liberals hating america. man, that'll never get old.

[Edited on September 7, 2007 at 3:47 PM. Reason : 3]

9/7/2007 3:47:27 PM

it actually does get very old

maybe supersensitive people dont like certain word choices

but when i say they want us to fail in iraq, they just deny that...

9/7/2007 3:47:57 PM

WHO THE FUCK IS THEY

GOD DAMN

GENERALIZE SOME MORE

9/7/2007 3:50:46 PM

my bad...i shouldnt have assumed...when i said liberals who want us to fail in iraq, i was referring to the people who have long since given up on a chance of any type of victory or stable society...the people who less than a year into the war claimed american defeat...i'm sorry for assuming you'd pick up on something like that

9/7/2007 4:00:25 PM

giving up on victory = actively wanting the US to fail

can you get any stupider than that?

go smoke some more.

9/7/2007 4:33:45 PM

The failed assassination attempt against Bush 41 would have been reason enough for me for the United States to invade Iraq--I wish it had been the justification:

Quote :

"Other than Mr. Yasin, who goes to Iraq, and the suspicion that Ramzi Yousef may be connected to a state intelligence operation, what else is there that makes you say that Saddam may be involved in this? Well, it depends what you mean by 'this.' If 'this' is terrorism against the United States, I think it's pretty clear that we have him dead to rights on trying to assassinate former President Bush in the spring of 1993. 'Dead to rights?' Yes. President Clinton believed that. That's why he launched the 24 cruise missiles at the empty building in the middle of the night in the summer of 1993, after Saddam tried to assassinate former President Bush and the bomb didn't go off. The CIA looked into the forensics of the bomb and told President Clinton that it was an Iraqi government bomb. He then asked the FBI to double-check and sent an FBI forensics team over; they did the same thing. We both said, 'Yes, this is an Iraqi government plot.' That was the occasion for the launching of the cruise missiles against the empty [Iraqi security service] building in the middle of the night. Now, I think that anybody who's looked at the 1993 plot to try to assassinate former President Bush believes that it was an Iraqi government plot. I don't think that President Clinton's response was anywhere nearly as forceful as that terrible plan of Saddam's that happily didn't come off."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/woolsey.html

9/7/2007 11:09:39 PM

Quote :

"LOL with that logic then there are no Isareli civilians since every Israeli citizen has to serve in the armed forces at one point or another...."

say WHAT? did you even READ what the hell you quoted? nowhere in that statement did I mention a thing about citizens being a part of the military. rather, I said that the terrorists PUT THE CIVILIANS IN HARM'S WAY INTENTIONALLY. jeez.

Quote :

"Why blame the Israelis? Because they dropped the bombs. It's simple."

So what were the Israelis to do? ANSWER THAT FUCKING QUESTION OR DON'T SAY ANYTHING ELSE.

And, you know, Trap, you don't help your cause of not trying to sound like salisburybot when you continuously use the word "Zionist" in such a degrading way. Also doesn't help you out in the "I'm not a racist" arena, either...

Quote :

"so how is their fighting tactics different from Israel?"

ummm, maybe because they intentionally target civilians while Israel, at the very least, pretends to target an actual enemy combatant? nah, that's crazy talk...

Quote :

"Israel kills far more civilians then anyone else in the region."

So it's a matter of numbers, then? As long as Israel's response to terrorist attacks against its citizens results in more deaths of civilians who were put in harm's way by the terrorists than the terrorists killed, then Israel is the bad guy, right? nevermind that the terrorists intentionally fired on civilians, with absolutely no military target or objective in sight; nevermind that Israel fired not on civilians, but on terrorist targets; and nevermind that terrorists intentionally hide among civilians in order to cause civilian casualties when Israel retaliates. The only thing that matters is who kills more civilians. It's purely a numbers game. Tell me, oh non-racist person: how many Jewish lives must be taken to account for the death of one non-Jewish life? What is the ratio? 1:1? 2:1? 3:2? What is it? Give us the exact numbers so that we can run the numbers in your calculus of death next time so that we can assign the blame properly.

