Quote :

"Are you calling reports such as the ISG and those equivalents, "political propaganda I saw on the TV"?"

like i said...you know about as much about the ISG as you perceive Apocalypse to know about the war

Quote :

"I'm not completely dismissing his account"

oh really?

Quote :

"Mmmm, that kool aid tastes good."

2/20/2007 11:49:00 AM

Quote :

"like i said...you know about as much about the ISG as you perceive Apocalypse to know about the war"

So now you have flip flopped and said that his account isn't very worthwhile?


And my "kool aid" comment was in reference to his comment about the terror coming to our shores.

2/20/2007 12:00:02 PM

Quote :

"So now you have flip flopped and said that his account isn't very worthwhile?"

Quote :

"as you perceive Apocalypse to know about the war"

reading comprehension

Quote :

"And my "kool aid" comment was in reference to his comment about the terror coming to our shores."

sounds to me like you were completely dismissing his account

2/20/2007 12:03:43 PM

Quote :

"reading comprehension "

I just wanted to see what it felt like making a statement like you would make.

Quote :

"sounds to me like you were completely dismissing his account"

Oh noes, next time I'll quote what I am referring to so that your head doesn't explode.

And his comment about terror isn't an account of anything, it's an opinion.


You didn't answer this.

Quote :

"Everything in regards to what? So, I suppose a soldier working in a relatively peaceful pocket of the country has enough experience to say the war is going great, right?"

You didn't comment on this

Quote :

"I'll put more faith in a collection of generals and commanders that have said we aren't doing so well over there than a foot soldier though."

or this

Quote :

"And it's well known now that Iraq wasn't really a big problem in the war on terror. But when the Commander and Chief says it, and the Generals repeat it (because, after all they are "yes sirs" too and want to be promoted), it just trickles down to the lowly little foot soldier."

[Edited on February 20, 2007 at 12:11 PM. Reason : a]

2/20/2007 12:08:56 PM

Quote :

"And his comment about terror isn't an account of anything, it's an opinion."

and its a lot more valid than your opinion

maybe if you had been living in iraq fighting the war you might know as much about the war as someone who has been living in iraq and fighting the war

you certainly do put a lot more stock in what you hear on the news from reporters than you do from peoples' first hand accounts of being there...pretty pathetic but oh well, its you

2/20/2007 12:34:14 PM

Quote :

"and its a lot more valid than your opinion"

Why is it more valid?

I already asked you this question once, here it is again:

Quote :

"This guy said terror will come to our shores if we leave early. How does him being a soldier qualify him anymore than anyone else that is able to read reports of how the war is going? Did he talk to terrorist over there that gave him intimate knowledge of what they will do if we leave?"

Seriously, tell me why his opinion about terrorism coming to our shores any more valid than the next guy?

He is over there acting as a ref for the civil war between Shia and Sunni, what does this have to do with terrorism?

Quote :

"maybe if you had been living in iraq fighting the war you might know as much about the war as someone who has been living in iraq and fighting the war"

Actually, I think people with a birds eye view of it all probably have the better vantage point than a grunt down in the muck. By your logic, this foot soldier's opinion is more valid than the 10 of the ISG. Do you agree with that statement?

Quote :

"you certainly do put a lot more stock in what you hear on the news from reporters than you do from peoples' first hand accounts of being there..."

I'm not sure what point you are arguing. Do you agree that his opinion on terrorism is not a first hand account, just an opinion?

[Edited on February 20, 2007 at 12:48 PM. Reason : a]

2/20/2007 12:47:28 PM

dude has been fighting in iraq

you havent

how the hell you assume to know more about iraq and the iraq war is simply absurd

its very fucking simple logic

Quote :

"He is over there acting as a ref for the civil war between Shia and Sunni, what does this have to do with terrorism?"

oh i get it...since 9/11 and iraq are not related, that automatically means he is not fighting any terrorists in iraq...yeah

Quote :

"This guy said terror will come to our shores if we leave early"

NO HE DIDNT

just because you choose to put words in his mouth and ASSUME all the time doesnt mean you're right...because you're not...your whole argument is based on what you think he is implying...and the fact that you ignore first hand accounts of people IN IRAQ is equally as dumb

[Edited on February 20, 2007 at 12:51 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2007 12:48:33 PM

Quote :

"dude has been fighting in iraq you havent how the hell you assume to know more about iraq and the iraq war is simply absurd its very fucking simple logic"

You still haven't stated how officiating a civil war between two religious sects qualifies him to comment on the war on terror.

