PDA

View Full Version : Happy Day! Zarquawi is dead...


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Brock
06-09-2006, 09:27 AM
By the way pen nobody has acted like the job was done because this guy died. MOF it was exactly the opposite.

Meme and UD did.

banyon
06-09-2006, 09:28 AM
I don't disagree with that at all; even though it was apparently meant to denote the end of major combat operations, many lives were still lost thereafter. The implied meaning was certainly premature.

Here's a good selection from administration officials:

The image-making may backfire for the White House because it broke one of its own cardinal rules. "When you're in the end zone act like you've been there," say senior officials of the confident repose they strike after any White House triumph. But after Saddam's statue fell, says one administration official picking up on the football analogy, the Bush team staged "an end zone dance. The problem is that they spiked the ball on the ten before they crossed the goal line." In the end, no matter how good the celebration may have looked, it could still be ruled a fumble.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/printout/0,8816,536170,00.html

and more:

Not long afterwards, the White House had to amend its account. The soldiers hadn't put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting. It had also produced the banner — contrary to what senior White House officials had said for months. In the end, the White House conceded on those details, but declared them mere quibbles. The point was, they said, that the whole thing had been done at the request of the crewmembers. Even that explanation didn't sit well with some long-time Bush aides. "They (the White House) put up banners at every event that look just like that and we're supposed to believe that at this one it was the Navy that requested one?" asked a senior administration official. Others remember staffers boasting about how the president had been specifically positioned during his speech so that the banner would be captured in footage of his speech.

Radar Chief
06-09-2006, 09:32 AM
IMO, the bigger and more relevant hit would be Al-Sadr. That would be huge.

:spock: How so?

Radar Chief
06-09-2006, 09:34 AM
Here's a good selection from administration officials:
"The problem is that they spiked the ball on the ten before they crossed the goal line."

Not to go all football on ya, ;) but that actually happened to a rookie Chiefs player in preseason one year.
Can’t seem to remember’is name though. :hmmm:

Donger
06-09-2006, 09:35 AM
It's not worth arguing, Donger. It was a PR op that went bad, and let the lefties have that. I'll take the AZ killing, instead, to hang my flag on.

Yes, I know and agree. But I knew that someone would come along with the conspiracy theories, and they did.

It amazes me that some can find the administration so bumbling yet so deliciously deceptive at the same time.

Donger
06-09-2006, 09:37 AM
And, there it is: U.S. troops conducted nearly 40 raids Friday in Iraq, taking advantage of information gleaned from searches following Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060609/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=Al3zCgAcYFhNaB0GeHcGBfCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

KCTitus
06-09-2006, 09:42 AM
...It amazes me that some can find the administration so bumbling yet so deliciously deceptive at the same time.

Ive always marveled at the dichotomy, but lately the conspiracy theories have required a large dose of cognitive dissonance.

Rausch
06-09-2006, 09:46 AM
Ive always marveled at the dichotomy, but lately the conspiracy theories have required a large dose of cognitive dissonance.

When don't they?...

Iowanian
06-09-2006, 09:48 AM
..and some people have questioned why there was a need for the DC forum to be separated.

One of the worlds' biggest assholes is dead, along with many more of his asshole friends, who planned and carried out the most gruesome attacks against civilians know to man.....and some people find it as cause to make this political.

Its a big victory for US Troops. Fact.

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 09:53 AM
I cannot believe I am going to say this, but don't you think our revolutinaries were not considered legitimate by the British, I however think they were legitimate. History will work the same way in Iraq, if the insurgents succeed in getting the governement the way they want it, they will have to be considered legitimate by future generations of Iraq citizens while we will possibly never consider them as such.The situations are, in fact, similar. However you are over-looking an important fact or two:

By 1776, the American "insurgency" was supported by a clear majority (divided---sound familiar?.... but a majority, nonetheless) of the people living in the Colonies.

From what I know and have read, while a majority of Iraqis would certainly like America to go home soon, it's pretty darn clear that a majority strongly OPPOSE the insurgency....that what a majority of Iraqis really "want" is, simply, a good government and a secure future. The IRAQI insurgency gives them neither, and a majority of Iraqis KNOW that. That's why the IRAQI insurgency is illegitimate, IMO.

Logical
06-09-2006, 09:54 AM
AQ within Iraq? I thought there were no ties between AQ and Iraq?

....There is no definitive link between AQ and Iraq under Saddam after we invaded AQ definitely moved in, no one denies that, it is simply a fact.

Logical
06-09-2006, 09:56 AM
The situations are, in fact, similar. However you are over-looking an important fact or two:

By 1776, the "insurgency" was supported by a clear majority (divided---sound familiar?.... but a majority, nonetheless) of the people living in the Colonies.

From what I know an read, while a majority of Iraqis would certainly like America to go home soon, I'm quite confident that a majority strongly OPPOSE the insurgency and it's goals....that a majority of Iraqis just want a good government and a secure future. The IRAQI insurgency would give them neither, and a majority of Iraqis KNOW that. That's why the IRAQI insurgency is illegitimate, IMO.

I think we wish that was true and in the absence of solid communication ties to the people we cannot know so we can only speculate. I don't think anyone knows who the people really support.

Donger
06-09-2006, 10:04 AM
I think we wish that was true and in the absence of solid communication ties to the people we cannot know so we can only speculate. I don't think anyone knows who the people really support.

I'm of the opinion that the majority of Iraqis do not support the insurgency, based mostly on the fact that it is made up of mostly Sunni Baathists and a few hundred foreign jihadists. Why on earth would Shiites or Kurds support these people?

StcChief
06-09-2006, 10:04 AM
I think we wish that was true and in the absence of solid communication ties to the people we cannot know so we can only speculate. I don't think anyone knows who the people really support.

I imagine IRAQs living for decades of be silent or get your throat cut.....

The common man/woman there are still afraid to speak, not know who will hear/see and is an insurgent or may be supporting them....
and later come around and slit their throat.

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 10:07 AM
I think we wish that was true and in the absence of solid communication ties to the people we cannot know so we can only speculate. I don't think anyone knows who the people really support.I think we do have a pretty good idea. There are polls, there are ways of tallying numbers....of course, the credibility of any poll can be qutestioned. However, it's just not a sexy/romantic/sensationalized sort or story. And it's not convenient to believe, for those who oppose the U.S. involvement there.....

If you read and sort through the stories, it's pretty clear the "insurgency" is NOT popular with the "average" Iraqi. Iraq is certainly divided; but a "majority" within their borders would love to see the insurgency go away.

alanm
06-09-2006, 10:09 AM
Funny, you make it sound as if he were 'hit' by someone from the inside, like a Mafia hit. No, there is at least one al Qaeda in Iraq traitor now working for us. This is massive. This goes far beyond getting Hussein, IMO. If this person(s) knew the whereabouts of Zarqawi, imagine what else they know. We now know that, too.

Don't be surprised to see a few more Oops! in the coming weeks.
Don't forget the treasure trove of intel gathered from the 19 raids on safe houses that went on as AZ was getting waxed which in the end will probably be more useful than just waxing AZ. :)

Radar Chief
06-09-2006, 10:18 AM
There is no definitive link between AQ and Iraq under Saddam after we invaded AQ definitely moved in, no one denies that, it is simply a fact.

Zarqawi himself is proof of a link from Saddam’s Iraq to al Quada pre-US invasion, certainly not the only one but pretty elaborate proof right there.
I’ve pointed this out to you before, why deny it now?

Radar Chief
06-09-2006, 10:20 AM
I think we wish that was true and in the absence of solid communication ties to the people we cannot know so we can only speculate. I don't think anyone knows who the people really support.

DanT posted the link over in the DC forum to a survey conducted last year showing exactly that.
Just a minute, I’ll hunt it down.

the Talking Can
06-09-2006, 10:23 AM
Zarqawi himself is proof of a link from Saddam’s Iraq to al Quada pre-US invasion, certainly not the only one but pretty elaborate proof right there.
I’ve pointed this out to you before, why deny it now?

wow...at least we're not politicizing this thread....why don't you just type "mission accomplished"....

you guys are so above politics....250 posts without a hint of crass opportunism....

can we discuss the pre-war Intel now? or just republicans...I'd hate to politicize anything, you know....that would be terrible..

bkkcoh
06-09-2006, 10:24 AM
There is no definitive link between AQ and Iraq under Saddam after we invaded AQ definitely moved in, no one denies that, it is simply a fact.



It is amazing that there is so much opinion as to whether or not there was a connection.

How much proof would you need to accept that there was a connection?? I am sure there isn't enough, even if one of the AQ and SH would be seen in a photo.......

Here is one link that might Iraq AQ Link (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031201-123723-4738r.htm)

bkkcoh
06-09-2006, 10:26 AM
It is amazing that there is so much opinion as to whether or not there was a connection.

How much proof would you need to accept that there was a connection?? I am sure there isn't enough, even if one of the AQ and SH would be seen in a photo.......

Here is one link that might Iraq AQ Link (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031201-123723-4738r.htm)


Here is another, scroll down to the bullet points

another source (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004046)

Radar Chief
06-09-2006, 10:28 AM
Here Him, from post #15 on this thread.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3232731#post3232731

There was a poll conducted for ABC News, Time magazine, the BBC, NHK (Japan) and Der Spiegel (German) by Oxford Research International that asked questions along those lines last year. Here's a link to an ABC News story, which includes links to the poll reports:


http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1389228

To this question,

2. Compared to the time before the war in Spring 2003, are things overall in your life much better now, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse or much worse?

