Is Love Your Enemy Still Relevant in the War on Terror?

[loseyourname]

Well, a worshipinig IS a difference the AIM will never justidy the MEANS to reach it, since the means are part of the aim sine they are the tools to reach it...

Whipping out people in this way in a plces where God is worhsipped EVEN a wrong religion is practising there [By NO MEANS I am stating here that Islam is wrong, i deeply respect that religion and love it] is a CRIME, if the Iraqis did it to the Americans churches here it will be baad, too baad!

By twisting language i can say: YEAH YEAH YEAH. Al-Qaeda was right in destroiyng the Twin Towers, since they are used to control the Global Economy...and the American Have some war actions starting from there to fight some countriesand nations [or help fighitng..like U.S support for Israel against Palestinians] So yes, it is OK, since this is WAR LAWS,

Totally...[fill in the blanks] argument,

I konw Gonzolo you were not doing that, but i think still that a peaceful place like house should be respected in the war, as well as a mosque...and killing there is worse [will add too much to the huge evil of unjustified killing...wherever place it happened]

This is exactly why the insurgents hide out in and fight from mosques. Because they know that myopic Muslims will blame the US soldiers who are forced to fire at these mosques.

Tell me what you would do, Moses, if you came upon a man who appeared to be faking death, when you had already encountered booby-trapped bodies and just yesterday had been shot in the face by a man faking death. I'd like to know how any of you would react.

 

[Moses]

Loseyourname, i totally agree with you that they should be careful..and really careful [refering to soldiers] so that they will not be killed...

But..the argument hold here is really close to these arguments:

Kill this kid who is walking by, he COULD be carrying a bomb...
Kill this old old...he has the potential to be a fighter against us...
KILL THAT injured guy...since he COULD be trying to attack you...

Loseyourname...i can think crazily that your are trying to hack up my computer...and you join PF to gather Info about me..to make your mession suceed..It totally wrong to take that in tis way...

Yes, we should not be ignoring totally the small chances, specially at war...but if you know that this guy is injured..and having no harm..no way to kill him is justifed..

This situation i can expand it, since thousands of Iraqis in Fallujah and elsewhere were killed by our planes.."suspecting" that htier houses "could" have resistance fighters...we should be more careful...we are fighitng humans...not sheeps..even sheeps has animal rights..if i m not wrong

 

[Gonzolo]

YES! and i am saying it AGAIN :...YES! They have to hold fire if people from insdie hold fire...

If the war is moral...you shoudl always give your enemy the chance for surrender and stop fighting ...since fighitn is not "cool", simply.

Holr you fire, yes, they HAVE to. But if the resistance fighters start fire from inside, now it is justified that they HAVE to go inside...

The aim will not justify the tools we use to reach it...and the ways we use to reach it...

If you disagree with the last two lines i wrote, simply you agree that Al-Qaeda terrorist attack was "justified" since killing innocent people here was in the "justice war" process...

From the begginning, we should NOT, be in their land, we went to fight for a lie, and our poor soldiers spents their blood their in a war that WE, and WE are the worst team in it [still, there is a bunch of other bat teams there]

So the people inside decide when the fight starts and when it stops? How can this not be biased? Do you believe a US soldier would be safe if he entered a mosque to surrender? What would happen next? Being in their place, I would "probably" not try it.

If the war is moral?? Note that unlike the people in the mosque, the people inside the WTC were unnarmed, unprepared, unsuspecting, innocent, and in peace time. Would you say it was moral to slay them? Do you say a terrorist act, which nearly always against innocent, random people is moral? I have seen nothing moral from the insurgent side. Booby-trapped bodies, faking injuries, shooting from a place of worship, faking surrenders, beheading civilians (including a CARE worker), and supporting suicide bomber families financially are not moral acts as far as I am concerned (the Bush side also has a share of immoral acts to, but this thread is about the mosque location). Insurgents have made themselves a history of faking surrender in this war, which has ruined their credibility. Unfortunately for the "honest" ones, soldiers cannot risk their lives by guessing who is really surrendering and who is faking, and about to explode.

