Dead Terrorists by Hero

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !

Iraq had turned yet another corner !

... and is now going in circles

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 5:36 AM

KHYRON

I think we can all agree that this is good news, but I also think that ultimately this won't make a difference. There's always going to be somebody to take his place, which may turn out to be even worse because the military will have no data on the new guy and that guy can work with a certain amount of freedom in the beginning.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue: Iraq had turned yet another corner !

... and is now going in circles

Lol!

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:01 AM

HAYWARD79

"I think we can all agree that this is good news, but I also think that ultimately this won't make a difference. There's always going to be somebody to take his place, which may turn out to be even worse because the military will have no data on the new guy and that guy can work with a certain amount of freedom in the beginning."

It's funny, but many people, including many media outlets, said the exact same thing about Hitler in 1945.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

It's about time. What about ObL?

There is something that people who refer to Hitler fail to remember- Hitler would not have made a dent in world history if so many people in Germany weren't ready to follow. Not only was Germany paying war reparations from the previous war which led to hyperinflation in 1923, they (like everyone else) got nailed by the Great Depression.

Quote:
In Germany, unemployment rose sharply beginning in late 1929, and by early 1932 it had reached 6 million workers, or 25 percent of the work force.

The strain of the Great Depression led to deep polarization in all societies that it affected. Social turmoil and government flailing led to the rise of both the left AND the right in Germany.

I don't think that a "war on terrorism" can be completely won by waging a "war on terrorists". An entire mileu has to become hostile to terrorism in order to eradicate it's use.

--------------------------------- Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:24 AM

Al-Zarqawi was a two-bit player both in the larger al-Qaida and in Iraq. We'll ultimately see how it plays out. But my feeling is it's just another meaningless 'milestone', heralded for home consumption.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 7:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, I think so too. It's like the Vietnam body counts... although the bodies kept piling up the total result was negative.

People fail to distinguish between a war on terrorism and a war on terrorists much like they fail to distingiush between a war on drugs versus a war on addicts, a war on poverty versus a war on poor people, and a war on illiteracy versus a war on illiterates.

--------------------------------- Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 8:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM: There is something that people who refer to Hitler fail to remember- Hitler would not have made a dent in world history if so many people in Germany weren't ready to follow.

True. But there was nobody to point to as an example of what could go wrong. You couldn't say 'he's going to be the next Hitler' about the first one.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 8:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM: People fail to distinguish between a war on terrorism and a war on terrorists much like they fail to distingiush between a war on drugs versus a war on addicts, a war on poverty versus a war on poor people, and a war on illiteracy versus a war on illiterates.

People don't make the distinction you do because unlike addicts, the poor, and illiterate...terrorists are not the victims.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 8:26 AM

STILLFLYIN

I think that the death of Al-Zarqawi might have some temporary impact on the effectiveness of the insurgency in Iraq while the leadership reorganizes. The accomplishment of the attack was that the military showed that it was indeed able to strike directly at the insurgent leadership. It also serves as a morale booster from the US forces because now they can say that they were able to take Al-Zarqawi out. Trying to defeat an insurgent or guerilla forces by using conventional tactics is nigh on impossible. Counter-insurgency requires that the general populace be on the side of the conventional force and be against the insurgents and willing to work against them. Thus any offencive action taken to defeat the insurgency must be to win over Iraqis who would otherwise be supporting the insurgents.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 8:46 AM

CHRISISALL

Down the centuries you have slurred the meaning of the words, WE THE PEOPLE...

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero: It was a long-sought victory in the war in Iraq.

All right, that's good, can we go home now?

What! There's MORE where He came from? You're KIDDING! Then wtf did that accomplish? One down, hundreds-thousands-possibly tens of thousands to go?

You mean THERE'S NO END TO THIS? Geez, it's a hot version of the Cold War all over again. We killed the Bear, and now we got the Jackel. We have to take on the whole zoo to win???

This is a stupid game.

Chrisisall:pissed:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 8:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
People fail to distinguish between a war on terrorism and a war on terrorists much like they fail to distingiush between a war on drugs versus a war on addicts, a war on poverty versus a war on poor people, and a war on illiteracy versus a war on illiterates.- SignyM

People don't make the distinction you do because unlike addicts, the poor, and illiterate... terrorists are not the victims.-Hero

Really? Then why do we throw addicts - and the homeless mentally ill- in jail instead of into rehab or the hospital? Why do we yank the social safety net out from under the poor just as they're about to go "splat" on the pavement- blaming them instead for laziness? Why do we grind people down with punitive bankruptcy laws w/o even allowing for catastrophic illness or overseas military service?

