Where Are The Haters re: Iraq?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why not? You play apologist for the brutality of Palestinian terrorists constantly. [/quote]

I recognize the right of the Palestinian people to resist the occupier. However, I do not condone their methods.

Now, what’s Palestine gotta do with the topic at hand?

Again, what’s it gotta do with the topic at hand?

You betcha! When you’re attacked, you punch back. Never ever have I rationalized brutality that isn’t strictly self-defense. And I don’t mean that preemptive BS of yours. I mean unequivocal self-defense.

How about taking those thing up when they come up? You’re trying to remove all context of my post and twist my words as you wish. The insurgency is composed of people. Those people have homes. When they’re done shooting at you for the day, they like to get something hot in them and sleep in their beds. I don’t see how you can call it “using civilian populations as human shields”. And yes, do you want them to stand around in open areas waving flags so you can identify them? Do you even know what the word guerilla means?

You’re the asshole for putting such vile words in my mouth. I wish war was averted and the US had the common sense to let Saddam and his folks get the hell out of Iraq. No innocent deaths.

Trouble with that scenario is that it wouldn’t have allowed you to build bases in the country, and that’s why you killed people.

I did? Where?

Al-Qaeda in Iraq stated its purposes. Allowing a democratic Iraq to exist post-Saddam is certainly not one of them.

22

Good Post JeffR…Id post something in support but I can’t take the whole lot of Lixy’s lil entourage and the like. Lixys only redemption for his views are the fact that he is not American and the rest of you Americans who buy that bullshit, at a bare minimum you should be ashamed of yourselves.

23

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Zap, thank you. For one reason or another the US is singled out, when Russia and Europe dwarfed the US in supplying Saddam with Conventional weapons and dual-use/Wmd tech.

Of course it’s singled out, you moron! The US is the one that fucked up innocent Iraqis and turned the place into a terrorist safe haven. If it had been Russia or Europe behind that, then they’d be “singled out” and held accountable for their actions. Sheesh, use your brains once in a while people.[/quote]

Funny, when speaking of Afghanistan, the place where the Russians fucked up innocent Afghanis and turned the place into a terrorist safe haven, we get “singled out” again as accountable again.

We can never win.

In every situation.

And that’s why many of us are pissed.

24

And Lixy makes my case for me. Pacifist my ass. He once again justifies using civilians as meat shields. Drop the act, you don’t give two shits about the every day Iraqi. They make great human shields against the US, after all.

Which by the way, is an admission that the US DOES care more for civilian casualties than your “resistance.” That’s exactly why they, and you, justify it’s use, and ultimately, it’s effectiveness.

And your disdain for the actions of Israel? Yeah, let’s forget the attempts by your brothers who couldn’t allow a tiny little “Zionist” nation to exist alongside their ISLAMIST (Islamist, the “IST” slaughtering far more people worldwide than the “ZionISTs”)nations.

How about the Jewish refugees (and other religious minorities) forced from Arab/Muslims nations when this Israel/Palestinian came about? How about the Grand Mufti and Hitler? How about denying jews (those filthy descendants of “apes and pigs”) the ability to visit their holy sites? How about those religious minorities living under the occupation of the muslim invader.

Oh, did you think Islam came before the Jewish, Christian, and Polytheistic people they conquered? Muslim nations exist on the remnants of the people who existed before them. And still, today, the rule over them as if they were second…no, third class citizens.

Also, let’s not forget the exporting of terror to Asian and African nations. To Europe. To the US. To the Philippines, etc., etc., Yes, their shit stinks just as bad, if not far worse, than Israel’s. No, indeed far worse. Yet, you spend the vast majority of your time on Israel. Pacifist my ass. Again, drop the damn act. You’ve picked your side.

Will you go to slaughter the Jew when the tree and rock betray him to you, the muslim?

“Muhammad said in his hadith, ‘The Hour [of Resurrection] will not arrive until you fight the Jews, [until a Jew will hide behind a rock or tree] and the rock and the tree will say: O Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!’”"
PA TV, December 27, 2004 [Rebroadcast from July 13, 2003]
http://www.pmw.org.il/Racism%20&%20antisemitism.htm

The Palestinians…who just want peace…yeah…peace with the apes and pigs. Peace with the people they are called to kill so as to usher in the Hour of Resurrection. Bullshit Lixy. Don’t even trying selling that. No wonder the Protocols of Zion are such a huge hit in the mid-east.

