US death squads in Iraq?

  • #26
123
1
Townsend said:
I imagine that even countries like France and Germany have covert operatives in Iraq gathering intelligence as we speak.
France ?, Germany ? don't even mention them, because from what I read in your posts you gonna gravitate slowly and blaming them for all US failures in Iraq.

PS. What was Abu-ghraib all about ?? was not that one huge death squad operation !!
 
  • #27
221
0
tumor said:
France ?, Germany ? don't even mention them, because from what I read in your posts you gonna gravitate slowly and blaming them for all US failures in Iraq.

PS. What was Abu-ghraib all about ?? was not that one huge death squad operation !!
I do not blame them for US failures in Iraq I blame those who are responsible for them. I believe the buck stops with the person who had the authority over the situation and of course all those under him or her that did not object to the bad decision.

I used France and Germany because they are two countries who are obviously opposed to this war. The point being that even countries that are completely against war, like France, will be involved in covert opperations and they should be. There is nothing wrong with a country looking out for its own best interest.

Regards
 
  • #28
123
1
Actually what US army is doing in Iraq is not looking for its own intetrests but for Israel's.American soldiers are dying fighting Israel's war.
 
  • #29
Townsend said:
There is nothing wrong with a country looking out for its own best interest.
This sounds very like George W, and is only reasonable coming from a reasonable man. In GW's case, it implies that the ends can be made to justify the means. Why not a final solution then? Go on, you know you want to; they are all scum and you are doing it for the good.
 
  • #30
tumor said:
Actually what US army is doing in Iraq is not looking for its own intetrests but for Israel's.American soldiers are dying fighting Israel's war.
:eek: Pandora's Box alert! Pandora's Box alert!
 
  • #31
57
0
Townsend said:
I used France and Germany because they are two countries who are obviously opposed to this war. The point being that even countries that are completely against war, like France, will be involved in covert opperations and they should be. There is nothing wrong with a country looking out for its own best interest.

Regards
I am from argentina. then i guess i have the rigth to train a death squad cell and infiltrate it in american soil to do some "Selective Assasinations", hey, it's for my own best interest...
 
  • #32
221
0
the number 42 said:
a final solution ; they are all scum


This sounds very much like Adolf Hitler to me. But of course I am taking you out of context. I would appreciate it if you would please not take my words out of context to make it seem as if I am saying something I never did.

:rolleyes:

I really wonder why I ever bothered trying to communicate with you people.
 
  • #33
221
0
Burnsys said:
I am from argentina. then i guess i have the rigth to train a death squad cell and infiltrate it in american soil to do some "Selective Assasinations", hey, it's for my own best interest...
I never said that it was ok for the US or any other country to have death squads. Where on earth are you getting your ideas from? Please take the time to read what I say carefully before you respond to it. If there is something you do not understand then ask me and I will do my best to answer. This can go for everyone on this message board including myself.

Often times we let our emotions respond for us. This is a mistake and this is a perfect example of someone who thinks they read something they did not read and so they responded emotionally to the situation. If they would have thought about it a bit more carefully they would realize what they are saying makes no sense at all.

Regards
 
  • #34
221
0
the number 42 said:
This sounds very like George W, and is only reasonable coming from a reasonable man. In GW's case, it implies that the ends can be made to justify the means. Why not a final solution then? Go on, you know you want to; they are all scum and you are doing it for the good.
Just to clarify, this post was made in response to an earlier post by me that said.

" There is nothing wrong with a country looking out for its own best interest."

Of course this is taken out of context but I contend that it is true by it self and so it is ok to be out of context.

The key to understanding this statement is to realize that while it is ok for a country to look out for its own best interest it is not ok for that country to do whatever it takes to get what is in its best interest. What I mean by that is, it is ok for a country to take steps in its own interest as long as that does not mean causing unreasonable amounts of harms.

As a specific example the US is very interested in gathering intelligence from its prisoners of war. It is in the US's best interest to gather this intel by whatever means necessary but it is NOT ok for the US to do that. Has the US done this? It would seem so and I am really disappointed and ashamed of those people who in committing such a heinous act, have brought discredit upon the entire United States.

