Obama Backs WTC Mosque

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

No dumbass being a citizen does not make you a civilian. When a civilian takes up arms to fight they become a combatant.
[/quote]

The US military are foreign invaders. Did you expect blowjobs from the Iraqis in return for bombing them?

I don’t blame them one bit for fighting back. I know some you think they are supposed to just bend over and take it.
[/quote]

Oh dear. I think you missed the point. The moment somebody takes up arms to fight in a war they are a combatant. Hence they are no longer civilians so including them in the civilian death toll is inane.

It doesn’t matter which side you support. For instance I supported the actions of the French resistance in WW2; but I’m not going to be dense enough to pretend that they were civilians. Once you start shooting at people in a war situation you are not a civilian.[/quote]

I understood his point just fine.

Read the rest of Sifu’s post. He makes it sound like the Iraqis have no right to self-defense or to stand up to an occupying force.[/quote]

I never said the Iraqi’s have no right to self defense. But the term self defense implies that someone is facing an aggressor who they have to defend themselves from. The simple fact is that the American military has been very careful not to unnecessarily kill Iraqi’s. Even the Iraqi army was spared during the invasion. They were told stay in your barracks on your base and you won’t be targeted. Otherwise we could have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers.

No dumb ass just because our soldiers are occupying their country that does not make it okay to attack them. Whether or not it is okay to attack any occupying force is completely dependent upon the nature of the occupation. To use your retarded reasoning the French resistance should have been shooting at the Americans landing in Normandy in WW2. Or today the Germans should be attacking the Americans there because they are still occupying Germany.

142

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

No dumbass being a citizen does not make you a civilian. When a civilian takes up arms to fight they become a combatant.
[/quote]

The US military are foreign invaders. Did you expect blowjobs from the Iraqis in return for bombing them?

I don’t blame them one bit for fighting back. I know some you think they are supposed to just bend over and take it.
[/quote]

Oh dear. I think you missed the point. The moment somebody takes up arms to fight in a war they are a combatant. Hence they are no longer civilians so including them in the civilian death toll is inane.

It doesn’t matter which side you support. For instance I supported the actions of the French resistance in WW2; but I’m not going to be dense enough to pretend that they were civilians. Once you start shooting at people in a war situation you are not a civilian.[/quote]

I understood his point just fine.

Read the rest of Sifu’s post. He makes it sound like the Iraqis have no right to self-defense or to stand up to an occupying force.[/quote]

I never said the Iraqi’s have no right to self defense. But the term self defense implies that someone is facing an aggressor who they have to defend themselves from. The simple fact is that the American military has been very careful not to unnecessarily kill Iraqi’s. Even the Iraqi army was spared during the invasion. They were told stay in your barracks on your base and you won’t be targeted. Otherwise we could have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers.

No dumb ass just because our soldiers are occupying their country that does not make it okay to attack them. Whether or not it is okay to attack any occupying force is completely dependent upon the nature of the occupation. To use your retarded reasoning the French resistance should have been shooting at the Americans landing in Normandy in WW2. Or today the Germans should be attacking the Americans there because they are still occupying Germany.

[/quote]

That is priceless.

So it is up to the occupying army to decide whether it is welcome or not?

143

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

No dumbass being a citizen does not make you a civilian. When a civilian takes up arms to fight they become a combatant.
[/quote]

The US military are foreign invaders. Did you expect blowjobs from the Iraqis in return for bombing them?

I don’t blame them one bit for fighting back. I know some you think they are supposed to just bend over and take it.
[/quote]

Oh dear. I think you missed the point. The moment somebody takes up arms to fight in a war they are a combatant. Hence they are no longer civilians so including them in the civilian death toll is inane.

It doesn’t matter which side you support. For instance I supported the actions of the French resistance in WW2; but I’m not going to be dense enough to pretend that they were civilians. Once you start shooting at people in a war situation you are not a civilian.[/quote]

Doublespeak. Bullshit.