But location alone is not a sign of surrender. A mosque might work if all combattants from boths sides were all Muslim, but American soldiers probably don't learn such exeptions in soldier school.

 

[loseyourname]

Loseyourname, i totally agree with you that they should be careful..and really careful [refering to soldiers] so that they will not be killed...

But..the argument hold here is really close to these arguments:

Kill this kid who is walking by, he COULD be carrying a bomb...
Kill this old old...he has the potential to be a fighter against us...
KILL THAT injured guy...since he COULD be trying to attack you...

Hey, I'm not saying he did the right thing, but I wouldn't be so quick to judge when we really have no idea what went on outside of the ten seconds we've seen on a grainy video with crappy sound.

Yes, we should not be ignoring totally the small chances, specially at war...but if you know that this guy is injured..and having no harm..no way to kill him is justifed..

That is correct, and I'm sure any soldier would agree with you. As it stands, I highly doubt that the marine in question knew the man to pose no threat. If that was the case, then heck, why would he have shot him? It seems like some people act like US forces are just running around shooting at everyone because it's fun. This isn't a game, and I don't see any reason to believe that the US forces are treating it as such. Furthermore, it is clear that there is a side in this war that is intentionally and indiscriminately murdering innocent civilians, and it is not the US. The endless criticism of the US by some people, the same people who make every excuse for the actions of the insurgents, baffles me. It is clear that it can only come from either bias or blind hatred, not any logical thought process.

This situation i can expand it, since thousands of Iraqis in Fallujah and elsewhere were killed by our planes.."suspecting" that htier houses "could" have resistance fighters...we should be more careful...we are fighitng humans...not sheeps..even sheeps has animal rights..if i m not wrong

I could be wrong, but I think rights are only granted to animals that are pets. Anyway, that's off-topic.

As far as the killing of civilians in Fallujah, I don't know the death-toll, and I would be highly wary of anybody telling you that an inordinate amount of innocent people were killed by US jets targeting the wrong places. I'm sure that a good amount of civilian deaths did occur, but you have to consider several things. First, several weeks notice was given that the city would be attacked, something that coalition forces did not have to do. Second, whose fault is this? Clearly, coalition forces had to take the city back if Iraq is ever to have any hope for peace. It is illegal and immoral for the insurgents to be basing their operations in civilians buildings in the middle of a large city, knowing that it would eventually be attacked and that civilian deaths would result. Air raids are conducted prior to invasions in part because if they were not, then fighting would be that much more vicious and drawn-out, possibly resulting in even more death.

I still contend that there is one force acting to end this war and minimize casualties, successfully or not, and there is another force working to ensure that Iraq does not see peace and that innocent people continue to die. Consider this, and decide very carefully which force your support should be behind. I don't advocate blind support. By all means, if it is found that this marine did commit a war-crime, then he should be punished to the full extent of the law. Still, the bottom-line of the conflict at this point is that which I stated above.

Would you prefer to see the fighting stopped, the kidnappings ended, the destruction minimized, and free, peaceful elections take place and a new regime begin, or would you rather see a continuance of guerilla warfare ad infinitum?

 

[Moses]

Well, since we are the stronger team in the war in terms of weapons and soldiers, we HAVE to take into consideration that the first aim there is to reqiar our mistake now, not killing more of them.

Gonzolo, why biased? So the our army decide, and even if they resign or stop we will kick their head until we are sure there is no one lliving life in the city, this is not cool. We came to city, not they came to us...

I DID NEVER EVER SAY THE WTC IS MORAL?? I am eating crap to say that!
I am just saying: The Losers who did it did it for a cuase..and their cuase by no means justify what they did, SAME as our aim in Iraq will not justify our immoral actions there...

You know loseyourname, that the figthers has a point, yes they had, i read some newspapers in the middle east [ i lived thee for many years..so i learned there language..] that the fighter points is: The enemy will not by our judge men. They steal our oil, invade our land, will we trust them again in outting their agents into power?