Quote :

"well when you are undermanned and under powered against a far more advanced enemy, you have to resort to guerrilla tactics and other 'special' methods."

so in other words, you do support terrorism. or do you only support it against Jews? guerrilla tactics are one thing. But a modus operandi of firing solely at INNOCENT CIVILIANS and ignoring military targets is NOT synonymous with "guerrilla tactics." Thank you, though, for invalidating anything else you will EVER say again regarding Israel and/or terrorism.

How bout you, trap? Do you support terrorism like our friend [user]golovko[/i] does? Or do you just support it against Jews"Israelis?"

9/8/2007 12:54:39 AM

Quote :

"And, you know, Trap, you don't help your cause of not trying to sound like salisburybot when you continuously use the word "Zionist" in such a degrading way. Also doesn't help you out in the "I'm not a racist" arena, either..."

I don't know how I could use that word in a non-degrading way. You DO know that Zionist ideology is a racist ideology, don't you? As for your 2nd sentence, if I lambaste hardcore racists, I am a racist myself? See, that's your problem, I keep on lambasting Zionist/Israeli ideologies, policies, practices, etc, and you keep on saying I am racist against Jews, when I don't even say that word. There ARE Jews and Jewish organizations who are passively and/or actively opposed to Israel's murderous and land-grabbing policies. I sure don't hate them, do I?

Quote :

"How bout you, trap? Do you support terrorism "

No I don't approve of terrorism against civilians. I wish Hezbollah and Hamas, etc, would start targetting military targets instead of civilians. On the rare occasion when they do, it makes me happy.

9/8/2007 2:43:30 AM

aaronburro you are uninformed, a racist, and a moron. You don't belong in this thread.

Quote :

"No I don't approve of terrorism against civilians. I wish Hezbollah and Hamas, etc, would start targetting military targets instead of civilians. On the rare occasion when they do, it makes me happy."

much like the time they captured an Israeli soldier. Can't remember the exact count on how many civilians were killed after Israels retaliation. I guess they're soldiers are off limits too?

[Edited on September 8, 2007 at 2:01 PM. Reason : fda]

9/8/2007 1:59:48 PM

wow, so a military response to the actions of enemy combatants against the military is also out of line, too? jeez, can't attack terrorists for shooting at civilians. can't attack terrorists for shooting at the military. genius.

btw, kidnapping a military soldier is hardly indicative of a "military action," either.

remind me again, how am I a racist? Am I the one that hates Jews?

BTW, you still haven't answered the question of what Israel's response should be to terrorists attacking their civilians. And you haven't answered the question of how many Jews must die before a response is allowed, nor have you answered the question of how many Jews equal a non-Jew in terms of deaths.

9/8/2007 2:07:03 PM

^^wow OEP is saying it makes him happy when terrorist groups attack military groups...I think the authorities should seriously keep an eye on that guy

also

9/8/2007 2:10:12 PM

There is no "wow" about it. Think about it for a sec.

If "terrorist groups" targetted only the Israeli military, they wouldn't be "terrorist groups" no more. So when you say that it makes me happy when terrorist groups attack military groups, that is not correct. If I don't approve of terrorism in the first place (terrorism's meaning has the context of civilians in it), then what you said is moot.

I don't approve of terrorism at all, hence, terrorist groups.

I wish groups of locals would attack the Israeli military. In that case, those groups would be called paramilitaries, not terrorist groups.

And NO, I completely do not approve of locals/foreigners getting together to attack the US/UK/etc military in the US/UK/etc. What I approve of is specific to homegrown resistance groups resisting against the occupying army and not harming any civilians at all. Examples include various peoples fighting for their own land all over the world, again, only because these peoples are oppressed. I do not approve at all of a group picking up arms to demand their own homeland even though they are not being oppressed in any fashion.

Unfortunately, all such groups all over the world, whether in Asia, Africa, South America, Europe, etc, deliberately harm civilians also, hence, they are all terrorist groups. I know of no groups that only targets the occupying/oppressing military/state.

Therefore, I approve of no current existing resistance group in the world, because they are all terrorist groups as well. Which is a shame, as these people could get the whole world on their side if they didn't target civilians.

9/8/2007 3:30:37 PM

I don't know, I seriously think the "armed resistance" method of regaining independence is bunk. It rairly if ever does anything but make things worse.

