Poll: Who is a terrorist?

[Jaskalas]

Hmm, I need to answer this poll directly.

Whose killing is justified?

Fighters, and if the fighting gets tough by the aid of supporters (providing shelter/food/weapons) then those who help them should be treated the same. If the fighting continues to get worse, you surround and lay siege to their location and put the lives of everyone with them on the line. You make it abundantly clear that the only choice is to surrender the fighters and to stop aiding in their warfare.

Terrorism is designed to blur the line between fighters and civilians because it has become a well known fact that we let the innocent live. Unfortunately terrorism puts the lives of more people in jeopardy, but I do not believe it should be our lives we risk but them and their people. We should render the practice useless through more brutal (but measured) means of combat as I described above.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In terms of choice a,b,c,d,and e---none of the above.

OK then, what would YOU do as "the decider" in the scenario I provided?

Try answering the question.

He's having problems with that kind of thing today...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
but we are not trying to kill anyone who does not take up arms against us. We are not there to occupy or take over their land. We are not there to expand our borders. We are not there to kill any more of their people.

We are not the bad guys.

But you think we are, don't you? That's right, you think that we're the terrorists, don't you?

Guess what would happen if, out of the blue, one day our enemies put down their weapons...? THERE'D BE NO MORE FVCKING KILLING, THAT'S WHAT! We'd be able to return to training their military, rebuilding their infrastructure, advising their government, boosting their economy, etc - and then we could eventually get the fvck out of there!

The violence and death is perpetuated by them, not us. The continued slaughter of innocents is done by their hands, not ours.

100% of our troops would stop shooting, completely, if the enemy stopped killing and blowing everything up to cause chaos. Period.

100% of our soldiers would rather hand out medicine and candy than ever kill another Iraqi. Period.

But that can't be true, right? After all, according to you, Bush and our military are the most evil beings walking this earth.

You're sick man.

That's not very fair. In effect what you are saying is that as long as people do what we want them to do, then we won't kill them... and if they do oppose us its their own fault when they get shot.

What our soldiers feel and want to do is irrelevant. (and it's not possible to speak for all of them anyway) Something tells us that if our country were invaded and occupied, that no matter how benign the professed motives of our occupiers were they would have a 'robust' insurgency on their hands as well. People fighting against those who have invaded and occupied them does not make them inherently wrong. Can you blame them when someone comes in, bombs the $hit out of you, and then says "we're doing this for you guys... TRUST US". You know who else says that? Pretty much every other invading/occupying force throughout human history. They have no reason to trust us, and so is it so surprising when they don't?

In addition, you are not drawing a distinction between Al Qaeda in Iraq, and the anti-US insurgent groups there. Everything I have read points to a few groups of foreign jihadists being responsible for the vast vast majority of attacks meant to incite chaos. The local insurgent groups are far more interested in killing the occupying US troops. (there is of course the death squad activity of these groups, but I think that an honest assessment of that would place it more in civil war/retaliatory action categories then deliberate attempts at national destabilization)

Finally to say that we are not in Iraq to expand our borders may be technically true, but is a gross oversimplification of the motivations and desired outcomes that our government has/had for there. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan it wasn't looking to annex territory from there either, just to install a friendly government. (just an example... I am not equating the US with Russia in any way other then exactly what I just said there). As has been said a hundred times before, if Saddam had been raping and murdering his citizens in a country in sub Saharan Africa whose primary export was pistachios, I somehow doubt our troops would be patrolling the streets there. (Darfur anyone?) It is not accurate to protray our involvement in Iraq as one of selfless non-imperialist charity to an oppressed people. We did come there to take over their government and install one friendly to our interests. True it's staffed by Iraqis, but lets be honest with ourselves here.

I guess it all comes back to the question of, why are the Iraqis wrong for fighting against us again? You can make a pragmatic point for why they are wrong, but a morally that would be a very difficult case to make.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Hmm, I need to answer this poll directly.

Whose killing is justified?

Fighters, and if the fighting gets tough by the aid of supporters (providing shelter/food/weapons) then those who help them should be treated the same. If the fighting continues to get worse, you surround and lay siege to their location and put the lives of everyone with them on the line. You make it abundantly clear that the only choice is to surrender the fighters and to stop aiding in their warfare.

Terrorism is designed to blur the line between fighters and civilians because it has become a well known fact that we let the innocent live. Unfortunately terrorism puts the lives of more people in jeopardy, but I do not believe it should be our lives we risk but them and their people. We should render the practice useless through more brutal (but measured) means of combat as I described above.