Reclassifying a civilian who shoots at an invading foreign army a “combatant” is nothing more than a way to try to justify that foreign armies presence.

What if an Iraqi throws a rock at an American troop? Are they suddenly a combatant?

[/quote]
The one who is full of bullshit is you. Civilian and combatant have been defined within international law for years.

A combatant is someone who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. If a combatant follows the law of war, then they are considered a privileged combatant, and upon capture they qualify as a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII). An unprivileged combatant is someone, such as a mercenary, who take a direct part in the hostilities but who upon capture does not qualify for prisoner of war status.

A civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country’s armed forces. The term is also often used colloquially to refer to people who are not members of a particular profession or occupation, especially by law enforcement agencies, which often use rank structures similar to those of military units.

The International Committee of the Red Cross 1958 Commentary on IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War Article 4.4 states that “[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution â?? not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view.”[1] The ICRC has expressed the opinion that “If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered ‘unlawful’ or ‘unprivileged’ combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action”.[

144

[quote]Sifu wrote:

No dumb ass just because our soldiers are occupying their country that does not make it okay to attack them.
[/quote]

Orly!?!

What would you do if you were an Iraqi and a foreign Army invaded your country, bombed your cities and then told you they were there to bring you democracy? Maybe, they even killed a loved one or friend.

Did you ever once stop and put yourself in their shoes?

145

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

No dumbass being a citizen does not make you a civilian. When a civilian takes up arms to fight they become a combatant.
[/quote]

The US military are foreign invaders. Did you expect blowjobs from the Iraqis in return for bombing them?

I don’t blame them one bit for fighting back. I know some you think they are supposed to just bend over and take it.
[/quote]

Oh dear. I think you missed the point. The moment somebody takes up arms to fight in a war they are a combatant. Hence they are no longer civilians so including them in the civilian death toll is inane.

It doesn’t matter which side you support. For instance I supported the actions of the French resistance in WW2; but I’m not going to be dense enough to pretend that they were civilians. Once you start shooting at people in a war situation you are not a civilian.[/quote]

I understood his point just fine.

Read the rest of Sifu’s post. He makes it sound like the Iraqis have no right to self-defense or to stand up to an occupying force.[/quote]

I never said the Iraqi’s have no right to self defense. But the term self defense implies that someone is facing an aggressor who they have to defend themselves from. The simple fact is that the American military has been very careful not to unnecessarily kill Iraqi’s. Even the Iraqi army was spared during the invasion. They were told stay in your barracks on your base and you won’t be targeted. Otherwise we could have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers.

No dumb ass just because our soldiers are occupying their country that does not make it okay to attack them. Whether or not it is okay to attack any occupying force is completely dependent upon the nature of the occupation. To use your retarded reasoning the French resistance should have been shooting at the Americans landing in Normandy in WW2. Or today the Germans should be attacking the Americans there because they are still occupying Germany.

[/quote]

That is priceless.

So it is up to the occupying army to decide whether it is welcome or not?

[/quote]

It is certainly not up to a handful of violent thugs or remnants of the previous regime to undemocratically decide for themselves. If it was like that your werwolf grandfather and his komradden would have been justified in doing what they did even though the majority of people did not support them. Wouldn’t they?

As long as the American army was obeying international law regarding occupied territories (ie 4th Geneva convention)and there was a democratically elected Iraqi government that gave them permission to be there, then attacking them was not called for.

146

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

No dumbass being a citizen does not make you a civilian. When a civilian takes up arms to fight they become a combatant.
[/quote]

The US military are foreign invaders. Did you expect blowjobs from the Iraqis in return for bombing them?

I don’t blame them one bit for fighting back. I know some you think they are supposed to just bend over and take it.
[/quote]

Oh dear. I think you missed the point. The moment somebody takes up arms to fight in a war they are a combatant. Hence they are no longer civilians so including them in the civilian death toll is inane.