51% of Iraqis in November, 2005, said they were better off; 19% said things were about the same, and 29% said they were worse off.
In February, 2004, the numbers were 56%/23%/19%.


To the question,

5. Compared to our country as it was before the war in spring 2003, are things in Iraq overall much better now, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse or much worse?

46% of Iraqis in November, 2005, said the country was better off, 13% said it was about the same and 39% said it was worse.

The November, 2005, was a random national sample of 1,711 Iraqis aged 15 and up and has a margin of error of about 2.5%.

More can be found at the link he provided.
Though, if you read it you’ll find that results fall along sectarian lines, with roughly 70% of Iraqis, or the population of Shiites + Kurds, glad we’re there/hate insurgents and roughly 30%, or the population of Sunni, not so happy.

Radar Chief
06-09-2006, 10:30 AM
wow...at least we're not politicizing this thread....why don't you just type "mission accomplished"....

you guys are so above politics....250 posts without a hint of crass opportunism....

can we discuss the pre-war Intel now? or just republicans...I'd hate to politicize anything, you know....that would be terrible..

Wow, you think you could, like, refute what I’ve posted? Or is sarcastic deflection all you do? :shrug:
Other than the bumper sticker rhetoric that is. ROFL

BIG_DADDY
06-09-2006, 10:31 AM
Here Him, from post #15 on this thread.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3232731#post3232731



More can be found at the link he provided.
Though, if you read it you’ll find that results fall along sectarian lines, with roughly 70% of Iraqis, or the population of Shiites + Kurds, glad we’re there/hate insurgents and roughly 30%, or the population of Sunni, not so happy.

Pretty simple stuff. If you are a Kurd it's WAY better. If you are a Shiite it is certainly better. If you are a Sunni life sucks.

Donger
06-09-2006, 10:35 AM
Survey Shows Iraqis Do Not Support Terrorists (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2005/20050809_2381.html)

Iowanian
06-09-2006, 10:35 AM
What alot of people seem to overlook is the ties and connections of alot of the "local" insurgency.

Many of the Iraqis caught placing IEDs aren't really doing it because they're angry...They're doing it because they need money, and some asshole like zarqawi was paying them $100 to place one with a bonus for kia soldiers.

Cut off the money and instigators, and I think alot of the attacks vs US troops stop.

There are sectarian issues that have been boiling for centuries. Blaming the sitting US pres, because Sunni and Shiites don't like each other is absurd. Of COURSE the Sunni are angry about the changes...they've been on easy street comparably for Saddom's reign.

Sadr Militia and others definitely are carrying out Reprisal killings vs Sunni, and some terrorist sunni are definitely killing ALOT of shiite.

I lay alot of that blame on Instigators like zaqawi. Hopefully, the new top tog will be exterminated soon along with Zarwahiri.

Loki
06-09-2006, 10:46 AM
True, true.

I wish that they had gotten the opportunity to torture him for a while though.

This seems like an easy way out for him. Death by pork chop would have been much more appropriate. Maybe they'll bury him with a pigs' head.

FAX

yeah, i would have liked to see them saw HIS f*cking head off with a dull butterknife and listen to HIM scream and gurgle... scumbag b4stard...

a 500lb bomb was far too good for him.

Loki
06-09-2006, 10:47 AM
l8r douchebag...

Logical
06-09-2006, 10:48 AM
...

It amazes me that some can find the administration so bumbling yet so deliciously deceptive at the same time.

Only speaking for myself, the President is bumbling, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld et. al. are the ones controlling the deceptions. It takes no cognitive dissonance to recognize that.

Radar Chief
06-09-2006, 10:51 AM
yeah, i would have liked to see them saw HIS f*cking head off with a dull butterknife and listen to HIM scream and gurgle... scumbag b4stard...

a 500lb bomb was far too good for him.

If it helps any, I’ve been hear’n it reported on the radio today that he was actually alive when our troops found’im. So, it appears he may’ve suffered at least a little, and known who got’im. :thumb:

Loki
06-09-2006, 10:56 AM
ROFL


You wrote it's good to see that she thinks killing terrorists is a good thing and I am saying jihad jane just gave you the head fake and you took it.

lol @ "jihad jane"...

Logical
06-09-2006, 10:56 AM
I imagine IRAQs living for decades of be silent or get your throat cut.....

The common man/woman there are still afraid to speak, not know who will hear/see and is an insurgent or may be supporting them....
and later come around and slit their throat.I am glad someone else recognizes this, imagine you have an invader (US) who has killed 1000s of your fellow citizens. You grew up being told the US was a terrorist state, you have no direct experience to prove otherwise, are you honestly going to throw away a lifetime of indoctrination and believe your invader is benevlolent. You are going to say the things you think that invader wants to hear.

Logical
Trying to look at thing from their shoes.

Logical
06-09-2006, 10:59 AM
...

There are sectarian issues that have been boiling for centuries. Blaming the sitting US pres, because Sunni and Shiites don't like each other is absurd. Of COURSE the Sunni are angry about the changes...they've been on easy street comparably for Saddom's reign.

Sadr Militia and others definitely are carrying out Reprisal killings vs Sunni, and some terrorist sunni are definitely killing ALOT of shiite.

...

This is exactly why it was foolhardy to think we could build a government there. Once we overthrew Saddam our mission should have indeed ended and we should have withdrew to let them figure out for themselves what they wanted to do with their country while providing aid to help rebuild their infrastructure.

Loki
06-09-2006, 11:00 AM
Do you ever get tired of living in a world of conspiracy theories?

for real...

cheneyburtonbushronneocon... :shake:

KCTitus
06-09-2006, 11:00 AM
Only speaking for myself, the President is bumbling, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld et. al. are the ones controlling the deceptions. It takes no cognitive dissonance to recognize that.

Right...Rove's the one who signed the contract with Diebold to get the voting machines to onoly register as votes for Bush. Cheney does the wiretapping -- he knows I like Pepperoni and Sausage pizza -- and Rumsfeld holds the dead terrorists bodies until they need to cover up something the libs are onto , then thaws out the body, puts it in a blown up shack and trots out saying we got em, Bush is just the face of it all...nope, no dissonance there.

penchief
06-09-2006, 11:02 AM
Allow me to educate you, jr.

The question is specific, "Originally Posted by Lattimer
Who here said the job is done?"

Therefore an answer would be appropriate, but you did not answer it, instead you pointed a finger back to him regarding his buddies - that, dude, is what's called a deflection.

What schools did you attend to not have understood that?

This is pretty stupid.

What I did was agree with Brock's assessment. I then said that some people were acting as though they thought the job was done. I then gave my reasoning.

My guess is that Brock was referring to Denise. However, Brock didn't say who he was referring to. Assuming that Brock was referring to Denise, I tried to offer a little balance by pointing out that those who were using the opportunity to take cheap shots at those who have opposed the war were also acting as though the job was done.

Plain and simple. No deflection and no personal insults. I think the debate is not whether some people think it is good news. We all do. I think the debate should be what the impact will be. That's really all I'm going to say further on the subject.

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 11:04 AM
Only speaking for myself, the President is bumbling, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld et. al. are the ones controlling the deceptions. It takes no cognitive dissonance to recognize that.

That's not cognitive dissonance; that's rationalization, IMHO. ;)

Iowanian
06-09-2006, 11:04 AM
Logi...

Have you talked to very many people who have been over there?

Its pretty common to hear that there are definitely assholes in Iraq, that the average citizen is pretty uncivilized, but that the majority want their lives to improve and for things to settle down.

There is only so much the US can do, and the Iraqi People have to say "enough is enough, we can do better" and Follow through.

For many of them, its too much to ask them to refrain from dropping food wrappers and garbage on the ground, while they are bitching to our troops about sanitation.

Killing Zarqawi isn't going to stop the terrorism...but killing him, and his leutenents and sprititual advisors, and making effort that his replacements get the same fate is a big step.....Finding the documents, computer drives, and information about the organization and its funding sources is a HUGE thing. Alot of good can come from it.

Logical
06-09-2006, 11:05 AM
It is amazing that there is so much opinion as to whether or not there was a connection.

How much proof would you need to accept that there was a connection?? I am sure there isn't enough, even if one of the AQ and SH would be seen in a photo.......

Here is one link that might Iraq AQ Link (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031201-123723-4738r.htm)

It is not so much how much proof do I need but how much proof does the rest of the world need. Right now almost no one with the possible exception of part of the British government and a few other selected ones around the world believe their was a pre-war link. Our own CIA did not designate a specific link prior to the war. Notice I did not say there was no link, just that it was not definitive (i.e. accepted by the majorty world view).

BIG_DADDY
06-09-2006, 11:08 AM
lol @ "jihad jane"...

Lets look at the facts. Meme has:

1. Referred to terrorists as freedom fighters.
2. Has been dissing the military and our troops over there right from the beginning.
3. Said her kids would never serve this country and already was making plans to get them out of here should they ever be asked to serve.
4. Has been dogging our country since she was able to use a key board.

