So who gets the virgins in this bombing, the suicide bomber who blew up and died or the Iraqi soldiers who threw themselves on him and died?
Fair winds and following seas to those Iraqi Army warriors.
I don’t know about virgins, but the ones behind the horrendous situation sure get to have bases in Iraq.
I probably should add that Al-Qaeda’s aren’t permanent.
They Have to share
50x
[quote]lixy wrote:
I don’t know about virgins, but the ones behind the horrendous situation sure get to have bases in Iraq.
I probably should add that Al-Qaeda’s aren’t permanent.[/quote]
Whatever side of the debate one falls on, this is still an ignorant statement. Those responsible for strapping a suicide vest onto a living human, with the goal of setting it off within a crowd, are solely responsible.
Those maimed and killed in this blast weren’t US soldiers, if you hadn’t noticed. Iraqi soldiers, empowered by an elected government (recognized internationally), and civilians were hit. BH gave his respects to their bravery, implying they would recieve whatever rewards are to be found in heaven. And your response was to take a cheap shot, completely overlooking the fault of those carrying out such acts, and try to make this into another US bashing thread.
Learn some discretion.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Whatever side of the debate one falls on, this is still an ignorant statement. Those responsible for strapping a suicide vest onto a living human, with the goal of setting it off within a crowd, are solely responsible. [/quote]
They are responsible alright. Solely? Not quite.
Actions have consequences, and no matter how you turn it, the US invasion of Iraq was the single most influential factor in empowering Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Look at the figures of suicide bombs pre and post-2004. Can you see any connection there?
If you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend that the current situation has nothing to do with the Americans attacking and invading Iraq, feel free. I’d be pissed too if a government I elected caused something similar.
Had he formulated his post differently, my reaction would have not been the same.
His post is the most tasteless possible way to cover the story.
You got all this from my post? I suggest you read it again – more carefully this time.
[quote]
Sloth:
And your response was to take a cheap shot, completely overlooking the fault of those carrying out such acts, and try to make this into another US bashing thread.
Lixy:
You got all this from my post? I suggest you read it again – more carefully this time. [/quote]
Uh, not one word about the bravery those soldiers showed in their attempt to protect the public. Not one condemnation of those carrying out such attacks. In fact, your sole focus, with regards to responsiblity, was on the US. Yep. I read it right the first time.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Uh, not one word about the bravery those soldiers showed in their attempt to protect the public. Not one condemnation of those carrying out such attacks. [/quote]
Don’t be a prick.
Do you know anyone who’d challenge the heroism of those soldiers? Or anyone who doesn’t think those suicide bombers are the worst scumbags ever?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Uh, not one word about the bravery those soldiers showed in their attempt to protect the public. Not one condemnation of those carrying out such attacks.
Don’t be a prick.
Do you know anyone who’d challenge the heroism of those soldiers? Or anyone who doesn’t think those suicide bombers are the worst scumbags ever?[/quote]
Me, the prick? You chose what your first response was to be. You chose the words and the message. Not me.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Me, the prick? You chose what your first response was to be. You chose the words and the message. Not me. [/quote]
Explain to me in simple terms why bringing up the role the US military has in turning Iraq into a hellhole is inappropriate.
I commend BH6’s gesture. It is unfortunate that an argument has already begun. I get annoyed when anyone suggests that what the occupying nations have gone through is somehow comparable to what the Iraqi people have suffered. Thanks for showing just a little of what happens every day.
I think Lixy came on a little strong, but he raises a point that is in agreement with the Nuremberg Tribunals. They established aggression as the supreme international crime because while all the horrors that follow may not seem immediately related to the act of aggression, they would not have occurred without that initial action.
Anyway…I know there aren’t any virgins in the sky, but I hope that thought was comforting.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Me, the prick? You chose what your first response was to be. You chose the words and the message. Not me.
Explain to me in simple terms why bringing up the role the US military has in turning Iraq into a hellhole is inappropriate.[/quote]
There was an attempt to pay some respect to Iraqi soldiers who gave their lives protecting other Iraqis. You politicized what should have been a neutral post.