It doesn’t matter which side you support. For instance I supported the actions of the French resistance in WW2; but I’m not going to be dense enough to pretend that they were civilians. Once you start shooting at people in a war situation you are not a civilian.[/quote]

I understood his point just fine.

Read the rest of Sifu’s post. He makes it sound like the Iraqis have no right to self-defense or to stand up to an occupying force.[/quote]

I never said the Iraqi’s have no right to self defense. But the term self defense implies that someone is facing an aggressor who they have to defend themselves from. The simple fact is that the American military has been very careful not to unnecessarily kill Iraqi’s. Even the Iraqi army was spared during the invasion. They were told stay in your barracks on your base and you won’t be targeted. Otherwise we could have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers.

No dumb ass just because our soldiers are occupying their country that does not make it okay to attack them. Whether or not it is okay to attack any occupying force is completely dependent upon the nature of the occupation. To use your retarded reasoning the French resistance should have been shooting at the Americans landing in Normandy in WW2. Or today the Germans should be attacking the Americans there because they are still occupying Germany.

[/quote]

That is priceless.

So it is up to the occupying army to decide whether it is welcome or not?

[/quote]

It is certainly not up to a handful of violent thugs or remnants of the previous regime to undemocratically decide for themselves. If it was like that your werwolf grandfather and his komradden would have been justified in doing what they did even though the majority of people did not support them. Wouldn’t they?

As long as the American army was obeying international law regarding occupied territories (ie 4th Geneva convention)and there was a democratically elected Iraqi government that gave them permission to be there, then attacking them was not called for. [/quote]

Yeah well, America does not observe the Geneva Convention and who cares what a puppet regime believes?

147

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

No dumb ass just because our soldiers are occupying their country that does not make it okay to attack them.
[/quote]

Orly!?!

What would you do if you were an Iraqi and a foreign Army invaded your country, bombed your cities and then told you they were there to bring you democracy? Maybe, they even killed a loved one or friend.

Did you ever once stop and put yourself in their shoes?
[/quote]

Bitch you don’t know jack shit about bombed cities. My parents and grandparents survived the blitzkrieg. What the Iraqis went through is nothing like what my family went through. But you are trying to make it sound like that is what happened to Iraq.

I’ll tell you my experience with Iraqi’s. The first night they dropped bombs on Baghdad in 91 my best friend’ Iraqi born father was celebrating. He was watching it happen live on CNN and every time a bomb went off he would yell yes they are going to get Saddam. When they bombed Al Monsour in 2003 I was with a friend who knew the place they hit because he used to live there. Most Iraqi’s accept that what happened had to be done and that they are finally going to have a future.

148

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[/quote]

It is certainly not up to a handful of violent thugs or remnants of the previous regime to undemocratically decide for themselves. If it was like that your werwolf grandfather and his komradden would have been justified in doing what they did even though the majority of people did not support them. Wouldn’t they?

As long as the American army was obeying international law regarding occupied territories (ie 4th Geneva convention)and there was a democratically elected Iraqi government that gave them permission to be there, then attacking them was not called for. [/quote]

Yeah well, America does not observe the Geneva Convention and who cares what a puppet regime believes?

[/quote]

America has a far better record of complying with the Geneva Convention than your country so you need to STFU.

149

[quote]Sifu wrote:

Bitch you don’t know jack shit about bombed cities.
[/quote]

You sure about that?

And you didn’t answer my question.

So what you are saying is that you know nothing of bombed cities, but your relatives and friends do? You never experienced any of it. You just saw some of it on tv or heard about it in stories?

[quote]
I’ll tell you my experience with Iraqi’s. The first night they dropped bombs on Baghdad in 91 my best friend’ Iraqi born father was celebrating. He was watching it happen live on CNN and every time a bomb went off he would yell yes they are going to get Saddam. When they bombed Al Monsour in 2003 I was with a friend who knew the place they hit because he used to live there. Most Iraqi’s accept that what happened had to be done and that they are finally going to have a future. [/quote]

You still haven’t answered my question.

