Either he's cold or naked. Those are the obvious reasons he would be wrapped in a blanket. Oh and because a US soldier shot him through the heart.
I am sorry, i did not notice the red white and blue bullit wound. nor did i notice the time date stamp which states when and where and which conflict that this blanket wrapping occured\
the human machine by design well get emotional and loose his temper in all stressful situations. a soldier is not beyond this. if the UN had been united againt a Irac then it is quite possible that we would not be at war. The situation clearly (to soldiers at least) must be delt with. Hitler also broke all treatys and the UN was against intervention at that time as well. Saddam has broken every UN treaty for the past 10 years and no action was deamed necessary except for more talks. Having a divided opinnion in the world and in this country is empowering to Sadamms point of view as it makes it seem as if half of the world agrees with Saddam which makes him seem correct in fighting the US evill empire. one neads to be understading of an individuals point of view. If world had stood up to Saddam then it is quite possible that we would not be at war and I understand how this soldier could place part of the blame for this on France and Germany. Remember he could die tomorrow and is entittled to be high strung. So try and take it with a grain of salt
Don't know if you meant to reply to me or not, but you essesntially agreed with what I said. I fully support the soldier being able to make that sign, free speech and all. I also agree that as a soldier, with his life on the line, he has more of a right to comment on his feelings regarding US 'allies' lack of support than others.
Don't know if you meant to reply to me or not, but you essesntially agreed with what I said. I fully support the soldier being able to make that sign, free speech and all. I also agree that as a soldier, with his life on the line, he has more of a right to comment on his feelings regarding US 'allies' lack of support than others.
Well spoken, I certainly do agree with your view of a soldiers right of free speach. I accidently responded to you instead of the person whom you were quoting.
"You just arrived," Ajami Saadoun Khlis of the southern Iraqi city of Safwan tells London's Guardian. "You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave." He lost his 29-year-old son to Saddam's thugs; the younger man "was executed in July 2001, accused of harbouring warm feelings for Iran."
The Telegraph reports from Umm Qasr, another southern Iraqi locale:
"We never wanted to fight--only the diehards did," said one Iraqi, as they grabbed at water bottles and clasped their palms as if in prayer, begging for food._._._.
One man pulled up his shirt sleeve and held up his right hand. Two fingers had been hacked off and his upper arm was criss-crossed with scars.
"This is the price of defiance--of trying to run away," he said, his eyes beseeching. He held up a torn gas mask that had no air canister. "We have one. We draw straws for it. We know if the British and American soldiers leave as they did before, and Saddam survives, he will gas the town." To make sure we understood, he drew his finger swiftly across his throat.
The Times of London describes a horrific scene after a slave revolt:
Iraqi conscripts shot their own officers in the chest yesterday to avoid a fruitless fight over the oil terminals at al-Faw. British soldiers from 40 Commando's Charlie Company found a bunker full of the dead officers, with spent shells from an AK47 rifle around them.
Stuck between the US Seals and the Royal Marines, whom they did not want to fight, and a regime that would kill them if they refused, it was the conscripts' only way out.
And another Guardian report, from Baghdad, notes that civilians have been largely untouched by the shocking and awesome bombardment of the Iraqi capital: "So long as the rest of Baghdad remains almost unscathed, ordinary Iraqis appear relatively buoyant, as they reach for the possibility that maybe this war will be less punishing than they had feared."
Meanwhile, some of those "human shields" came to their senses after arriving in Iraq. United Press International has one such report:
A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."
The Telegraph has a first-person account from one Daniel Pepper, an American resident of London, who says he "was a naive fool to be a human shield for Saddam":
I was shocked when I first met a pro-war Iraqi in Baghdad--a taxi driver taking me back to my hotel late at night. I explained that I was American and said, as we shields always did, "Bush bad, war bad, Iraq good." He looked at me with an expression of incredulity.
As he realised I was serious, he slowed down and started to speak in broken English about the evils of Saddam's regime. Until then I had only heard the President spoken of with respect, but now this guy was telling me how all of Iraq's oil money went into Saddam's pocket and that if you opposed him politically he would kill your whole family.
It scared the hell out of me. First I was thinking that maybe it was the secret police trying to trick me but later I got the impression that he wanted me to help him escape. I felt so bad. I told him: "Listen, I am just a schmuck from the United States, I am not with the UN, I'm not with the CIA--I just can't help you."
Wonders never cease--some of these "useful idiots" may turn out to be useful after all.
I also agree that as a soldier, with his life on the line, he has more of a right to comment on his feelings regarding US 'allies' lack of support than others.
And here begins fascism. Give the Military & Police 'more rights' than an individual and you're well on your way to a fascist state. That my friends is the neoconservative 'Face of Liberation' if I've ever seen it.
The viewpoint is of special interest for those who care to hear. No one said the government should spontaneously reform around what this soldier says. Geez! Life sure must be difficult with only pure black and pure white shades to paint it in.