What I am trying to get at is that by taking my words out of context and by misrepresenting what I a saying a few people here have made it out to sound like I am justifying brutal acts by any country as long as that country is doing what is in its own best interest. Obviously this is completely wrong and it really is sad that I should have to go through all of this for just a simple comment.

Regards
 
  • #35
russ_watters
Mentor
19,868
6,292
Why don't we just call them "Happy Squads"? That would make it more palateable.
 
  • #36
123
1
the number 42 said:
:eek: Pandora's Box alert! Pandora's Box alert!

What you mean by that ? Is there something wrong with criticizing Israel ? Are you so PC as to forbid questioning policy of Israel.
US is only in Iraq because of Israel and its policy to dominate region.Soon you will see US fighting another war for Israel (mark my words) either with Syria or Iran.
 
  • #37
Townsend said:
I really wonder why I ever bothered trying to communicate with you people.
Yes, its amazing that 'us people' don't just agree with everything you say. Don't worry, if 'you people' have your way it won't be long before freedom of expression is banned on the internet too. I'm sure this would suit you down to the ground.
 
  • #38
tumor said:
What you mean by that ? Is there something wrong with criticizing Israel ? Are you so PC as to forbid questioning policy of Israel.
US is only in Iraq because of Israel and its policy to dominate region.
I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out that discussion of the US & Israel tend to generate more heat than light. I agree that the US is there to 'defend its national interests', but you will get those who are dogmatically opposed to the idea. However, its such an important subject that it is worth going into a some point, not least beacuse many Muslims see what is happening to Palestine as reason enough to oppose the US, never mind Iraq.
 
  • #39
Townsend said:
I believe it is fairly reasonable to say that most countries are involved in covert operations in foreign countries all the time. I think it would be pretty unreasonable to suggest that any country involved in armed conflict with another country is not involved in covert operations.
Townsend said:
I never said that it was ok for the US or any other country to have death squads. Where on earth are you getting your ideas from? Please take the time to read what I say carefully before you respond to it. If there is something you do not understand then ask me and I will do my best to answer. This can go for everyone on this message board including myself.

Often times we let our emotions respond for us. This is a mistake and this is a perfect example of someone who thinks they read something they did not read and so they responded emotionally to the situation. If they would have thought about it a bit more carefully they would realize what they are saying makes no sense at all.
Your use of the words 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' need clarifying, as they can be read as implying tacit support for the use of covert actions. Yes, I know you said 'reasonable to say', but if you are wondering why people are taking a different meaning from your words than you intended, listen up. Also, saying that any country at war will be involved in covert actions can easily be read as suggesting that it is natural and therefore correct that this is the case.

If you want to be understood, I suggest you take the time to express yourself more clearly and less ambiguously. Or perhaps you want to be misunderstood? It would also help if you wrote in a way that didn't make you sound as if you are a toddler deprived of its favourite toy.
 
  • #40
russ_watters said:
Why don't we just call them "Happy Squads"? That would make it more palateable.
:rofl: Dressed as clowns. This would act as a cover, confuse the enemy once the attack began, and make great TV too. No more covert nasty actions, only fun, happy actions. :biggrin:
 
  • #41
221
0
the number 42 said:
Your use of the words 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' need clarifying, as they can be read as implying tacit support for the use of covert actions. Yes, I know you said 'reasonable to say', but if you are wondering why people are taking a different meaning from your words than you intended, listen up. Also, saying that any country at war will be involved in covert actions can easily be read as suggesting that it is natural and therefore correct that this is the case.

If you want to be understood, I suggest you take the time to express yourself more clearly and less ambiguously. Or perhaps you want to be misunderstood? It would also help if you wrote in a way that didn't make you sound as if you are a toddler deprived of its favourite toy.
I intentionally leave what I say as somewhat ambiguous because on some issues I can really go either way depending on new information. If I thought I knew it all then I would say so and why. What is wrong with me making a statement and leaving it open?