Quote :

"oh i get it...since 9/11 and iraq are not related, that automatically means he is not fighting any terrorists in iraq...yeah"

Now this is an example of an absurd statement.

Quote :

" NO HE DIDNT"

Look, he is echoing the Bush admin (et al) statements about fighting terror where it exists. The same people say we would rather fight terror where it is than on our shores. Hopefully, he comes back to this thread and clarifies what he means. But I don't think it is at all a stretch for me to think I know what he was referring to.

Quote :

"and the fact that you ignore first hand accounts of people IN IRAQ is equally as dumb "

But his first hand account didn't say anything about terror.


Look, you're getting frustrated that you are losing this argument, and you are starting to pop off the ad hominems.

Your lack of staying logically on task, and refusal to answer questions I have posed, and gratuitous use of straw men has rendered this discussion dead. Congrats to you, you killed another thread.

2/20/2007 1:05:50 PM

oh look you bring out the debate terms when you run out of shit to say

i've just got 2 questions for you...if you cant answer these then theres no point

Where did Apocalypse say terror will come to our shores if we leave early?

Why do you trust profit-based media conglomerates' opinion pieces on television more than US soldiers' firsthand opinions based on living in iraq and dealing with iraqi people and culture every single day?

Quote :

"Congrats to you, you killed another thread."

I AM DONE TRYING TO CONVINCE PEOPLE I KNOW A LOT MORE ABOUT IRAQ THAN PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVE AND WORK IN IRAQ SO I'LL SAY YOU RUINED A THREAD! THAT'LL SHOW YOU WHO IS BOSS!!

[Edited on February 20, 2007 at 1:15 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2007 1:11:49 PM

he said that it was his opinion and the opinion of the small amount of iraqis he has talked to that believe in democracy that we should stay.
im not sure what that has to do with whether we should stay or go though.

2/20/2007 1:29:01 PM

it shouldnt dictate the course of action by the US...but its a legitimate account and opinion...and the opinion of someone that is there and actually seeing the war first hand, not seeing the war across tv screens like the rest of us

2/20/2007 3:52:20 PM

LOLOLOLOLO

Apparently, a grounds soldiers opinion is worth more than the 10 member ISG since none of them have actually fought in the war.






Your logical is amazing.


















For a retard.

2/20/2007 4:02:37 PM

Quote :

"Your logical"

and no his opinion is not more important than 10 ISG members...course I never said it was...

but it is more important than your opinion...you already admitted he had the same access to the same resources as you...but he also has more...like actually being there and experiencing it firsthand instead of living it vicariously through CNN?

you act like YOU are a member of the ISG or something

[Edited on February 20, 2007 at 4:05 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2007 4:04:13 PM

Quote :

"and no his opinion is not more important than 10 ISG members...course I never said it was..."

Sure you did. I echo'd ISG statements found in the ISG report, and you said they didn't mean anything because I haven't been to Iraq.

2/20/2007 4:37:50 PM

Quote :

"Sure you did. I echo'd ISG statements found in the ISG report"

1. Where? A quote where I say his opinion is more important than the opinions of 10 ISG members should be easy for you to find

2. You echoed what you heard on TV...just like he could've heard it on TV...but your problem is that:

Quote :

"you act like YOU are a member of the ISG or something"

you can sing along to Purple Haze but that doesnt make you Jimi Hendrix

[Edited on February 20, 2007 at 4:47 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2007 4:47:33 PM

Quote :

"1. Where? A quote where I say his opinion is more important than the opinions of 10 ISG members should be easy for you to find"

I'm not connecting the dots for you.

Quote :

"you can sing along to Purple Haze but that doesnt make you Jimi Hendrix"

Your analogies are quite possibly the worst thing to happen to The Soap Box. Well, after your logic.

2/20/2007 6:21:54 PM

Megadittos to that.