150

^Your an idiot what about the taliban that got training from us and decided to go and do their own thing huh? Your more retarded then I thought if you can’t see whats wrong with putting a dictator in power then trying to take him out while trying to take out half the country because he decides to rebel.

Fact of the matter is your just another coward sitting in the safety of his suburban home who makes judgements about another countrys people who decide to take things into their own hands after losing everything they’ve had. And who cares if your parents went through a blitzkrieg, over 100,000 civilians have been killed in this war; whereas how many died in the blitz, uh like 15000. Haha like that changes anything anyway, a dead person is still dead in the end anyway regardless of the outcome or severity of attack.

151

my post is to sifu

152

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[/quote]

It is certainly not up to a handful of violent thugs or remnants of the previous regime to undemocratically decide for themselves. If it was like that your werwolf grandfather and his komradden would have been justified in doing what they did even though the majority of people did not support them. Wouldn’t they?

As long as the American army was obeying international law regarding occupied territories (ie 4th Geneva convention)and there was a democratically elected Iraqi government that gave them permission to be there, then attacking them was not called for. [/quote]

Yeah well, America does not observe the Geneva Convention and who cares what a puppet regime believes?

[/quote]

America has a far better record of complying with the Geneva Convention than your country so you need to STFU. [/quote]

So?

America can do whatever it wants as long as they are better than the Nazis?

Is that your argument?

But let me try it your way:

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Austria was Nazi Germanies first victim, the US said so.

So how could they have a better record than my country when my country was occupied and did not exist at that time?

153

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

No dumbass being a citizen does not make you a civilian. When a civilian takes up arms to fight they become a combatant.
[/quote]

The US military are foreign invaders. Did you expect blowjobs from the Iraqis in return for bombing them?

I don’t blame them one bit for fighting back. I know some you think they are supposed to just bend over and take it.
[/quote]

Oh dear. I think you missed the point. The moment somebody takes up arms to fight in a war they are a combatant. Hence they are no longer civilians so including them in the civilian death toll is inane.

It doesn’t matter which side you support. For instance I supported the actions of the French resistance in WW2; but I’m not going to be dense enough to pretend that they were civilians. Once you start shooting at people in a war situation you are not a civilian.[/quote]

Doublespeak. Bullshit.

Reclassifying a civilian who shoots at an invading foreign army a “combatant” is nothing more than a way to try to justify that foreign armies presence.

What if an Iraqi throws a rock at an American troop? Are they suddenly a combatant?

[/quote]
The one who is full of bullshit is you. Civilian and combatant have been defined within international law for years.

A combatant is someone who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. If a combatant follows the law of war, then they are considered a privileged combatant, and upon capture they qualify as a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII). An unprivileged combatant is someone, such as a mercenary, who take a direct part in the hostilities but who upon capture does not qualify for prisoner of war status.

A civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country’s armed forces. The term is also often used colloquially to refer to people who are not members of a particular profession or occupation, especially by law enforcement agencies, which often use rank structures similar to those of military units.

The International Committee of the Red Cross 1958 Commentary on IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War Article 4.4 states that “[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution â?? not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view.”[1] The ICRC has expressed the opinion that “If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered ‘unlawful’ or ‘unprivileged’ combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action”.[[/quote]

So, what you’re saying is, the bullshit practice has been a bullshit practice for years.

Thanks for clearing that up.

154

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Tell you what. I’ll come to your house, take whatever I want, fuck any females of my choosing, and if you decide to punch me in the face for this, I’ll shoot you and tell everyone I “shot my attacker”.

Because, hey, you did attack me, right? And its ok for me to defend myself against attackers, right?
[/quote]

Except it is a horrible analogy. Combatant != Attacker. Combatant != Bad. Combatant = completely objective term.

