Awful news in Iraq

  • News
  • Thread starter Hurkyl
  • Start date
  • #26
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,297
The Smoking Man said:
As soon as you say that anything is their job it automatically becomes the terrorists job to disrupt it.
Terrorists, by definition are illegal combatants. Saying something is "their job" is not a justification of what they did any more than saying its the job of a thief to steal things. It's still immoral. It's still wrong.
There is a form of f-ed up logic in what they do.
So what? You seem to put the emphasis on "logic" - I put the emphasis on "f-ed up". But it is nice that you are clear about where you stand on the issue: Killing children is ok as long as you can figure out an f-ed up way to blame it on someone else. :uhh:
 
Last edited:
  • #27
PerennialII
Science Advisor
Gold Member
898
0
There isn't a question about everyone here feeling it's "f-ed up" or immoral .... arguing against each other and over-simplifying the issue doesn't really help ones understanding about anything around the event .... just a trivial way to get this sorted. Or is this one of those :surprised threads ....
 
  • #28
russ_watters said:
Terrorists, by definition are illegal combatants. Saying something is "their job" is not a justification of what they did any more than saying its the job of a thief to steal things. It's still immoral. It's still wrong. So what? You seem to put the emphasis on "logic" - I put the emphasis on "f-ed up". But it is nice that you are clear about where you stand on the issue: Killing children is ok as long as you can figure out an f-ed up way to blame it on someone else. :uhh:
Russ, because the USA declares somebody a Terrorist doesn't make it so.

The Brits called the Green Mountain Boys terrorists when you were fighting for independence. Had they not been at war with France at the time, you'd still be paying taxes to the Queen and they would still be called Terrorists instead of 'freedom fighters'.

Most of the world is starting to perceive the USA as illegal combattants in Iraq but since you have all the weaponry, what you say goes ... RIGHT!?

The evidence is that the decision to enter Iraq was a 'done deal' or 'moot point' way before the presentation to the UN over bogus WMD according to documents like the Downing Street Memo.

We've also got Video of Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell making the statement at the time the Downing Street memo was written that Iraq was free of WMD and that Saddam was effectively neutralized.

In other words, you were led to war on a pack of lies concocted to justify entry into an independent nation against both world and US law.

Now regardless of what you have to say about the eventual 'ends' to the conflict, the 'ways' to those ends were illegal and still make you illegal combattants... By your own definition ... TERRORISTS.

Bandying words about as you do is merely a matter of perception.

And NO, I don't belive in killing Children any more than I believe the USA should be dropping 'Bunker Busters' on market places.
 
  • #29
Art
The slaughter of civilians and especially children is a despicable action whoever the perpetrators are. To criticise heavy handed US tactics leading to civilian deaths does not suggest that the critic is trying to justify mass murder by terrorists just as criticising terrorist actions resulting in high civilian deaths does not justify civilians deaths brought about through US actions.
In fact people who condemn murderous actions by all sides show a consistency of thought and purpose sadly lacking in some of the more neocon contributors to this forum. Whose typical argument seems to be when terrorists kill children it's because they are evil and when US forces kill children it's because the elusive they made us do it.

Our troops are part of the problem

Heavy-handed occupation is not a solution to the Iraqi insurgency

Robin Cook
Friday July 15, 2005
The Guardian

In the single week since the London bombings there have been 11 suicide attacks in Iraq. One car bomb this week wiped out 30 children, one as young as six, who had gathered to plead for western chocolates from American soldiers.
I do not draw a parallel between London and Baghdad to diminish the pain and horror caused by the crime on our own shores, but because that appalling experience should give us some insight into the violence that is now a daily occurrence in Iraq. And as the occupying force we bear responsibility for its security. There may be room for debate over whether there is a connection between the war in Iraq and the London bombings, but there is no escaping the hard truth that the chaos in that country is a direct result of the decision to invade it, taken in defiance of the intelligence warning that it would heighten the terrorist threat............


