ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:53 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2004 11:37 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:10 pm
Posts: 1035
Location: New York City
The video was very disturbing to me. I really felt like throwing up at the part of the beheading. You can call me a pussy for not being able to handle the gore or a wimp for trying to look away, but I don't think anyone will disagree with me that it takes a sick mind or a person who is blinded by personal ambition to do such an inhumane thing to intentionally kill an individual.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2004 12:57 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3706
Harry Berkowitz wrote:
*snip* ...blinded by personal ambition... *snip.

The thing is that this is not personal ambition; these people truely believe for the most part that these actions are morally justified, that they are doing God's work by fighting the 'western infadels'; if a portion of the populous believe this strongly enough that they are willing to blow themselves up what does one life mean to them, especially the life of a non-muslim?

ptlis

_________________
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies
within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2004 1:22 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
I am debating with myself whether or not to look at the video. A part of me wants to see the video because then I will see what kind of people we are fighting, but another part doesn't want to see a man butchered. Movies are one thing, it is fake, but this is a real murder. One thing is for sure though, these "men" who did this act are worse then animals, and need to get their heads lopped off too.

I said I was back in a previous thread, but disappeared again. I had some personal stuff in my life that distracted me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2004 7:16 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Midworld
The Goldstandard wrote:
Movies are one thing, it is fake, but this is a real murder.


That's pretty much my entire reasoning for not wanting to watch this as well. I caould handle seeing the beheading, but i don't want to cheapen the life of the man who died. What I find sad is that I'm sure, what with this being on the internet and all, that some of the asshole teenagers in this country are laughing their heads off at this video and going LOLOL OMG HE SO GOT PWNED! People like that are the ones who shoud be sent off to die in this war.

_________________
Go then. There are other worlds than these.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2004 8:07 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
BDM05 wrote:
Look...I'm not saying we should pull out NOW, it's obvious that's not an option. Maybe I'm just ranting about something that can't be changed.

But GOD Bush has made some dumb decisions...


See, I love this, so sensitive to life, and then you use these peoples' deaths as a means to your ends of bashing Bush.

Humanitarian of the year, for shamelessly exploiting dead humans for his own reasons. Congradulations, you should be proud.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2004 9:35 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4330
Location: The Murky depths of Northern Virginia
How Dare You

I fail to see how this is "exploitation." Nick Berg is dead. Killed for now MILLIONS of people to see. It can't be changed...there may have been ways, Nick apparently was offered a flight out just a few days before his capture. He traveled un-armed. So maybe he wasn't the smartest, and he WAS there on his own will. But you CAN'T say he would have been there, been captured, and been killed if Bush handn't decide to go fuck up Hussein in the first place. I mean goddamnit, where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction? Why are we over there? I know "a plan is in place," but is that really working? I mean, fuck, we "hand over control" to probably some puppet goverment in about 45 days. But the number of troops needed is INCREASING? And lets face it, we've kicked the Batth party out, only to have the OTHER extreme Islamic Shiites come in (...I think that's the oppressed group anyway). The fact is the whole area is behind. And we should let them run their course instead of saying, "ooh! Democracy! Shiny Shiny!"

In fact, what missions HAS this war accomplished?

A)Removal and subsequent capture of Saddam and many under him.
B)Figuring out there arn't WMDs.
C)Pissing off SEVERAL nations.

...well fuck, now I all tangented...and now it DOES look like exploitation...

Look, all I can say is Nick Berg is dead, we can't change it. And I'll be damned if we let a warmonger like Bush stay in office, so that more people like Nick don't die, and families like the Burg's don't have to suffer with their children's slaughter being broadcast to the world

_________________
BDM was here


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2004 10:20 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
I'm glad there isn't an afterlife, because you'd be making one soul very fucking sad, right now, for exploiting him dying to rail against the cause he was so very much for.

What has the Iraqi war and occupation accomplished? Well...a lot. Go out there and look, if you actually wish to know. But you do not - if you're so intellectually and morally lazy as to resort to this retarded use of heart-jerking bullshit, then I doubt seriously you'd want to know anything close to the truth - you just wanna be right, and it doesn't matter that you're taking a guy out of the grave, fucking him in the eye and saying FUCK YOU AND YOUR IDEALS, I'LL USE YOUR DEATH FOR WHAT I PLEASE.