Sheik Ibrahim Mudayris in a Friday sermon, PA TV, September 10, 2004:

[i]"The Prophet said the Resurrection will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill them. The Muslims will kill the Jews, rejoice. Rejoice in Allah’s Victory. The Muslims will kill the Jew, and he will hide.

"The Prophet said: ‘The Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: O servant of Allah, O Muslim this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!’

“Why is there this malice? Because there are none who love the Jews on the face of the earth: not man, not rock, and not tree - everything hates them. They destroy everything! They destroy the trees and destroy the houses. Everything wants vengeance on the Jews, on these pigs on the face of the earth, and the day of our victory, Allah willing, will come.”[/i]

25

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Put this in your pipe and smoke it:

Oh, if you can’t bother to link, I’ll paraphrase: Casualties down across the board.[/quote]

Just wait till Iran starts. Cheney’s already working it.

Go corruption!

26

[quote]Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
And post-war, your market bombing legitimate resistance. You know, the one’s that attack power and water projects the US continues to rebuild. The ones that destroy the girl’s schools the US builds. The one’s that fight from health clinics the US has built and supplied. Muslims Lixy, your brothers, “fucked up” Iraq. Deep down you know it, and it really pisses you off.
[/quote]

Even a-hole Bin Laden knows al-qaeda “fucked up” Iraq.

27

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And Lixy makes my case for me. Pacifist my ass. He once again justifies using civilians as meat shields. Drop the act, you don’t give two shits about the every day Iraqi. They make great human shields against the US, after all. [/quote]

I’m not following your logic. A human shield is effective when dealing with somebody trying to shoot you, not against air dropped bombs. If an insurgent is sleeping in his/her own bed, then the US air force blows up the whole building, killing the neighbors, the babies, and even the puppies, is it the insurgent’s fault? More importantly, how can you call them human shields when everyone gets shredded to pieces?

I don’t know about that. If you include Al-Qaeda in the “resistance” (which I don’t), then yes. Else, I’ll remind you that the US attacked Iraq and not the other way around. If you cared about civilians one tiny bit, you wouldn’t have obliterated a country based on shady intelligence. You’d have made sure Iraq was a threat to you before you screwed it up.

Duh! Islamists are more numerous than Zionists. Did you miss that basic fact? But what’s Israel gotta do with the topic here?

How about them? What’s that gotta do with the thread and how does the horrors of WWII absolve you from being held accountable for Iraqi deaths and turning their country into a chaotic land?

You’re clearly not interested in arguing my point. Rather, you’re just trying to divert the topic. For once, I won’t bite. Good day!

28

[quote]lixy wrote:

I’m not following your logic. A human shield is effective when dealing with somebody trying to shoot you, not against air dropped bombs. If an insurgent is sleeping in his/her own bed, then the US air force blows up the whole building, killing the neighbors, the babies, and even the puppies, is it the insurgent’s fault? More importantly, how can you call them human shields when everyone gets shredded to pieces?

[/quote]

Is this your new tactic? To play stupid? You talk as if the terror…oh sorry, “resistance” isn’t firing from groups of civilians, hospitals, mosques. It’s not that they just go to sleep at night. God, what kind of argument was that? Do you even try anymore? You know damn well that the “resistance” does far more than that.

And, you knew damn well I wasn’t talking about sleeping insurgents, but the active use of civilians as shields. Come on hypocrite. Condemn them. Condemn them for not wearing clear markings or uniform. Condemn them for their use of Mosques and hospitals. For opening fire from behind groups of civilians. For using children to plant bombs. Etc.

Sleeping insurgents…what will you pull out of your ass next.

And yes, the whole damn point of not wearing a clear military insignia or uniform is to dilute the target, or to play upon the enemy’s standards. Meaning, civilians are just fodder to your resistance, they make for more targets so the US is less likely to hit actual resistance members themselves. And/or they deliberately risk getting civilians killed, knowing that the US will often back down where civilians are concerned.

And when the US doesn’t back down on power, or just not enough, and civilians do get killed, then the next phase of “operation human shield” takes place. Complain about it. Just like you have often done. But, as you admit, civilians make great shields.