2/20/2007 7:53:13 PM

Quote :

"to put more faith in the driveby media than somebody who has lived the situation first hand is fucking moronic, plain and simple - HEY I KNOW A TON ABOUT IRAQ FROM WATCHING THE NEWS - I would disagree with some of those things based on what I've seen first hand with my own 2 eyes - ARE YOU INVOLVED IN STRATEGY? FUCK YOU IDIOT, THE MEDIA KNOWS MORE THAN YOU EVER WILL we can agree to disagree, and sure a "foot soldier" isnt going to know a lot of in depth strategy from a leadership perspective...but to completely dismiss the accounts of someone who has seen a lot more of Iraq than you or I ever will is just dumb"

To be fair here, hasn't this war given us the birth of truly embedded reporting? We have a lot of correspondents in the media that are living the war on the front lines just like soldiers, they're just pointing cameras rather than guns, and taking notes rather than lives.

That, combined with the larger viewpoint, leaked memos, and high-level interviews that those correspondents' colleagues have access to, leads to the media having a much clearer picture of what the war is really like than in any other war in history.

That said, they're still the media, with their own inherent biases and the fact that at the end of the day, they want to sell papers and get good ratings. So you have to take the same grain of salt from media stories as you should when thinking about the "kool-aid factor" of a soldier, but at the end of the day the media probably IS more knowledgeable. It's just a question of how they convey that knowledge to the public.

2/20/2007 8:51:45 PM

^so are you also saying that people who learn about the iraq war from tv and internet like most of us know more about it than soldiers fighting in iraq?

Quote :

"I'm not connecting the dots for you."

oh no doubt...most likely because there are no dots to connect since you are full of shit

i mean shit you, who have never been to iraq, think you know more about IRAQ than someone who has lived and worked there for the last year and a half...talk about arrogant stupid

[Edited on February 20, 2007 at 11:14 PM. Reason : /]

2/20/2007 11:13:14 PM

do you know more about government by voting every election for 2 years or by doing research for 2 years? do you know more about cars by driving once a day or by being an auto mechanic?

2/20/2007 11:16:21 PM

i completely hear your point but i think you are being completely hypocritcal

the reason i say this is that the original argument was that Boone was completely dismissing any opinions by Apocalypse...even though Apocalypse has more first person knowledge on Iraq than probably any of us

And granted he isnt a commander that knows all the secret, top secret, confidential and classified aspects of the war, but neither do the news media and therefore State409c

When Apocalypse gave his own personal opinion of Iraq, BASED ON LIVING AND WORKING AND BEING IN IRAQ, IN ADDITION TO READING AND LISTENING TO THE SAME REPORTS AND ARTICLES THAT STATE409C SEES/READS, he makes a comment about "drinking the Kool Aid"

I mean I dont care about your opinons of the war and how unjust it is...but damn if you cant even acknowledge that someone with actual knowledge of the situation...not what you and I see on the news...but someone with first hand experience has some type of extra knowledge of the situation that people like you and I who have never been to Iraq has...then you are CLEARLY biased and already have your mind made up

I mean why would you listen to someone who has been in Iraq the last 6 months when you could instead listen to some liberal pundits who have also never been to Iraq?

I have no doubts that if the account of someone in Iraq was one of someone who was drafted and who didnt agree with the war and was of the opinion that we should immediately withdraw all troops then State409c would immediately take his word as the gospel instead of calling it "drinking the Kool Aid"

[Edited on February 20, 2007 at 11:38 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2007 11:35:31 PM

Quote :

"^so are you also saying that people who learn about the iraq war from tv and internet like most of us know more about it than soldiers fighting in iraq? "

Not at all, I was only saying that the media probably knows more than the soldiers, not that people who listen to the media know more than soldiers. I'll reemphasize my conclusion, that our impression still depends on how the media chooses to convey the knowledge they have. There's also something to be said for a troop living the war day in and day out, whereas even the most fanatical news junkie probably only reads about the war for 2-3 hours a day.

The takeaway here is that I hardly think your caricature of a conversation I quoted is a fair exaggeration, or even a valid reductio ad absurdum.

I don't think it's "moronic, plain and simple," to put more faith in the media than a soldier with a first-hand account, because

a) you can get first-hand accounts from embedded journalists all across the country, not just in the one location the soldier is in
b) those accounts can be backed up by the additional knowledge that the media on a higher level
c) you're still just listening to what a soldier can tell you, so you can't absorb all of their experiences. this is true for the embedded journalists as well, but it overall weakens the strength of anecdotal evidence and emphasizes the importance of the synthesis that the media can provide which individual soldiers cannot do as well.