Somewhere in Hero's world (that black and white landscape between his ears) the USA distinguishes between victims and perps. But not in the real world. In the real world, we take a punitive non-synthetic approach to every problem, prefering to obliterate people rather than dealing with the cause.

--------------------------------- Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 8:58 AM

I looked up just a very small sampling of Iraq's milestones, the ones that were supposed to change the course of the country:

Hussein's statue toppled (by hired workers)

Mission Accomplished !

Subduing Tikrit (at one point the insurgency was supposed to have been limited to this area, which could be easily dealt with)

Capturing Hussein (the loyalists said to be driving the insurgency were supposed to give up and crawl away)

Fallujah (taking it - in 2004 - was supposed to "break the back" of the insurgency)

Buying back arms in Baghdad

Voting

.... and yet, Iraq is more violent, more chaotic, than ever before. The US is running more airstrikes now than during the active phase of invading Iraq.

This is going well.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 9:00 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM: we take a punitive non-synthetic approach to every problem, prefering to obliterate people rather than dealing with the cause.

Death solves all problems - no man, no problem. - Joseph Stalin.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes! "I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 9:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall: All right, that's good, can we go home now?

What! There's MORE where He came from? You're KIDDING! Then wtf did that accomplish? One down, hundreds-thousands-possibly tens of thousands to go?

Yeah, turns out wars have three phases. The start with a begining, and end with an ending and along the way they have a middle. During the war battles are won and lost and there's lots of the dying and screaming, and political wishwashy cowardess.

It would have been silly for the Army of the Potomac to disband and go home on July 4, 1863 despite having won a decisive victory. I'm sure quite a few would have wanted to, but the job wasn't done. Your philosophy would leave houses unfinished because the workers left after pouring the foundation or maybe a movie that wraps having shot only one scene.

Perhaps you simply lack an understanding about how wars work or maybe you just don't understand how jobs get done. As a liberal I suspect its a bit of both.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 9:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hero, I personally think that GW Bush is one of the biggest terrorists in the world. Still, I don't think that dropping a 500-pound bomb on the White House will solve the world's problems and I therefore don't advocate it.

--------------------------------- Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 9:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Wow. I expected a blistering riposte but I apparently rendered Hero temprorarily speechless. Perhaps he choked on his coffee! Yes, my audacity is breathtaking :biggrin: and my plan is working! :evil:

--------------------------------- Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 9:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM: Hero, I persoanlly think that GW Bush is one of the biggest terrorists in the world.

You simply seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of terrorism. You don't know a terrorist when you see one...good thing your not in the military. It starts with this: Bush, good. Bin Ladden, evil. After that it just gets complicated and I don't want to tax your brain too much. The amazing thing is that grasping that basic concept does not mean becoming conservative. You can keep hugging your trees, advocating the release of convicted cop killers and buying Streisand albums. But the basic good vs. evil sentiment is like a moral compass, which unfortunately liberals seem to lack.

Here, I'll demonstrate. World under Bush, you can call Bush a terrorist and go on about your business. World under Bin Ladden, you can live life by his rules and still end up murdered.

Quote:
Still, I don't think that dropping a 500-pound bomb on the White House will solve the world's problems and I therefore don't advocate it.

That just means you lack the courage of your convictions, since terrorists don't respond well to sit-ins and placard waving.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 9:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM: Wow. I expected a blistering riposte but I apparently rendered Hero temprorarily speechless. Perhaps he choked on his coffee!

I think your a bit overzealous. If I don't respond its either beause I'm too busy, I've gone home, or I'm simply allowing you to go unanswered. Still I think it was pretty quick, I managed to respond and make a single mother cry here in my office all in less then 15 minutes. Beat that!

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 9:41 AM

CHRISISALL

Down the centuries you have slurred the meaning of the words, WE THE PEOPLE...

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero: Perhaps you simply lack an understanding about how wars work or maybe you just don't understand how jobs get done. As a liberal I suspect its a bit of both.

H

I toyed with the idea of starting this reply with: "And as a fool..."