They say: we learned from Japan and Germany lessons in the WWII, and we did not want to U.S control us as it did to the other countries.

This is their mian point. Yes it sucks so badly how both teams are doing lost of immoral acts...but i still saying, if we our being there is not justified there, it is all our fault in the first place, and the fighters share us part of it, but we still have the major part.

Going out of the city? Well, in 1948, Israelis destroy 300 arabs valleges in order to show their power, they were entering other cities with this record in the next war days to force peole to leave [since they show there army can do crimes, and do not care] people has hard choice here, but not leaving is the most bravest choice...to rock the other sides plans downs..still leaving is understandable. In Iraq the history repeat its self, but this time we claim we are having more accurate weapons, still w are in an immoral war...

 

[BobG]

That is correct, and I'm sure any soldier would agree with you. As it stands, I highly doubt that the marine in question knew the man to pose no threat.

I agree. If you listen as well as watch, the Marine was very hyped up by the environment and either did believe the Iraqi posed a threat ("He's faking he's dead", etc.) or else it was a premeditated acting job done because he knew the camera was on.

Overreacting to a stressful situation? Possibly. But definitely not a war crime or murder. Not in a battle environment. And definitely not when placed in the context of the Marine's experience in that battle ( a wounded Iraqi with a grenade had killed some Marines, the Marine in question shot just the day before).

 

[Gonzolo]

I think it all comes down to whether the guy in the mosque was completely innocent (unjustified killing), faking (justified), or surrenderring, which in my opinion means that he has to prove that he is compliant to any order. Being inside a place of worship doesn't seem sufficient in my opinion (especially not in wartime) to prove surrender. Not being able to filter the enemy from the friend in wartime will cause unfortunate incidents. If the soldier's answer comes up, it'll be interesting to hear.

 

[Moses]

Well, for me by the ned of the day..God knows eaxctly what happened and he will judge that soldier in the judgemant day..yeah i hope he is not guilty..but also i am very that about that human, that enemy..that Iraqi fighter who killed unjustified...

Gonzolo, place has a significance...can some body make a horse entering insider a chruch and then urinate there? I think no, so place has a significance...

One point i want to to reach here i got its proof now from your speeches, most of you:

Our Army is not allowing a fiar media coverage...we just know from the army...The ABC of any court is listening from both sides before judging. If one side somplains that the other injuried one of his eyes, listen to the second, because it could be that th first injuried both of the second eyes...

Does any of you think that i am feeling happy when i am sleaking about how our army is doing their in an unjustified war? I am feeling sad..so deeply, hoping that no difficult challenges will face our soldiers that much, even i know my hope is fo far to be happened in reality

 

[Andy]

Im not saying that the fallen soldiers don't deserve a burial, but the Allied forces are on the attack so do you think that they have time to drop their guard and bury the dead?

 

[Gonzolo]

Gonzolo, place has a significance...can some body make a horse entering insider a chruch and then urinate there? I think no, so place has a significance...

It's not a place for a weapon either, yet insurgents did apparently bring in weapons. Did you also notice that the soldier had his boots on? Why do you think he didn't take them off before going inside? You are really having a hard time putting yourself in a soldier's mind.

 

[Moses]

Simply no, i am having a hard time..and i will not say that you are having a hard time getting my point.
Well, i can simply reply in a general scale that our army till now destory 20 mosques there, i doubt if they where our churches they will do so...
I can say they mentality is WHO CARES, if its a mosque or not, we killed a guys there injuried which is a big issue, are you now talking about the samll issue which is the boot? [Who did the big...dont care about the small]

We start the thread talking about 3 issues, and we narrowed to one...simply they can send the red cross to take the dead bodies and heal the "ENEMY" who stopped fighting...instead of making them rotting in da streets, cats and dogs are eating them! are we proud that even the emeny bodies will be in the animals stomachs?

