Where Are The Haters re: Iraq?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

Of course they’re forced to. Often. Their parents are threatened with death otherwise.

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

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.

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.[/quote]

Ducking the hard questions yet once again. You’re not a pacifist. You support hard-line muslim terrorists who threaten families and use their children to plant bombs. You’ve justified the use of human shields numerous times. You support child soldiers. You come up with excuses why terrorists don’t display a clear military insignia. You cornered yourself, and you’ve exposed yourself. So please, once more, drop the stupid “I’m a pacifist line.” No one is taking you seriously after this exchange of posts.

42

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ducking the hard questions yet once again. You’re not a pacifist. [/quote]

Sure I am. Pacifists acknowledge the right to self-defense when aggression is obvious. In the case of Iraq, why shouldn’t I acknowledge Iraqis’ right to resist your invasion? Explain.

I never ever support the attacks on Iraqi civilians. The attacks I do understand, are the ones directed at the foreign occupying forces. You simply cannot call those terrorists. So stop making stuff up.

And like I said, I have never seen evidence of the resistance threatening families to use their children for bomb handling, and you failed to provide any. So, I’m gonna stick with “it doesn’t exist”.

I didn’t. Read closer.

On a side note,

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/01/sprj.irq.sahaf/index.html

I wouldn’t call them soldiers. But if the younglings want to defend their country, let them.

Again, how can you call them terrorists if they only attack military targets of a foreign force occupying their land?

Stupid yourself. A pacifist wants peace. But if attacked, a pacifist reserves the right to strike back, as hard as possible if necessary. Your president started the war with Iraq, not the other way around. He must be held accountable for the consequences (war crimes, etc). Your country is responsible for the violence that broke out. Period.

43

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Ducking the hard questions yet once again. You’re not a pacifist.

Sure I am. Pacifists acknowledge the right to self-defense when aggression is obvious. In the case of Iraq, why shouldn’t I acknowledge Iraqis’ right to resist your invasion? Explain.

You support hard-line muslim terrorists who threaten families and use their children to plant bombs.

I never ever support the attacks on Iraqi civilians. The attacks I do understand, are the ones directed at the foreign occupying forces. You simply cannot call those terrorists. So stop making stuff up.

And like I said, I have never seen evidence of the resistance threatening families to use their children for bomb handling, and you failed to provide any. So, I’m gonna stick with “it doesn’t exist”.

You’ve justified the use of human shields numerous times.

I didn’t. Read closer.

On a side note,

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/01/sprj.irq.sahaf/index.html

You support child soldiers.

I wouldn’t call them soldiers. But if the younglings want to defend their country, let them.

You come up with cuses why terrorists don’t display a clear military insignia.

Again, how can you call them terrorists if they only attack military targets of a foreign force occupying their land?

You cornered yourself, and you’ve exposed yourself. So please, once more, drop the stupid “I’m a pacifist line.”

Stupid yourself. A pacifist wants peace. But if attacked, a pacifist reserves the right to strike back, as hard as possible if necessary. Your president started the war with Iraq, not the other way around. He must be held accountable for the consequences (war crimes, etc). Your country is responsible for the violence that broke out. Period.[/quote]

All right you fake. You supporter of hiding behind women and children. Here’s your “resistance.” You ghoul, name one “resistance group” that doesn’t use the tactics I’ve talked about? Name one. A few examples below of your resistance. Love the little children, eh?

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-05/IraqInsurgentTactics.cfm?CFID=150973614&CFTOKEN=51547204

44

[quote]Sloth wrote:
All right you fake. You supporter of hiding behind women and children. Here’s your “resistance.” You ghoul, name one “resistance group” that doesn’t use the tactics I’ve talked about? Name one. A few examples below of your resistance. Love the little children, eh?

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-05/IraqInsurgentTactics.cfm?CFID=150973614&CFTOKEN=51547204

Those are criminals who took advantage of the chaos created by the invasion.

I simply can’t believe that rational people don’t want to accept the fact that the people of an occupied country WILL resist the foreign forces. Get your head out of your ass for crying out loud! Most are decent human beings who love their country and decided to take the arms. Some, are scum of course, as illustrated in the stories you linked to.

45

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sure I am. Pacifists acknowledge the right to self-defense when aggression is obvious. In the case of Iraq, why shouldn’t I acknowledge Iraqis’ right to resist your invasion? Explain.
[/quote]

Interestingly enough, all Muslims acknowledge the right to self defense. Lixy is just towing the Islamic line. That is why Bin Laden claims that by attacking the US, he is attacking our “aggression”. That way, he could get away with killing and deflect the blame from him and his organization.

Is that true or not, Lixy? It is ok for Muslims to go to war only in self defense. How about some quotes from the Koran disproving me now. That way, I am sure that I am right.

46

[quote]lixy wrote:

Stupid yourself. A pacifist wants peace. But if attacked, a pacifist reserves the right to strike back, as hard as possible if necessary. [/quote]

Islam is a religion of peace, remember.

47

[quote]lixy wrote:
I simply can’t believe that rational people don’t want to accept the fact that the people of an occupied country WILL resist the foreign forces. Get your head out of your ass for crying out loud! Most are decent human beings who love their country and decided to take the arms. Some, are scum of course, as illustrated in the stories you linked to.[/quote]

That is exactly why the “rational” ones have joined with us to eradicate the “criminals”.

If they truely loved their country they would let us rebuild it and leave. To drive out a force that wishes to rebuild your nation is schizophrentic to say the least.

48

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Interestingly enough, all Muslims acknowledge the right to self defense. [/quote]

You moron! Everybody acknowledges the right to self defense. That has never been a controversy. The issue is what constitutes self-defense. Is a gut feel that someone will attack you enough to justify violence? Can a decade old grievance be enough to retaliate?