BDM wrote:
I fail to see how this is "exploitation." Nick Berg is dead. Killed for now MILLIONS of people to see. It can't be changed...there may have been ways, Nick apparently was offered a flight out just a few days before his capture. He traveled un-armed.


A pistol or rifle won't stop a group of armed thugs from killing you are taking you away. In addition, not only was Berg a civilian, but he was there to help rebuild the Iraqi phoneline infrastructure - you know, make life better for the people there, something you wish we would never, ever do.

BDM wrote:
So maybe he wasn't the smartest, and he WAS there on his own will. But you CAN'T say he would have been there, been captured, and been killed if Bush handn't decide to go fuck up Hussein in the first place.


Yeah, this is a great line. Nick Berg's death is horrible and should have been prevented. The Iraqis killed under Saddam? Ragheads, let 'em die.
I guess BDM is just racist. Americans are far superior volk, and thus 1 American dead isn't worth saving a few million dirty towlwrappers, right?

BDM wrote:
I mean goddamnit, where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction? Why are we over there?


Well, lets play a game. The game is Who Thought Saddam had WMDs Before the War?

-Everyone

There you have it folks. I guess that means it was a giant, worldwide conspiracy to lie to the American people.

As to 'why we're there' I would imagine the whole terorists killing American civilians thing has something to do with it, I mean if the terrorists are over there the army can kill them, if they're over here the FBI can arrest them, but all-in-all I like them being "over there."

Secondly, the theory behind Iraq appears to be that democracy will have a 'domino' effect and spread through the middle east, thus doing all the work of invading and such for us, wiping out the idiotic ideology that gives rise to terrorists, and destroying the state institutions which fund them.
But I guess thats a little beyond you, no WMDs = no war, because there's no other possible reason to attack, right?

BDM wrote:
I know "a plan is in place," but is that really working? I mean, fuck, we "hand over control" to probably some puppet goverment in about 45 days. But the number of troops needed is INCREASING? And lets face it, we've kicked the Batth party out, only to have the OTHER extreme Islamic Shiites come in (...I think that's the oppressed group anyway). The fact is the whole area is behind. And we should let them run their course instead of saying, "ooh! Democracy! Shiny Shiny!"


So, the plan isn't working, therefore we should hand power over to the various thug/brigands/bandits/religious militias that are going around over there?

Woah, BDM, that seems like a great plan.

BDM wrote:
In fact, what missions HAS this war accomplished?

A)Removal and subsequent capture of Saddam and many under him.
B)Figuring out there arn't WMDs.
C)Pissing off SEVERAL nations.


Yeah, only those three things, its not like teh Iraqis are better off now or anything, they all actually want Saddam back etc.

BDM wrote:
...well fuck, now I all tangented...and now it DOES look like exploitation...


Thats because it is.

BDM wrote:
Look, all I can say is Nick Berg is dead, we can't change it. And I'll be damned if we let a warmonger like Bush stay in office, so that more people like Nick don't die, and families like the Burg's don't have to suffer with their children's slaughter being broadcast to the world

Yeah, stupid warmongers, with all that talk of democracy in the middle east, its crazy talk. We need to make sure no Americans die ever again, so therefor we should just leave the middle east alone, I mean that worked the first time around didn't it?

The hypocrisy of saying Nick Berg shouldn't have died for the war, whereas minus it thousands of Iraqis would have died by the hand of Saddam, doesn't really need to be pointed out, does it?

See, BDM is the classic modern man, with his series of fluid, rigidly undefined belief system that works in a (totally assumed) way, he considers himself educated, intelligent, and above all right, feed you a couple half-truths and lies over the course of a month or two and I could get you to believe anything, it happens all the time, even by accident, you get things out of context and don't bother to follow up on things, then you have yourself a bunch of mindless clones blathering on about incoherent, inaccurate BS about current events, without regaurd to internal consistancy of any sort.

But everyone gets what they deserve in the end...I wonder what you'll be getting, then? The fruits of your labor, perhaps.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2004 1:28 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4330
Location: The Murky depths of Northern Virginia
ok, fine then. I'm a "mindless clones blathering on about incoherent, inaccurate BS about current events," Where DO I find out what's right? Huh? Show me where I can find this out? I'm serious. You want change? Change me.