But I'm not gonna. I think I've grown...

See, you're okay with having thousands of Americans killed to secure oil supp- Sorry, I mean, to avenge American deaths at the World Tra- Sorry, I mean, to bring Democracy to- Sorry, I mean, to nab those WMD's- Sorry, I mean TO STOP TERRORISM. I hold American, as well as non-American life a little more sacred than do you, apparently. It didn't HAVE to go down this way, but it's a way to your liking. We were NOT backed up against a wall with no other options, and you seem not to posess the imagination to see the possible alternatives, just like our President. Your world is easy to understand and somewhat secure, but small. And I can't change that.:crap:

Perhaps you simply lack an understanding about how peace works or maybe you just don't understand how jobs get done. As a reactionary I suspect its a bit of both.

Chrisisall:banghead:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 9:42 AM

SASSALICIOUS

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the terrorist insurgency begin AFTER we invaded? Which would mean that in Iraq at least, we're fighting an enemy of our own making.

Like someone said before, the Vietnam War parallels are astounding. The French were slaughtered at Dien Bien Phu and they realized they would not win a long war. We didn't realize that and then jumped into the fray for the next 9 years or so, all the while running secretive bombing campaigns in Cambodia and Laos (most heavily bombed country ever, I think). Finally, we gave up in Vietnam and we know how that turned out. Now we go and start shit in Iraq. It's the same shadowy enemy, just a different time period and different ideals. Wonder how this will turn out?

The war on terrorism seems to have a lot of consequences that I don't think outweigh the benefits.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn! "We don't fear the reaper" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 9:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You simply seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of terrorism.

Terrorism is... hmmm lets' see... inducing a state of terror by using violence against civilians. Yep, I think that's it. There's nothing in there about whether it's using nukes, chemical weapons, rape rooms or explosive vests filled with nails. I don't want to get overly complicated on this- it might cause me mental discomfort.

Quote:
You don't know a terrorist when you see one...good thing your not in the military. It starts with this: Bush, good. Bin Ladden, evil.

Lets' see- Bush killing thousands of civilians is good. Bin Laden killing thousands of civilians is bad. I'm so glad that you pointed out that distinction!

Quote:
After that it just gets complicated and I don't want to tax your brain too much. The amazing thing is that grasping that basic concept does not mean becoming conservative...But the basic good vs. evil sentiment is like a moral compass, which unfortunately liberals seem to lack.

Okay so let me get this straight. Killing civilians is good when we do it but bad when someone else does it. I'm once again grateful for this direction because otherwise my moral compass would be spinning! I must be suffering from a case of moral relativism.! :smile:

--------------------------------- Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 10:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the terrorist insurgency begin AFTER we invaded? Which would mean that in Iraq at least, we're fighting an enemy of our own making.

I've always argued that the most masterful part of the Iraq strategy was that it created this crucible for the war on terror.

The terrorists were always there in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, and scattered all over the Arab world. We knew that in order to successfully prosecute the broader war we would need to engage and kill as many of the enemy as possible. By invading Iraq, in addition to all the other benefits (democracy, Saddam, WMDs, Libya, and so on) we have goaded the enemy to battle on ground of our own choosing and they have come to die by the tens of thousands. Better there then the Mexican border, or Jerusalem, London, Paris, Madrid, or your local street corner.

I think they initially hoped to do this in Afganistan, but it proved to remote to allow most Jihadists easy access.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 10:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM: Terrorism is... hmmm lets' see... inducing a state of terror by using violence against civilians. Yep, I think that's it. There's nothing in there about whether it's using nukes, chemical weapons, rape rooms or explosive vests filled with nails.

Terrorism- "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" Webster

Note the defintion is the "use of terror" not the "use of war".

Terror-"1 : a state of intense fear 2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT 3 : REIGN OF TERROR 4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands "

"Terrorism" is not a legitimate act by a person or state. War, though constrained by treaties and generally accepted rules, is a legitimate act by a state or a person at the direction of the state as embodied by, in our case, our elected President. He may be a warfighter, but he is not a terrorist.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 10:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Terrorism- "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" Webster

Yeah, like I said! At least we agree on something! :smile:

Quote:
Terrorism" is not a legitimate act by a person or state. War, though constrained by treaties and generally accepted rules, is a legitimate act by a state or a person at the direction of the state as embodied by, in our case, our elected President. He may be a warfighter, but he is not a terrorist.