29

From Jim Dunnigan at Strategypage.com

Bin Laden Admits Defeat in Iraq
October 27, 2007:

On October 22nd, Osama bin Laden admitted that al Qaeda had lost its war in Iraq. In an audiotape speech titled “Message to the people of Iraq,” bin Laden complains of disunity and poor use of resources. He admits that al Qaeda made mistakes, and that all Sunni Arabs must unite to defeat the foreigners and Shia Moslems. What bin Laden is most upset about is the large number of Sunni Arab terrorists who have switched sides in Iraq. This has actually been going on for a while. Tribal leaders and warlords in the west (Anbar province) have been turning on terrorist groups, especially al Qaeda, for several years. While bin Laden appeals for unity, he shows only a superficial appreciation of what is actually going on in Iraq.

Bin Laden doesn’t discuss how the Americans defeated him. It was done with data. Years of collecting data on the bad guys paid off. Month by month, the picture of the enemy became clearer. This was literally the case, with some of the intelligence software that created visual representations of what was known of the enemy, and how reliable it was. The picture was clear enough to maneuver key enemy factions into positions that make them easier to run down.

Saddam’s henchmen, the main enemy, were no dummies. They were smart enough, and resourceful enough, to build a police state apparatus that kept Saddam in power for over three decades. However, for the last three years, that talent has been applied to keeping the henchmen alive and out of jail. But three years of fighting has reduced the original 100,000 or so core Saddam thugs, to a few thousand diehards. Three years ago, there were hundreds of thousands of allies and supporters from the Sunni minority (then, about five million people, now, less than half that), who wanted to be back in charge. Now the remaining Sunni Arabs just want to be left in peace. Thus the Sunni nationalists of in the Baghdad suburbs are shooting at, and turning in, their old allies from Saddams Baath party and secret police. This isn’t easy for some of these guys, but it’s seen as a matter of survival. While the fighting in and around Baghdad is officially about rooting out al Qaeda, and hard core terrorists, it’s also about taking down the Baath party bankers and organizers who have been sustaining the bombers with cash, information and encouragement.

Bin Laden can’t openly talk about any of this, because that would be admitting he had made a deal with the devil back in 2004, when al Qaeda and the Iraqi Sunni Arab terrorists united. The Baath party has always been secular. Not exactly anti-religion, but not something al Qaeda could openly embrace. Many of the Iraqi Sunni Arab terrorists are religious, but not religious enough for the al Qaeda hard core. And it’s the hard liners that usually set the agenda. That’s a fatal flaw with groups that depend on terrorism to keep the fight going. Cracking down on the hard core requires more clout and muscle than al Qaeda possesses these days. And that’s another unspoken reason by bin Laden is singing the blues.

Bin Laden’s latest audio recording brought forth a furious reaction from many of his followers. The main complaint was that only excerpts of the message were being reported on by the Arab media, and that if the entire message were put out there, the excerpts would not appear so damaging. The excerpts concentrated on bin Laden admitting mistakes, criticizing al Qaeda operations in Iraq and urging Islamic radicals to get their act together.

Al Qaeda is under a lot of pressure of late. In addition to defeat in Iraq, the organization is being battered in North Africa, South East Asia, Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bin Laden has not got any good news to talk about, and that’s what’s really got his followers angry.

30

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Is this your new tactic? To play stupid? You talk as if the terror…oh sorry, “resistance” isn’t firing from groups of civilians, hospitals, mosques. It’s not that they just go to sleep at night. God, what kind of argument was that? Do you even try anymore? You know damn well that the “resistance” does far more than that. And, you knew damn well I wasn’t talking about sleeping insurgents, but the active use of civilians as shields. Come on hypocrite. Condemn them. Condemn them for not wearing clear markings or uniform. Condemn them for their use of Mosques and hospitals. For opening fire from behind groups of civilians. For using children to plant bombs. Etc. [/quote]

I condemn some of these actions. That is, the ones that put the lives of innocents at risk. You brought up one of my posts that was about the grassroots resistance which wants an Iraq free of foreign troops. Those, have families and homes, and it only makes sense that they visit them from time to time, or even hide among them when some foreign army is trying to kill them. But let’s tackle your points one by one:

  • You want them to wear clear markings or uniforms? What for? They are not an army. They are civilians who took arms to resist the occupation of their homeland. You would do just the same if you were invaded by some foreign army.

  • If they use mosques to pray and hospitals to treat their wounds, then I see nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, if they use them as headquarters or warehouses, then it goes without saying that I condemn such practice.