That's what I'm trying to do. At least change a few minds.

_________________
BDM was here


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2004 2:13 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:10 pm
Posts: 1035
Location: New York City
BDM05 wrote:
Where DO I find out what's right? Huh?


Politics are purely opinionated where some people take into consideration the morality of what action is being proposed versus the logic of doing so. Emotions are a powerful utensil in our government, despite what most people say...

BDM05 wrote:
That's what I'm trying to do. At least change a few minds.


Changing opinions requires one of two routes:

-Central route (knowledge and facts)

or

-Peripheral route (persuasion cues)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2004 2:17 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
The Man In Black wrote:
Well, lets play a game. The game is <i>Who Thought Saddam had WMDs Before the War?</i>

-Everyone

Let's see. Saddam acts like a loon and refuses to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors and anyone else he regards as a running-dog lackey of the Americans who keep pushing for increased scrutiny, and threatening his precarious sovereignty.

Everyone knew he'd <i>like</i> to have WMD.

Everyone knew he'd <i>use</i> them if he had them.

But who thought that the inspection teams should be given more time to actually <i>find</i> weapons?

Uhhh... Pretty much everyone else in the UN.

Who said they had incontrovertible <i>proof</i> that the weapons existed and were ready to be deployed against western targets?

Uhhh .... Us. Hence our thin little "Coalition of the Willing" acting without UN support.


Quote:
As to 'why we're there' I would imagine the whole terrorists killing American civilians thing has something to do with it, [..]

Well that's grand if you hold to the administration's theory about "drawing all the terrorists to Iraq". On the other hand, don't you think it's likely that sooner or later one of those guys is going to wise-up and say, "Gee why am I risking my ass fighting armed and armored Americans here, when there's lots of easy-to-kill unarmed Americans in America"?

"Terrorist superbowl" my ass! This nothing but after-the-fact justification. Striking at Afghanistan to kill terrorists was justified and a good idea. Striking at Iraq wasn't. Aside from hating America and Israel slightly more than the rest of the Arab world, there weren't any real ties to terror. Now there's mujahideen running all over Iraq.

Wow. That's a great environment to establish democracy in. Especially when it runs contrary to the religious traditions of the culture. Democracy domino effect or terrorist trap. Pick one and stick with it. Trying to claim both looks suspiciously like scrabbling around for reasons now that the WMD and al-Qaeda links have proved embarrassingly tenuous.

Quote:
So, the plan isn't working, therefore we should hand power over to the various thug/brigands/bandits/religious militias that are going around over there?

Sarcasm aside, we clearly can't pull out before the transfer of power. But afterwards, the transitional government is going to be under huge pressure. The Iraqis will resent any US presence, but we still won't be able to withdraw without risking the entire thing collapsing into warlordism.

So what next? The Iraqis don't want Saddam back, but they want us out. Sooner or later we're going to have to turn things over to the UN. But that means we'll have less control over the situation and the establishment of government. So we delay and delay, trying to keep control of the situation. To me it looks more and more like we're just winging it.

The major reasons for launching an aggressive war have broken down. We're left with vague moral justifications. "Saddam was horrible, he had to go." Well great. Does this mean the US will be ceasing trade with Israel and China? They have horrible human rights records too. Why are they on the MFN trade list if we're so concerned with human suffering at the hands of abusive governments? We should librate Taiwan, Tibet and Palestine right after we finish off the DPRK!

Face it. For what ever reason, we screwed up. Bad. The reasons we went in are no longer the reasons we're there. And we're stuck with the situation. As for Nick Berg, I'm sorry he died. I'm sorry the same way I'm sorry when anybody dies scared, alone and in pain. But I'm not surprised. Total War is the order of the day, and nobody is going to be exempt. The US doesn't discriminate between dissident private Iraqi citizens and Baath cell members. Why should we be surprised when they don't dicriminate between US regular military, military contractors, and civilians?