Then she comes along and posts catching Zarqawi is a good thing just before posting a bunch of negative shit and we are all of the sudden going to believe she gives a rats ass about this country or stopping terrorism? I don't think so. We all know where she is coming from.

Donger
06-09-2006, 11:09 AM
ROFL

Nice timing...

Al-Zawahiri focused on political developments in the Palestinian territories, Sudan and Egypt.

An Al-Jazeera announcer said that the tape was made before the announcement of al-Zarqawi's death Thursday because al-Zawahiri praised the al Qaeda in Iraq leader's efforts to confront U.S.-led forces in Iraq.

"God bless the prophet of Islam in Iraq, the persistent hero of Islam, the Holy Warrior Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," al-Zawahiri said.

Logical
06-09-2006, 11:09 AM
Logi...

Have you talked to very many people who have been over there?

Its pretty common to hear that there are definitely assholes in Iraq, that the average citizen is pretty uncivilized, but that the majority want their lives to improve and for things to settle down.

There is only so much the US can do, and the Iraqi People have to say "enough is enough, we can do better" and Follow through.

For many of them, its too much to ask them to refrain from dropping food wrappers and garbage on the ground, while they are bitching to our troops about sanitation.

Killing Zarqawi isn't going to stop the terrorism...but killing him, and his leutenents and sprititual advisors, and making effort that his replacements get the same fate is a big step.....Finding the documents, computer drives, and information about the organization and its funding sources is a HUGE thing. Alot of good can come from it.

First I have already applauded the troops for getting Zarqawi, however, we didn't have to remain an occupying force to have accomplished that with our special forces.

Our troops should not even be risking their lives by being there to police people who litter and dump trash. That should be their problem. If they want to live in garbage dump we should be risking no lives to prevent it.

Loki
06-09-2006, 11:10 AM
And it also enabled some people to say "Great! Bring our boys home now!"

that's what i got out of it. still lots more work to be done.
but nice to see the iraqi forces stepping up more and taking some of the pressure off of our troops.
the intel can only get better from this point forward. :thumb:

bkkcoh
06-09-2006, 11:10 AM
It is not so much how much proof do I need but how much proof does the rest of the world need. Right now almost no one with the possible exception of part of the British government and a few other selected ones around the world believe their was a pre-war link. Our own CIA did not designate a specific link prior to the war. Notice I did not say there was no link, just that it was not definitive (i.e. accepted by the majorty world view).

Logical,

I think the US could present a gilded video tape that would show proof beyond a shadow of doubt that there was a connection and it still wouldn't be enough. That is one of the biggest problems when it comes to something like this. There are some countries that are so anti-American, they would say that it was doctored beyond belief. Granted, I am not saying that there have been truths that may have been stretched, but.... some people still wouldn't be happy.

BIG_DADDY
06-09-2006, 11:10 AM
It is not so much how much proof do I need but how much proof does the rest of the world need. Right now almost no one with the possible exception of part of the British government and a few other selected ones around the world believe their was a pre-war link. Our own CIA did not designate a specific link prior to the war. Notice I did not say there was no link, just that it was not definitive (i.e. accepted by the majorty world view).

Nobody wants to talk about the real reason we are over there which is about controlling oil on that continent for strategic reasons. Huge gamble. Dealing a blow to the POS living over there that hate us is the bonus program.

Donger
06-09-2006, 11:10 AM
however, we didn't have to remain an occupying force to have accomplished that with our special forces.

You don't know that.

bkkcoh
06-09-2006, 11:12 AM
First I have already applauded the troops for getting Zarqawi, however, we didn't have to remain an occupying force to have accomplished that with our special forces.

Our troops should not even be risking their lives by being there to police people who litter and dump trash. That should be their problem. If they want to live in garbage dump we should be risking no lives to prevent it.


I heard that the murder rate in Washington DC is higher per capita than the deaths of American/Allied forces in Iraq. Does that mean that we should pull the cops off the streets of DC? :hmmm:

Iowanian
06-09-2006, 11:13 AM
There is no way that Special forces troops alone could clean up that mess.

The garbage is just an example....Its the type of thing that happens in meetings with our troops and locals. It IS the locals who have been given jobs, by the interim govt to do jobs like that...but its a mountain to move with tonka trucks.

BIG_DADDY
06-09-2006, 11:14 AM
Nobody wants to talk about the real reason we are over there which is about controlling oil on that continent for strategic reasons. Huge gamble. Dealing a blow to the POS living over there that hate us is the bonus program.

See what I mean?

BCD
06-09-2006, 11:18 AM
http://www.virob.com/virob/videos/869.html

Cochise
06-09-2006, 11:19 AM
I can't believe I read people saying that since this guy was dead it's time to come home. That's the stupidest thing I have ever read. It's been said here a million times that even if we got him or OBL it would only be a major victory, and not the end of the war.

By and large, I don't think people in that region are smart enough to know that freedom is better than subjugation and despotism. It's the only thing they have ever known. And all their religious leaders tell them is how America is evil.

We will succeed if we stick through this long enough for the public to have a chance to see that a free society is a better way to live. If we turn tail and run, things will deteriorate. It will work eventually. It just depends on if we are willing to be committed to finishing what we started, or if a yellow streak is going to appear on our backs before then.

Logical
06-09-2006, 11:25 AM
Lets look at the facts. Meme has:

1. Referred to terrorists as freedom fighters.
2. Has been dissing the military and our troops over there right from the beginning.
3. Said her kids would never serve this country and already was making plans to get them out of here should they ever be asked to serve.
4. Has been dogging our country since she was able to use a key board.

Then she comes along and posts catching Zarqawi is a good thing just before posting a bunch of negative shit and we are all of the sudden going to believe she gives a rats ass about this country or stopping terrorism? I don't think so. We all know where she is coming from.

I agree with you on 1, 3 and 4. I do not agree with statement 2, you would have to provide specific proof on that one for me to agree. I must say that DEnise definitely from the start advocated using special forces instead of invading. I specifically recall her saying that back in 2003

Loki
06-09-2006, 11:27 AM
If it helps any, I’ve been hear’n it reported on the radio today that he was actually alive when our troops found’im. So, it appears he may’ve suffered at least a little, and known who got’im. :thumb:

yeah, i just read that news a few minutes ago.
the article also said he tried to roll off the stretcher and run.
all that bravado boiling down to him trying to run away @ the end. what a f*cking pussy.

i still think they should have buttstroked that cowards dome open... would have made a much better post-mortem picture...

stevieray
06-09-2006, 11:28 AM
There is no definitive link between AQ and Iraq under Saddam after we invaded AQ definitely moved in, no one denies that, it is simply a fact.

it never ceases to amaze me that you give credit and the benefit of the doubt to those who wish us dead, yet deny those very things to our own military and leaders.

IMO, you are razor close to becoming what you used to castigate.

Logical
06-09-2006, 11:28 AM
I can't believe I read people saying that since this guy was dead it's time to come home. That's the stupidest thing I have ever read. It's been said here a million times that even if we got him or OBL it would only be a major victory, and not the end of the war.

By and large, I don't think people in that region are smart enough to know that freedom is better than subjugation and despotism. It's the only thing they have ever known. And all their religious leaders tell them is how America is evil.

We will succeed if we stick through this long enough for the public to have a chance to see that a free society is a better way to live. If we turn tail and run, things will deteriorate. It will work eventually. It just depends on if we are willing to be committed to finishing what we started, or if a yellow streak is going to appear on our backs before then.

I think most of the people who have said something like that thought we should never stayed as an occupying force to begin with, some were against invading at all.

I believe anyone with insight realizes that we are just wasting lives by remaining an occupying force and alienating more and more the average Iraqi by staying. We should be using Special forces to be carrying out missions like that one and bringing the vast majority of our forces home. Let the Iraqi people sort out their future on their own.

Donger
06-09-2006, 11:30 AM
We should be using Special forces to be carrying out missions like that one

Do you know how many SF guys can fly F-16s or F/A-18s?

Logical
06-09-2006, 11:30 AM
it never ceases to amaze me that you give credit and the benefit of the doubt to those who wish us dead, yet deny those very things to our own military and leaders.

IMO, you are razor close to becoming what you used to castigate.I have alway been a person that yields to what can be proven as fact and has doubt on claims that cannot be proven. Whether those claims come from the left or right. That is the cynic in me, not my political philosophy talking.

Logical
06-09-2006, 11:32 AM
Do you know how many SF guys can fly F-16s or F/A-18s?Excuse me for not mentioning special forces with support of conventional forces not based in Iraq, my bad.

Logical
06-09-2006, 11:33 AM
I heard that the murder rate in Washington DC is higher per capita than the deaths of American/Allied forces in Iraq. Does that mean that we should pull the cops off the streets of DC? :hmmm:
Are the cops the ones being murdered?

Bad example, please play again.

Loki
06-09-2006, 11:38 AM
...
however, we didn't have to remain an occupying force to have accomplished that with our special forces.
...
you don't know much about SF's mission do you?

that's a monumental task you would be expecting of them. talk about putting our forces in harms way... i don't think you'd find ANY SF teams willing to undertake a mission of that size without the (minimal) supporting forces they have available NOW.

if anything there should be MORE troops over there for "occupational" duties.

HC_Chief
06-09-2006, 11:38 AM
lol

First it's "NOT ENOUGH TROOPS!!!", now it's "SPECIAL FORCES ONLY!!"?

dumbf*cks.