Please- once again shown me the error of my ways. Our invasion of Iraq is a legitimate war because...? Hmm, lets see... what are the recognized reasons for war? (rummages through internet...) Self defense? Authorized by UN?

Help me out here Hero. You must know the reaons why our invasion was legal.

--------------------------------- Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 10:47 AM

Zero,

Your posts are way too funny. But I seriously hope you don't mean what you post. Otherwise I'd be forced to give up my laughter to ponder the tragedy of the human condition.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 2:06 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM: Hero, I personally think that GW Bush is one of the biggest terrorists in the world. Still, I don't think that dropping a 500-pound bomb on the White House will solve the world's problems and I therefore don't advocate it.

--------------------------------- Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

But it might be considered a place to start :biggrin:

" Over and in, last call for sin While everyone's lost, the battle is won With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 2:09 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the terrorist insurgency begin AFTER we invaded? Which would mean that in Iraq at least, we're fighting an enemy of our own making.

Like someone said before, the Vietnam War parallels are astounding. The French were slaughtered at Dien Bien Phu and they realized they would not win a long war. We didn't realize that and then jumped into the fray for the next 9 years or so, all the while running secretive bombing campaigns in Cambodia and Laos (most heavily bombed country ever, I think). Finally, we gave up in Vietnam and we know how that turned out. Now we go and start shit in Iraq. It's the same shadowy enemy, just a different time period and different ideals. Wonder how this will turn out?

The war on terrorism seems to have a lot of consequences that I don't think outweigh the benefits.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn! "We don't fear the reaper" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Simple solution... delete terrorist insurgency insert freedom fighters or resistance movement and suddenly all is well... aren't semantics fun

" Over and in, last call for sin While everyone's lost, the battle is won With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 2:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue: Al-Zarqawi was a two-bit player both in the larger al-Qaida and in Iraq. We'll ultimately see how it plays out. But my feeling is it's just another meaningless 'milestone', heralded for home consumption.

I just can't get into the politics flying around this particular thread, but as a former Special Operations intelligence analyst, and as a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan, I can assure you that Zarqawi was most definitely not a two-bit player. Will his death be the end of the war? No. Will it be the beginning of the end? Probably not. Will it have any effect at all? Maybe, maybe not. Does that mean he was insignificant? Good heavens, no. That man did more to destabilize the country than any other single insurgent leader. Point in case: can you even name another?

And another thing I'm confused about: it may well be the case that the war was a bad idea (jury's still out on that one, as far as I'm concerned). It may also be the case that Bush is a bad president (ditto). But even if both those are true, does it mean I shouldn't be glad that the man that sawed Nick Berg's head off is dead? No, no--don't come back with the awful things others have done; I'm serious--why should I not be glad that he's gone? If for no other reason than that he had it coming to him.

________________________________________________________________________ I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 2:53 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
But even if both those are true, does it mean I shouldn't be glad that the man that sawed Nick Berg's head off is dead?

Here is what Nick Berg's dad had to say about it:

Quote:
Well, my reaction is I'm sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that. I feel doubly bad, though, because Zarqawi is also a political figure, and his death will re-ignite yet another wave of revenge, and revenge is something that I do not follow, that I do want ask for, that I do not wish for against anybody. And it can't end the cycle. As long as people use violence to combat violence, we will always have violence.

www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/berg.interview/index.html

I'm not quite the pacifist that Michael Berg is. There ARE some people I fantasize about being slowly eaten by ants... eyes first...* . But our actions aren't sanitized or forgiven by pure motives** especialy if you're on the receiving end.

And your logic works both ways. What do you say about a guy who signed dozens of death warrants and giggled about it? Or who caused thousands of unecessary civilian deaths with no apparent good coming out of it? What does someone like that deserve?

*not Bush ** For the Admin it's always been about oil and money. The soldiers have better intentions.

--------------------------------- Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 2:59 PM

With all due respect to your feelings about the current administration, I still feel glad that he's dead. What the current administration did/does doesn't in any way subract from my satisfaction.

________________________________________________________________________ I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 2:59 PM

Causal,

Moqtada al-Sadr

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 3:00 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero: World under Bush, you can call Bush a terrorist and go on about your business. World under Bin Ladden, you can live life by his rules and still end up murdered.