Heavy-handed US occupation is not the solution to the insurgency but a large part of the problem. US army rules of engagement appear to give much greater weight to killing insurgents than to protecting civilian lives. It is alarming testimony to its trigger-happy approach that statistics compiled by the Iraqi health ministry confirm that twice as many civilians have been killed by US military action as by terrorist bombs. The predictable result is that the US occupation breeds new recruits for the insurgency at a faster rate than it kills existing members of it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1528954,00.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
Art said:
In fact people who condemn murderous actions by all sides show a consistency of thought and purpose sadly lacking in some of the more neocon contributors to this forum. Whose typical argument seems to be when terrorists kill children it's because they are evil and when US forces kill children it's because the elusive they made us do it.
You have to wonder:

MSNBC said:
Iraqi envoy accuses U.S. of killing his cousin
Ambassador to U.N. says Marines shot unarmed relative in the neck

Updated: 2:53 a.m. ET July 2, 2005

UNITED NATIONS - Iraq’s U.N. ambassador accused U.S. Marines of killing his unarmed young cousin in what appeared to be “cold blood” and demanded an investigation and punishment for the perpetrators.

In an e-mail to friends obtained Friday by The Associated Press, Ambassador Samir Sumaidaie said the killing took place in his ancestral village in western Anbar province, where U.S.-led forces have been conducting a counterinsurgency sweep aimed at disrupting the flow of foreign militants into Iraq.

His cousin Mohammed Al-Sumaidaie, 21, a university student, was killed June 25 when he took Marines doing house-to-house searches to a bedroom to show them where a rifle which had no live ammunition was kept, the ambassador said. When the Marines left, he was found in the bedroom with a bullet in his neck.

Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission, said acting U.S. ambassador Anne Patterson received a call from the Iraqi ambassador “and expressed her heartfelt condolences on this terrible situation, and contacted senior State Department and Pentagon officials to look into the matter immediately.”

The U.S. military issued a statement in response late Friday.

“The events described in the allegations roughly correspond to an incident involving Coalition Forces on that day in that general location; therefore a military inquiry has been initiated,” the statement said.

“We take these allegations seriously and will thoroughly investigate this incident to determine what happened,” the statement quoted Maj. Gen. Stephen T. Johnson as saying. The investigation could take several weeks, the statement said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8437692
 
  • #31
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,297
The Smoking Man said:
Russ, because the USA declares somebody a Terrorist doesn't make it so.
Heh - I wasn't going on the US's declaration, I was going on yours. You said they were terrorists.
 
  • #32
russ_watters said:
Heh - I wasn't going on the US's declaration, I was going on yours. You said they were terrorists.
Yes ... and then you proceeded to give the official US Government definition of the word.

Like I said, terrorists, like Americans in 1776 are called that until they win. Then they are called 'freedom fighters'.
 
  • #33
221
0
The Smoking Man said:
Like I said, terrorists, like Americans in 1776 are called that until they win.
:rofl:

They were never called terrorist....unless you're privy to some special history that I have never read before...
 
  • #34
Danger
Gold Member
9,607
246
Townsend said:
They were never called terrorist....unless you're privy to some special history that I have never read before...
It never ceases to amaze me that Yanks (with a straight face!) refer to Benedict Arnold as a filthy traitor when in fact he was one of the very few patriots to make it into the history books. The rest of them were the traitors.
 
  • #35
Townsend said:
:rofl:

They were never called terrorist....unless you're privy to some special history that I have never read before...
LOL

Have you ever read anything about the 'war in the colonies' that wasn't written in America?
 
  • #36
Danger said:
It never ceases to amaze me that Yanks (with a straight face!) refer to Benedict Arnold as a filthy traitor when in fact he was one of the very few patriots to make it into the history books. The rest of them were the traitors.
Bravo.

Excellent example.
:rofl:
 
  • #37
221
0
Danger said:
It never ceases to amaze me that Yanks (with a straight face!) refer to Benedict Arnold as a filthy traitor when in fact he was one of the very few patriots to make it into the history books. The rest of them were the traitors.
Traitors I have heard them called before...terrorist never. Why do you suppose that is? Oh, because the word terrorist has a definition and the colonist don't meet that definition even by a ridiculous stretch of the imagination.

You people really do crack me up with your whacky ideas... :rofl:
 
  • #38
221
0
The Smoking Man said:
Bravo.

Excellent example.
:rofl:
An example of what though?
 