You are recommending fighting terrorism with terrorism. The intention of terrorists is to get you to fight terrorism with terrorism. Nice work, Jaskalas, with reactionary dunces like you around terrorists always win. And when there are enough fools like you around it won't matter at all who wins. You are and have become what you hate. You are a fear reaction without a brain.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
That's not very fair. In effect what you are saying is that as long as people do what we want them to do, then we won't kill them... and if they do oppose us its their own fault when they get shot.

Not fair?! The only g'damn thing we're asking them to do is stop killing. It's not like we're lining them up to act as slaves in mine pits, or forcing their women to be whores, or taxing them, or anything even resembling an authoritative presence. WE'RE NOT "forcing them" or "asking them" to do anything other than stop the g'damn killing. Period.

So your entire argument is flawed.

What our soldiers feel and want to do is irrelevant. (and it's not possible to speak for all of them anyway) Something tells us that if our country were invaded and occupied, that no matter how benign the professed motives of our occupiers were they would have a 'robust' insurgency on their hands as well. People fighting against those who have invaded and occupied them does not make them inherently wrong. Can you blame them when someone comes in, bombs the $hit out of you, and then says "we're doing this for you guys... TRUST US". You know who else says that? Pretty much every other invading/occupying force throughout human history. They have no reason to trust us, and so is it so surprising when they don't?

They had every reason to "trust us" in the beginning. It was only once AQ arrived in force, and the other nations in the region started getting involved with nefarious intentions, that dissent and distrust took root.

Once again, your entire argument and analogy is flawed because nobody needs to invade America to "improve" our quality of life or free us from a dictatorship. Why? Because our quality of life is already one of the best in the world, and we already live in what may arguably be the world's most free nation. Therefore, anyone who arrived on our lands to occupy us would be here to take away our freedoms, as opposed to giving us more freedom.

In addition, you are not drawing a distinction between Al Qaeda in Iraq, and the anti-US insurgent groups there.

while a disctinction must be drawn strategically, and in how we negotiate a solution; once the guns are pointed in our direction, there is no distinction whatsoever.

Everything I have read points to a few groups of foreign jihadists being responsible for the vast vast majority of attacks meant to incite chaos. The local insurgent groups are far more interested in killing the occupying US troops. (there is of course the death squad activity of these groups, but I think that an honest assessment of that would place it more in civil war/retaliatory action categories then deliberate attempts at national destabilization)

Since the start of the surge, actual insurgent activity has been reduced dramatically. Many such groups have either turned against AQ, or stopped fighting altogether. More and more of them are putting down their weapons every day. This is the truth most anti-war folks refuse to accept.

Finally to say that we are not in Iraq to expand our borders may be technically true, but is a gross oversimplification of the motivations and desired outcomes that our government has/had for there. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan it wasn't looking to annex territory from there either, just to install a friendly government. (just an example... I am not equating the US with Russia in any way other then exactly what I just said there). As has been said a hundred times before, if Saddam had been raping and murdering his citizens in a country in sub Saharan Africa whose primary export was pistachios, I somehow doubt our troops would be patrolling the streets there. (Darfur anyone?) It is not accurate to protray our involvement in Iraq as one of selfless non-imperialist charity to an oppressed people. We did come there to take over their government and install one friendly to our interests. True it's staffed by Iraqis, but lets be honest with ourselves here.

It may not be entirely selfless, but a good portion of our intent is in the best interests of everyone - not just ourselves.

I guess it all comes back to the question of, why are the Iraqis wrong for fighting against us again? You can make a pragmatic point for why they are wrong, but a morally that would be a very difficult case to make.

no, it would not. It's only difficult "morally" for those of you who insist that there is nothing decent about what we are trying to do. As I said above, we're not their to enslave or tax them, and the only requirement we have is that they stop killing and start acting like civilized people. The fact that they are basically biting the hand trying to feed them is the entire issue.

The chaos is on their head, not ours. The minute they wake up and realize that there is absolutely no point to their insurgency, maybe we'll be able to wrap this thing up and leave.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In terms of choice a,b,c,d,and e---none of the above.

We are still waiting for your answer Lemon Law. Tell us what you would do in the scenario I described if you were "the decider."

Impress me.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: eskimospy
That's not very fair. In effect what you are saying is that as long as people do what we want them to do, then we won't kill them... and if they do oppose us its their own fault when they get shot.