This is the heart, the absolute center of your logical fallacy. Bin Ladden has no chance in hell of EVER ruling the world. He hasn't the infrastructure, he hasn't the support, he's got nothing but the scraps and leavings from our oil-rich feeding frenzy with the Saudis. If the big eaters at the table weren't so wasteful and careless, he'd have nothing. It's worth repeating: Bin Ladden has no chance in hell of EVER ruling the world.

Ya know what? Bin Ladden got lucky. He made a big splash. He might get lucky again. But probably not. It's as simple as that.

Just as COMINTERN and "the domino effect" were BS pretexts for our East Asian Adventurism, so now the "terrorist threat" is used by our ruling class to justify their conquest.

And as far as Bush actually ruling the world, a prospect you seem to contemplate with relish, that ain't gonna happen either.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 3:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue: Moqtada al Sadr

The Mehdi army isn't a terrorist group per se. Their a Shiite militia owned by the non-accredited son of the late great Mohammed Sadeq al-Sadr, a popular Saddam-era Shiite cleric. The Mehdi army (which takes its name from the "hidden imam" of the Shiite sect) is a militia--a group of armed (usually untrained) citizens providing military service. They haven't engaged in the typical terrorist tactics (oil pipeline sabotage, suicide bombings, bombings of markets, and the like) but have on at least two ocassions engaged U.S. and Iraqi forces in stand-up, toe-to-toe fighting (both times for the Shiite holy city of Najaf). In addition, Sadr doesn't consider himself a terrorist/insurgent leader (like Zarqawi did). Moqtada believes he is the legitimate heir to his father's spiritual authority and influence in the Shia community, and styles himself as a popular leader--not as a terrorist.

________________________________________________________________________ I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 3:12 PM

GEEZER

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is now a good terrorist. May many others join him.

"If Darwin ain't Happy, Ain't Nobody Happy"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 3:18 PM

Causal,

Moqtada al Sadr has done more to destabilize Iraq than anyone else (besides the US, which is by far the largest cause of Iraq's instability).

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was just one more mobster in a country of mobsters where kidnapping and sectarian killing are commonplace.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 3:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue: Causal,

Moqtada al Sadr has done more to destabilize Iraq than anyone else (besides the US, which is by far the largest cause of Iraq's instability).

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was just one more mobster in a country of mobsters where kidnapping and sectarian killing are commonplace.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

With all due respect to your opinion--which you're more than entitled to--you're wrong. And that's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.

I'd be interested to know what wealth on knowledge and experience you base that analysis on. I believe I've given my credentials.

________________________________________________________________________ I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 3:30 PM

I read original reports from many countries. I like to think it keeps me from tunnel vision.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 4:44 PM

MAMASAID

Hero seems to think that every person who hates Bush must LOVE bin Ladin. That is another logical fallacy he seems to possess, not unlike a mr. PN. Bush good, bin Ladin bad is a gross, gross simplification, even for a message board. I hate GW, but of course I hate bin Ladin more. If one valued human life person/ for person, the civilian casualties in Iraq are great. Just because they are in a war zone does not keep them from being civilians.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 4:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM: Wow. I expected a blistering riposte but I apparently rendered Hero temprorarily speechless. Perhaps he choked on his coffee! Yes, my audacity is breathtaking :biggrin: and my plan is working! :evil:

--------------------------------- Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

No, you just have to bore them to death. :smile:

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 5:03 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal: I'm serious--why should I not be glad that he's gone? If for no other reason than that he had it coming to him.

I agree.

A sick, twisted person who advocated slaughtering his own fellow Muslims has died. And we cannot even get most posters to agree this is a good thing. It is simply 1 down 1,000,000 more to go or a cheap ploy to build up support for Bush. If Hero started a thread saying water was wet he would immediately get 10 responses arguing otherwise. Most of them blaming Bush in some way or another.

Believe it or not, it's okay to see the good in things every once in awhile. Doom and gloom all the time can get quite tiresome.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 5:30 PM

FLAUTISTFIRST

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Perhaps you simply lack an understanding about how wars work or maybe you just don't understand how jobs get done. As a liberal I suspect its a bit of both.

H

(in response to Chrisisall)

OK, just a small question here. Who's the liberal? Hero or Chrisisall? I just want to be sure to call the right person the right name.