Calcountry
06-09-2006, 11:39 AM
ROFL The Ultimate Nuthooks.Yep, 2 of em, one for each nut.

Calcountry
06-09-2006, 11:41 AM
I like it that way.

Don't you? :hmmm:With you, I will tolerate, because you are supposedly an "American", but not with my enemy. FU#K him, his wife and children. They die before they kill me and mine.

Loki
06-09-2006, 11:42 AM
...
I must say that DEnise definitely from the start advocated using special forces instead of invading. I specifically recall her saying that back in 2003
...


then she doesn't know anything about special forces either...

Cochise
06-09-2006, 11:42 AM
I think most of the people who have said something like that thought we should never stayed as an occupying force to begin with, some were against invading at all.

Well, that's great if you'd rather complain about the past than come up with something that helps the discussion today. The fact is that we're there and no amount of whining about not getting one's way 3 years ago will change that.


I believe anyone with insight realizes that we are just wasting lives by remaining an occupying force and alienating more and more the average Iraqi by staying.

How alienated do you think they'll be if we turn tail and run, and warlords take over like when we half-assed the job in Somalia?


Let the Iraqi people sort out their future on their own.

Whatever you think about the initial decision, we tore down their old government so we have a responsibility to set up a new one.

This is a really calloused and hateful position. Rather than having the US be responsible and finish what we started, you'd rather we retreated and threw the entire population to the Sunni wolves?

Calcountry
06-09-2006, 11:44 AM
To rejoice at Al Zaqueeri's death and to reiterate that our boys should come home now - re-read my post... its pretty starightforward.No, what we should do, is sweep and clear.

Lean on this dude that gave up this puke, yes, that means torture the living virgins out of him until he rolls on his fellow cockroaches. Then waste em all.

BIG_DADDY
06-09-2006, 11:44 AM
Logical,

See what I'm talking about. Nobody wants to talk about the real issue they want to talk about irrelevant BS, that includes you.

Calcountry
06-09-2006, 11:44 AM
I am as happy as anyone is that it was allowed to stay, but you have to wonder why it was allowed to stay?Perahaps, it is a fresh, current event.

:shrug:

Donger
06-09-2006, 11:45 AM
Excuse me for not mentioning special forces with support of conventional forces not based in Iraq, my bad.

The responsible unit hasn't been released, but since they were F-16s, they probably came from Balad, which is about 50 miles north of Baghdad.

Donger
06-09-2006, 11:47 AM
Logical,

See what I'm talking about. Nobody wants to talk about the real issue they want to talk about irrelevant BS, that includes you.

The fact that the only reason we give a f*ck about the Middle East is because of their oil?

We may as well discuss why water is wet.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 11:51 AM
:spock:

The only legitimate insurgency, in Iraq, was against Saddam. The insurgency you are referring to has nothing to do with Iraq; it only has to do with a hatred of the U.S., which by definition makes it illegitimate to anyone truly working for peace in Iraq.

Nice of you to decide for the Iraqi people what constitutes a 'legitimate' insurgency. By the true definition of the word the resistance against US occupation is an insurgency. You can argue (and I would agree) that the insurgency contained terrorists elements but you cannot argue that the insurgency IS terrorism.

There is an armed resistance to what they see as an occupying force establishing an illegitimate government portions of which were terrorists but not all. The killing of AZ more than proves this.





http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgency

3 entries found for insurgency.
in·sur·gen·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sűrjn-s)
n. pl. in·sur·gen·cies
The quality or circumstance of being rebellious.
An instance of rebellion; an insurgence.


[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Main Entry: in·sur·gen·cy
Pronunciation: in-'s&r-j&n-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -cies
: the quality or state of being insurgent; specifically : a condition of revolt against a recognized government that does not reach the proportions of an organized revolutionary government and is not recognized as belligerency


Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


insurgency

n : an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict [syn: insurgence]

BIG_DADDY
06-09-2006, 11:54 AM
The fact that the only reason we give a f*ck about the Middle East is because of their oil?

We may as well discuss why water is wet.

Not just any oil but the strategic importance of securing oil in the ME now from a geographical stadpoint for military reasons. THAT is what it is all about. Our wonderful military machine doesn't work without fuel and considering that continent is where the next big war will break out securing sources there to run that machine is critical. It's an interesting discussion. Once again I was never for the war in Iraq and I don't believe it was necessary however either opinion involves risk. Bush is taking a huge risk trying to secure that oil now. If however securing that oil proves to critical in the future Bush will go from remembered as one of the worst presidents to one of the best ever in the blink of an eye.

Radar Chief
06-09-2006, 11:58 AM
Nice of you to decide for the Iraqi people what constitutes a 'legitimate' insurgency.

:spock: Psssst, Denise. You did the exact same thing you’re gripe’n ‘bout from Kotter. Just FYI. ROFL

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 12:00 PM
:spock: How so?

Because unlike AZ, MAS has popular support within Iraq. And unlike AZ, MAS is fighting for a principle vs. using a principle as an excuse to fight as AZ did.

StcChief
06-09-2006, 12:02 PM
Now that Zarquawi is dead......Everybody has likely weighed in it.....Can this go to DC

Politicos are chiming in.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 12:02 PM
:spock: Psssst, Denise. You did the exact same thing you’re gripe’n ‘bout from Kotter. Just FYI. ROFL

Nope, I didn't. I define the insurgency according to the definition of it. It's for the Iraqi people to decide which aspects of it are legitimate or not. I believe most of the Iraqi people do not support terrorist elements using the insurgency for their cause.

Most Iraqis can see the distinction between the insurgency and the terrorists....it's the Americans who have the problem differeniating between the two. By design, of course.

Loki
06-09-2006, 12:03 PM
:spock: Psssst, Denise. You did the exact same thing you’re gripe’n ‘bout from Kotter. Just FYI. ROFL

lol... no kidding.

BIG_DADDY
06-09-2006, 12:05 PM
Nope, I didn't. I define the insurgency according to the definition of it. It's for the Iraqi people to decide which aspects of it are legitimate or not. I believe most of the Iraqi people do not support terrorist elements using the insurgency for their cause.

Most Iraqis can see the distinction between the insurgency and the terroists....it's the Americans who have the problem differeniating between the two. By design, of course.
.

Loki
06-09-2006, 12:06 PM
Now that Zarquawi is dead......Everybody has likely weighed in it.....Can this go to DC

Politicos are chiming in.

no way! this has been a great thread. a lot more people participated in this than would have if it had been started in/moved to DC.

Radar Chief
06-09-2006, 12:06 PM
Because unlike AZ, MAS has popular support within Iraq. And unlike AZ, MAS is fighting for a principle vs. using a principle as an excuse to fight as AZ did.

So, the guy stands for the improvement of conditions for’is people so we should ice’im? :spock:

Cochise
06-09-2006, 12:07 PM
The responsible unit hasn't been released, but since they were F-16s, they probably came from Balad, which is about 50 miles north of Baghdad.

I read that they were on some kind of unrelated mission in the area but were diverted from that onto the Zawquawi strike. If they hadn't already been in the area and had a 30 minute flight (or however long) from the Persian Gulf or Saudi wherever they are based, who knows if we could have got him? We narrowly missed him a lot of times.

Radar Chief
06-09-2006, 12:08 PM
Nope, I didn't.

Yes you did. You claimed the insurgency as “legitimate”. Nice of you to decide that for Iraqis. :thumb:

Cochise
06-09-2006, 12:09 PM
Yes you did. You claimed the insurgency as “legitimate”. Nice of you to decide that for Iraqis. :thumb:

Yeah, even if you were to ignore the obvious intent of the phrasing, it still sounds like whether or not their actions are legitimate is something that is up for debate.

I guess they are just freedom fighters after all.

KCTitus
06-09-2006, 12:09 PM
the next 100 posts will be debate of the definition of 'is'...

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 12:10 PM
So, the guy stands for the improvement of conditions for’is people so we should ice’im? :spock:

Is this English? :hmmm:

Calcountry
06-09-2006, 12:12 PM
No. You guys are really special. I've already said this is good news. My comments go to the fact that there are still people on this board that will use good news to attack others for personal reasons. This is where I stopped reading your post.
:rolleyes:

patteeu
06-09-2006, 12:12 PM
There is no definitive link between AQ and Iraq under Saddam after we invaded AQ definitely moved in, no one denies that, it is simply a fact.

What do you mean by definitive? All the post 9/11 investigations that looked at that subject found that there were links between AQ and Iraq under Saddam. Whether or not there was a collaborative relationship remains in doubt, but not really whether there were any links at all.

Radar Chief
06-09-2006, 12:13 PM
the next 100 posts will be debate of the definition of 'is'...

Is this English? :hmmm:

Damn you’re good Titus. ROFL

Calcountry
06-09-2006, 12:16 PM
Yep God knows no one declares Mission Accomplished prematurely on the conservative side.

http://www.bartcop.com/mission-accomplished.jpgExcuse me, but I wasn't aware that the F 16's originated from the Abraham Lincoln?

Calcountry
06-09-2006, 12:18 PM
Certainly the POTUS is smart enough to know that if he's having a photo op in front of sign the words on the sign have significant meaning and will be attributed to him regardless of who 'ordered' the sign.