Not fair?! The only g'damn thing we're asking them to do is stop killing. It's not like we're lining them up to act as slaves in mine pits, or forcing their women to be whores, or taxing them, or anything even resembling an authoritative presence. WE'RE NOT "forcing them" or "asking them" to do anything other than stop the g'damn killing. Period.

So your entire argument is flawed.

What our soldiers feel and want to do is irrelevant. (and it's not possible to speak for all of them anyway) Something tells us that if our country were invaded and occupied, that no matter how benign the professed motives of our occupiers were they would have a 'robust' insurgency on their hands as well. People fighting against those who have invaded and occupied them does not make them inherently wrong. Can you blame them when someone comes in, bombs the $hit out of you, and then says "we're doing this for you guys... TRUST US". You know who else says that? Pretty much every other invading/occupying force throughout human history. They have no reason to trust us, and so is it so surprising when they don't?

They had every reason to "trust us" in the beginning. It was only once AQ arrived in force, and the other nations in the region started getting involved with nefarious intentions, that dissent and distrust took root.

Once again, your entire argument and analogy is flawed because nobody needs to invade America to "improve" our quality of life or free us from a dictatorship. Why? Because our quality of life is already one of the best in the world, and we already live in what may arguably be the world's most free nation. Therefore, anyone who arrived on our lands to occupy us would be here to take away our freedoms, as opposed to giving us more freedom.

In addition, you are not drawing a distinction between Al Qaeda in Iraq, and the anti-US insurgent groups there.

while a disctinction must be drawn strategically, and in how we negotiate a solution; once the guns are pointed in our direction, there is no distinction whatsoever.

Everything I have read points to a few groups of foreign jihadists being responsible for the vast vast majority of attacks meant to incite chaos. The local insurgent groups are far more interested in killing the occupying US troops. (there is of course the death squad activity of these groups, but I think that an honest assessment of that would place it more in civil war/retaliatory action categories then deliberate attempts at national destabilization)

Since the start of the surge, actual insurgent activity has been reduced dramatically. Many such groups have either turned against AQ, or stopped fighting altogether. More and more of them are putting down their weapons every day. This is the truth most anti-war folks refuse to accept.

Finally to say that we are not in Iraq to expand our borders may be technically true, but is a gross oversimplification of the motivations and desired outcomes that our government has/had for there. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan it wasn't looking to annex territory from there either, just to install a friendly government. (just an example... I am not equating the US with Russia in any way other then exactly what I just said there). As has been said a hundred times before, if Saddam had been raping and murdering his citizens in a country in sub Saharan Africa whose primary export was pistachios, I somehow doubt our troops would be patrolling the streets there. (Darfur anyone?) It is not accurate to protray our involvement in Iraq as one of selfless non-imperialist charity to an oppressed people. We did come there to take over their government and install one friendly to our interests. True it's staffed by Iraqis, but lets be honest with ourselves here.

It may not be entirely selfless, but a good portion of our intent is in the best interests of everyone - not just ourselves.

I guess it all comes back to the question of, why are the Iraqis wrong for fighting against us again? You can make a pragmatic point for why they are wrong, but a morally that would be a very difficult case to make.

no, it would not. It's only difficult "morally" for those of you who insist that there is nothing decent about what we are trying to do. As I said above, we're not their to enslave or tax them, and the only requirement we have is that they stop killing and start acting like civilized people. The fact that they are basically biting the hand trying to feed them is the entire issue.

The chaos is on their head, not ours. The minute they wake up and realize that there is absolutely no point to their insurgency, maybe we'll be able to wrap this thing up and leave.

Oh hell no. You are attempting to argue that when we invade and occupy a country any attempts to get us to stop place the onus on them for the situation. That is flatly false. WE invaded THEM. Any resulting chaos is OUR fault because we created this situation. The claim that although we have attacked their country, deposed their government, and occupied them for close to five years, but that we haven't tried to force them to do anything or act as an authoritative presence is absurd on its face.

Why did they have every reason to trust us? Because of our stellar record in supporting national populations in the past? Our great record of supporting democracy in third world nations that we intervene in? You ascribe noble and decent motivations to our actions over there that even a good percentage of Americans don't believe are true, and then expect them out of a conquered population separated by a vast economic, geopolitical, and cultural gulf? Are you kidding?

And how is my comparison to America flawed? So because our standard of living is high, we should resist invasion and occupation, but since their standard of living is low, they should welcome conquest because we say that we're going to make things better? White man's burden anyone? Ask the residents of Africa about the wonderful progress that colonialism brought them by the benevolent vanilla faces of Western Europe. They were just trying to help them too. Just because colonialism takes place in the form of advisors instead of regents does not change its fundamental aspects.