And a big surprise...the mosques from inside are an empty place, ITS TOTLALLY STUPID if any soldier entered there before they make sure that they killed every one there or make it really injured...they made sure to rock down the people inside by huge amoiunt of destruction they did to the mosuque,

some our soldiers sleep and their boots are on, so? I am not making fun of you or something, but we are in war 24/7 since many months there...still not justified what we did by the name of war...

 

[loseyourname]

that the fighter points is: The enemy will not by our judge men. They steal our oil, invade our land, will we trust them again in outting their agents into power?

So why weren't these insurgents up in arms when Saddam invaded Kuwait and tried to steal their oil? I can guarantee that Iraqi citizens (outside of ex-Baathists) will benefit far more from the presence of oil once a peaceful regime is in place than they ever did under Saddam.

They say: we learned from Japan and Germany lessons in the WWII, and we did not want to U.S control us as it did to the other countries.

They leaned what? Japan and Germany became first-world industrial powers because of US assistance after WWII. God forbid that an Arab nation should actually offer the promise of prosperity to all of its citizens.

This is their mian point. Yes it sucks so badly how both teams are doing lost of immoral acts...but i still saying, if we our being there is not justified there, it is all our fault in the first place, and the fighters share us part of it, but we still have the major part.

I don't buy into that. Even if I grant that the US went in without just cause, that doesn't justify breaking every international law on the books and terrorizing an entire nation just to make a point. The sooner they stop, the sooner the US is gone.

 

[BobG]

They say: we learned from Japan and Germany lessons in the WWII, and we did not want to U.S control us as it did to the other countries.

Wrong? Or am I just missing the point you're trying to make? What lessons could they have possibly learned from Japan and Germany that are relevant to the current situation in Iraq?

They leaned what? Japan and Germany became first-world industrial powers because of US assistance after WWII. God forbid that an Arab nation should actually offer the promise of prosperity to all of its citizens.

Not exactly accurate. Japan and Germany were first-world industrial powers before WWII, as well. But, yes, the Marshall Plan did allow both countries, as well as other European countries that sustained losses during the war, to return to their pre-war status much quicker. If the people you're giving money to already know what to do with it, the investment pays off pretty quickly.

The US benefited almost as much as Europe. A close relationship created business ties that helped both sides of the ocean.

Contrast that to Argentina who got squeezed out by a close US-Europe relationship. Even without war damages, they dropped from first-world industrial power to third world status just because they became an outsider instead of a part of one those relationships.

In the long run, it was the mutual close relationship with the US that benefited Europe - not the money. In other words, if process that liberates Iraq destroys the possibility of any sort of US-Middle East relationship, then neither side really gains very much (except maybe Europe - by not getting involved until the dust settles, they might wind up with a closer relationship with the Middle East than the US has).

 

[loseyourname]

Not exactly accurate.

It's plenty accurate, just not complete.

In the long run, it was the mutual close relationship with the US that benefited Europe - not the money. In other words, if process that liberates Iraq destroys the possibility of any sort of US-Middle East relationship, then neither side really gains very much (except maybe Europe - by not getting involved until the dust settles, they might wind up with a closer relationship with the Middle East than the US has).

Well, building a strong post-war relationship with the new Iraqi regime is part of the idea. If the Iraqis don't want prosperity, then they won't get it. Before UN sanctions, Iraq was also a first-world industrial power, and there is no reason to think they can't reattain that status, this time without the brutal dictatorship. If I remember correctly, they were in the top five in the size of their economy before the first gulf war.

 

[Gonzolo]

Simply no, i am having a hard time..and i will not say that you are having a hard time getting my point.
Well, i can simply reply in a general scale that our army till now destory 20 mosques there, i doubt if they where our churches they will do so...
I can say they mentality is WHO CARES, if its a mosque or not, we killed a guys there injuried which is a big issue, are you now talking about the samll issue which is the boot? [Who did the big...dont care about the small]

We start the thread talking about 3 issues, and we narrowed to one...simply they can send the red cross to take the dead bodies and heal the "ENEMY" who stopped fighting...instead of making them rotting in da streets, cats and dogs are eating them! are we proud that even the emeny bodies will be in the animals stomachs?