Perhaps I'm giving him WAY too much credit... :hmmm:Surely Meme is smart enough to realize that posting avatars of Dogs pissing on 04 campaign posters is insignificant in 2006.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 12:18 PM
Yeah, even if you were to ignore the obvious intent of the phrasing, it still sounds like whether or not their actions are legitimate is something that is up for debate.

I guess they are just freedom fighters after all.

Certainly the home grown insurgents fighting occupation of their country could be considered a legitimate insurgeny by definition of the word.

FWIW, I think the death of AZ has the possibility of strengthening the insurgency. I think the loss of an AQ face in Iraq means that people who do not like the US being there but did not want to be associated with AZ or AQ could mean they feel less fear now.

Donger
06-09-2006, 12:20 PM
Nope, I didn't.

Apparently, he was not in good favor with many in AQs higher ranks, had pizzed off people within AQ in Iraq, and had undermined the legitimate insurgency of Iraqis within Iraq.

So, by using the words "the legitimate insurgency of Iraq" you mean that's how the Iraqis view it?

Calcountry
06-09-2006, 12:20 PM
The White House Brought the sign for them to put up.

I know that they deny that they "ordered" the carrier to put it up, but that's just another patent deception. What was the Carrier Staff supposed to do, say "Well, Mr. President we know you brought this banner and all, but we don't think it's right to put it up." Certainly the White House knew what they were doing and carefully orchestrated the way that the photo-op would look, flight suit and all. Very much like Cheney giving that campaign speech where he had to make sure that the Statue of Liberty was in the background.

Attributing the banner to the "carrier's mission" is an absurd post-hoc justification. Bush's handlers knew the message that it would convey to the public.Like Clinton didn't know what he was doing when he took the "I did not have sex with that women..." interview and shook his hand at the American people. :rolleyes:

Public relations is what it is all about. Your side has spared no expense at running that fugging thing out everytime a bomb blows up in Iraq and kills our troops. You all should be really fuggin pround of yourselves. Patriotic Americans all.

banyon
06-09-2006, 12:22 PM
Here's a good selection from administration officials:
"The problem is that they spiked the ball on the ten before they crossed the goal line."

Not to go all football on ya, ;) but that actually happened to a rookie Chiefs player in preseason one year.
Can’t seem to remember’is name though. :hmmm:

That's F'in Hilarious. :) Does anybody remember this Cretin's name? Was he a wideout? Does GoChiefs have footage of this stored away somewhere?

Calcountry
06-09-2006, 12:23 PM
Funny, you make it sound as if he were 'hit' by someone from the inside, like a Mafia hit. No, there is at least one al Qaeda in Iraq traitor now working for us. This is massive. This goes far beyond getting Hussein, IMO. If this person(s) knew the whereabouts of Zarqawi, imagine what else they know. We now know that, too.

Don't be surprised to see a few more Oops! in the coming weeks.Bill Clinton wouldn't have had enough probable cause to detain the traitor, and would have released him on his own recognizance. They also had a directive to not deal with thugs like that back in his term.

What the heck, it is an election year, might as well dive into the shit.

Donger
06-09-2006, 12:24 PM
FWIW, I think the death of AZ has the possibility of strengthening the insurgency. I think the loss of an AQ face in Iraq means that people who do not like the US being there but did not want to be associated with AZ or AQ could mean they feel less fear now.

Since I know you're not this stupid, I'll assume that you are merely trying to stir up shit. While others will no doubt assist, you'll get no such help from me.

patteeu
06-09-2006, 12:25 PM
Now that Zarquawi is dead......Everybody has likely weighed in it.....Can this go to DC

Politicos are chiming in.

Aren't you capable of staying out of this thread on your own? Click on something else, man. Stop blaming others for your lack of self control. "Politicos" have been chiming in from the first page of this thread.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 12:26 PM
So, by using the words "the legitimate insurgency of Iraq" you mean that's how the Iraqis view it?

Uh, I repeated what I saw Mike Boescher from NBC say.

Donger
06-09-2006, 12:27 PM
Uh, I repeated what I saw Mike Boescher from NBC say.

I see. So, Mike Boescher speaks for the Iraqis?

banyon
06-09-2006, 12:29 PM
Like Clinton didn't know what he was doing when he took the "I did not have sex with that women..." interview and shook his hand at the American people. :rolleyes:

Public relations is what it is all about. Your side has spared no expense at running that fugging thing out everytime a bomb blows up in Iraq and kills our troops. You all should be really fuggin pround of yourselves. Patriotic Americans all.

I guess you didn't bother to read any of my other posts in this thread?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3248724&postcount=113

And I never voted for, liked, or supported in any way the hypocrite Clintons, nor will I ever, so I'm not sure that example you gave gets you anywhere.

Way to play the silly patriotism card. Classily done. :rolleyes:

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 12:30 PM
Since I know you're not this stupid, I'll assume that you are merely trying to stir up shit. While others will no doubt assist, you'll get no such help from me.

I'm serious. I think AZ was a distraction for the home grown insurgents. They will not be sorry he's gone. Perhaps AQ will be weakened in Iraq and those who are serious about 'defending their country' can do so without seeming to align themselves with him or AQ.

penchief
06-09-2006, 12:30 PM
This is where I stopped reading your post.
:rolleyes:

Well, if you had continued you would know what I was trying to say. But since you don't seem to be interested in understanding the point how can your comments be taken seriously?

I said I was through discussing this offshoot of the topic so I am. I can only suggest that you read my entire post and, if necessary, the entire thread and you might understand the point of my comments.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 12:31 PM
I see. So, Mike Boescher speaks for the Iraqis?

Nope. But he's interviewed and spoken with more than you or I have in his four years there. Thus, I think he probably has a sense of what they feel.

FTR, I've seen the same thing said by a handful of other journalists who've been there as well.

Donger
06-09-2006, 12:33 PM
Nope. But he's interviewed and spoken with more than you or I have in his four years there. Thus, I think he probably has a sense of what they feel.

FTR, I've seen the same thing said by a handful of other journalists who've been there as well.

Did you read the link in 276?

chagrin
06-09-2006, 12:35 PM
I said I was through discussing this offshoot of the topic so I am. I can only suggest that you read my entire post and, if necessary, the entire thread and you might understand the point of my comments.

Yes, I agree - especially the parts where penchief here refuses to answer direct questioning and act superior, as only a lib can.

BIG_DADDY
06-09-2006, 12:40 PM
I am just glad he didn't die right away so he could fill some good old fasion pain before passing. It will be a shame if we don't turn his grave sight into a porta-potty.

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 12:42 PM
.... It will be a shame if we don't turn his grave sight into a porta-potty.

ROFLROFLROFL

Some terrorist sympathizer will be along shortly to chastise you though.....he.

Donger
06-09-2006, 12:46 PM
I am just glad he didn't die right away so he could fill some good old fasion pain before passing. It will be a shame if we don't turn his grave sight into a porta-potty.

IIRC, the preferred time frame between death and burial for Muslims is 24 hours, with a maximum of 72 hours.

I hope that we're being sensitive to this custom.

penchief
06-09-2006, 12:47 PM
Yes, I agree - especially the parts where penchief here refuses to answer direct questioning and act superior, as only a lib can.

Didn't I say to post my own words and I will defend them?

So what is the problem?

Is it that you can't twist my words to suit your intentions when you post them verbatim?

So stop with the slimy insinuations and get on with it, big man.

Donger
06-09-2006, 12:48 PM
Is it that you can't twist my words to suit your intentions when you post them per batim?

Huh?

bkkcoh
06-09-2006, 12:50 PM
ROFLROFLROFL

Some terrorist sympathizer will be along shortly to chastise you though.....he.

you must of missed meme

Cochise
06-09-2006, 12:51 PM
Certainly the home grown insurgents fighting occupation of their country could be considered a legitimate insurgeny by definition of the word.

By using the word legitimate you imply that there is nothing wrong with what they are doing - attacking civilians, blowing up roadside bombs to attack soliders.

Normally I just find you kooky or disturbing, but this is disgusting.

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 12:52 PM
you must of missed meme

Miss? :spock:

Like a raging case of syphyllis with open sores...:)

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 12:55 PM
Uh, I repeated what I saw Mike Boescher from NBC say.

So Mike Boescher is a terrorist sympathizing yellow belly coward, who apparently thinks thugs with guns and bombs should be able to do whatever they want--regardless of what the majority of Iraqis want?

And you agree? Wow. I'd like to say I'm surprised....

penchief
06-09-2006, 12:55 PM
By using the word legitimate you imply that there is nothing wrong with what they are doing - attacking civilians, blowing up roadside bombs to attack soliders.

Normally I just find you kooky or disturbing, but this is disgusting.

So what you're saying is that if insurgents resort to guerilla tactics they are officially terrorists and not insurgents, rebels, or revolutionaries?

I just want to get this on the record for posterity's sake. You know, if we have to go back and rewrite history it's a good thing to clear this up right now.

Donger
06-09-2006, 12:55 PM
By using the word legitimate you imply that there is nothing wrong with what they are doing - attacking civilians, blowing up roadside bombs to attack soliders.

Normally I just find you kooky or disturbing, but this is disgusting.

Unless I'm mistaken, she's saying that she understands why some Iraqis view and consider the insurgency against our forces to be legitimate.