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2004 2:59 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
on the WMD note, as i'm sure you all know, Iraq was building a nuclear bomb, stockpiled nerve gas and was developing more throughout the 80s. Israel sent a hardcore fighter/bomber strike all the way to Iraq and blew up their reactor complex putting an end to that (as they recently threatened to do to Iran) and the nerve gas was used in the Iran/Iraq war (it's use being likened to using insect spray by the regime) so i feel these past WMD threats are proven

so both of these were certainly held (past tense) by Iraq, and in the post Gulf War period they claimed to have destroyed their remaining stocks, however they screwed the weapons inspectors around to the point that it was pretty obvious that they were hiding something, unless it was all a plot to make th eworld think they were still packing a WMD threat, in which case it backfired somewhat. so regardless of plots that their WMDs have been hidded deep in the desert (possible) or shipped over the border to Iran/Syria (like their airforce did in the wars) they certainly *did* have them, and it was very likely that by their posturing they still did

so i feel the WMD threat was justified *as well* as the rest of the reasons. if it turns outthey really did dump them all an dthe last 10 years of UN inspectins was a big game then hey, Libya certainly chickened out of playing that one pretty fast once we called Iraq's bluff, Iran and North Korea have both been a little more helpful on the WMD fromt also (yes, even the nutty NK lot) would this have happened without the war? even Pakistan are back onside (just about) after kicking off towards joining the Axis Of Evil only a few years ago with their nuclear posturing

sure, there are still terrorists (as i said earlier, there have been for decades, catch up) and Iraq isnt'a nice place to go waving your stars and stripes dick-tattoo about, but hey, the rest of the world is suddenly talking/disarming because of that little conflict arent' they?

a suicide bomb isn't nice, a NBC strike is somewhat an order of magnitude worse i think you'll agree, even if you're into a bit of Stalinist casualty logic

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2004 6:07 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
Weren't the talks with Libya going on prior to the whole Iraq deal though?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2004 11:54 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:55 am
Posts: 4234
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
From the safeness of Canada:

Irag v2.0 ==> Vietnam.

I war noone else wanted.
A "Quick and easy" war.
Needless deaths.
The immovability of the American's vs. the guerilla tatics of the "foriegner's".

_________________
Remember, one always has what they need, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes, we just don't know what we need.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2004 2:40 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
nations have been developing (and trying to stop each other developing) WMDs for t last 90 or so years, invading Iraq on a partial WMD threat is a big way of reminding those you're currently looking disarming at that you mean business, just to let them know that trade sanctions aren't the worst it can get

and before anyone starts up misusing the term 'Guerrilla Warfare' i'd like to point you at a little post I wrote last year in the M16 thread

"pray forgiveness for your words so we dont' have to go through a forced re-education here please"

(i then go on to rant about how gret bullpup rifles are, you should read that too)

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2004 1:25 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Ollie answered the WMDs issue to my satisfaction (being a sociologist etc, and thinking bigger than outside an imaginary line in the sand that is Iraq's borders etc.)

Thinman wrote:
Well that's grand if you hold to the administration's theory about "drawing all the terrorists to Iraq". On the other hand, don't you think it's likely that sooner or later one of those guys is going to wise-up and say, "Gee why am I risking my ass fighting armed and armored Americans here, when there's lots of easy-to-kill unarmed Americans in America"?


So, since the strategy won't work forever (in your evaluation, it won't, its not like the terrorists have been a bastion of logical attacks and all, so I somewhat doubt it) we shouldn't have done it in the first place.

Hey, I have a plan for an ambush in this military theatre, but because after the trap the enemy wises up and is on gaurd for it, we shouldn't use it in the first place...

I don't know, there are some problems that are legitimate that I've heard about this whole strategy, but this attempt at attacking it is, uh...stupid.

Thinman wrote:
"Terrorist superbowl" my ass! This nothing but after-the-fact justification. Striking at Afghanistan to kill terrorists was justified and a good idea. Striking at Iraq wasn't. Aside from hating America and Israel slightly more than the rest of the Arab world, there weren't any real ties to terror. Now there's mujahideen running all over Iraq.


Lets see...Saddam being listed under INTERPOL's "big list of big terrorists" (check their website), I would argue that he was, INTERPOL being (even if crappy and european) a fair sight more knowledgable about the whole terrorist situation than you are.