Last thing, to say that there is no difference between groups when their guns are pointed at us betrays the ignorance that has gotten us into this situation to begin with. Once you understand WHY someone is fighting you, it is much easier to get them to stop. By treating all militant groups in Iraq as the same, you close yourself off from effective avenues in dealing with them. That is the height of ignorance and foolish pride.

Oh, and I'm sure everything in Iraq is getting much much better. If things actually get better there, great. Forgive my cynicism however as things have been improving by leaps and bounds every day for more then 5 years there. In fact they have improved so much that we are reeling on the brink of catastrophic defeat. Maybe I'll wait a bit to decide if things are getting any better there considering every single other assurance of such that we have heard has been a baldfaced lie. (and one that all the pro war people on here have eagerly trumpeted as signs of "progress")

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh hell no. You are attempting to argue that when we invade and occupy a country any attempts to get us to stop place the onus on them for the situation. That is flatly false. WE invaded THEM. Any resulting chaos is OUR fault because we created this situation. The claim that although we have attacked their country, deposed their government, and occupied them for close to five years, but that we haven't tried to force them to do anything or act as an authoritative presence is absurd on its face.

you're wrong. While we have played a large part in creating the conditions that led to the current chaotic environment, the onus is entirely on them for the continued chaos and destruction. Once again, if they put down their weapons and decided to help, there would be no more killing and violence, and we'd be able to leave much sooner. You have somehow excused their part in the chaos entirely... im not shocked.

And how is my comparison to America flawed? So because our standard of living is high, we should resist invasion and occupation, but since their standard of living is low, they should welcome conquest because we say that we're going to make things better?

This is the first example of you only reading half of what I wrote. Please see the part about taking freedoms away vs. giving more freedom - which, AFAIC, is the most noble intention one could ever have. When Herminone set out to free the house elves, they were smart enough to see that she had good intentions. The Iraqis are not...

Last thing, to say that there is no difference between groups when their guns are pointed at us betrays the ignorance that has gotten us into this situation to begin with. Once you understand WHY someone is fighting you, it is much easier to get them to stop. By treating all militant groups in Iraq as the same, you close yourself off from effective avenues in dealing with them. That is the height of ignorance and foolish pride.

Which is why this is now the second example of your reading only half of what I wrote. Please see the part about viewing them differently in a strategic capacity, and then negotiating with them accordingly.

What I said also remains true: When the weapons come up and they're pointed at you, the enemy's group affiliation becomes irrelevant. Regardless of who it is, the response is still the same - you put them down. (This is called the tactical response. Tactical and Strategic responses are two very different things).

Oh, and I'm sure everything in Iraq is getting much much better. If things actually get better there, great. Forgive my cynicism however as things have been improving by leaps and bounds every day for more then 5 years there. In fact they have improved so much that we are reeling on the brink of catastrophic defeat. Maybe I'll wait a bit to decide if things are getting any better there considering every single other assurance of such that we have heard has been a baldfaced lie. (and one that all the pro war people on here have eagerly trumpeted as signs of "progress")

Thankfully, not everyone is stuck in the defeatist hole you've obviously dug for yourself... It's just too bad that Michael O?Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack are the only ones amongst your crowd that have bothered to go out and get a first-hand clue... good luck with that!

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

He believes in the fundamental teachings of Islam (he is non violent)

Lost me, since its fundamental teachings are violent.

That's ridiculous. It's like saying all Americans are violent because their constitution mentions war. Terrorism is illegal in Islamic law. The prophet spent 11 years in Mecca and did not try to kill anyone inspite of what the meccans did, which including murder and torture of his family and friends.

If you are an American and think war under all circumstances is illegal then you're a hypocrite. Infact Islamic laws of engagement are more peaceful than America's. If America had followed Islamic law, Iraq would never have happened.

You can believe the terrorists when they say they are on the fundamentals of Islam. I will believe they 8/48 people here that want to kill me because I am a Muslim when they say they represent America.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
You can believe the terrorists when they say they are on the fundamentals of Islam. I will believe they 8/48 people here that want to kill me because I am a Muslim when they say they represent America.

Can you please rewrite both of those sentences? What are you trying to say there?

Also, Green Bean, can you answer these questions please?

1) Do you believe that Al Qaeda needs to be destroyed, or do you agree with what they are doing in the world?