I don't think she agrees with their actions, however.

Right, D-nise?

penchief
06-09-2006, 12:55 PM
Huh?

Huh?

Donger
06-09-2006, 12:57 PM
Huh?

What does "per batim" mean?

Cochise
06-09-2006, 12:59 PM
I don't think she agrees with their actions, however.

Right, D-nise?

I'm not as sure about that as you are.

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 01:00 PM
... I've seen the same thing said by a handful of other journalists who've been there as well.
Do some areas of Iraq, support the isurgency? Well, duh. But do the majority of Iraqis in the country? Hell no.

Considering the media you hold in esteem, it's not surprising you think that though. (Pre-emptive strike: I don't watch FOX or listen to right wing talk radio, try again.)

However, FWIW I've seen many more journalists who have been there, when asked directly about it.....if the Iraqi people support the insurgency? The answer is a quick, and unqualified, "No. Absolutely not."

Bootlegged
06-09-2006, 01:00 PM
What does "per batim" mean?


ROFL


What a dumbass.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 01:01 PM
By using the word legitimate you imply that there is nothing wrong with what they are doing - attacking civilians, blowing up roadside bombs to attack soliders.

Normally I just find you kooky or disturbing, but this is disgusting.


I find it troubling that some people can't freakin read.

Again, I was describing what a journalist described in his report this morning. He was making the differentiation between the insurgents and the terrorists and in doing so used the term 'legitimate insurgency' to describe the home grown resistance who are NOT AQ terrorists and who will not shed a tear at AZ death.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 01:03 PM
Do some areas of Iraq, support the isurgency? Well, duh. But do the majority of Iraqis in the country? Hell no.

Considering the media you hold in esteem, it's not surprising you think that though. (Pre-emptive strike: I don't watch FOX or listen to right wing talk radio, try again.)

However, FWIW I've seen many more journalists who have been there, when asked directly about it.....if the Iraqi people support the insurgency? The answer is a quick, and unqualified, "No. Absolutely not."

Actually, when the question has been asked if they support the insurgency, and not AQ, then the numbers have been quite close. Especially in certain areas of Iraq. It is when AQ is lumped in with the insurgency do people RIGHTLY say they do not support the insurgency because they do not support AQ.

Donger
06-09-2006, 01:03 PM
I find it troubling that some people can't freakin read.

Again, I was describing what a journalist described in his report this morning. He was making the differentiation between the insurgents and the terrorists and in doing so used the term 'legitimate insurgency' to describe the home grown resistance who are NOT AQ terrorists and who will not shed a tear at AZ death.

D-nise, straight question. I'd like a yes or no answer, if you can.

Do you support the actions of the Iraqi insurgency?

Bootlegged
06-09-2006, 01:04 PM
I find it troubling that some people can't freakin read.

Again, I was describing what a journalist described in his report this morning. He was making the differentiation between the insurgents and the terrorists and in doing so used the term 'legitimate insurgency' to describe the home grown resistance who are NOT AQ terrorists and who will not shed a tear at AZ death.


"A journalist" = "Al Jazeera"

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 01:05 PM
So what you're saying is that if insurgents resort to guerilla tactics they are officially terrorists and not insurgents, rebels, or revolutionaries?

I just want to get this on the record for posterity's sake. You know, if we have to go back and rewrite history it's a good thing to clear this up right now.

The difference between legitimate insurgency, and terrorists, in the minds of reasonable people is....do they represent the majority of people in that country? In Revolutionary America....at least by 1776, our insurgency against Britain was legitimate. The CURRENT insurgency in Iraq, lacks popular majority support in the nation as a whole....at this time.

That could change. However, the Iraqi insurency lacks credibility, because it does not enjoy wide-spread majority support.....as such, they are, by definition, terrrorists.

To think otherwise, is to spit in the face of freedom loving Iraqis who wish for peace, a stable government, and a brighter future.

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 01:06 PM
Actually, when the question has been asked if they support the insurgency, and not AQ, then the numbers have been quite close. Especially in certain areas of Iraq. It is when AQ is lumped in with the insurgency do people RIGHTLY say they do not support the insurgency because they do not support AQ.
In certain "areas" of Iraq, yes. I've already said you are right.

In Iraq, at large? No. And it's not even really close.

penchief
06-09-2006, 01:07 PM
What does "per batim" mean?

Good catch. I meant verbatim (word for word). I got carried away trying to use a word that I haven't used very often and didn't use it properly.

I'm guilty of ignorance, too.

My point was that if he intends to accuse me of deflection I told him I would defend my own words but not his interpretation of them.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 01:07 PM
The difference between legitimate insurgency, and terrorists, in the minds of reasonable people is....do they represent the majority of people in that country? In Revolutionary America....at least by 1776, our insurgency against Britain was legitimate. The CURRENT insurgency in Iraq, lacks popular majority support in the nation as a whole....at this time.

That could change. However, the Iraqi insurency lacks credibility, because it does not enjoy wide-spread majority support.....as such, they are, by definition, terrrorists.

To think otherwise, is to spit in the face of freedom loving Iraqis who wish for peace, a stable government, and a brighter future.

Uh, you are on a roll and thus I hate to try to dissuade you from your disillusion but ALL insurgencies started out as a minority view at some point. That is the nature of the beast.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 01:08 PM
In certain "areas" of Iraq, yes. I've already said you are right.

In Iraq, at large? No. And it's not even really close.

Not in the Kurdish areas. But in the Shiite areas there is support and in the Sunni areas there is widespread support. Again, for the insurgency and not AQ.

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 01:09 PM
D-nise, straight question. I'd like a yes or no answer, if you can.

Do you support the actions of the Iraqi insurgency?

Heh....heh.....

Squiggle, sguiggle.....squirm, squirm....

"Oh, damn....look at the time....I've got a soccer game to take my son to. See you RWNJs later! TTFN." :huh:


:)

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 01:11 PM
Uh, you are on a roll and thus I hate to try to dissuade you from your disillusion but ALL insurgencies started out as a minority view at some point. That is the nature of the beast.And, until an insurgency reaches critical mass.....majority support of citizens across the country....it is not, legitimate; it is a terrorist group.

Ask Hamas. :)

Now we could, rationally talk about partitioning Iraq....but that is entirely another conversation.

Donger
06-09-2006, 01:12 PM
Heh....heh.....

Squiggle, sguiggle.....squirm, squirm....

"Oh, damn....look at the time....I've got a soccer game to take my son to. See you RWNJs later! TTFN." :huh:


:)

You know, I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt. I'd imagine that 99.9% of Americans would just give an unqualified "No."

go bowe
06-09-2006, 01:12 PM
no way! this has been a great thread. a lot more people participated in this than would have if it had been started in/moved to DC.i agree with this 1000%...

even having a visible subforum link in the lounge would help make the "alternative ghetto" more accessible to those who might be interested in posting on a thread...

sorta like this thread, with more posters than usual participating?

i think it's a good thing, and obviously people are interested in posting on this thread...

stevieray
06-09-2006, 01:13 PM
You know, I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt. I'd imagine that 99.9% of Americans would just give an unqualified "No."

That's more than she gives the US.

Duck Dog
06-09-2006, 01:14 PM
The difference between legitimate insurgency, and terrorists, in the minds of reasonable people is....do they represent the majority of people in that country? In Revolutionary America....at least by 1776, our insurgency against Britain was legitimate. The CURRENT insurgency in Iraq, lacks popular majority support in the nation as a whole....at this time.

That could change. However, the Iraqi insurency lacks credibility, because it does not enjoy wide-spread majority support.....as such, they are, by definition, terrrorists.

To think otherwise, is to spit in the face of freedom loving Iraqis who wish for peace, a stable government, and a brighter future.

Excellent post.

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 01:14 PM
You know, I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt. I'd imagine that 99.9% of Americans would just give an unqualified "No."

I would too. But she'll do one of three things, if experience is any indication:

a. leave the conversation.
b. ignore the question.
c. evade a direct answer.

I'm bettin' "a."

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 01:14 PM
And, until an insurgency reaches critical mass.....majority support of citizens across the country....it is not, legitimate; it is a terrorist group.

Ask Hamas. :)

Now we could, rationally talk about partitioning Iraq....but that is an entirely other conversation.

Uh, Hamas swept the last Palestinian election and have the majority of seats in the parliament.

Thank you for the excellent example of an minority insurgency gaining popular support.

go bowe
06-09-2006, 01:15 PM
IIRC, the preferred time frame between death and burial for Muslims is 24 hours, with a maximum of 72 hours.

I hope that we're being sensitive to this custom.how long did it take them to plant uday and coosay?

my guess is that when we finally release the body, it will be taken to jordan for burial in the family plot...

but then again, jordan might not let his body come into jordan...

this will be an interesting subplot...

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 01:19 PM
D-nise, straight question. I'd like a yes or no answer, if you can.

Do you support the actions of the Iraqi insurgency?

There is no yes or no answer.

No, I don't like that their actions are killing Americans. That is why I don't want American troops there.

Yes, I believe it's their right as a sovereign nation to do so. We are on their soil.