No, you idiot! It’s common sense I speak from here.

You must be kiddin’ me. How’s the blame of 9/11 not on its perpetrators? Yes, your meddling in other countries’ internal affairs and military interventionism probably have something to do with the creation of Al-Qaeda. At least, that’s what the CIA seems to believe.

Stop beating up strawmen. It’s a pathetic sight.

I don’t know about that. Clearly, history shows “Muslims” have been waging wars for conquest as well.

Keeping with the forum’s tradition bringing up Nazis at least once in every thread, here’s something you may wanna consider:

Hitler�??s Reich-Marshal Hermann Goering, while recognizing that �??naturally the common people don�??t want war,�?? went on to remind the world how easy it was to convince people to support war. �??All you have to do,�?? he said, �??is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.�?? (P. Bennis - IPP)

49

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Islam is a religion of peace, remember.[/quote]

Peace, as in non-aggression.

50

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
That is exactly why the “rational” ones have joined with us to eradicate the “criminals”.

If they truely loved their country they would let us rebuild it and leave. To drive out a force that wishes to rebuild your nation is schizophrentic to say the least.[/quote]

Put yourself in their shoes for one second. Would you collaborate with a foreign military force that occupied your land, bombed the hell out of your country, turned it into a terrorist haven, supported and armed the cruel dictator you lived under, etc…?

Seriously. Give it some thought, and try to answer honestly.

P.S: “Schizophrentic”? Really?

51

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
All right you fake. You supporter of hiding behind women and children. Here’s your “resistance.” You ghoul, name one “resistance group” that doesn’t use the tactics I’ve talked about? Name one. A few examples below of your resistance. Love the little children, eh?

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-05/IraqInsurgentTactics.cfm?CFID=150973614&CFTOKEN=51547204

Those are criminals who took advantage of the chaos created by the invasion.

I simply can’t believe that rational people don’t want to accept the fact that the people of an occupied country WILL resist the foreign forces. Get your head out of your ass for crying out loud! Most are decent human beings who love their country and decided to take the arms. Some, are scum of course, as illustrated in the stories you linked to.[/quote]

They simply carried out the acts you’ve played apologist for in this very thread…

52

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Islam is a religion of peace, remember.

Peace, as in non-aggression.[/quote]

Peace as in submission.

53

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Peace as in submission.[/quote]

S-L-M, the root from which the word Islam is derived is also the root for both Salam (peace) and Tasleem (submission) in Arabic. So, you’re absolutely right. The concept of submitting to God - and to God alone - is essential in Islam (as in every other monotheistic religion).

54

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Interestingly enough, all Muslims acknowledge the right to self defense.

You moron! Everybody acknowledges the right to self defense. That has never been a controversy. The issue is what constitutes self-defense. Is a gut feel that someone will attack you enough to justify violence? Can a decade old grievance be enough to retaliate?

Lixy is just towing the Islamic line.

No, you idiot! It’s common sense I speak from here.
[/quote]

Way to dodge the question. I want to know if Muhammad said Allah gave his followers the right to attack only in retaliation to a grievance. Is this in the Koran somewhere?

I recall that when the Romans came for Christ, he just gave himself up and did not fight back. There is the true ideal of a pacifist.

55

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:

Put yourself in their shoes for one second. Would you collaborate with a foreign military force that occupied your land, bombed the hell out of your country, turned it into a terrorist haven, supported and armed the cruel dictator you lived under, etc…?

Seriously. Give it some thought, and try to answer honestly.

[/quote]

I acknowlege the US screwed up royally in post war Iraq, no news there. But if they hate the US so much, why are the shieks collaborating to take out al-qaeda? They can see where the real problems lie and are doing something about it. And they ARE doing it, whether you like it or not.

56

Winning hearts and minds.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071029/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_071028172263;_ylt=AmEBAWAiPu..zExFqB.4Ro0E1vAI

57

[quote]tme wrote:
Winning hearts and minds.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071029/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_071028172263;_ylt=AmEBAWAiPu..zExFqB.4Ro0E1vAI

BAGHDAD - Gunmen in Baghdad snatched 10 Sunni and Shiite tribal sheiks from their cars Sunday as they were heading home to Diyala province after talks with the government on fighting al-Qaida, and at least one was later found shot to death.

[/quote]

I’m not sure if that was sarcasm. But, yes this is actually the kind of act turning Sunni and Shia against the “resistance.”

58

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Peace as in submission.

S-L-M, the root from which the word Islam is derived is also the root for both Salam (peace) and Tasleem (submission) in Arabic. So, you’re absolutely right. The concept of submitting to God - and to God alone - is essential in Islam (as in every other monotheistic religion).[/quote]

What about those of us that do not want to submit to god?

59

[quote]tme wrote:
Winning hearts and minds.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071029/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_071028172263;_ylt=AmEBAWAiPu..zExFqB.4Ro0E1vAI

BAGHDAD - Gunmen in Baghdad snatched 10 Sunni and Shiite tribal sheiks from their cars Sunday as they were heading home to Diyala province after talks with the government on fighting al-Qaida, and at least one was later found shot to death.

[/quote]

Latest news is: there were 9, not 10. Eight were rescued.

60

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:

Put yourself in their shoes for one second. Would you collaborate with a foreign military force that occupied your land, bombed the hell out of your country, turned it into a terrorist haven, supported and armed the cruel dictator you lived under, etc…?

Seriously. Give it some thought, and try to answer honestly.

I acknowlege the US screwed up royally in post war Iraq, no news there. But if they hate the US so much, why are the shieks collaborating to take out al-qaeda? [/quote]

Uh, we’re bribing them?