There is the whoel dealio about him giving 25k to every suicide bomber's family in Israel, I mean last I checked it was the war on terrorism/terrorists, not teh war on Al-Qaeda, if it was the latter I'd say yes, Saddam was a bad idea, but since its not I say that saying "hey, blow yourself up and your family gets a small fortune, it'll be great, just see"

Thinman wrote:
Wow. That's a great environment to establish democracy in. Especially when it runs contrary to the religious traditions of the culture. Democracy domino effect or terrorist trap. Pick one and stick with it. Trying to claim both looks suspiciously like scrabbling around for reasons now that the WMD and al-Qaeda links have proved embarrassingly tenuous.


I suppose when we tell the terrorists its no longer [url="www.itsatrap.com"]a trap[/url] then they'll stop coming and we can build democracy there unfrettered.

You appear to think the two can be seperated in any way, which is a fallacy.

Thinman wrote:
Sarcasm aside, we clearly can't pull out before the transfer of power. But afterwards, the transitional government is going to be under huge pressure. The Iraqis will resent any US presence, but we still won't be able to withdraw without risking the entire thing collapsing into warlordism.


Actually, the Iraqis don't resent us so much as resent the instability that has been brought by the invasion/occupation. Remember the approval rating Iraqis had early on was like 80+ percent?

Well, when things go wrong, who do you blame? The guy in charge. So saying that the occupation is resented is rather ludicris and contradicting known facts, I don't know where you pulled that one out of...

Thinman wrote:
So what next? The Iraqis don't want Saddam back, but they want us out. Sooner or later we're going to have to turn things over to the UN. But that means we'll have less control over the situation and the establishment of government. So we delay and delay, trying to keep control of the situation. To me it looks more and more like we're just winging it.


Okay, facts:
1) Iraqis do not want Saddam back (true)
2) Iraqis wish that we would leave (conditionally true: see below)
3) Therefore, the UN, who obviously has a [url="http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2618260"]much better reputation among Iraqis[/url], and who is saying that they will not come into Iraq unless the US cleans up the security situation first (ie, does all the work that makes the Iraqis not like us in the first place) should be brought in ASAP.

1 and 2 are fine, but how they link to 3 is, uhm...

Well, not there at all.

As to the Iraqis wanting us out: [url="http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/archives/001918.html#001918"]see here[/url]

Seatle Times wrote:
In March, about half said they [the Iraqi people] oppose the presence of coalition forces, but few want those troops to leave now — most want soldiers to stay until the Iraqi government is in place or security is restored.


etc.

[quote="Thinman"The major reasons for launching an aggressive war have broken down. We're left with vague moral justifications. "Saddam was horrible, he had to go." Well great. Does this mean the US will be ceasing trade with Israel and China? They have horrible human rights records too. Why are they on the MFN trade list if we're so concerned with human suffering at the hands of abusive governments? We should librate Taiwan, Tibet and Palestine right after we finish off the DPRK! [/quote]

Ollie responded to this beautifully.

One last point:

[quote="Thinman"]Face it. For what ever reason, we screwed up. Bad. The reasons we went in are no longer the reasons we're there. And we're stuck with the situation. As for Nick Berg, I'm sorry he died. I'm sorry the same way I'm sorry when anybody dies scared, alone and in pain. But I'm not surprised. Total War is the order of the day, and nobody is going to be exempt. The US doesn't discriminate between dissident private Iraqi citizens and Baath cell members. Why should we be surprised when they don't dicriminate between US regular military, military contractors, and civilians?[/quote]

Testimony to idiocy. A rebel = a civilian, obviously etc. Unless you're so incoherent that you can't actually accurately type out what you mean.

BDM: Stop watching TV, and stop reading newspapers. The accuracy of your knowledge improves as soon as you stop, regaurdless of whether you pick up news anywhere else.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2004 4:48 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
The Man In Black wrote:
So, since the strategy <i>won't work forever</i> (in your evaluation, it won't, its not like the terrorists have been a bastion of <i>logical attacks</i> and all, so I somewhat doubt it) we shouldn't have done it in the first place.

Objection was not that it will stop working, but that it will eventually start working in reverse, bringing more terrorists here to America.
"Make it safer here, by fighting them there" But there's no way to <i>keep </i> them there.
Especially since we keep hearing about how most of the ring-leaders aren't even Iraqis in the first place.