2/20/2007 11:56:06 PM

Quote :

"a) you can get first-hand accounts from embedded journalists all across the country, not just in the one location the soldier is in"

i agree but the journalists are there to try and learn and film different parts of the war and/or country

the soldiers are knee deep in shit...most of the media views are widespread and cover a lot of aspect of the country and situation...they're also only reports that the media has received

bottom line is i think its dumb to completely discount the accounts of a soldier just because he doesnt have intimate knowledge of the overall strategy...nobody does except our generals (hopefully)...its just sad that someone like State409c can seem to so easily dismiss the accounts of the elbow grease thats making this whole war in favor of what the driveby media chooses to tell you

2/21/2007 12:02:02 AM

Quote :

"i agree but the journalists are there to try and learn and film different parts of the war and/or country the soldiers are knee deep in shit...most of the media views are widespread and cover a lot of aspect of the country and situation...they're also only reports that the media has received "

the coin has two sides here... the soldiers being knee deep in shit also means they might miss certain things that a reporter might pick up on in the same situation.

i agree that a soldier's opinion shouldn't just be discounted, though; everything should be evaluated in its proper context regarding source when trying to reach an informed opinion about the war.

2/21/2007 12:07:50 AM

no doubt

and i hear you about the soldier not necessarily picking up on everything

but i also hear you on his view not being discounted simply based on proximity and first hand experience

2/21/2007 12:13:13 AM

Since this seems to be the current Iraq-ish thread,

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/12/grim-milestones-missed-by-media-today.html

an interesting statistic, one that should be mentioned with every death count story in the media. But hey, that would actually be informative and not serve to demoralize the public against the Iraq war so what would be the point of mentioning it?

2/21/2007 12:13:39 AM

oh my god you cant possibly post something like this...i mean clinton was great and iraq is responsible for countless american deaths...oh no

and just to make sure...its not necessary for me to point out that the ensuing posts will simply criticize the source without addressing a single aspect of the content is it? i am assuming everyone realizes that but im just making sure

[Edited on February 21, 2007 at 12:24 AM. Reason : .]

2/21/2007 12:22:43 AM

^ I would expect nothing less from the brilliant minds of TWW, but it apparently follows from DOD stats and that site is not alone. Just Google it.

2/21/2007 12:49:59 AM

those deaths include illness, homicide, "self-inflicted", etc. only ONE of those deaths in clinton's presidency was from hostile action. each year somewhere between 10 and 20 were from terrorist attacks. THAT'S IT. NOT TO MENTION: they're using one set of numbers for the clinton side (total death rate) and different number for the bush side. the total death number for bush is probably more than double (can't say for sure since the death rates source only goes up to 2004). and yes. what a shitty source.

[Edited on February 21, 2007 at 2:30 AM. Reason : i don't normally do this but: PWNT]

2/21/2007 2:28:23 AM

the fact is that most of these journalists arent just in an office in dc or something. most of the ISG members and a large contingent of congress has been there.

as for this, "the media is destroying our will to be there" professors at state are doing some interesting research into the question of whether that is true or not.

2/21/2007 7:52:57 AM

Quote :

"^so are you also saying that people who learn about the iraq war from tv and internet like most of us know more about it than soldiers fighting in iraq?"

This entire time you have been arguing in extreme vagueness. I already pointed out that just because he is a soldier there, it doesn't imply he is going to know more in general than any other person just like I don't necessarily know more about how my company is doing just because I am in the building. That's before considering that a foot soldier is just a "yes sir" robot. He doesn't question, he doesn't even think. He just does what he is told, and hopes he doesn't die doing it.

Quote :

"the soldiers are knee deep in shit..."

Um, hello McFly, those "knee deep in shit" soldiers in many many cases have reporters sitting right on their shoulders filming shit.

Quote :

"most of the media views are widespread and cover a lot of aspect of the country and situation..."

Nice self pwnt pal. It's because over all these camera crews spread all over the country that we get to see all the aspects of how the war is going. I assume you'd see the value of this over a single anecdote from a single soldier. But I mean, when all you're doing is trolling...

Quote :

"they're also only reports that the media has received"

Oh I guess I didn't realize that the "media" just has film crews hanging out there waiting for commanders to give them reports so they can talk on TV. I must have been wrong to assume they are on the front lines, entrenched with our boys. Wonder what Bob Woodward would say about that?