I'd like to think if it were another country on our soil that we'd have people fighting their presence here as well. I pray we do. Certainly that would be bad for the soldiers of the nation who's invaded but it would be OUR RIGHT as a sovereign country. I certainly wouldn't deny other sovereign people's the same right especially in the name of democracy.

penchief
06-09-2006, 01:20 PM
The difference between legitimate insurgency, and terrorists, in the minds of reasonable people is....do they represent the majority of people in that country? In Revolutionary America....at least by 1776, our insurgency against Britain was legitimate. The CURRENT insurgency in Iraq, lacks popular majority support in the nation as a whole....at this time.

That could change. However, the Iraqi insurency lacks credibility, because it does not enjoy wide-spread majority support.....as such, they are, by definition, terrrorists.

To think otherwise, is to spit in the face of freedom loving Iraqis who wish for peace, a stable government, and a brighter future.

So what you're saying is that the rigteousness or unrighteousness of a cause does not determine whether one is a terrorist or a revolutionary?

You are saying that the degree of popular support will determine whether one who may have a righteous cause is a rebel or a terrorist?

Granted, the American Revolutionary War did maintain a level of popular support throughout (especially after France entered the fray and gave us a bit more hope). Yet, it doesn't necessarily have to be the case considering that many people of impoverished nations don't have the benefit of understanding the strife that surrounds them. Especially when they have only known dictatorship. To them, peace may be more desirable than conflict when they have never known prosperity.

Your thought is an ideal worthy of contemplation but also seems more complicated than that when all factors are considered.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 01:22 PM
So what you're saying is that the rigteousness or unrighteousness of a cause does not determine whether one is a terrorist or a revolutionary?

You are saying that the degree of popular support will determine whether one who may have a righteous cause is a rebel or a terrorist?

Yours thought is an ideal worthy of contemplation but also one that seems more complicated than that when all factors are considered.

I think he's confused. The example he chose completely undermined his own argument...

it IS hot today. Perhaps his air conditioning is not working. :p

Donger
06-09-2006, 01:24 PM
There is no yes or no answer.

No, I don't like that their actions are killing Americans. That is why I don't want American troops there.

Yes, I believe it's their right as a sovereign nation to do so. We are on their soil.

I'd like to think if it were another country on our soil that we'd have people fighting their presence here as well. I pray we do. Certainly that would be bad for the soldiers of the nation who's invaded but it would be OUR RIGHT as a sovereign country. I certainly wouldn't deny other sovereign people's the same right especially in the name of democracy.

I understand the reason for their resistance and I agree that the same would happen if we were invaded.

But, I fail to see how you can fail to simply say, "No, I don't support the actions of the insurgency."

That really is reprehensible.

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 01:24 PM
Uh, Hamas swept the last Palestinian election and have the majority of seats in the parliament.

Thank you for the excellent example of an minority insurgency gaining popular support.

You are STILL missing the point...

Hamas, WAS (many would say, still is) a terrorist organization.

Hamas, IS now (in the minds of many at least) a legitimate insurgency, because of their election.

I realize it's convenient for you to blurr the lines between the two, but is it too much to ask for you to be honest about it.

Duck Dog
06-09-2006, 01:25 PM
There is no yes or no answer.

No, I don't like that their actions are killing Americans.

Yes, I believe it's their right as a sovereign nation to do so. We are on their soil.

I'd like to think if it were another country on our soil that we'd have people fighting their presence here as well. I pray we do. Certainly that would be bad for the soldiers of the nation who's invaded but it would be OUR RIGHT as a sovereign country. I certainly wouldn't deny other sovereign people's the same right especially in the name of democracy.


The problem with this excuss (I can't call it an analogy) is if we were invaded, the reasons wouldn't include giving us freedom. No one needs to save us from a violent dictatorship hell bent on destruction. Who do think your 'legitiment' insurgence are? They are Bathists...all ex-Saddam men.

go bowe
06-09-2006, 01:27 PM
The difference between legitimate insurgency, and terrorists, in the minds of reasonable people is....do they represent the majority of people in that country? In Revolutionary America....at least by 1776, our insurgency against Britain was legitimate. The CURRENT insurgency in Iraq, lacks popular majority support in the nation as a whole....at this time.

That could change. However, the Iraqi insurency lacks credibility, because it does not enjoy wide-spread majority support.....as such, they are, by definition, terrrorists.

To think otherwise, is to spit in the face of freedom loving Iraqis who wish for peace, a stable government, and a brighter future.i guess i'll do a little spitting then...

of course the majority in the country doesn't support the insurgency...

as is often the case, the insurgency is limited to a miniority group, the sunni...

within that group, there are obviously supporters of the insurgency and i'm quite sure that in their minds, the insurgency is legititimate...

and i don't agree that because the insurgency lacks support in the other (majority) ethnic groups, the are by definition terrorists...

terrorists are people who use indiscriminate violence to kill or injure as many innocent (non-combatant) people as possible for a presumed political purpose...

insurgents who use conventional weapons against an occupying force (and not directed at the general populace) are not terrorists at all...

our bitter enemies to be sure, but not terrorists unless they employ terror against the general population, as aq does...

so far as i know, the suicide bombers all come from the terrorists in aq...

ied's are more likely the work of insurgents, not terrorists...

and no, i would not send my children to another country if the draft is reinstated (i would however recommend that they enlist in the air force or navy instead of the army)...

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 01:27 PM
I think he's confused. The example he chose completely undermined his own argument...

it IS hot today. Perhaps his air conditioning is not working. :p
No, you are simply REFUSING to acknowledge an important distinction between Hamas THEN (and still, in the minds of some), and Hamas NOW....after a legitimizing election took place.

Not to say they will keep their legitimacy. If they continue to win elections, they are legitimate. If they begin to lose elections, and resort to the tactics of the past....they will lose any legitimacy AND credibility that they may now have achieved.

Logical
06-09-2006, 01:27 PM
you don't know much about SF's mission do you?

that's a monumental task you would be expecting of them. talk about putting our forces in harms way... i don't think you'd find ANY SF teams willing to undertake a mission of that size without the (minimal) supporting forces they have available NOW.

if anything there should be MORE troops over there for "occupational" duties.

Duh, I mean we should not be occupying Iraq. We should have left after we captured Saddam and let them determine what they want to do with their country. Let special forces supplemented by AF or Navy based outside of Iraq for bombing and surveillance support work the capture/kill of AQ now in Iraq.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 01:28 PM
The problem with this excuss (I can't call it an analogy) is if we were invaded, the reasons wouldn't include giving us freedom. No one needs to save us from a violent dictatorship hell bent on destruction. Who do think your 'legitiment' insurgence are? They are Bathists...all ex-Saddam men.

Perhaps it would be a nation arguing and believing their version of 'freedom' was greater than ours.

Again, I believe that people within our country would resist. And I extend that right to others in their homelands.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 01:31 PM
You are STILL missing the point...

Hamas, WAS (many would say, still is) a terrorist organization.

Hamas, IS now (in the minds of many at least) a legitimate insurgency, because of their election.

I realize it's convenient for you to blurr the lines between the two, but is it too much to ask for you to be honest about it.

You have this backwards. Hamas was an insurgency. Hamas has terror as a weapon in their arsenal. Hamas appealed to the masses and gained popular support inspite of, not because of, their terrorist element. Hamas now is considered by the people they represent to be legitimate representatives of them.

Hamas' insurgency status did not happen because of the election but much before the election. The election was merely Hamas' attempt to play mainstream while still dabbling in extreme, terrorism.

go bowe
06-09-2006, 01:32 PM
And, until an insurgency reaches critical mass.....majority support of citizens across the country....it is not, legitimate; it is a terrorist group.

Ask Hamas. :)

Now we could, rationally talk about partitioning Iraq....but that is entirely another conversation.i've already said why i don't agree that not having majority support = terrorist... it does not necessarily, it depends on the tactics used, not how much support they have that defines terrorists...

hamas is still a terrorist group...

they are a terrorist group representing a majority of the palestinian population, but they are still a terrorist group (which shows you again that your characterization of what makes a terrorist group is wrong)...

partition will not happen in iraq, there are too many important players/interests that would be damaged if that were to happen...

Donger
06-09-2006, 01:33 PM
Again, I believe that people within our country would resist. And I extend that right to others in their homelands.

Of course they have the right. But, understanding their motivation and supporting their actions are mutually exclusive. You CAN understand without being supportive of their actions.

The fact you don't is sickening, considering their targets are American troops.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 01:34 PM
No, you are simply REFUSING to acknowledge an important distinction between Hamas THEN (and still, in the minds of some), and Hamas NOW....after a legitimizing election took place.

Not to say they will keep their legitimacy. If they continue to win elections, they are legitimate. If they begin to lose elections, and resort to the tactics of the past....they will lose any legitimacy AND credibility that they may now have achieved.


Sorry, it is you who is refusing to acknowledge.

Cochise
06-09-2006, 01:35 PM
Of course they have the right. But, understanding their motivation and supporting their actions are mutually exclusive. You CAN understand without being supportive of their actions.

The fact you don't is sickening, considering their targets are American troops.

This is only the part she is willing to admit to on this message board. God knows what she actually is thinking when some bad news comes about an IED or something. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a 'step in the right direction' attitude.

Logical
06-09-2006, 01:35 PM
D-nise, straight question. I'd like a yes or no answer, if you can.

Do you support the actions of the Iraqi insurgency?