Quote:
There is the whoel dealio about him giving 25k to every suicide bomber's family in Israel, I mean last I checked it was the war on <i>terrorism/terrorists</i>, not teh war on Al-Qaeda, if it was the latter I'd say yes, Saddam was a bad idea, but since its not I say that saying "hey, blow yourself up and your family gets a small fortune, it'll be great, just see"

Which is still not a good reason for us to invade. I could give a rat's ass what The War Against Terror is called. The idea is to make the US safer, not fight evil where ever it may occur. I don't see how stirring up a hornet's nest does that. The Israelis have been doing pretty good lately. I didn't hear them begging for help fighting off the vast flow of money coming out of Iraq.

Our administration implied Iraq was linked to al-Qaeda in order to foster support for the war. Oops. Simple as that.

Quote:
I suppose when we tell the terrorists its no longer <a href="www.itsatrap.com">a trap</a> then they'll stop coming and we can build democracy there unfrettered.

Actually I was implying that our government fucked up when they told us that Saddam was an immediate danger to the rest of the world, and then started talking up the mutually contradictory reasons of "establishment of democracy" and "It was a giant trap" after it became apparent that they'd fucked up their initial rationale.

And they are contradictory. One implies compromise and a conciliatory approach. The other implies deliberately provoking outrage in the Arab community.

Quote:
Thinman wrote:
Sarcasm aside, we clearly can't pull out before the transfer of power. But afterwards, the transitional government is going to be under huge pressure. The Iraqis will resent any US presence, but we still won't be able to withdraw without risking the entire thing collapsing into warlordism.

[...]

Well, when things go wrong, who do you blame? The guy in charge. So saying that the occupation is resented is rather ludicris and contradicting known facts, I don't know where you pulled that one out of...

Quote:
3) Therefore, the UN, who obviously has a <a href="http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2618260">much better reputation among Iraqis</a>, and who is saying that they will not come into Iraq unless the US cleans up the security situation first (ie, does all the work that makes the Iraqis not like us in the first place) should be brought in ASAP.

You're not reading what I wrote. We can't pull out now, and we have reasons to stay after the re-establishment of government. But according to <a href="http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/archives/001918.html#001918">your own source</a>, the Iraqis want us to restore government and get out.

That's not going to happen unless some other armed force moves in. The transitional government is going to need armed forces to back it up. The US is going to want to finish its terrorist hunt. <i>Someone</i> is going to be stationed in Iraq for a very, very, long time. Three years on, we're still not out of Afghanistan for those exact reasons. Why should Iraq be different?

Since the Iraqis DO want us to hurry up and leave, the thing to expect is either more fighting and a continued lack of stability or some kind of half-assed compromise with a limited US presence among international troops -- Something both the administration and military command have been fighting against. Have you heard about any definite provisions for this? I haven't.

No clear plan == winging it.

ollie wrote:
nations have been developing (and trying to stop each other developing) WMDs for t last 90 or so years, invading Iraq on a partial WMD threat is a big way of reminding those you're currently looking disarming at that you mean business, just to let them know that trade sanctions aren't the worst it can get

That's one way of looking at it. It also lets them know that we're bat-shit insane and will probably do whatever we want, regardless of any talks in the works. That's something that can go either way. Weren't the North Koreans nervously threatening to make Seoul glow in the dark if we even blinked at them funny?

The Man In Black wrote:
Testimony to idiocy. A rebel = a civilian, obviously etc. Unless you're so incoherent that you can't actually accurately type out what you mean.

Yeah. That was the point actually. The former Iraqi military and whatever other combatants have diffused into the civilian population. There's no clear line for our troops to discriminate between combatant/non-combatant. So anyone who steps out of line is a potential threat. Likewise (at least some) Iraqis clearly regard all Americans in Iraq as part of the occupation.

ollie wrote:
(i then go on to rant about how gret bullpup rifles are, you should read that too)

Lord, is that thing ever ugly ...

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2004 5:21 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
The Man In Black wrote:
So, since the strategy won't work forever (in your evaluation, it won't, its not like the terrorists have been a bastion of logical attacks and all, so I somewhat doubt it) we shouldn't have done it in the first place.

Thinman wrote:
Objection was not that it will stop working, but that it will eventually start working in reverse, bringing more terrorists here to America.


Because the army obviously deters terrorists from operating in America.