Quote :

"bottom line is i think its dumb to completely discount the accounts of a soldier just because he doesnt have intimate knowledge of the overall strategy.."

Yes, I agree with you it is completely dumb. I'm glad no one in this thread did that.

Quote :

"its just sad that someone like State409c can seem to so easily dismiss the accounts of the elbow grease thats making this whole war in favor of what the driveby media chooses to tell you"

Another day, more TreeTwista trolling. You gotta come up with new material man, this is getting pretty boring for everyone involved.

[Edited on February 21, 2007 at 9:27 AM. Reason : a]

2/21/2007 9:27:17 AM

Oh good, I was hoping TreeTwista would ruin my thread.

2/21/2007 10:01:21 AM

lol State409c acts like there are hundreds of thousands of media members who know everything since they are filming the entire country...what a fucking idiot

Quote :

"Yes, I agree with you it is completely dumb. I'm glad no one in this thread did that."

nice backpeddle from your "kool aid" line to "yes i agree"

^yeah, i did it all by myself

ps its not like there are any other iraq war threads to post the first link in in the first place

by the way spookyjon...you havent really added anything to this thread except for criticizing a couple analogies...you havent done shit to make this thread worthwhile in the first place...you post a link, a quote, and give 6 words of your own views...wow...what insight!

[Edited on February 21, 2007 at 12:25 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2007 12:19:44 PM

Before you start calling people idiots, you best need to get your facts straight.

Quote :

"nice backpeddle from your "kool aid" line to "yes i agree""

I didn't back pedal from anything. My kool aid line was in response to his terror comment, not to his accounts of talks with Iraqis. I already explained this once (maybe twice). So, please, if you can't get even the simplest of details correct, don't go calling people idiots.

2/21/2007 12:30:26 PM

since you have diminished his credibility throughout the entire thread i dont think anybody believes your new bullshit about how you're NOT discounting anything he says

i mean you're on the media's jock as if they know everything while you continue to say apocalypse "doesnt think" and "gets kept in the dark" about everything...so yeah...nobody believes your newfound respect for a soldier's perspective

oh and good job of derailing the thread in the first place by even pulling out the kool aid line

[Edited on February 21, 2007 at 12:46 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2007 12:44:51 PM

Quote :

"since you have diminished his credibility throughout the entire thread i dont think anybody believes your new bullshit about how you're NOT discounting anything he says"

Where did I do that?

Quote :

"i mean you're on the media's jock as if they know everything"

Is the ISG the media now?

Quote :

"so yeah...nobody believes your newfound respect for a soldier's perspective"

Shadowrunner and RevoltNow already implicitly agreed with me. Not sure what kush you're on today.

Quote :

"oh and good job of derailing the thread in the first place by even pulling out the kool aid line"

I think the comment is fairly pertinent in a discussion where Iraq was connected to the war on terror. And besides, you didn't have to reply to it. It looks like to me you're the one that, as usual, is continuing to toss out vague comments disguised as debate, getting us nowhere.

2/21/2007 1:30:34 PM

Quote :

"Where did I do that?"

hmmm...lets see

Quote :

"To think a "yes sir, no questions asked" foot soldier has a real clue about overall strategy and success of the entire mission is pretty preposterous when you think about it."

Quote :

"How does him being a soldier qualify him anymore than anyone else that is able to read reports of how the war is going?"

Quote :

"I think it's probably true that a soldier on the ground is more blind than anyone about how the overall effort is going."

Quote :

"What is it about a foot soldier, who is limited in access to the same information we are, that allows him to "know more" about the overall war effort?"

Quote :

"Seriously, tell me why his opinion about terrorism coming to our shores any more valid than the next guy?"

Quote :

"He is over there acting as a ref for the civil war between Shia and Sunni, what does this have to do with terrorism?"

none of those quotes are really necessary since anyone who has read the thread knows how you have treated Apocalypse from the get go...but its easier for you to say "...kool aid" than to address the content of what he said

Quote :

"Shadowrunner and RevoltNow already implicitly agreed with me"

I guess anyone who doesn't come out and say they disagree with you actually implicitly agrees with you

2/21/2007 1:59:57 PM

These

Quote :

""How does him being a soldier qualify him anymore than anyone else that is able to read reports of how the war is going?" "What is it about a foot soldier, who is limited in access to the same information we are, that allows him to "know more" about the overall war effort?" "Seriously, tell me why his opinion about terrorism coming to our shores any more valid than the next guy?" "He is over there acting as a ref for the civil war between Shia and Sunni, what does this have to do with terrorism?" "

were genuine questions asked of you, and in your best trolling fashion, you refused to answer. How does that have anything to do with his credibility? If anything, it was a test for you, to see if you'd do anything other than troll The Soap Box, and you failed as always.