  • Do I condemn opening fire from behind civilians? Well, it depends. The resistance are civilians themselves. So, it may be trickier than you think to categorize such actions. There are also people voluntarily acting as human shields.
    Human shield action to Iraq - Wikipedia
    But if you meant opening fire from behind civilians non-consenting civilians, then it’s clearly a criminal act that I would condemn.

  • I believe kids have every right to defend their country. Women and the elderly too. If that means planting bombs to push back the invader, I see nothing wrong with giving them the opportunity to defend their land. If they’re forced to do it, it’s a different story. But I never heard of such cases.

31

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Is this your new tactic? To play stupid? You talk as if the terror…oh sorry, “resistance” isn’t firing from groups of civilians, hospitals, mosques. It’s not that they just go to sleep at night. God, what kind of argument was that? Do you even try anymore? You know damn well that the “resistance” does far more than that. And, you knew damn well I wasn’t talking about sleeping insurgents, but the active use of civilians as shields. Come on hypocrite. Condemn them. Condemn them for not wearing clear markings or uniform. Condemn them for their use of Mosques and hospitals. For opening fire from behind groups of civilians. For using children to plant bombs. Etc.

I condemn some of these actions. That is, the ones that put the lives of innocents at risk. You brought up one of my posts that was about the grassroots resistance which wants an Iraq free of foreign troops. Those, have families and homes, and it only makes sense that they visit them from time to time, or even hide among them when some foreign army is trying to kill them. But let’s tackle your points one by one:

  • You want them to wear clear markings or uniforms? What for? They are not an army. They are civilians who took arms to resist the occupation of their homeland. You would do just the same if you were invaded by some foreign army.[/quote]

This an admission that you could care less about Iraqi civilian deaths. The “resistance” could wear at all times clear and visible insignia so as to not endanger civilians who want no part in their fight. Ah, but they and now you, rely on this. You rely on non-combatants as meat shields.

Newsflash, your resistance has been doing exactly what you just condemned!

[quote]- Do I condemn opening fire from behind civilians? Well, it depends. The resistance are civilians themselves. So, it may be trickier than you think to categorize such actions. There are also people voluntarily acting as human shields.

But if you meant opening fire from behind civilians non-consenting civilians, then it’s clearly a criminal act that I would condemn.
[/quote]

Yes, hiding behind non-consenting civilians. Firing from non-consenting civilians’ homes. Firing from non-consenting civilians’ schools, mosques, health clinics…etc. etc. And consensual human shields? What a pathetic justification Lixy. You again admit they rely on the US as having higher standards than you or your resistance. That’s the point to using consenting or non-consenting human shields.

Of course they’re forced to. Often. Their parents are threatened with death otherwise. Way to support the practice of developing child soldiers, by the way. Pacifist my ass. Next time you dare mention the deaths of women and children Iraq, I’ll slam you hard with this.

Again, drop the pacifist act. A pacifist would have never tried to justify or qualify any of those actions. Frankly, you support the greatest cause of civilian deaths. That is, one side of the conflict hiding behind non-combatant civilians.

32

Anyways. Remember how Hillary painted the General as a liar? Now, that news outlets are reporting this dramatic amount of progress, she comes out looking the fool. Foot in mouth. This will come back to haunt her white house bid. In fact, this will end up being her downfall. Gen. Petraeus is widely respected by the public, but she took a gamble, and lost.

[i]At issue was the MoveOn ad, published in Monday’s Times, attacking Petraeus’ honor as a man and as a soldier.

How disgusting was it?

Even Pelosi, one of the most left-wing speakers ever, said she’d have “preferred that they won’t do such an ad.”

But Clinton not only couldn’t bring herself to criticize it, she also attacked Petraeus’ honesty: “The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief,” she huffed to the general Tuesday.

And she slammed him (and Ambassador Ryan Crocker) as “de facto spokesmen for a failed policy,” pointedly refusing to criticize the ad - which called him an outright liar who’d “betray” his nation."[/i]

By the way, read the entire article. Times sure did give move-on a rather huge discount to place the Betray-us ad. Hmmmm.

Another quote.

"But Hillary’s slur was an effective way to provide aid and comfort to MoveOn. “There is no greater slander to a soldier than an accusation of betrayal to his nation,” said Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam War hero and Republican presidential contender in his own right. “I do not understand why those seeking to be commander-in-chief have yet to forcefully denounce, in their own words, this McCarthyite attack on our commander.”