2) Do you believe that Pakistan is doing enough (anything?) to prevent AQ and the Taliban from entering Afghanistan?

3) Are you in AQ or the Taliban?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
You can believe the terrorists when they say they are on the fundamentals of Islam. I will believe they 8/48 people here that want to kill me because I am a Muslim when they say they represent America.

Can you please rewrite both of those sentences? What are you trying to say there?

Also, Green Bean, can you answer these questions please?

1) Do you believe that Al Qaeda needs to be destroyed, or do you agree with what they are doing in the world?

2) Do you believe that Pakistan is doing enough (anything?) to prevent AQ and the Taliban from entering Afghanistan?

3) Are you in AQ or the Taliban?

I meant that those Americans that say that killing muslims is Americanism is the same thing as saying terrorists represent Islam.

1) It certainly has no place in the civilized world. It needs to be dismantled.

2) It was the Afghans that prevented us from building a border fence. And now they say it's our fault.

3) If I was, I wouldn't have been posting here

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Skoorb

He believes in the fundamental teachings of Islam (he is non violent)

Lost me, since its fundamental teachings are violent.

That's ridiculous. It's like saying all Americans are violent because their constitution mentions war. Terrorism is illegal in Islamic law. The prophet spent 11 years in Mecca and did not try to kill anyone inspite of what the meccans did, which including murder and torture of his family and friends.

If you are an American and think war under all circumstances is illegal then you're a hypocrite. Infact Islamic laws of engagement are more peaceful than America's. If America had followed Islamic law, Iraq would never have happened.

You can believe the terrorists when they say they are on the fundamentals of Islam. I will believe they 8/48 people here that want to kill me because I am a Muslim when they say they represent America.

I hate to break it to you, but it is well known that your prophet had blood on his hands.

"In March of 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan. The Muslims ambushed the Meccans at Badr.[66] Muhammad himself did not fight, directing the battle from a nearby hut alongside Abu Bakr.[67] Though outnumbered more than three to one, the Muslims won the battle, killing at least forty-five Meccans and taking seventy prisoners for ransom; only fourteen Muslims died. They had also succeeded in killing many of the Meccan leaders, including Abu Jahl.[68]"

---So its ok for him to order peoples murder and stand there and watch?


" Captives of the Muslims who were of little influence or value were usually freed without ransom, but after this battle Muhammad decided that anyone who went unransomed would be killed.[69][70] Muhammad ordered the immediate execution of two men who had attacked him on an intellectual and literary level in Mecca without entertaining offers for their release.[71] Muhammad was especially sensitive to attacks of this kind throughout his career, and considered them an unforgivable sin.[69]"

"After each major battle with the Medinans, Muhammad accused one of the Jewish tribes of treachery (see Surah 2:100) and attacked it. After Badr, Muhammad beseiged the Banu Qaynuqa and forced their surrender. He wanted to put all the men to death, but was convinced not to do so by Abdullah ibn Ubayy, who was an old ally of the Qaynuqa.[90] Instead, he expelled them from Medina with their families and possessions"

"After Uhud, he did the same to the Banu Nadir. After the Battle of the Trench in 627, the Muslims accused the Jews of Banu Qurayza of conspiring with the Meccans, then beheaded the adult male members of the Banu Qurayza. The females and children were sold as slaves. [91]"

Text
How nice!

 

[SirStev0]

I personally don't feel that the insurgents in Iraq are terrorist. If anything they are patriots for their country. They are attempting to fend of agressive invaders. Not very different from the US during the War of 1812. I put yes to the last two, I personally think terrorists are either cowards or desperate. They are also usually just being used by a rich powerful person trying to get more power.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh hell no. You are attempting to argue that when we invade and occupy a country any attempts to get us to stop place the onus on them for the situation. That is flatly false. WE invaded THEM. Any resulting chaos is OUR fault because we created this situation. The claim that although we have attacked their country, deposed their government, and occupied them for close to five years, but that we haven't tried to force them to do anything or act as an authoritative presence is absurd on its face.

you're wrong. While we have played a large part in creating the conditions that led to the current chaotic environment, the onus is entirely on them for the continued chaos and destruction. Once again, if they put down their weapons and decided to help, there would be no more killing and violence, and we'd be able to leave much sooner. You have somehow excused their part in the chaos entirely... im not shocked.

And how is my comparison to America flawed? So because our standard of living is high, we should resist invasion and occupation, but since their standard of living is low, they should welcome conquest because we say that we're going to make things better?