Quote :

""To think a "yes sir, no questions asked" foot soldier has a real clue about overall strategy and success of the entire mission is pretty preposterous when you think about it." "I think it's probably true that a soldier on the ground is more blind than anyone about how the overall effort is going." "

These could be considered as questioning his credibility, they are essentially the same comment, and it's hyperbole for you to claim "throughout the entire thread".

But all that noise doesn't matter when I am questioning the connection between the Iraq War and terror.

Are you actually going to respond to anything here? Or just spout off the same tripe bullshit you always do?

Quote :

"I guess anyone who doesn't come out and say they disagree with you actually implicitly agrees with you "

Shadowrunner didn't say "I agree with State409c" literally, but he did say this

Quote :

"but at the end of the day the media probably IS more knowledgeable."

Are you really as dumb as I think you are?



[Edited on February 21, 2007 at 2:25 PM. Reason : a]

2/21/2007 2:16:23 PM

Quote :

"I am questioning the connection between the Iraq War and terror"

you know the thousands of deaths in iraq over the last few years? who is committing those murders? cause i thought it was terrorists

so what are you questioning?

2/21/2007 3:34:01 PM

They are insurgents. Participators of a civil war. They aren't the al Qaeda terrorist that had a hand in blowing up the Trade Center.

Answer these questions

""How does him being a soldier qualify him anymore than anyone else that is able to read reports of how the war is going?"

"What is it about a foot soldier, who is limited in access to the same information we are, that allows him to "know more" about the overall war effort?"

"Seriously, tell me why his opinion about terrorism coming to our shores any more valid than the next guy?"

"He is over there acting as a ref for the civil war between Shia and Sunni, what does this have to do with terrorism?"

2/21/2007 3:45:19 PM

You've already expressed that in your opinion, a soldier fighting in Iraq doesn't have any special knowledge gained from living/breathing in Iraq...theres no point in me re-answering those questions because you already have your mind made up that being in Iraq and fighting in the war doesnt give anyone any additional insight since they are simply grunts in the muck who dont ask questions and who dont know shit...this to me is more troubling though:

Quote :

"They are insurgents. Participators of a civil war. They aren't the al Qaeda terrorist that had a hand in blowing up the Trade Center. "

so because they werent involved in 9/11, that means that they're not terrorists? insurgents who blow themselves up are different from terrorists? what the hell is a terrorist if its not someone who blows up a bomb to kill 100 civilians? you're not going to win this semantics argument

nobody is trying to convince you that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11...i'm simply wondering why people setting off bombs and killing innocents every day arent terrorists

[Edited on February 21, 2007 at 3:56 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2007 3:54:27 PM

Quote :

"'m simply wondering why people setting off bombs and killing innocents every day arent terrorists"

we did plenty of that a few years ago.

2/21/2007 3:57:08 PM

so american troops are terrorists, but insurgents are not?

and ^smartass we didnt intentionally target civilians...but we can do like you and BLAME AMERICA FIRST!

btw please post some evidence to your erroneous and bogus claim that the US was "killing innocents every day"

[Edited on February 21, 2007 at 4:00 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2007 3:59:46 PM

well, according to your description it was the same. you didn't say intentionally

2/21/2007 4:00:37 PM

according to your 'blame america first' perception of what i said, not according to what i said

im still waiting for proof that we were "killing innocents every day" like you claimed

course we WERENT killing innocents every day...but who cares, BLAME AMERICA FIRST!

you make good points sarijoul...then you come out of left field (no pun intended) and would rather compare US troops to terrorists while not even mentioning State409c's denial that insurgents are terrorists...it just goes to show your fucked up perspective when you'd rather pick on the US troops than the insurgents

[Edited on February 21, 2007 at 4:03 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2007 4:01:19 PM

well i would blame the folks who started the war for the war first.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php

Quote :

"Who was killed? * 24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years. * Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all civilian deaths. * Baghdad alone recorded almost half of all deaths. When did they die? * 30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003. * Post-invasion, the number of civilians killed was almost twice as high in year two (11,351) as in year one (6,215). Who did the killing? * US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims. * Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims. * Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths. * Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period. "

eh. it's not perfect evidence, but there is more of that sort of thing all over that site.