And a big surprise...the mosques from inside are an empty place, ITS TOTLALLY STUPID if any soldier entered there before they make sure that they killed every one there or make it really injured...they made sure to rock down the people inside by huge amoiunt of destruction they did to the mosuque,

some our soldiers sleep and their boots are on, so? I am not making fun of you or something, but we are in war 24/7 since many months there...still not justified what we did by the name of war...

I don't feel like you're making fun of me at all, don't worry. Hopefully, I am not either. (BTW, I am having a hard time seeing your point!).

I don't think anyone is proud of leaving unburied bodies, or killing inside a place of worship. It is an unfortunate consequence of the fact that securing the city is the utmost, single priority. Time spent burying is time not spent on guard. Places of worship have been destroyed in many wars (Stalingrad, Jerusalem, Hiroshima). Just like war is on 24/7 (no break for Ramada or Christmas etc.), it is (was?) on in all of Fallujah (no break in special places). It may suck, but it's normal in wartime, unfortunately. IMO, wartime decisions are based on security and safety, more than religion. Maybe some people value religion more than safety and vice-versa.

 

[Gonzolo]

Relevant news update (abc, Peter Jennings etc.) : weapons were found in 60 out of 100 mosques in Fallujah.

 

[Dark]

Im Iraqi... Ok you say weapons were found. Maybe that's for protection..hmmm... i meen have you been to Iraw, not as a soldier. I have last summer... There is no real police force their... ofcopurse youw ill carry a weapon for safty... its like saying will u carry a weapon while u at the zoo.. damnright i will those zebras might esacpe.. hahah

 

[SOS2008]

Right or wrong, true or false, perception is everything in winning the hearts and minds of people:

...Everyone might heard the last news about killing of an Iraqi inside a Mosque [Holy place for Muslims..as Chruch to Christians]...This was sad, vey sad. We claim that we make them get red out of Saddam and we do = or worse...

What even shocked me more is: after 7 days of fight in Fallujah, they did not burry ANY human died from the Iraqis..they are rotting now in the streets...

I'm sure the spin doctors are at work here and there, and a way to stop it is to have an exit strategy from the can of worms that the Middle East is (and I use that in a metaphorical, not derogatory way).

 

[Pengwuino]

Well,
Everyone might heard the last news about killing of an Iraqi inside a Mosque [Holy place for Muslims..as Chruch to Christians]...This was sad, vey sad. We claim that we make them get red out of Saddam and we do = or worse...

What even shocked me more is: after 7 days of fight in Fallujah, they did not burry ANY human died from the Iraqis..they are rotting now in the streets...

You obviously have no idea what actually went on in Iraq under saddam. Just because Peter Jennings didnt report it on a day to day basis doesn't mean the world was all peachy there. And hey, go talk to any WW2 vet and ask them what they think about people not being burried. You don't bury the dead until the battles over lest you want more of your soldiers to get shot.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

When a man picks up a weopon and fights in a war he should expect that he will likely die. The fact that he was injured and hiding out in a mosque does not change this. If I believed unwaveringly in the rightousness of fighting my enemy I would fight until I was no longer capable, and if I reached that point alive I would think my enemies foolish to spare me because I would only continue to fight and sabatoge them when capable of doing so. This all ofcourse only if I truly believed in my cause otherwise I would not have picked up the weopon in the first place. In my opinion anyone who picks up a weopon to go to war should consider this before hand so if anyone is killed in this fashion it should not be a suprise.
And Moses, regardless of whether or not it was right to go into begin with it is now done. We are not continuing a war or invasion at this point only assuring that Iraq is secure to run it's elections for it's government so we can leave. The insurgents, currently, are the ones picking the fights. So if you're going to blame anyone for the continuation of violence shouldn't it be the insurgents?