I think he means his opinion carries more weight, is more justified, not so much that this person has more rights in the constitutional sense you've taken it to mean. At least that's how I understand it.
Normally bunge is very rational and level headed with a view different from mine. You seem to be losing it bunge? Brownshirts got you down? (no pun!)
Not at all. I was just pointing out something within a post that's a dangerous trend.
I have no real problem with solders writing 'Dear John' or '**** Saddam' on a bomb. But criticizing the 'peaceniks' for speaking out while supporting the troops is hypocritical like this thread in general.
Showing one face of liberation is dangerously hypocritical. A one sided view is dangerous. Encouraging a point of view that gives armed representatives of the government more rights than the individuals that are the government is also dangerous.
I made no claims that Bush is doing this or something like that. It was only the poster's comments that I thought should be criticized.
I think he means his opinion carries more weight, is more justified, not so much that this person has more rights in the constitutional sense you've taken it to mean. At least that's how I understand it.
Ah, could be. If this is the case I'd have to reread the quote and such before criticizing it again.
See, I didn't use those words, someone else did. Since it's a right we currently enjoy, in order to give more of it to someone else, you would have to take away some of it from the others. It's simple math.
And here begins fascism. Give the Military & Police 'more rights' than an individual and you're well on your way to a fascist state. That my friends is the neoconservative 'Face of Liberation' if I've ever seen it.
You can keep it.
Wow.
You really disappoint me Bunge. You normally seem to try and take the high road. To so purposefully mis-state what I obviously meant, and mislead others as to what I meant, is pretty low for you. I meant that his opinion should carry more weight in terms of perpective on a situation, since he is more directly involved and threatened by the situation, than any of us here are. I obviously did not mean more of a right in legal or constitutional manner. I really would have expectedmore of you bunge.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
Sorry, I didn't expect any rational human being to be able to ignore the obvious. I probably still shouldn't.
What is obvious about a guy wrapped in a blanket??
Originally posted by JC
What is obvious about a guy wrapped in a blanket??
Like I said, I probably still shouldn't.
Originally posted by JC
What is obvious about a guy wrapped in a blanket??
Either he's cold or naked. Those are the obvious reasons he would be wrapped in a blanket. Oh and because a US soldier shot him through the heart.
Originally posted by Outsider
Either he's cold or naked. Those are the obvious reasons he would be wrapped in a blanket. Oh and because a US soldier shot him through the heart.
I am sorry, i did not notice the red white and blue bullit wound. nor did i notice the time date stamp which states when and where and which conflict that this blanket wrapping occured
Originally posted by JC
the human machine by design well get emotional and loose his temper in all stressful situations. a soldier is not beyond this. if the UN had been united againt a Irac then it is quite possible that we would not be at war. The situation clearly (to soldiers at least) must be delt with. Hitler also broke all treatys and the UN was against intervention at that time as well. Saddam has broken every UN treaty for the past 10 years and no action was deamed necessary except for more talks. Having a divided opinnion in the world and in this country is empowering to Sadamms point of view as it makes it seem as if half of the world agrees with Saddam which makes him seem correct in fighting the US evill empire. one neads to be understading of an individuals point of view. If world had stood up to Saddam then it is quite possible that we would not be at war and I understand how this soldier could place part of the blame for this on France and Germany. Remember he could die tomorrow and is entittled to be high strung. So try and take it with a grain of salt
Don't know if you meant to reply to me or not, but you essesntially agreed with what I said. I fully support the soldier being able to make that sign, free speech and all. I also agree that as a soldier, with his life on the line, he has more of a right to comment on his feelings regarding US 'allies' lack of support than others.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Don't know if you meant to reply to me or not, but you essesntially agreed with what I said. I fully support the soldier being able to make that sign, free speech and all. I also agree that as a soldier, with his life on the line, he has more of a right to comment on his feelings regarding US 'allies' lack of support than others.
Well spoken, I certainly do agree with your view of a soldiers right of free speach.
From Best of the Web
Scenes From the Liberation
"You just arrived," Ajami Saadoun Khlis of the southern Iraqi city of Safwan tells London's Guardian. "You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave." He lost his 29-year-old son to Saddam's thugs; the younger man "was executed in July 2001, accused of harbouring warm feelings for Iran."
The Telegraph reports from Umm Qasr, another southern Iraqi locale:
"We never wanted to fight--only the diehards did," said one Iraqi, as they grabbed at water bottles and clasped their palms as if in prayer, begging for food._._._.
One man pulled up his shirt sleeve and held up his right hand. Two fingers had been hacked off and his upper arm was criss-crossed with scars.
"This is the price of defiance--of trying to run away," he said, his eyes beseeching. He held up a torn gas mask that had no air canister. "We have one. We draw straws for it. We know if the British and American soldiers leave as they did before, and Saddam survives, he will gas the town." To make sure we understood, he drew his finger swiftly across his throat.