Here I was thinking we had the FBI for that, I guess Bush went and declared marshal law when I wasn't looking etc. Not to mention that you never backed that thought up with, you know, any data or even trends whatsoever, given the fact that the terrorists want to kill us all anyway, I would argue that its likely they'd all come over here and try to kill us regaurdless, better 100 do so a few years from now than 10,000 do so right now.

Thinman wrote:
"Make it safer here, by fighting them there" But there's no way to keep them there.
Especially since we keep hearing about how most of the ring-leaders aren't even Iraqis in the first place.


So very illogical and completely off course here, see above etc.

Thinman wrote:
Which is still not a good reason for us to invade. I could give a rat's ass what The War Against Terror is called. The idea is to make the US safer, not fight evil where ever it may occur. I don't see how stirring up a hornet's nest does that. The Israelis have been doing pretty good lately. I didn't hear them begging for help fighting off the vast flow of money coming out of Iraq.


I guess we only attack Al-Q then and all teh other organizations that want to see the fall of western civilization get a free pass eh?

The problem being that there's a hazy line between Al-Q and other organizations that want to hurt America and organizations that don't, I mean hamas was calling for death to America earlier and such, given the amount of foreign terrorists there I think its reasonable to assume some of them atl east are trying to destabalize Iraq and kill Americans, gee...

Thinman wrote:
Our administration implied Iraq was linked to al-Qaeda in order to foster support for the war. Oops. Simple as that.


Thinman wrote:
Actually I was implying that our government fucked up when they told us that Saddam was an immediate danger to the rest of the world,


Out of context, everyone fucked up, everyone agreed Saddam had WMDs, the only issue was how long to wait and being dicked around until we invaded, France said "never, let him dick around inspectors 'till kingdom come," the US figured (rightly) after that the UN wouldn't be too useful and was already operating in the realm of the 'really fucking stupid,' so off teh coalition of the willing went.

Thinman wrote:
and then started talking up the mutually contradictory reasons of "establishment of democracy" and "It was a giant trap" after it became apparent that they'd fucked up their initial rationale.


These were both tossed out there before etc, I guess you were too busy shouting 'illegal war if we do go' to remember those points in Bush's speeches.

Thinman wrote:
And they are contradictory. One implies compromise and a conciliatory approach. The other implies deliberately provoking outrage in the Arab community.


Yes, because as we all know the arabs all love terrorists, and any democracy obviously includes terrorists who we will deal with and hand power over to.

Again, I love how a lot of opposing points are based entirely in a racist attitude of "thats how arabs are" etc.

Oops, looks like you just went off the deep end, and it continues teh rest of the post...

Thinman wrote:
You're not reading what I wrote. We can't pull out now, and we have reasons to stay after the re-establishment of government. But according to your own source, the Iraqis want us to restore government and get out.

That's not going to happen unless some other armed force moves in. The transitional government is going to need armed forces to back it up. The US is going to want to finish its terrorist hunt. Someone is going to be stationed in Iraq for a very, very, long time. Three years on, we're still not out of Afghanistan for those exact reasons. Why should Iraq be different?

Since the Iraqis DO want us to hurry up and leave, the thing to expect is either more fighting and a continued lack of stability or some kind of half-assed compromise with a limited US presence among international troops -- Something both the administration and military command have been fighting against. Have you heard about any definite provisions for this? I haven't.

No clear plan == winging it.


The plan is to have teh current number (or more) of US troops staying in Iraq until stability is there -or- the IP and IA can handle teh situation themselves, both organizations up and coming and being trained by some of the best out there (IA being trained by SAS/Green Berets etc) so I guess that'll happen eventually.

As to me 'not paying attention' its you who didn't, I mentioned at the very start of my point that the Iraqis arn't pissed off at us and want us out because they hate teh US, when things are unstable you blame the person who is in charge, when they stabalize everything's fine again, so when security is no longer an issue then there's no reason for teh Iraqis to be angry at us.

Thinman wrote:
The Man In Black wrote:
Testimony to idiocy. A rebel = a civilian, obviously etc. Unless you're so incoherent that you can't actually accurately type out what you mean.