Your argument is that if person A says something that and does not clarify his or her position then it is ok to make assumptions to fill in the gaps. Well you are wrong!!!! And you are acting like a toddler when you do so. I can be as ambiguous as I wish and you cannot say I said ANYTHING more or less than what I actually do say. Filling in information that I left out is counter productive to any discussion at all.

The only point I made in this thread is that people make anti American Knee jerk reactions without taking the time to think about it. I had NO intentions of saying anything more than that!!!! It was your work and the work of SA and that took my words to mean anything more.

You are incorrect to say that I should have to make my position clear to prevent people from misunderstanding me. That idea is parallel to saying a woman who dresses and acts a certain way is asking to be raped. I never wanted to have a position on the subject of this thread. That is MY choice and I never gave you any information about how I feel about the subject of this thread.

I think the only reason that you want to argue some other position of mine is because you are king of the STRAW MAN tactic. Instead of just arguing against my argument you want to argue something completely different and then conclude that my original argument is therefore false. This is a fallacy that you seem to be well acquainted with and are trying to force it on me.

From Wikipedia:

“The straw-man rhetorical technique is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents actually offer. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, and then attribute that position to your opponent.

One can set up a straw man in several different ways:

1. Present only a portion of the opponent's arguments (often a weak one), refute it, and pretend that all of their arguments have been refuted.
2. Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
3. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
4. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute their arguments, and pretend that every argument for that position has been refuted.
5. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that that person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.

Some logic textbooks define the straw-man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics.”

You are guilty of #3 in case you were wondering.

Why not just be a man and face the arguments directly?

For the love of human kind everywhere, please stop assuming people say something they did not say. If you really want to know where I stand then ask me and I will more than likely give you an ambiguous answer. Why would I do this you may ask? Because I might not want to discuss my opinion on that particular subject. That is my choice and it does not make it ok for you go on and assume what I think.

Regards
 
Last edited:
  • #42
221
0
the number 42 said:
Yes, its amazing that 'us people' don't just agree with everything you say. Don't worry, if 'you people' have your way it won't be long before freedom of expression is banned on the internet too. I'm sure this would suit you down to the ground.
I left that as completely ambiguous as I could and look at all the information you have filled in for me. I hope you feel smart and mature and all. I have a 10 year old niece who uses this technique to win arguments with her sister all the time. I know that when she grows up she will come to realize that this kind of behavior is childish and stop using it eventually.

By the way, how old did you say you were?

Regards
 
  • #43
123
1
If I'm not mistaken in Vietnam US forcess used groups of soldiers equiped with helicopters etc, who were outside the law and were permitted to just kill and terrorise at will generall populace.
So...if in this war Americans don't have simmilar hit squads I must be Mother Theresa o:)
 
  • #44
Townsend said:
I intentionally leave what I say as somewhat ambiguous because on some issues I can really go either way depending on new information. If I thought I knew it all then I would say so and why. What is wrong with me making a statement and leaving it open?

You are incorrect to say that I should have to make my position clear to prevent people from misunderstanding me. That idea is parallel to saying a woman who dresses and acts a certain way is asking to be raped. I never wanted to have a position on the subject of this thread. That is MY choice and I never gave you any information about how I feel about the subject of this thread.
:rofl: Stop! You're killing me! Why don't you just send a few posts like this to the terrorists - they would be helpless within minutes. Seriously, I'm glad to take the right to freedom of expression seriously, but frankly if you aren't prepared to say what you mean - you don't have to commit yourself to a postion, just try to say something that isn't open to misinterpretation - you have no right to expect to be understood, or to get a response. This goes for your straw man idea too. Do you really expect me to respond to every inane comment that is made? Sorry, but I have a life. Perhaps you'd feel happier if you stick to chatting to your nieces.
 

Related Threads on US death squads in Iraq?

Replies
6
Views
13K
Replies
45
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
133
Views
9K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
105
Views
7K
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
39
Views
5K
Top