This is the first example of you only reading half of what I wrote. Please see the part about taking freedoms away vs. giving more freedom - which, AFAIC, is the most noble intention one could ever have. When Herminone set out to free the house elves, they were smart enough to see that she had good intentions. The Iraqis are not...

Last thing, to say that there is no difference between groups when their guns are pointed at us betrays the ignorance that has gotten us into this situation to begin with. Once you understand WHY someone is fighting you, it is much easier to get them to stop. By treating all militant groups in Iraq as the same, you close yourself off from effective avenues in dealing with them. That is the height of ignorance and foolish pride.

Which is why this is now the second example of your reading only half of what I wrote. Please see the part about viewing them differently in a strategic capacity, and then negotiating with them accordingly.

What I said also remains true: When the weapons come up and they're pointed at you, the enemy's group affiliation becomes irrelevant. Regardless of who it is, the response is still the same - you put them down. (This is called the tactical response. Tactical and Strategic responses are two very different things).

Oh, and I'm sure everything in Iraq is getting much much better. If things actually get better there, great. Forgive my cynicism however as things have been improving by leaps and bounds every day for more then 5 years there. In fact they have improved so much that we are reeling on the brink of catastrophic defeat. Maybe I'll wait a bit to decide if things are getting any better there considering every single other assurance of such that we have heard has been a baldfaced lie. (and one that all the pro war people on here have eagerly trumpeted as signs of "progress")

Thankfully, not everyone is stuck in the defeatist hole you've obviously dug for yourself... It's just too bad that Michael O?Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack are the only ones amongst your crowd that have bothered to go out and get a first-hand clue... good luck with that!

Very interesting. So you reitorate your point that as long as they stop fighting us and the government that we installed and do what we want them to do, then the violence will stop. While I'm sure that's true, I still fail to see why they are wrong in fighting against what they (in overwhelmingly huge numbers) view as a hostile occupying force. My fundamental point was simply that to blame them for fighting us and saying that they should just do what we want is denial of the nature of mankind... not to mention reality.

Okay, so standard of living vs. Great Freedom now? So if we are fighting to impose values and institutions that will bring greater political freedom to a country, the members of that country can no longer legitimately oppose it? All of your postings simply betray a profound misunderstanding of that entire region. (I won't even touch the whole house elf comparison... something tells me they wouldn't appreciate that either) Maybe they don't value the same things that you value, and maybe they (as I said before) have no reason to trust in our good faith as shown by half a century of American intervention in the third world. Maybe, just maybe if we respected their rights to individual freedoms so much we would free them of the occupation that they state, again in strong majorities, that they no longer want? Or does our commitment to their freedoms only extend so far as it jives with our geopolitical interest?

You can't have it both ways. If you are truly for a free Iraq then how can you continue an occupation that more then two thirds of them say they don't want? Are you doing it 'for their own good'? I don't have to tell you how wrong that is.

I guess I should have read your statement on tactical response more closely. I guess I just figured that the point of individual reaction to a life threatening situation was so obvious that it didn't merit a mention.

Oh, and don't use Michael O'Hanlon as some sort of representitive of the anti war community. He was a huge cheerleader for the war early on. He only jumped ship after he saw Bush crap his pants so badly over there. In fact, he even signed a letter authored by PNAC. A credible war opponent he is not.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: nick1985
I hate to break it to you, but it is well known that your prophet had blood on his hands.

Yes this was all AFTER establishing Medina. I figure Osama bin Laden would be beheaded too just like Saddam was. There is a difference between a sovereign nation and a rebellion. Muslim treatment of slaves was far better than American treatment of slaves. I really can't say you have are "free country" when 2/48 want to kill all arabs and 4/48 want to klill all muslims. Bush, Roosevelt, Churchill, no one fought on the battlefield. Bush is killing his people for the greed of oil. 3 of the prophet's family members were champions on the day. If you read the battles of Uhud and Hunain, there is clear mention of the prophet participating and getting wounded. Most of these narrations on Wikipedia are incorrect anyhow.

I also don't see any one raising their eyebrows over Pakistan's selling of Guantanamo prisoners to the US for bounty. They are treated worse than slaves, tortured, beaten, humiliated, killed. Most of them are there without a sentence. Most of those were probably caught for petty crimes like theft and sold as terrorists. Most of those are there for life.

Are you a Christian?

 

[piasabird]

I think this is an ill-conceived poll.

I dont think many people condone killing other people because of race religion or creed or their personal opinion.


However, Giving monetary support to terrorists is illegal.