Yeah. That was the point actually. The former Iraqi military and whatever other combatants have diffused into the civilian population. There's no clear line for our troops to discriminate between combatant/non-combatant. So anyone who steps out of line is a potential threat. Likewise (at least some) Iraqis clearly regard all Americans in Iraq as part of the occupation.


But yeah, we don't make it policy (as teh terrorists, who were foreign Al-Qaeda if you'd have paid attention to the news, do) to kill people off who are Iraqis, assuming they are part of the insurgency etc, I mean if we actually were equivalent Iraq, minus teh oil fields would be one radioactive area right now, nuked to skip the bother of dealing with the insurgency etc.

But I guess the whole 'we don't shoot civilians on purpose' thing never got to you, or perhaps you think that teh terrorists accidentally chopped off this guy's head, obviously a case of mistaken identity, an unarmed Jewish person who is carrying copies of teh Kuran and a cell phone is obviously a US soldier and needs to be killed on videotape and then his head paraded around.

So, the point: they go after civilians on purpose, we don't. Trying to draw equivalency is rather idiotic, I mean thats what manslaughter was invented for, not every murder is murder 1 etc. Such mythical legalities such as 'motivation matters' may be foreign to you, but they do exist.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2004 6:47 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 12:40 am
Posts: 1400
Location: Right Behind You
http://www.sorethumbsonline.com/

I'm not sure what to say to that...

_________________
Official punta' of the CoI


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2004 7:51 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:10 pm
Posts: 1035
Location: New York City
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/05/14/d ... index.html

Radio station fires DJs who joked about beheading
Berg's screams broadcast with laughter, music


PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- Two disc jockeys were fired after playing an audiotape of the beheading of American Nicholas Berg by militants in Iraq and cracking jokes about the grisly death.

Listeners called the radio station to complain after hearing Berg's screams followed by the DJs laughing and playing musical accompaniments.

The DJs, known as Marconi and Tiny, were fired Thursday from their morning show perch at Portland's KNRK-FM, which is owned by Pennsylvania-based Entercom Communications Corp. Station employees would not release the DJs' legal names.

The station's manager broadcast an apology, saying: "The actions of the KNRK news morning show were insensitive, inappropriate and repulsive. On behalf of Entercom Portland and KNRK, I apologize to our listeners."

One of the DJs apologized on his Web site, posting a statement that read, "I have become so numb to the horrific things that happen in this world that I sometimes forget there are still people who feel. I in no way meant to be insensitive to anyone. My comments on this were inapropriate" (sic).

Berg's headless body was found Saturday in Baghdad. Three days later, video posted on an al Qaeda-related Web site showed him being decapitated by hooded, armed men.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2004 8:33 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Midworld
Harry Berkowitz wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/05/14/djs.fired.ap/index.html

Radio station fires DJs who joked about beheading
Berg's screams broadcast with laughter, music


PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- Two disc jockeys were fired after playing an audiotape of the beheading of American Nicholas Berg by militants in Iraq and cracking jokes about the grisly death.

Listeners called the radio station to complain after hearing Berg's screams followed by the DJs laughing and playing musical accompaniments.

The DJs, known as Marconi and Tiny, were fired Thursday from their morning show perch at Portland's KNRK-FM, which is owned by Pennsylvania-based Entercom Communications Corp. Station employees would not release the DJs' legal names.

The station's manager broadcast an apology, saying: "The actions of the KNRK news morning show were insensitive, inappropriate and repulsive. On behalf of Entercom Portland and KNRK, I apologize to our listeners."

One of the DJs apologized on his Web site, posting a statement that read, "I have become so numb to the horrific things that happen in this world that I sometimes forget there are still people who feel. I in no way meant to be insensitive to anyone. My comments on this were inapropriate" (sic).

Berg's headless body was found Saturday in Baghdad. Three days later, video posted on an al Qaeda-related Web site showed him being decapitated by hooded, armed men.


Holy Shit.

First thought: That's exactly what I pointed out in my first post in this thread. The exact sort of callousness that I expected would come from this. I'm glad those guys lost their jobs.

Second thought: Why do I recognize the names Marconi and Tiny?

Third thought: Crap. Either there's two KNRKs out there, or this is from my hometown. Yep. Portland, Oregon. Surprises the hell outta me, but not really, knowing that station. Good thing I never really listened to them anyway.

_________________
Go then. There are other worlds than these.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group