[/quote]

Nope. Not objective and not used objectively.

No, its like if you provoke me into hitting you and a third party calls me “the attacker”. See my analogy above.

[/quote]

We use the term combatant because it doesn’t have any bias to either side. It makes it objective rather than subjective.

[quote]

So you’re telling me “50 Iraqi Citizens Killed” is biased, but “50 Iraqi Combatants Killed” or “50 Insurgents Killed” is unbiased reporting? What do you think the effects of each of those titles would be on the average american?

I’ll give you a hint: the latter two would evoke a response of “Thats great, they’re killing those evil terrorists before they can come here and kill us!”

All the support for the Iraq invasion has centered around this myth that Iraq is swarming with people who are planning to attack america, and that by “fighting them over there” our armed forces are “saving us from fighting them over here.”

Calling an innocent Iraqi civilian who takes up arms against an invading or occupying army an insurgent or combatant just serves to feed this myth by falsely making it seem like they had some intent, beforehand, of harming an american.

Again, same as me coming into your house and then declaring you dangerous when you punch me in the face for it.

I can see your point here, though I dont exactly agree with it. I think the most fair thing would be to say “X civilians have been killed since the invasion, X of which were classified as combatants for using force against (invading countries) troops”

I think most people are a bit more moderate than that, to be honest. But, again, I see your point.

This is true. I just dont think admitting that someone who only was moved to violence because their country was invaded was not a threat to the invading country beforehad is misleading.

Here is where I think our major difference lies: I dont think the act of taking up arms against an invading army makes an innocent civilian less innocent, since its the fault of the invading country that that person was moved to violence in the first place.

To go back to my (horrible) analogy, if I “invaded” your house and you punched me in the face or even shot me, you’d STILL be an innocent citizen, even after you defended your home. Defending yourself, your home, or your country does not make you less innocent.

What do you think?

155

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

Bitch you don’t know jack shit about bombed cities.
[/quote]

You sure about that?

And you didn’t answer my question.

So what you are saying is that you know nothing of bombed cities, but your relatives and friends do? You never experienced any of it. You just saw some of it on tv or heard about it in stories? [/quote]

My parents hometown was a major industrial city that was carpet bombed and fire bombed. Every house on my father’s street was hit by a bomb. The neighborhood was so heavily bombed that when I was a child they still hadn’t torn down all the bombed out row houses. When we went to visit my grandmother my parents would tell me to stay away from them because they weren’t safe. Even now they still have some bombed out buildings as a reminder of the blitz. When I lived in Germany there was a grave with a few people buried in it just outside the doorway to my apartment. I’ve also had a couple of houses in my neighborhood blow up and the concussion from the blast rattled my house.

About what? Putting myself in their shoes? I have a friend who lost friends when they dropped a bomb on a restaurant frequented by Saddam, he didn’t seem thrilled but he didn’t really say much about it either. I could empathize with him, it wasn’t good. But if you are mature you accept why things happen and don’t just blame who is even remotely associated with what happened. I’ve had friends die, narrowly escape death or been injured in the ongoing contingency. My parents were caught up in the aftermath of London and Glasgow attacks. Despite it all when I lived in an Arab neighborhood I didn’t get an AK47 and start gunning down my Arab neighbors because it wouldn’t make any sense.

156

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
No, its like if you provoke me into hitting you and a third party calls me “the attacker”. See my analogy above.
[/quote]

Except it is nothing like being called the attacker.

You are letting your emotions cloud your thoughts.

Look lets ignore Iraq for a moment.

Lets pretend America decided to attack Australia, even though us Aussies were all just relaxing by the beach and not wanting to hurt anyone. Now America comes in guns blazing and so I join the Australian army. I am then killed fighting against the Americans.

Am I a civilian or am I a combatant? I’m most certainly a combatant.