Sheltering a terrorist is illegal.

Knowing about a terrorist and doing nothing is illegal.

I also think that it would be acceptable to stop allowing immigration and student visas to all countries where these terrorists come from, and rounding them up and deporting them telling them they are no longer welcome, and dont come back. This doesnt mean we hate them all. This means we would be reducing our risk level. If we do not have sense to admit that people from Saudia Arabia have purposely tried to kill us, then maybe we are the stupid people.

Then there is the obvious port of entry being from Mexico or Canada, which we are not really trying to stop.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Hmm, I need to answer this poll directly.

Whose killing is justified?

Fighters, and if the fighting gets tough by the aid of supporters (providing shelter/food/weapons) then those who help them should be treated the same. If the fighting continues to get worse, you surround and lay siege to their location and put the lives of everyone with them on the line. You make it abundantly clear that the only choice is to surrender the fighters and to stop aiding in their warfare.

Terrorism is designed to blur the line between fighters and civilians because it has become a well known fact that we let the innocent live. Unfortunately terrorism puts the lives of more people in jeopardy, but I do not believe it should be our lives we risk but them and their people. We should render the practice useless through more brutal (but measured) means of combat as I described above.

You are recommending fighting terrorism with terrorism. The intention of terrorists is to get you to fight terrorism with terrorism. Nice work, Jaskalas, with reactionary dunces like you around terrorists always win. And when there are enough fools like you around it won't matter at all who wins. You are and have become what you hate. You are a fear reaction without a brain.

We don't have to use terrorism, we could just carpet bomb if killing innocent people was our objective. Did you see that mentioned in my post, carpet bomb? No. You saw measured steps to escalate the responsibility of those fighting with and/or DIRECTLY protecting/supporting the fighters in field of battle with the ONLY intention of forcing the fighters to surrender or die.

To consider THAT terrorism is an act of stupidity far beyond measure, but then you have repeatedly proven yourself a suicidal pacifist who advocates submitting to whoever wants to push you around.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
I personally don't feel that the insurgents in Iraq are terrorist. If anything they are patriots for their country. They are attempting to fend of agressive invaders.

That is why they wage genocide against their own people? You must have a very low opinion of patriots if you consider that patriotic.

 

[manowar821]

I really want to meet the 5 people or so who voted all yes, and punch them in the throat.

I'm guessing they're trolls, but I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't... Complete and blatant racist/nationalists still exist, and probably know how to use a computer, regardless of the fact that they have the IQ of a pile of cow dung.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: nick1985
I hate to break it to you, but it is well known that your prophet had blood on his hands.

1) Yes this was all AFTER establishing Medina.


2) Bush, Roosevelt, Churchill, no one fought on the battlefield.

1) So that makes it ok?

2) Wrong again sir! Churchill most definately saw action on the battlefield.

"In 1897, Churchill attempted to travel to both report and, if necessary, fight in the Greco-Turkish War, but this conflict effectively ended before he could arrive"

"Later, while preparing for a leave in England, Churchill heard that three brigades of the British Army were going to fight against a Pashtun tribe and he asked his superior officer if he could join the fight.[16] He fought under the command of General Jeffery, who was the commander of the second brigade operating in Malakand, in what is now Pakistan. Jeffery sent fifteen scouts and Churchill to explore the Mamund Valley; while on reconnaissance, they encountered an enemy tribe, dismounted from their horses and opened fire. After an hour of shooting, their reinforcements, the 35th Sikhs arrived, and the fire gradually ceased and the brigade and the Sikhs marched on. Hundreds of tribesmen then ambushed them and opened fire forcing them to retreat. As they were retreating four men were carrying an injured officer but the fierceness of the fight forced them to leave him behind. The man who was left behind was slashed to death in front of Churchill?s eyes; afterwards he wrote, "I forgot everything else at this moment except a desire to kill this man".[17] However the Sikhs' numbers were being depleted so the next commanding officer told Churchill to get the rest of the men to safety."

"The 21st Lancers (Empress of India's) were a cavalry regiment of the British Army, created in 1857 and amalgamated to form the 17th/21st Lancers in 1922. Perhaps its most famous engagement was the Battle of Omdurman, where Winston Churchill 4th Hussars, rode with the unit."