  • #39
Townsend said:
Traitors I have heard them called before...terrorist never. Why do you suppose that is? Oh, because the word terrorist has a definition and the colonist don't meet that definition even by a ridiculous stretch of the imagination.

You people really do crack me up with your whacky ideas... :rofl:
Describe honest, honourable warfare of the day.

Now describe how the Green Mountain Boys fought.
 
  • #40
Townsend said:
An example of what though?
Why a definition of words in context to the writer, in the context of time and in the cultural/national context.

In other words, he is being less USA centric than you can ever hope to be and displaying a knowledge of 'the big picture' that you have yet to achieve.
 
  • #41
221
0
The Smoking Man said:
Describe honest, honourable warfare of the day.

Now describe how the Green Mountain Boys fought.
Nice try...you do the typing...explain how the colonist meet the definition and if I agree I will say I was wrong. I have done it before and I will have no problem doing it in the future if I have to.

In the mean time I have the new Harry Potter book to be reading :tongue2:
 
  • #42
221
0
The Smoking Man said:
Why a definition of words in context to the writer, in the context of time and in the cultural/national context.

In other words, he is being less USA centric than you can ever hope to be and displaying a knowledge of 'the big picture' that you have yet to achieve.
In other words you and him are trying to twist the definition of a word to make a connection with something that I hold dear. The problem with your strategy is that I have a brain and anyone with a brain can tell that you are trying to compare apples to oranges. They are not the same and the definition does not match. In fact I think it the idea is really stupid...the fact that you can't see that tells me that you must have a very narrow point of view.

Regards,
 
  • #43
Townsend said:
Nice try...you do the typing...explain how the colonist meet the definition and if I agree I will say I was wrong. I have done it before and I will have no problem doing it in the future if I have to.

In the mean time I have the new Harry Potter book to be reading :tongue2:
They fought for a country that did not exist.

They attacked the 'ruler of record'.

They wore no Uniform or identifying badges.

They did not engage the enemy in the accepted method of the day but struck with deception often firing from the trees.

Benedict Arnold stood up for the ruler of the land.

The 'Boston Tea Party' was an act of terror done by people in disguise deliberately trying to deceive the observers into believing it was others (native Americans) who performed the act.
 
  • #44
Townsend said:
In other words you and him are trying to twist the definition of a word to make a connection with something that I hold dear. The problem with your strategy is that I have a brain and anyone with a brain can tell that you are trying to compare apples to oranges. They are not the same and the definition does not match. In fact I think it the idea is really stupid...the fact that you can't see that tells me that you must have a very narrow point of view.

Regards,
No we are trying to prove that the definition of record is that of the American context and that is what you hold dear and can not divorce yourself from.

You are therefore admitting that you can never be an impartial observer nor walk a mile in the shoes of another culture or race.

You're an American and in your own view of the world a blind partiot with no sense of decency or fair play who can forgive dozens of crimes by your state and use any single incident to condemn everyone who isn't American.
 
  • #45
221
0
The Smoking Man said:
They fought for a country that did not exist.
They fought against their OWN country...that sounds like a civil war to me.

They attacked the 'ruler of record'.
No, they did not actually attack...

They wore no Uniform or identifying badges.
:rofl: you are acting like they were hiding among the civilian population to avoid a battle or something.

They did not engage the enemy in the accepted method of the day but struck with deception often firing from the trees.
ok...

Benedict Arnold stood up for the ruler of the land.
This is sort of like filler information as it really does not relate to your point.

The 'Boston Tea Party' was an act of terror done by people in disguise deliberately trying to deceive the observers into believing it was others (native Americans) who performed the act.
It was an act of protest against their own government....the key words you need to see here are 'their own government'. Civil wars are not in the same league as terrorist. The North never called the South, terrorist. Get it?
 
  • #46
221
0
The Smoking Man said:
You are therefore admitting that you can never be an impartial observer nor walk a mile in the shoes of another culture or race.
Hold on there bucko...I admit the America has a tainted past. I am not proud of everything done by my ancestors. Slavery topping the list followed by the outright slaughter of the American Indians. You assume way too much.