BTW, I'm a liberal, proud of it, I understand war, and I finish all of my jobs.

There's no place I can be since I found serenity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:16 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by rue: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !

Iraq had turned yet another corner !

... and is now going in circles

Not all of Iraq..just the terrorist. Most little critters with no where to run or hide tend to go in circles...or hide in little holes in the floor of shacks with urine in their pants.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 7:39 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM: Quote:
Terrorism- "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" Webster
Yeah, like I said! At least we agree on something! :smile:
Quote:
Terrorism" is not a legitimate act by a person or state. War, though constrained by treaties and generally accepted rules, is a legitimate act by a state or a person at the direction of the state as embodied by, in our case, our elected President. He may be a warfighter, but he is not a terrorist.
Please- once again shown me the error of my ways. Our invasion of Iraq is a legitimate war because...? Hmm, lets see... what are the recognized reasons for war? (rummages through internet...) Self defense? Authorized by UN?

Help me out here Hero. You must know the reaons why our invasion was legal.

Why it was legal? Our congress( Senate & House ) voted to go to war. Our prez agreed. It has been awhile since my last civics class..(searches through constitution..yep there it is)..I'm pretty sure that makes it legal. And it has nothing to do with the UN,,even if they were against our decision to go to war. We are...(once again searches through constitution)...give me a sec...aha...a sovereign nation.

--------------------------------- Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 08, 2006 10:25 PM

STDOUBT

99 Terrorists on the run from the Law, 99 Terrorists on the run, Take one down, put him in the ground, 125 Terrorists on the run from the Law.

125 Terrorists on the run from the Law 125 Terrorists on the run.. Take one down, put him in the ground, 214 Terrorists on the run from the Law. (stolen from digg.com) Bush is the bestest president EVAR!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 09, 2006 3:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Help me out here Hero. You must know the reaons why our invasion was legal.

Why it was legal? Our congress( Senate & House ) voted to go to war. Our prez agreed. It has been awhile since my last civics class..(searches through constitution..yep there it is)..I'm pretty sure that makes it legal. And it has nothing to do with the UN,,even if they were against our decision to go to war. We are...(once again searches through constitution)...give me a sec...aha...a sovereign nation.

So.... any naiton that chooses to go to war w/o being attacked first and w/o being imminently threatened is OK. Like, say... Saddam invading Kuwait? And Nazi Germany?

Even Hero won't step into what you boldly planted your foot in because war is by definition an interational matter QUOTE constrained by treaties and generally accepted rules, is a legitimate act by a state UNQUOTE

But to nitpick your brainless point, this is what Congress voted for:

Quote:
The Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. ... The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

Seeing as Bush forced out Hans Blix several weeks before his inspection was complete- an inspection that most likely would have found Saddam in substantial compliance with UN resolution- Bush did not actually meet the mandate of this act.

--------------------------------- Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 09, 2006 3:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM: Or who caused thousands of unecessary civilian deaths with no apparent good coming out of it? What does someone like that deserve?

I wont let you say bad things about President Roosevelt or demonize the liberation of Europe...or maybe you are talking about Lincoln.

When America fights a war, there are no unneccesary civilian deaths except those that die as the result of enemy action, which in some sense is every one of them. Blame for the tragic deaths of civilians such as the woman and child who died with Zarqawi are entirely the responsibility of those who chose the bring this war upon themselves and then place those people in the line of fire.

Again, I call for all the Jihadists to assemble themselves in a remote desert location for efficient martyrdom. Until they do we are forced to fight the enemy where they are hiding which is usually behind as many women and children as they can force to stand in front of them.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 09, 2006 4:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"When America fights a war...." But Hero, you have not shown that this is even a war. As far as I can tell it is simply an ilegal invasion, much like Saddam's invasion of Kuwait or Germany's invasion of Poland.

--------------------------------- Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 09, 2006 4:14 AM

CHRISISALL

Down the centuries you have slurred the meaning of the words, WE THE PEOPLE...

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero: When America fights a war, there are no unneccesary civilian deaths except those that die as the result of enemy action, which in some sense is every one of them.

That's it. You are truly delusional. If you're drunk right now, stop posting. If you're kidding, it ain't amusing.

If you're serious...That's just gorram sad.

Chrisisall:disappointed:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 09, 2006 4:26 AM