[Edited on February 21, 2007 at 4:04 PM. Reason : extra, b]

i'm just offering an alternative perspective. you know, how the people whose country we're invading might feel about it.

[Edited on February 21, 2007 at 4:08 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2007 4:04:18 PM

Quote :

"well i would blame the folks who started the war for the war first."

just like i said, blame america first

dont blame the people currently blowing up marketplaces in february 2007

blame the people who went in with good intentions a few years back

BLAME AMERICA FIRST

how far back do you go? blame US for starting the war in 03? blame Iraq for breaking UN sanctions? blame the UN? blame anybody, just dont blame the insurgents who are exploding living human beings

Quote :

"i'm just offering an alternative perspective. you know, how the people whose country we're invading might feel about it."

we = the insurgents who are invading iraq in an attempt to wreak havoc and cause terror? or we = the United States who is trying to bring stability to the country?

Do you think a postal worker who goes on a shooing spree at a post office should get a free pass while the supervisor who hired him should get all the blame for "starting it"?

[Edited on February 21, 2007 at 4:11 PM. Reason : en]

2/21/2007 4:08:42 PM

Quote :

"You've already expressed that in your opinion, a soldier fighting in Iraq doesn't have any special knowledge gained from living/breathing in Iraq...theres no point in me re-answering those questions because you already have your mind made up that being in Iraq and fighting in the war doesnt give anyone any additional insight since they are simply grunts in the muck who dont ask questions and who dont know shit..."

My mind is not made up. My current opinion is I don't see how a soldier relaying the comments of Iraqi's afraid of dieing gives him such drastically greater insight about the effectiveness of this war that I can't glean from news reports and study groups. I would say I am waiting for you to change my opinion, but you haven't even attempted it, so I'm not sure why you are getting pissed off that you are losing this debate when you haven't even attempted it yet.

I'll ask for the 3rd or 4th time. Please articulate to me why a single foot soldier's opinion should carry so much more weight than any other observer (me, the media, whoever).

Maybe you are a close minded fool and you use TSB just to spout whatever jaded views you have without any interest in being educated or to learn a different viewpoint. It seems that way with the majority of your posts.

Quote :

"so because they werent involved in 9/11, that means that they're not terrorists? insurgents who blow themselves up are different from terrorists? what the hell is a terrorist if its not someone who blows up a bomb to kill 100 civilians? you're not going to win this semantics argument"

I already did

Quote :

"so american troops are terrorists, but insurgents are not?"

You self owned again. Of course American troops aren't terrorists, just like insurgents fighting a civil war aren't terrorists.

Quote :

"just like i said, blame america first dont blame the people currently blowing up marketplaces in february 2007 blame the people who went in with good intentions a few years back BLAME AMERICA FIRST how far back do you go? blame US for starting the war in 03? blame Iraq for breaking UN sanctions? blame the UN? blame anybody, just dont blame the insurgents who are exploding living human beings"

Get some new material. If you have to resort to tossing this shit out in this thread, then you lost. Game over.

[Edited on February 21, 2007 at 4:11 PM. Reason : a]

2/21/2007 4:11:01 PM

for one thing, i didn't blame anyone of anything.

and for another: blame can be placed on more than one thing.

but i do blame the US for getting iraq into this mess to begin with. there's nothing to be done about that now. i think not setting any concrete goals/timelines for the iraqi forces is a mistake. sure the iraqis bombing americans are bastards.

so are the americans holding suspected terrorists without trial for over five years without any oversight.

[Edited on February 21, 2007 at 4:13 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2007 4:11:45 PM

State409c why dont you consider insurgents to be terrorists?

Do you feel if you admitted they were terrorists (which they are btw) that you would somehow be implying that Iraq had something to do with 9/11?

I cant really think of any other reason why the insurgents who blow up bombs and IEDs daily arent considered terrorists

Quote :

"for one thing, i didn't blame anyone of anything"

Quote :

" would blame the folks who started the war for the war first"

Quote :

"for one thing, i didn't blame anyone of anything"

[Edited on February 21, 2007 at 4:16 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2007 4:13:45 PM