"On 12 October 1899, the war between Britain and the Afrikaners broke out in South Africa. Churchill was captured and held in a POW camp, which was actually the Staats Model School in Pretoria. Churchill escaped from his prison camp and travelled almost 300 miles (480 km) to Portuguese Lourenço Marques in Delagoa Bay, with the assistance of an English mine manager.[2] His escape made him a minor national hero for a time in Britain, though instead of returning home, he rejoined General Redvers Buller's army on its march to relieve Ladysmith and take Pretoria."


Maybe do some research before you spout off garbage?

Text

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: manowar821
I really want to meet the 5 people or so who voted all yes, and punch them in the throat.

I'm guessing they're trolls, but I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't... Complete and blatant racist/nationalists still exist, and probably know how to use a computer, regardless of the fact that they have the IQ of a pile of cow dung.

Would you punch the 1/4 people in P&N that feels we should leave the insurgents in Iraq unharmed?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: manowar821
I really want to meet the 5 people or so who voted all yes, and punch them in the throat.

I'm guessing they're trolls, but I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't... Complete and blatant racist/nationalists still exist, and probably know how to use a computer, regardless of the fact that they have the IQ of a pile of cow dung.

Would you punch the 1/4 people in P&N that feels we should leave the insurgents in Iraq unharmed?

What does that have to do with racist pigs? I have no beef with pacifists, nor do I have beef with our soldiers shooting back at insurgents. So, no, I wouldn't. I'd still be mad at them, though.

I put these 5 people in the same boat as murderers/terrorists, because they're disgusting wastes of space. Kill a man because he's ARAB? What the hell kind of nonsense is that? Sounds like racist Nazism to me.

That's why I'd like to physically harm them. The people who say that they wouldn't want to kill an insurgent are perhaps misled, but they're not supporting murderers. Perhaps they're simply pacifists.

To say that an Arab man deserves death is nothing short of disgusting.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: manowar821
I really want to meet the 5 people or so who voted all yes, and punch them in the throat.

I'm guessing they're trolls, but I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't... Complete and blatant racist/nationalists still exist, and probably know how to use a computer, regardless of the fact that they have the IQ of a pile of cow dung.

Would you punch the 1/4 people in P&N that feels we should leave the insurgents in Iraq unharmed?

What does that have to do with racist pigs? I have no beef with pacifists, nor do I have beef with our soldiers shooting back at insurgents. So, no, I wouldn't. I'd still be mad at them, though.

I put these 5 people in the same boat as murderers/terrorists, because they're disgusting wastes of space. Kill a man because he's ARAB? What the hell kind of nonsense is that? Sounds like racist Nazism to me.

That's why I'd like to physically harm them. The people who say that they wouldn't want to kill an insurgent are perhaps misled, but they're not supporting murderers. Perhaps they're simply pacifists.

To say that an Arab man deserves death is nothing short of disgusting.

Do you honestly think that those votes in this poll are legit? They are obviously trolls.....I can't believe that people are getting so worked up over obvious trolls...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I also don't see any one raising their eyebrows over Pakistan's selling of Guantanamo prisoners to the US for bounty. They are treated worse than slaves, tortured, beaten, humiliated, killed

That is not true. Prisoners at Gitmo are not "tortured, beaten, humiliated, and killed." That is simply what Al Jazeera and the American far Left would have you believe. It's complete bullsh*t.

In reality, they are treated better than most prisoners in American prisons! Go there for a visit and see for yourself.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: manowar821
I really want to meet the 5 people or so who voted all yes, and punch them in the throat.

I'm guessing they're trolls, but I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't... Complete and blatant racist/nationalists still exist, and probably know how to use a computer, regardless of the fact that they have the IQ of a pile of cow dung.

Would you punch the 1/4 people in P&N that feels we should leave the insurgents in Iraq unharmed?

What does that have to do with racist pigs? I have no beef with pacifists, nor do I have beef with our soldiers shooting back at insurgents. So, no, I wouldn't. I'd still be mad at them, though.

I put these 5 people in the same boat as murderers/terrorists, because they're disgusting wastes of space. Kill a man because he's ARAB? What the hell kind of nonsense is that? Sounds like racist Nazism to me.

That's why I'd like to physically harm them. The people who say that they wouldn't want to kill an insurgent are perhaps misled, but they're not supporting murderers. Perhaps they're simply pacifists.

To say that an Arab man deserves death is nothing short of disgusting.

Do you honestly think that those votes in this poll are legit? They are obviously trolls.....I can't believe that people are getting so worked up over obvious trolls...

Actually I wasn't worked up in my first response, I was saying that they were probably trolls, but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't.

My second response was worked up because of nick1985's question and what kind of meaning it had behind it.