You're an American and in your own view of the world a blind partiot with no sense of decency or fair play who can forgive dozens of crimes by your state and use any single incident to condemn everyone who isn't American.
I am not a blind patriot...in fact if we keep losing liberties at the rate we currently are I will most likely become an expatriate. I value liberty of the individual, both economically and socially above EVERYTHING ELSE. I would die to defend that but if my country gets too far from that then I won't hesitate to find a new place to live.

Again you assume too much.

Regards,
 
  • #47
Townsend said:
They fought against their OWN country...that sounds like a civil war to me.
Funny but in your reference books you never actually call it that do you. I believe it is always called the 'war of independence'.


Townsend said:
No, they did not actually attack...
Right ... they never attacked for the whole war.


Townsend said:
:rofl: you are acting like they were hiding among the civilian population to avoid a battle or something.
Yes. You're right. That is exactly what the Green Mountain Boys did.


Townsend said:
This is sort of like filler information as it really does not relate to your point.
Really? this is exactly the point we are making ... that the perception of the terms we used is governed by concept and patriotism. Was Arnold a Patriot or a traitor?



Townsend said:
It was an act of protest against their own government....the key words you need to see here are 'their own government'. Civil wars are not in the same league as terrorist. The North never called the South, terrorist. Get it?
Weren't you just stating that the 'terrorists' in Iraq were killing their own people, children and government?


Perception, my friend.

You are unable to let go and see things as they are because you are conditioned.
 
  • #48
221
0
The Smoking Man said:
Funny but in your reference books you never actually call it that do you. I believe it is always called the 'war of independence'.
I never referenced any books...

Right ... they never attacked for the whole war.
They never invaded is what I meant...of course they attacked English armies.

Yes. You're right. That is exactly what the Green Mountain Boys did.
The word I would use to describe the Green Mountain Boys would be guerillas, not terrorist. In this case the definition actually fits.

Really? this is exactly the point we are making ... that the perception of the terms we used is governed by concept and patriotism. Was Arnold a Patriot or a traitor?
Perception I can see...twisting the way a word is defined and used I cannot.

Weren't you just stating that the 'terrorists' in Iraq were killing their own people, children and government?
The archetypal form for a terrorist is not what the colonist were. Some were paramilitary and used guerilla tatics but they are not the same as terrorist. Nice try though. It make for interesting discourse to say the least...


Perception, my friend.

You are unable to let go and see things as they are because you are conditioned.
Right...and you, the one who keeps putting words into my mouth, are going to show me the light.....
 
  • #49
Townsend said:
Hold on there bucko...I admit the America has a tainted past. I am not proud of everything done by my ancestors. Slavery topping the list followed by the outright slaughter of the American Indians. You assume way too much.
Really? And can you divorce yourself from the emotion of the moment well enough to own up to the American illegalities in the war against Iraq?

Justice is not something viewed with perfect 20-20 hindsight but is achieved best whle the crime is still being committed so that it can be halted.

There has been a reluctance on the part of America to acknowledge the Downing Street Memo for what it is for example because of a perception of 'well, what is done is don and we can't fix it now'.

Townsend said:
I am not a blind patriot...in fact if we keep losing liberties at the rate we currently are I will most likely become an expatriate. I value liberty of the individual, both economically and socially above EVERYTHING ELSE. I would die to defend that but if my country gets too far from that then I won't hesitate to find a new place to live.

Again you assume too much.

Regards,
Really?

You have already dismissed another's links as 'BS' even though they wre proved later to be from the source you denied they were from.

You will also find it very hard to become an expat, I fear.

You seem to be having a hard time showing anyone an opinion about current events much less history that would make you welcome in another culture or make another culture appealing to you. (LOL. Unless Canada is your object of desire but then that would smack of 'draft dodging' wouldn't it? :biggrin:)
 
  • #50
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
Hurkyl said:
Just to make sure I have it straight.

Are you defending, or even supporting, this act of terror?
The Smoking Man said:
What would YOU say?

I've reread your post, and yes, I say you are defending this act of terror, or at least tolerating it.

When I read your posts, I see legitimizing. I see rationale. I see blame shifting. When I pressed you for your actual stance, I saw evasion.

And now, I see deflection.

I see everything but "Yes, this was a terrible act."
 

Related Threads on Awful news in Iraq

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
98
Views
15K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
77
Views
6K
Top