33

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This an admission that you could care less about Iraqi civilian deaths. The “resistance” could wear at all times clear and visible insignia so as to not endanger civilians who want no part in their fight. Ah, but they and now you, rely on this. You rely on non-combatants as meat shields. [/quote]

What better “clear and visible insignia” than people carrying guns do you want? Plus, it’s not like they have a central authority responsible for making them uniforms. It’s a bunch of people who decided to defend their country. They have very little in common besides their will to take down the foreign occupier.

In other news, the US has been razing Iraqi hospitals.

I don’t see the point you’re trying to make here. If the US had standards, they wouldn’t have bombed and invaded a country based on mostly BS.

Remind me again how Iraq was a threat to the US?

I never heard anything of the sort. Do you have any proof substantiating that?

This is surreal. Did the Iraqis bomb and occupy your country? There is nothing that can justify what you did to them, and they’re gonna be pissed at you for a very very long time. I support their efforts to resist the occupation, and if they commit crimes in doing so, remember that you share the blame. If you didn’t start the war, they wouldn’t be shooting at you from mosques.

34

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Anyways. Remember how Hillary painted the General as a liar? Now, that news outlets are reporting this dramatic amount of progress, she comes out looking the fool. Foot in mouth. This will come back to haunt her white house bid. In fact, this will end up being her downfall. Gen. Petraeus is widely respected by the public, but she took a gamble, and lost. [/quote]

Fuck Hillary! She’s as much a neo-con as the current administration. Heck, she voted for the war if my memory serves me right.

Fuck Pelosi as well! The main reason she’s got any voice is because the Americans entrusted her party with the mission of ending the madness a year ago. That’s the same woman who’s declared impeachment “off the table” long before attempting to do a single thing as Speaker.

[quote]SEN. CLINTON’S SLUR
[/quote]

What’s next? A Fox newscast?

Now, did you miss Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez’s description of the strategy as “a nightmare with no end in sight”?

I’ll remind you that this is a guy who until some time ago (before he retired that is) was chanting the same tune as Petraeus. But all this is irrelevant anyway. What I know is this: You had no right to invade and kill Iraqis. Get the hell out of there!

However, it’s pretty clear that you have no intentions of doing so, if nothing else, to increase your chances of clashing with Iran.

35

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
This an admission that you could care less about Iraqi civilian deaths. The “resistance” could wear at all times clear and visible insignia so as to not endanger civilians who want no part in their fight. Ah, but they and now you, rely on this. You rely on non-combatants as meat shields.
[/quote]

How about scarves and head bands like Hamas, and Hezbollah wear? Even the Shia wear black turbans.

36

[quote]lixy wrote:

In other news, the US has been razing Iraqi hospitals.
[/quote]

I’m sure we just razed hospitals for the hell of it. Did some General say, "I have an idea, let’s raze all the hospitals in Iraq? How stupid is this when we are trying to rebuild their country. If we truely didn’t give a shit, we would just have left the place a shit hole, you know, like the Russians did in Afghanistan? Instead, we are trying to re-build, but our efforts have been hampered by the “resistance” who you love so much.

Yes we invaded Iraq. I agree that it was wrong. But if it was not for the resistance fighters, there would have been a lot less loss and Iraq would have been rebuilt by now.

Which would you rather have: An democratic Iraq which is a friend to the US, or an Iraqi islamic dictatorship with basically the same people who were in charge before in charge again, or worse?

37

[quote]lixy wrote:
I support their efforts to resist the occupation, and if they commit crimes in doing so, remember that you share the blame. [/quote]

We share the blame, yeah, like we share the blame for the Russian-Afghan war, and 9-11 and everything else you blame the US for.

Admit it you support terrorism and Saddam’s regime.

38

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Yes we invaded Iraq. I agree that it was wrong. [/quote]

Praise the Lord!

39

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
We share the blame, yeah, like we share the blame for the Russian-Afghan war, and 9-11 and everything else you blame the US for. [/quote]

If you’re gonna blame 9/11 on any one country, blame it on Saudi Arabia. The US had nothing to do with it.

40

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
I support their efforts to resist the occupation, and if they commit crimes in doing so, remember that you share the blame.

We share the blame, yeah, like we share the blame for the Russian-Afghan war, and 9-11 and everything else you blame the US for.

[/quote]

Yup, your actions have consequences.

Your mother should have taught you that.

Since she hasn`t the universe will.

Instant karma and so on…