Again, practice some discretion. You know of the concept, correct? Do I really need to simplify it any further?
I posted this article to point out several things. The Iraqi Army has moved well beyond the incompetent force it was critized to be a year ago and the idea of concept of martyrdom isn’t solely owned by the radicals.
The virgins question is questioning the entire concept of the jihad and the purpose of the insurgency in Iraq. Who claims the moral high ground in the fight now? The insurgents are targeting and fighting the Iraqi Army. Muslims vs. Muslims. Who wins the popular support?
God bless those two soldiers, he who spills blood with me on this day is truly my brother.
Lixy you are a jackass.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
There was an attempt to pay some respect to Iraqi soldiers who gave their lives protecting other Iraqis. You politicized what should have been a neutral post. [/quote]
It took me a solid ten minutes to come up with that post. I promise you that i would have never brought the US occupation if the story was presented differently. Seriously, what kind of a person names the thread “Who gets the virgins”? BH6 was simply asking for it, and given the circumstances, I think I was both civil and on-topic.
This is a story about selfless heroes that the OP shamelessly hijacked for political purposes. I was about to post the BBC’s take on it in the Get a Life forum when I found out about this thread.
The OP’s talk about “virgins” is anything but mundane.
I am familiar with the concept, but fail to see what you deem inappropriate in my response to BH6.
Also, if I was to hand out medals in discretion, 50x’s “They Have to share.” would take the gold.
That makes me wonder?.If a man blows himself up, he gets 72 virgins, what do the women get? I am assuming that if they were told, they’d get 72 of those hairy, long bearded, abusive men if they went to heaven, most assuredly they’d rather go to hell 'cause it couldn’t be much worse. Since women have little value, what’s in it for them? I mean other than, by dieing they no longer have to put up with any crap and wear a bed sheet over their whole body so they do get beaten.
I am starting to realize that the US is the bad guy; Who knew we were so evil? Twice in the past week I have heard about how evil we are.
-
Dutch “Police” arent allowed to smoke pot because of us.
-
We FORCE these poor terrorists to strap bombs to themselves and blow up shit.
I think I am gonna move to Iran. We really are the bad guys.
Lixy please dont procreate.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I probably should add that Al-Qaeda’s aren’t permanent.[/quote]
You don’t intend to stay permanently? What about backsliders? They have to be whipped for showing an ankle or executed or whatever.
You’re slipping up Lixy and your real identity is becoming more blatant. I think its cool to have an Al-Qaeda member/supporter here on T-Nation though — let’s us see into the mindset.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
I posted this article to point out several things. The Iraqi Army has moved well beyond the incompetent force it was critized to be a year ago and the idea of concept of martyrdom isn’t solely owned by the radicals.
The virgins question is questioning the entire concept of the jihad and the purpose of the insurgency in Iraq. Who claims the moral high ground in the fight now? The insurgents are targeting and fighting the Iraqi Army. Muslims vs. Muslims. Who wins the popular support?
God bless those two soldiers, he who spills blood with me on this day is truly my brother.
Lixy you are a jackass. [/quote]
The last three letters of the last word in your post are incorrect.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
I posted this article to point out several things. [/quote]
If it’s that you are an ignorant, tactless jerk, then congratulations. You couldn’t have done any better.
I could smack your “incompetent force” comment with the following:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/72895/
But that’ll be too easy. Let me instead remind you that Bremmer dismantled everything in Iraq after the invasion. It is therefore only logical that an army-that-wasn’t-4-years-ago evolves. So thank you Capt. Obvious!
Gee…and there I thought all those brave firefighters risking their lives to save others were affiliated to Al-Qaeda.
You just shattered my reality.
Without going into semantics, are you planning on questioning the “entire concept” of murder, theft, racism and rape next?
The “insurgency” in Iraq isn’t a monolithic block and you shouldn’t treat it as such. You are attempting to reduce the movement to suicide killers and maniacs. That is utterly dishonest.
Are you seriously suggesting that Al-Qaeda ever had the “moral high ground”?
That is just sick!