Am I innocent? Well that depends on whether you believe attacking Australia was justified. I.e. it is subjective. Am I a combatant? Without a shadow of a doubt.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So you’re telling me “50 Iraqi Citizens Killed” is biased, but “50 Iraqi Combatants Killed” or “50 Insurgents Killed” is unbiased reporting?
[/quote]

It depends on who the people were. If it was 50 teachers killed in school bombing then it is 50 Iraqi Citizens killed. If it was 50 people who intercepted an American convoy and tried to kill everyone in the convoy then they are combatants. And that is unbiased reporting using objective terms.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What do you think the effects of each of those titles would be on the average american?

I’ll give you a hint: the latter two would evoke a response of “Thats great, they’re killing those evil terrorists before they can come here and kill us!”
[/quote]

A) I think you are trying too hard to judge people.

and

B) Simply because people attach certain connotations to words doesn’t change their objective value.

As an example: Calling anyone who supports taxes a socialist is being biased and misleading. Calling Marx a socialist is not.

It doesn’t matter that in America calling somebody a socialist is an insult. If it is used objectively then that is OK and correct use of the word.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
All the support for the Iraq invasion has centered around this myth that Iraq is swarming with people who are planning to attack america, and that by “fighting them over there” our armed forces are “saving us from fighting them over here.”
[/quote]

Well I haven’t seen much of it in this thread.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Calling an innocent Iraqi civilian who takes up arms against an invading or occupying army an insurgent or combatant just serves to feed this myth by falsely making it seem like they had some intent, beforehand, of harming an american.
[/quote]

No it doesn’t. See my Australian example at the top of the page.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I can see your point here, though I dont exactly agree with it. I think the most fair thing would be to say “X civilians have been killed since the invasion, X of which were classified as combatants for using force against (invading countries) troops”
[/quote]

If you don’t think the word Combatant is objective enough then the word civilian surely isn’t. It has MUCH MUCH stronger connotations than combatant.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Here is where I think our major difference lies: I dont think the act of taking up arms against an invading army makes an innocent civilian less innocent, since its the fault of the invading country that that person was moved to violence in the first place.
[/quote]

Why can’t you be an innocent combatant? In my Australian example I would most certainly be innocent.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Defending yourself, your home, or your country does not make you less innocent.
[/quote]

It all depends. For instance were the Germans defending their country from the Allies at the end of WW2 as innocent as a newborn baby? Hardly.

And because it depends on the situation, and personal opinion, using the word innocent is highly subjective.

Reporting should for the most part be objective.

157

[quote]WWEAttitude wrote:
^Your an idiot what about the taliban that got training from us and decided to go and do their own thing huh? Your more retarded then I thought if you can’t see whats wrong with putting a dictator in power then trying to take him out while trying to take out half the country because he decides to rebel.

Fact of the matter is your just another coward sitting in the safety of his suburban home who makes judgements about another countrys people who decide to take things into their own hands after losing everything they’ve had. And who cares if your parents went through a blitzkrieg, over 100,000 civilians have been killed in this war; whereas how many died in the blitz, uh like 15000. Haha like that changes anything anyway, a dead person is still dead in the end anyway regardless of the outcome or severity of attack.[/quote]

Taliban, putting dictators in power rebelling? What are you ranting about? You can’t form coherent sentences but I’m the idiot? Okay.

Where did you get the number of 100,000 civilians killed? What is your source? Why don’t you learn to read and write instead of wasting our time with your hysterical posts?

I mentioned the blitz because of people like dustin who exaggerate and try to make it sound like we have been nonstop carpet bombing entire cities when we haven’t.

Just between September 1940 and Nay 1941 41,000 people died in the blitz.

158

[quote]Dustin wrote:
Orly!?!

What would you do if you were an Iraqi and a foreign Army invaded your country, bombed your cities and then told you they were there to bring you democracy? Maybe, they even killed a loved one or friend.