I know it sounds silly, but I think Martin luther King and Ghandi had it right. If they make you suffer, then suffer as best you can for all the cameras to see. But blowing anything up, even if it is just the military, just gains credence for the occupying force. Even if it is your own government you are fighting, then attacks just reinforces their power base ("do what we say or the rebels will get you").

Now, the jury is still out on other forms of protest such as getting arrested, martyred, work stopages, protesting, laying down on the railroad tracks, etc. etc. And I do recognize the possiblity that these forms of dissent only work against the English speaking world, but I digress.

[Edited on September 8, 2007 at 3:58 PM. Reason : .,.]

9/8/2007 3:57:08 PM

^ I agree 163%

P.S. But you gotta realize, that takes a super breed of humans. And almost no humans have thgat much restraint and patience in themselves, especially when it comes to their freedom.

But it is a shame that most humans even don't have enough restraint not to harm civilians intentionally.

While I agree with what you said, as I said, it takes a super human. What I said in my post earlier (targetting only the military) is a legitimate method, at least morally speaking, but yes, it doesn't work much as you pointed out. Unless of course, the resistance group is almost as well equipped as the occupying army/oppressing state.


[Edited on September 8, 2007 at 4:44 PM. Reason : ]

9/8/2007 4:35:36 PM

^ It's true that non-violent protesting is a difficult concept for most people to understand, much less execute as a group. Intuitively, it doesn't make any sense. Why should anyone peacefully resist an unjust law? Why should anyone willingly allow themselves to be beaten, arrested, or detained for breaking a unjust law?

The answer is simple - moral standing. By peacefully protesting, you're not antagonizing the opposing side. You are instead forcing the "enemy" to stop you from breaking a law that you are, in theory, justifiably breaking. In every sense, you are the martyr, they are the bad guys. A violent protest calls this into doubt, so that either side can be construed as the "bad guys."


And just to get this thread back on track, I wanted to respond to this:

Quote :

"To be fair, I think that at the time, most people genuinely thought that Saddam had WMDs in there somewhere. It is entirely possible that the entire country, possibly even much of the world, was guilty of the supposed "groupthing" that had allegedly infected the CIA. I really think that you need to sit back and look at the time that this happened, 9/11 notwithstanding. How many times had we heard that Saddam had frustrated the UN's weapons inspectors? A ton, and the whole world was hearing this in the 90s. So, even when (if, in my mind) Saddam did comply with the UN inspectors, most of the world still held a high level of doubt. Now, this doesn't absolve anyone of any guilt, especially if the actual intelligence was pointing elsewhere and they knew it and intentionally ignored it, but I don't think it is 100% fair to look at this as if it all occurred in a vacuum. And then, 9-11 hit us and that pressured even more people not to do the diligent thing in oversight (read: Congress), because they didn't want to look soft. While some may accuse the neo-cons of calling dissenters traitors, I think the problem is more indicative of the current state of politics overall, not just in one party or the other or in the current administration: politicians are more concerned with making the voters happy today than with doing what they should do. I wish that both parties would take at look at this issue from that perspective, instead of sitting there covering their ass on one front and attacking the other party on another. Ultimately, the problem will recur if the politicians don't pull their heads out of their asses (or the people who vote in said politicians time and time again...)"

Quality post. I don't tend to agree with aaronburro all that much, but he's dead on the money here.

To be sure, I don't hate all the politicians whom, in some way shape or form, sent the US into an unjust war. Our country's pride took a massive hit on 9/11/2001, and it's no surprise that we all wanted retribution. We wanted to be told it was not our fault, and that the blame rested solely on some crazed, evil terrorist group from the Middle East. We wanted to know exactly who the bad guys were, so our government went and found them.

Truth be told, we ought to have looked inward.

I do however blame certain key figures in the government for one reason - fact checking. A certain group of individuals in our government used the 9/11 tragedy as a justification to implement a new foreign policy. The neo-cons believed it was right to go into Iraq on an ideological basis. The facts were irrelevant, and they were routinely swept aside, fudged, and glossed over to justify this new ideology.

The momentum of 9/11 combined with the political coercion implemented by the neo-cons made the Iraq War a reality.