The Times of London describes a horrific scene after a slave revolt:
Iraqi conscripts shot their own officers in the chest yesterday to avoid a fruitless fight over the oil terminals at al-Faw. British soldiers from 40 Commando's Charlie Company found a bunker full of the dead officers, with spent shells from an AK47 rifle around them.
Stuck between the US Seals and the Royal Marines, whom they did not want to fight, and a regime that would kill them if they refused, it was the conscripts' only way out.
And another Guardian report, from Baghdad, notes that civilians have been largely untouched by the shocking and awesome bombardment of the Iraqi capital: "So long as the rest of Baghdad remains almost unscathed, ordinary Iraqis appear relatively buoyant, as they reach for the possibility that maybe this war will be less punishing than they had feared."
Meanwhile, some of those "human shields" came to their senses after arriving in Iraq. United Press International has one such report:
A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."
The Telegraph has a first-person account from one Daniel Pepper, an American resident of London, who says he "was a naive fool to be a human shield for Saddam":
I was shocked when I first met a pro-war Iraqi in Baghdad--a taxi driver taking me back to my hotel late at night. I explained that I was American and said, as we shields always did, "Bush bad, war bad, Iraq good." He looked at me with an expression of incredulity.
As he realised I was serious, he slowed down and started to speak in broken English about the evils of Saddam's regime. Until then I had only heard the President spoken of with respect, but now this guy was telling me how all of Iraq's oil money went into Saddam's pocket and that if you opposed him politically he would kill your whole family.
It scared the hell out of me. First I was thinking that maybe it was the secret police trying to trick me but later I got the impression that he wanted me to help him escape. I felt so bad. I told him: "Listen, I am just a schmuck from the United States, I am not with the UN, I'm not with the CIA--I just can't help you."
Wonders never cease--some of these "useful idiots" may turn out to be useful after all.
Bold is mine.
Originally posted by Tulkas
I also agree that as a soldier, with his life on the line, he has more of a right to comment on his feelings regarding US 'allies' lack of support than others.
And here begins fascism. Give the Military & Police 'more rights' than an individual and you're well on your way to a fascist state. That my friends is the neoconservative 'Face of Liberation' if I've ever seen it.
You can keep it.
Originally posted by Randycat99
No one said the government should spontaneously reform around what this soldier says.
Unless I'm mistaken, Tulkas said that he thought the people who put their lives on the line, like the Military, deserve more rights.
Originally posted by Scott
Normally bunge is very rational and level headed with a view different from mine. You seem to be losing it bunge? Brownshirts got you down? (no pun!)
Not at all. I was just pointing out something within a post that's a dangerous trend.
I have no real problem with solders writing 'Dear John' or '**** Saddam' on a bomb. But criticizing the 'peaceniks' for speaking out while supporting the troops is hypocritical like this thread in general.
Showing one face of liberation is dangerously hypocritical. A one sided view is dangerous. Encouraging a point of view that gives armed representatives of the government more rights than the individuals that are the government is also dangerous.
I made no claims that Bush is doing this or something like that. It was only the poster's comments that I thought should be criticized.
Originally posted by bunge
Unless I'm mistaken, Tulkas said that he thought the people who put their lives on the line, like the Military, deserve more rights.
More of a right that we all fully enjoy?
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I think he means his opinion carries more weight, is more justified, not so much that this person has more rights in the constitutional sense you've taken it to mean. At least that's how I understand it.
Ah, could be. If this is the case I'd have to reread the quote and such before criticizing it again.
Originally posted by Scott
More of a right that we all fully enjoy?
See, I didn't use those words, someone else did. Since it's a right we currently enjoy, in order to give more of it to someone else, you would have to take away some of it from the others. It's simple math.
Originally posted by bunge
Unless I'm mistaken, Tulkas said that he thought the people who put their lives on the line, like the Military, deserve more rights.
Well Cops and their families do it all the time.
You know... Say the secret phrase and get out of a ticket.
Military people and their families deserve similiar ( or better ) perks.
Originally posted by Scott
Well maybe he means moral right rather than a constitutional one. But, you know, always good to protect against the police state bunge!
That was already covered in an earlier post.
Originally posted by bunge
And here begins fascism. Give the Military & Police 'more rights' than an individual and you're well on your way to a fascist state. That my friends is the neoconservative 'Face of Liberation' if I've ever seen it.
You can keep it.
Wow.
You really disappoint me Bunge. You normally seem to try and take the high road. To so purposefully mis-state what I obviously meant, and mislead others as to what I meant, is pretty low for you. I meant that his opinion should carry more weight in terms of perpective on a situation, since he is more directly involved and threatened by the situation, than any of us here are. I obviously did not mean more of a right in legal or constitutional manner. I really would have expectedmore of you bunge.