hideout or shield by armed militants. Firing from within or in front of a holy place puts innocent civilians, the militants, the holy place, the U.S. soldiers at risk.
If you can fire from within a structure then that structure is at risk of being destroyed.
I said that AND I also say Bush lied about the reasons to start the war, I want the Iraq war to end, I want the U.S. to focus on Al Qaeda, I want Bush to be another 1 termer, I am glad Saddam was ousted, I am glad Iraq has a new constitution and I hope that peace can come of all this crap.
Oooohhh what a callous nazi of me.
Nobody has accused you of being a Nazi. No one has bandied about "genocide" as per your earlier post.
"Radical Islam" as a sweeping justification for disproportionate military response doesn't cut it.
"That these combatants are intentionally dressing like civilians ..." is the whole crux of the matter. How do you know they aren't civilians? Because in this narrative, any Iraqi who takes up arms against an occupying army is an "enemy combatant".
Thus are the objects of our mercy converted to targets.