The momentum side of this explanation cannot be faulted on any one individual, group, or country. The coercion side of this, however, rightfully assigns part of the blame to the neo-cons. They have deliberately and routinely set their ideological-driven agenda and used, spun, and selectively ignored the facts to justify it.

For that, I hold the neo-cons responsible.

They're way of thinking is reprehensible, morally bankrupt, and above all un-American. Their collective legacy will be stained with the failure that has been the Iraq war. Paul Wolfowitz - resigned in controversy. Karl Rove - resigned amid more controversy. Donald Rumsfeld - resigned as the country began to learn how bad Iraq had become. Dick Cheney - arguably the most hated politician in DC. President Bush - history will tell his legacy in time, but his list of current accomplishments do not outweigh his current list of failures.


I wouldn't mind seeing them all impeached, arrested, and thrown in jail. However, I think history's painting of their legacies will be a greater punishment than anything we could come up with.

9/10/2007 7:02:58 PM

Quote :

"wow, so a military response to the actions of enemy combatants against the military is also out of line, too? jeez, can't attack terrorists for shooting at civilians. can't attack terrorists for shooting at the military. genius."

my point is, when they target military soliders, Israel retaliates with massive attacks on the civilian population. When they target Israeli civilians, Israel retaliates with massive attacks on the civilian population.

See a pattern?

and it wasn't kidnapping you dumbass, it was a firefight with Israeli soldiers and this dumbass kid fell behind and got captured. Kidnapping, haha...thats a new one. No different then all the naked insurgents forced to hump each other by perverted American soldiers in Abu Ghraib.

[Edited on September 10, 2007 at 8:25 PM. Reason : fda]

9/10/2007 8:23:22 PM

Why do you ignore points that have already been made? Israel is attacking military targets that hide among the civilians. If your neighbor was shotting at you from behind his fence while standing behind his wife/daughter, you wouldn't think twice about blasting back at him if that was the only alternative.

9/10/2007 8:54:48 PM

^why do you ignore EVERYTHING? We've already covered this.

Israel has the military power to execute proper tactical missions to apprehend suspects in 'terrorist' attacks. Firing a missile into a civilian occupied building or a barrage of artillery fire into a heavily populated city is NOT tactical and NOT their only option. But because Israel views all Arabs as dogs, they do as they please. Since Israel has you in her little pocket, it will continue to do as it pleases and you'll be the assclown defending her actions.

9/11/2007 12:20:46 AM

Quote :

"But because Israel views all Arabs as dogs"

Cause Arabs are all really nice when it comes to their views on Israelis

Like when they shoot RPGs out of civilian houses and then say Israel is evil when they fire back, because they are trying to win part of the public relations war. Apparently the PR already has you brainwashed, Salisbury Jr.

9/11/2007 11:23:09 AM

^^ Haha, you didn't respond to my analogy because you know I'm right. Don't fucking act for one second like Israel has some higher standard in regards to defending itself from bombs shot behind civilian targets. Guess what, American soldiers (remember, the ones that let you have the freedom to be a complete and total dick bag) try to do the same things and 3000 of them end up dieing.

Maybe Israel doesn't want those kinds of casualties.

And stop mischaracterizing peoples positions. It isn't nice or pleasant that so many civilians get blown up in between the crossfire, but those same civilians familes WENT AND VOTED HEZBOLLAH INTO OFFICE. I mean, come on. A military/terrorist organization uses you as a shield to hide behind, and you're going to elect them to run the government, too?

9/11/2007 11:41:40 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

Al Gore thought Saddam was a bad guy.

9/11/2007 11:05:15 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JX-FiXTgKFo

bush thinks the U.S. shouldn't police the world or tell other countries how to run things.

bush doesn't believe in nation building.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

Cheney thinks taking over iraq is bad.

cheney believes overthrowing saddam is a bad idea and will lead to quagmire.

etc. etc. etc.

way to go encyclopedia brown

[Edited on September 11, 2007 at 11:22 PM. Reason : /]

9/11/2007 11:15:38 PM

Quote :

"Al Gore thought Saddam was a bad guy."

He also didn't suggest invading Iraq and completely dismantling its government in order to GET Saddam either....


And for fuck sake would someone bother to read my previous post, which is actually on topic unlike the rest of the bile being spewed on this page

9/20/2007 6:27:08 PM