Did you ever once stop and put yourself in their shoes?
[/quote]

If I was living in a country being run by a brutal dictator and a foreign army invaded, killed the dictator and his cronies, and then brought in a democracy I would be estatic.

Now of course those of us living in reality understand that the three major problems with Iraq were/are:

  1. Neighboring countries creating trouble within Iraq to keep it unstable.

  2. Religious tensions between Sunni and Shia that resulted in death squads.

  3. Religious sects vying for control over Iraq didn’t want a democratic system. They wanted a theocracy.

Look Saddam might have been as brutal and evil as they come but he kept all the other crazies in check. When Saddam was taken out these other crazies came out of the wood works.

Natuarally the Iraqi people blame the US for this because if the US hadn’t intervened none of it would have happened.

It is a fair call but place the anger where it should be. The anger is not really at the invasion. The anger is because the US bungled the operation so badly. If the US had correctly accounted for the above 3 problems then the Iraqis would all be celebrating.

159

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[/quote]

It is certainly not up to a handful of violent thugs or remnants of the previous regime to undemocratically decide for themselves. If it was like that your werwolf grandfather and his komradden would have been justified in doing what they did even though the majority of people did not support them. Wouldn’t they?

As long as the American army was obeying international law regarding occupied territories (ie 4th Geneva convention)and there was a democratically elected Iraqi government that gave them permission to be there, then attacking them was not called for. [/quote]

Yeah well, America does not observe the Geneva Convention and who cares what a puppet regime believes?

[/quote]

America has a far better record of complying with the Geneva Convention than your country so you need to STFU. [/quote]

So?

America can do whatever it wants as long as they are better than the Nazis?

Is that your argument?

But let me try it your way:

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Austria was Nazi Germanies first victim, the US said so.

So how could they have a better record than my country when my country was occupied and did not exist at that time?

[/quote]

How and where is America not observing the Geneva convention? Let’s hear your sob story.

No. My argument is not that America can do whatever it wants as long as we aren’t as bad as the Nazis. Just that Austrians are the wrong people to be moralizing about how we deal with a problem that Austrians had a hand in creating.

Austrians were enthusiastic supporters of the Anschluss.

160

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[/quote]

It is certainly not up to a handful of violent thugs or remnants of the previous regime to undemocratically decide for themselves. If it was like that your werwolf grandfather and his komradden would have been justified in doing what they did even though the majority of people did not support them. Wouldn’t they?

As long as the American army was obeying international law regarding occupied territories (ie 4th Geneva convention)and there was a democratically elected Iraqi government that gave them permission to be there, then attacking them was not called for. [/quote]

Yeah well, America does not observe the Geneva Convention and who cares what a puppet regime believes?

[/quote]

America has a far better record of complying with the Geneva Convention than your country so you need to STFU. [/quote]

So?

America can do whatever it wants as long as they are better than the Nazis?

Is that your argument?

But let me try it your way:

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Austria was Nazi Germanies first victim, the US said so.

So how could they have a better record than my country when my country was occupied and did not exist at that time?

[/quote]

How and where is America not observing the Geneva convention? Let’s hear your sob story.

No. My argument is not that America can do whatever it wants as long as we aren’t as bad as the Nazis. Just that Austrians are the wrong people to be moralizing about how we deal with a problem that Austrians had a hand in creating.

Austrians were enthusiastic supporters of the Anschluss.
[/quote]

Sob stories?

They torture and detain people of umlcear status indefinitely without access to a tribunal to determine their status.

Viola, they violate the Geneva convention and therefore, according to your argument resistance to their occupation is a-ok.

Second, what does it matter what Austrians thought?

I thought that the only important thing is what our masters in Washington decree and they, in their infinite wisdom, peace be upon them, declared us to be the Nazis first victim.

Just because some lowly Austrians thought otherwise hardly matters, the oracle by the Potomac has spoken and for you that is the final word.

Cant have it both ways, can you?