rhino 0 #76 September 2, 2004 QuoteWho -- the Iraqis? would that be that if they had simply submitted graciously to being invaded They weren't INVADED. Amazing. This whole manifestation thing is out of control. Unless I am wrong, for the first time Iraq is starting to be run by Iraqi's? Not dictators like Sadham. All the clashing is about these fuck head Al Sadre assholes that want to fill the power vacuum. What a joke. Manifest on!! Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,122 #77 September 2, 2004 In the post I replied to, you said: QuoteThose innocent Iraqi's were casualties of war. Unfortunately it happens. And some of them weren't so innocent. They walk teh streets by day saying "Go Bush" but by night they would rape your mom, sister and daughter then behead them in the name of Jihad. I took that to mean that the "not so innocent" were in some way more deserving of what happens to them. What other meaning would it have? QuoteI didn't say they deserved anything? Anyway, that's where I got it from. You are only in control of what you write, not what people infer from it. If you don't want people to infer incorrectly, then your meaning should be crystal-clear, and not just to people who think just like you. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,122 #78 September 2, 2004 QuoteThey weren't INVADED How did all those Americans get there? Normally, when several hundred thousand soldiers show up with their guns drawn, it's called an invasion. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #79 September 2, 2004 >I didn't say they deserved anything . . . Rhino quote: "And some of them weren't so innocent. They walk teh streets by day saying "Go Bush" but by night they would rape your mom, sister and daughter then behead them in the name of Jihad." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #80 September 2, 2004 QuoteHow did all those Americans get there? They were liberated. Not invated. What about Afghanistan? You know the place where not too long ago the women like yourself couldn't go to school? Do you think we Invaded Afghanistan? Do you think kicking the taliban's ass and giving woman a right to an education was an invasion? Please answer? Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,122 #81 September 2, 2004 QuoteThey were liberated. Not invated. What about Afghanistan Yes, we invaded Afghanistan. Sometimes invasions are good things (this is still up in the air in the case of Afghanistan, but it's closer to the truth). The Taliban were bad guys, and I'm glad they're mostly out of control now. If we could maintain the kind of presence in Afghanistan that we're maintaining in Iraq, then the support for a national government might have a chance to exist. We invaded France during WW2, to liberate them from the Germans. Of course, the Germans had invaded France in the first place. They're words. You can't change their meaning in the short run by decree. Invasions can be bad and good. Of course, that decision is up to whoever is invading, being invaded, and writing the history books. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #82 September 2, 2004 >They were liberated. Not invated. A story about one such Iraqi we "liberated" by our non-invasion. >Do you think we Invaded Afghanistan? Of course we invaded Afghanistan! What would you call it, a rave? >Do you think kicking the taliban's ass and giving woman a right to >an education was an invasion? Dude, we invaded Afghanistan because they helped a group that pulled off the 9/11 bombings. We were defending our country; that's what our military is FOR. If we wanted em to have schools we would have sent teachers. Claiming that we were there to "liberate women" is like claiming that the Taliban was there to protect good family values from heathen westerners. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #83 September 2, 2004 QuoteRhino quote: "And some of them weren't so innocent. They walk teh streets by day saying "Go Bush" but by night they would rape your mom, sister and daughter then behead them in the name of Jihad." I don't see me saying they deserve anything still? I mentioned some weren't so innocent as a matter of fact? My statement has already been proven. I see more manifestation here Bill. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,122 #84 September 2, 2004 Rhino, not trying to be rude, but what exactly do you mean by "manifestation?" Because it doesn't match any meaning I'm familiar with. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #85 September 2, 2004 QuoteWe invaded France during WW2, to liberate them from the Germans. Of course, the Germans had invaded France in the first place. That's rich! We didn't INVADE Iraq. Iraq did INVADE that little contry next door if you remember. The Germans INVADED France with the intentions of taking over, and making the country their own. Did we INVADE that little country next to Iraq or Liberate them? Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #86 September 2, 2004 QuoteClaiming that we were there to "liberate women" Once again. You are manifesting what you want to be hearing. I didn't say we were there to liberate woman now did I? Holy Fucking _hrist! Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #87 September 2, 2004 Did we INVADE that little country next to Iraq or Liberate them*** Let's call it a catchy name, such as Kuwait, for fun. I think there's a big difference in international politics between kicking a belligerent invading force out of a country and kicking a dictator out of his country. Not that it's a bad thing. But you can invade and still liberate. However, Kuwaitis authorities did explicitely call upon the UN/US/Whomever to get involved. Iraqi Authorities (that would have been Sadam) never did so. I wonder if the Soviets "liberated" Afghanistan in 1979... Now let's move on the a new term: "Occupy". "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #88 September 2, 2004 QuoteIf you believe that then you have some growing up to do. When a relative of yours dies, it doesn't really matter that their death had the backing of some crack-pot Islamic group, or the backing of the United-fucking-States. They may be cloth wearing sand-monkeys, but their pain at the loss of a loved one is at least as bad as the pain felt by the most worthless American when their even more worthless offspring eats dust. They may not be American, or white, or think about stuff in quite the same way you do, but they still feel the raw animal searing agony that all of us feel when we lose a relative. All 10,000+ of them. Pshyeah, except, I guess, for the families who send their loved ones off to death as suicide bombers, and they get their $25,000 reward. I guess those people fall into a different category, huh? So much for your theory that everyone who dies leaves behind someone who's paralyzed with grief over it. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #89 September 2, 2004 they get their $25,000 reward... So much for your theory that everyone who dies leaves behind someone who's paralyzed with grief over it*** DUde, 2 totally different things. Are you implying that the families of NYFD, NYPD and civilian victims of 9/11 are OK with what happened because the government gave them (or was supposed to) money??? "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #90 September 2, 2004 Quote DUde, 2 totally different things. Are you implying that the families of NYFD, NYPD and civilian victims of 9/11 are OK with what happened because the government gave them (or was supposed to) money???[ I think you misunderstood something here: He was not talking about the families of killed NYFDs, NYPDs but, much more about the other side, the suicide bombers, please re-read his previous post If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me ! dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #91 September 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteNo, go back and read all his posts. That is not what he is saying. You will see that he believes that the crimes we commited against iraqi prisoners are equal to the crimes the executioners have commited. Tell me, are you more disgusted by the murder of these people, or is it the manner in which they were murdered? How can the most important thing here be the method by which they were murdered? Surely what is worse is that they died at all? Picking up on this specific point... Let's say that a person is at an ATM late at night and is robbed, shot in the head and killed for his money. Now let's say that a person is at an ATM late at night, and, with robbery as the motive, she is abducted into a van, taken to various ATMS to withdraw money at gunpoint, then has a bag duct taped over her head and is left to suffocate to death in a horrific, torturous way. I'd be angry at both murders -- but there is no question that if a person is to be murdered, there are more, and less, humane ways to go about it, and the second example is far more heinous and hideous. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #92 September 2, 2004 Quotethey get their $25,000 reward... So much for your theory that everyone who dies leaves behind someone who's paralyzed with grief over it*** DUde, 2 totally different things. Are you implying that the families of NYFD, NYPD and civilian victims of 9/11 are OK with what happened because the government gave them (or was supposed to) money??? Crozby was trying to convince us that even though many arabs have twisted, different ways of "thinking about things" from what we have, they feel the sadness and emotion of losing loved ones like we do. And I sardonically pointed out that some exceptions are the families of those loathesome suicide bombers. I guess they don't count as families that are so tormented by the deaths because for one, they are so fucked up that they think suicide-murdering of innocents is a blow struck on God's behalf, and for two, they get money from governments that support terrorist suicide-murders. So, that blows a big fuckin' hole in the theory that arab whackos feel the same sort of pain that we feel when their families die, as a rule. There is no such rule. Some of them glory in having their loved ones die as long as they take "infidels" with them. Fuck them, I hope they rot in hell with their suicide-murderer family members. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #93 September 3, 2004 QuoteThey're people. All of us. Yea, so they're people. But "they", meaning people of the middle east, are not nearly as intellectually or culturally developed as "us", meaning people of the west. Not even close. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
whiterabbit 0 #94 September 3, 2004 The fact that they aren't, as you say "nearly as intellectually or culturally developed as "us"" has nothing to do with their race. It has everything to do with their situation. If any of us were to grow up in a place where 10,000 of our countrymen were "civilian casualties" in a war started by a country way over on the other side of the world -- a country that Iraqis/Afghanis/etc don't even have the OPPORTUNITY to have a fair and balanced opinion of -- we could very well become terrorists as well. Some of the members of this discussion have seen this video (I have not) and concluded that Iraq should simply be wiped out. Imagine that you are an Iraqi, and the people you're seeing slaughtered aren't strangers on video -- they're your family and friends, and they're in your neighborhood, in your house. Imagine the blind rage you might feel towards the country that caused you so much grief. The attitude that terrorists must be hunted down and punished for their deplorable actions is just and right. The attitude that this punishment can be meted out without thought or care to innocent bystanders will only ensure that there will be another generation of terrorists to replace those that we eliminate. QuoteQuoteThey're people. All of us. Yea, so they're people. But "they", meaning people of the middle east, are not nearly as intellectually or culturally developed as "us", meaning people of the west. Not even close. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #95 September 3, 2004 QuoteThe fact that they aren't, as you say "nearly as intellectually or culturally developed as "us"" has nothing to do with their race. It has everything to do with their situation. If any of us were to grow up in a place where 10,000 of our countrymen were "civilian casualties" in a war started by a country way over on the other side of the world -- a country that Iraqis/Afghanis/etc don't even have the OPPORTUNITY to have a fair and balanced opinion of -- we'd most likely become terrorists as well. 1. My thoughts on the huge disparity between the level of cultural development between the west and middle-east aren't centered on what has happened in the last 50 years. 2. Rule by religion based dictatorships is probably a big stumbling block for them, but I doubt race is much of a factor. QuoteThe attitude that terrorists must be hunted down and punished for their deplorable actions is just and right. The attitude that this punishment can be meted out without thought or care to innocent bystanders will only ensure that there will be another generation of terrorists to replace those that we eliminate. Which is why the US spends billions on smart bomb technology, and doesn't intentionally target civilians. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CornishChris 5 #96 September 3, 2004 QuoteYea, so they're people. But "they", meaning people of the middle east, are not nearly as intellectually or culturally developed as "us", meaning people of the west. Not even close. I can't tell if this was a serious comment. If it is I am astounded at the arrogance and downright ridiculous nature of it. One of the most amazing things i have read on this website. Want something to sort out. Soort out the tens of thousands of murders a year in the US. Sort out the christians killing christians and muslims killing muslims in your own country before you condemn other cultures and nations. I can't get over that comment. Truly terrifying. CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #97 September 3, 2004 QuoteI can't get over that comment. Truly terrifying. Hey, don't take my word for it -- ask any middle-eastern woman that can't work, vote, speak out, choose a husband, or even show her face in public without getting beaten. Pets in the western world get better treatment. And don't bother pointing out that not EVERY middle-eastern country is like that -- some of them HAVE had differing levels of western influence, largely to their benefit. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
whiterabbit 0 #98 September 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe fact that they aren't, as you say "nearly as intellectually or culturally developed as "us"" has nothing to do with their race. It has everything to do with their situation. If any of us were to grow up in a place where 10,000 of our countrymen were "civilian casualties" in a war started by a country way over on the other side of the world -- a country that Iraqis/Afghanis/etc don't even have the OPPORTUNITY to have a fair and balanced opinion of -- we'd most likely become terrorists as well. 1. My thoughts on the huge disparity between the level of cultural development between the west and middle-east aren't centered on what has happened in the last 50 years. 2. Rule by religion based dictatorships is probably a big stumbling block for them, but I doubt race is much of a factor. QuoteThe attitude that terrorists must be hunted down and punished for their deplorable actions is just and right. The attitude that this punishment can be meted out without thought or care to innocent bystanders will only ensure that there will be another generation of terrorists to replace those that we eliminate. Which is why the US spends billions on smart bomb technology, and doesn't intentionally target civilians. Regardless of whether the US intentionally targets civilians, we know that many civilians have died in Iraq. The purpose of my post wasn't to draw attention to the mistakes the US has made in our war against terror. Rather, it was to draw attention to the fact that many peoples' feelings about situations like the one being discussed in this forum are likely quite similar to the feelings of those who perpetrate terrorist atrocities against countries like ours -- "kill 'em all." It's absolutely vital that we understand what makes a terrorist a terrorist, lest we unwittingly create more enemies for ourselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #99 September 3, 2004 nuke them kill them all They are not so innocent I bet all of this was in Osama Bin Laden´s head when he decided to crash two planes in the twin towers. Amazing the things some people have in common with OBL. Just for the record, and i am sure i will get flamed for this, I do think that the U.S army in general is not better at all than the terrorists in general. A pilot who drops a 500lb bomb in a civilian suburb is a terrorist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #100 September 3, 2004 "A pilot who drops a 500lb bomb in a civilian suburb is a terrorist." Thats a little extreme, so I'll just stand by with a fire extinguisher.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