True. But consider the following;
Country X bombs and invades the USA dismantling its army. A new army is formed while troops of country X are occupying your land. Would you be “targeting and fighting” the newly formed army? I know I would.
They’ve been at it for over 13 centuries Captain.
Now that is a sensible point. They are (well, were…) a credit to the race.
But you had to make moronic assumptions about their religious beliefs, didn’t you?
Right back at you.
[quote]lixy wrote:
…
I could smack your “incompetent force” comment with the following:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/72895/
…
[/quote]
lixy, stuff like this is why you are constantly accused of spreading propaganda rather than debating honestly.
Even if that news story was 100% accurate as it was reported, what does it have to do with the topic at hand? Anything? Were you just grasping at straws yet again to paint the U.S. military as an immoral, brutal occupying force, context of the discussion be damned?
And why are you even getting your hackles up at this thread at all? The link BH6 posted does nothing but provide a story that indicates that the Iraqis are beginning to resist the foreign insurgents, which means that the time when the vast majority of American forces can leave Iraq is coming closer, which means that the war itself is slowly ending, which means that those innocent Iraqis you constantly pine about are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Even the editorials BH6 put in were harmless.
And this somehow makes you spitting angry?
I wonder why that is…
lixy wrote:
I’ve been called far worse by far better men than you, but nice try.
[quote]I could smack your “incompetent force” comment with the following:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/72895/ [/qoute]
Blogs don’t count for sources, this blogger is a Kool-aid drinking Iraqi nationalist insurgent sympathizer.
[quote]
and the idea of concept of martyrdom isn’t solely owned by the radicals.
Gee…and there I thought all those brave firefighters risking their lives to save others were affiliated to Al-Qaeda.
You just shattered my reality.[/quote]
You are missing the point. It is important to any of the insurgent groups, be they the transnational Al Qaeda affilated groups or the nationalist Baathist groups to portray themselves as holy warriors. They must “own” for lack of a better word (or lack of a vocabulary) the concept of martyrdom to be percieved as the viturous islamic warriors. The various insurgent groups disguise thier true motives behind false religious hyperbole.
A true jihad is none of those things, so you are right, none of these groups is fighting a true Jihad.
Well, I was trying to keep it simple for you. You really don’t understand what is going on over there, and neither do you enlightened blogger buddies. There are many seperate movements, all of them attempting to control the Iraqi population by manipulating thier religious and cultural beliefs. The transnational groups, Al Queada and its affiliates, are attempting to gain control of the entire country. The nationalist groups are split along sectarian lines and are attempting to assert the power of the shite majority or re-establish the sunni dominated baathist control.
Neither of those groups are interesting in participation in the democratic process, because a democracy will ultimately weaken the hold they wish to have over the population. They are not interested in the spirituality of the Iraqi people, they only want to control a population of people for thier own material gain.
[quote]Are you seriously suggesting that Al-Qaeda ever had the “moral high ground”?
That is just sick![/quote]
You are over simplifying. Al Qaeda must be thought of as a moral, virtuous force in order to have any credibility with the Iraqi people (or any arab people for that matter). In order for thier Jihad to be seen as valid, it must be moral and just. One of Al Qaeda’s tenents is that it is fighting a Jihad to liberate the arab world from the evil west. Actually the best hope for liberty (not liberation) for the Iraqi people is the west.
[quote]The insurgents are targeting and fighting the Iraqi Army.
True. But consider the following;
Country X bombs and invades the USA dismantling its army. A new army is formed while troops of country X are occupying your land. Would you be “targeting and fighting” the newly formed army? I know I would.[/quote]
Thats why guys like me exist, to keep would-be insurgents like you from screwing things up.
[quote]Muslims vs. Muslims.
They’ve been at it for over 13 centuries Captain.[/quote]
That opens a whole different can of worms on the real reasons behind the appeal of radical islam in the Arab world and why the Arabian penninsula and the Levant is not progressing like the west but acutally falling behind the post-industrial countries.
[quote]God bless those two soldiers,
Now that is a sensible point. They are (well, were…) a credit to the race. [/quote]
At least we agree on this.