I think that honest native Iraqi people (not AQ who are outsiders) who are trying to have the government turn out the way they want it, much like our revolutionary leaders are doing what they feel is best for their country. I support he idea we should withdraw and let the people in the country determine their future and not support any side until that has happened, just provide aid to help them rebuild their infrastructure.

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 01:36 PM
i guess i'll do a little spitting then...

of course the majority in the country doesn't support the insurgency...

as is often the case, the insurgency is limited to a miniority group, the sunni...

within that group, there are obviously supporters of the insurgency and i'm quite sure that in their minds, the insurgency is legititimate...

and i don't agree that because the insurgency lacks support in the other (majority) ethnic groups, the are by definition terrorists...

terrorists are people who use indiscriminate violence to kill or injure as many innocent (non-combatant) people as possible for a presumed political purpose...

insurgents who use conventional weapons against an occupying force (and not directed at the general populace) are not terrorists at all...

our bitter enemies to be sure, but not terrorists unless they employ terror against the general population, as aq does...

so far as i know, the suicide bombers all come from the terrorists in aq...

ied's are more likely the work of insurgents, not terrorists...

and no, i would not send my children to another country if the draft is reinstated (i would however recommend that they enlist in the air force or navy instead of the army)...

I agree with you, John.

However, in this particular case.....the insurgency in Iraq, the line between the illegitimate insurgency and terrorist group has been blurred. They've become, largely one in the same.

To be clear, I view insurgencies (in general,) as in one of three classes:

1. Legitimate insurgencies (blessed with popular support) -- America in 1776
2. Illegitimate insurgencies (no majority support) -- Communist Chinese, Hamas today
3. Terrorist insurgencies (no majority support, use terrorist tactics) -- Communist Chinese, Hamas, and the current Iraqi Insurgency.

Many insurgent groups engage in terrorist activities. Legitimacy, to my way of thinking, is determined based on whether a society endorses the insurgents and their actions. JMHO.

Duck Dog
06-09-2006, 01:36 PM
Perhaps it would be a nation arguing and believing their version of 'freedom' was greater than ours.

Again, I believe that people within our country would resist. And I extend that right to others in their homelands.


You continue to speak in hyperbole as if it has any real meaning. You still need to answer Dongers question.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 01:37 PM
Of course they have the right. But, understanding their motivation and supporting their actions are mutually exclusive. You CAN understand without being supportive of their actions.

The fact you don't is sickening, considering their targets are American troops.

I agree with this when it comes to the terrorists using the insurgency as a REASON to kill American troops.

However, I have a hard time with that when it is Average Ali defending his country against what he sees as an unwanted and illegal occupation of his land. He sees his country being evaded and the American soldiers as the enemy. Unfortunately for us, he's doing what we'd expect every American worth their salt to do here on this land.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 01:38 PM
You continue to speak in hyperbole as if it has any real meaning. You still need to answer Dongers question.

I answered his question. The fact that you don't LIKE my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer it.

Logical
06-09-2006, 01:38 PM
...

To think otherwise, is to spit in the face of freedom loving Iraqis who wish for peace, a stable government, and a brighter future.

Or it is to realize these people have only known life at the point of a gun their entire lives and will say what they think their occupier want them to say in the face of what they perceive as a threat (yes US soldiers are probably perceived as a threat not as freedom enablers). If someone was occupying the US tomorrow from the most benevolent country in the world we would still consider them oppressors and would not believe they were doing something for our benefit, that is just human nature.

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 01:38 PM
You have this backwards. Hamas was an insurgency. Hamas has terror as a weapon in their arsenal. Hamas appealed to the masses and gained popular support inspite of, not because of, their terrorist element. Hamas now is considered by the people they represent to be legitimate representatives of them.

Hamas' insurgency status did not happen because of the election but much before the election. The election was merely Hamas' attempt to play mainstream while still dabbling in extreme, terrorism.

:spock:

I'm gonna quote that before she retracts this utter garbage....

ROFL

Duck Dog
06-09-2006, 01:39 PM
I think that honest native Iraqi people (not AQ who are outsiders) who are trying to have the government turn out the way they want it, much like our revolutionary leaders are doing what they feel is best for their country. I support he idea we should withdraw and let the people in the country determine their future and not support any side until that has happened, just provide aid to help them rebuild their infrastructure.


Honost native Iraqi people (insurgence) = Saddams brutal henchmen.

go bowe
06-09-2006, 01:39 PM
You are STILL missing the point...

Hamas, WAS (many would say, still is) a terrorist organization.

Hamas, IS now (in the minds of many at least) a legitimate insurgency, because of their election.

I realize it's convenient for you to blurr the lines between the two, but is it too much to ask for you to be honest about it.honest = agreeing with your imagined minds of many?

no thanks...

hamas is not a legitimate insurgency...

when they are attacking israel (which they haven't actually done in awhile, iirc), they use suicide bombers to attack noncombatants, that's terrorism...

what hamas is now is also a legitimate government which we don't seem to want to recognize (of course they don't want to recognize israel either)...

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 01:41 PM
I agree with you, John.

However, in this particular case.....the insurgency in Iraq, the line between the illegitimate insurgency and terrorist group has been blurred. They've become, largely one in the same.


They've become 'one in the same' because the WH took great pains to paint them as such early on when they were HOPING such was true. Then, they came to realize that of the estimated 20k+ insurgents in the country less than 10% were foreign born AQ.

Now, if you listen closely their rhetoric has completely changed. Not because they've decided to be more honest. Rather, the numbers on the ground cannot back up their claim of the insurgency being terrorists.

Donger
06-09-2006, 01:41 PM
I agree with this when it comes to the terrorists using the insurgency as a REASON to kill American troops.

However, I have a hard time with that when it is Average Ali defending his country against what he sees as an unwanted and illegal occupation of his land. He sees his country being evaded and the American soldiers as the enemy. Unfortunately for us, he's doing what we'd expect every American worth their salt to do here on this land.

We are talking about you, D-nise, and your beliefs.

I'm beginning to understand why some here loathe you with such intensity. I saw a little part of it during Katrina, when you grotesquely brought up politics while Americans were being drowned.

And, now, this. I cannot believe that ANY American would not come out and say that, "No, of course I don't support the actions of the Iraqi insurgency." You can understand their actions without supporting them.

You truly are a despicable person.

Go f*ck yourself, permanently.

Logical
06-09-2006, 01:42 PM
Uh, you are on a roll and thus I hate to try to dissuade you from your disillusion but ALL insurgencies started out as a minority view at some point. That is the nature of the beast.

This is correct, as much as some people would like to deny it. People tend to support the status quo over change it takes progress for change to be adopted as the favorite position for the majority. Especially in a country as factionally divided as Iraq.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 01:42 PM
:spock:

I'm gonna quote that before she retracts this utter garbage....

ROFL

There is nothing to retract. Hamas was an insurgent movement AGAINST the PLO.

penchief
06-09-2006, 01:43 PM
i guess i'll do a little spitting then...

of course the majority in the country doesn't support the insurgency...

as is often the case, the insurgency is limited to a miniority group, the sunni...

within that group, there are obviously supporters of the insurgency and i'm quite sure that in their minds, the insurgency is legititimate...

and i don't agree that because the insurgency lacks support in the other (majority) ethnic groups, the are by definition terrorists...

terrorists are people who use indiscriminate violence to kill or injure as many innocent (non-combatant) people as possible for a presumed political purpose...

insurgents who use conventional weapons against an occupying force (and not directed at the general populace) are not terrorists at all...

our bitter enemies to be sure, but not terrorists unless they employ terror against the general population, as aq does...

so far as i know, the suicide bombers all come from the terrorists in aq...

ied's are more likely the work of insurgents, not terrorists...

and no, i would not send my children to another country if the draft is reinstated (i would however recommend that they enlist in the air force or navy instead of the army)...

I appreciate your even-handed approach to the political debates which take place on this board. However, if I were to make a suggestion it would be, "forget the navy." The navy is involved in logistics. Since the marines (a branch of the navy) are combat units, the navy is usually deployed in combat zones regularly. And more frequently since the turnover time for rotations has been shortened. Wherever marines are employed the navy is also employed. Navy medics are routinely in the field with marines. Navy ships that deploy marines are routine targets.

I would advocate that we all do our part to defend this country, however, since we are currently fighting a war of choice in order to satisfy the desire of the power-elite I feel compelled to offer my suggestions related to your concerns about your family. Take it for it's worth to you.

Duck Dog
06-09-2006, 01:43 PM
There is no yes or no answer.

No, I don't like that their actions are killing Americans. That is why I don't want American troops there.

Yes, I believe it's their right as a sovereign nation to do so. We are on their soil.

I'd like to think if it were another country on our soil that we'd have people fighting their presence here as well. I pray we do. Certainly that would be bad for the soldiers of the nation who's invaded but it would be OUR RIGHT as a sovereign country. I certainly wouldn't deny other sovereign people's the same right especially in the name of democracy.


That's a pretty straight forward question that very few Americans would have trouble answering. You are a real gunt for having this opinion.

go bowe
06-09-2006, 01:43 PM
No, you are simply REFUSING to acknowledge an important distinction between Hamas THEN (and still, in the minds of some), and Hamas NOW....after a legitimizing election took place.

Not to say they will keep their legitimacy. If they continue to win elections, they are legitimate. If they begin to lose elections, and resort to the tactics of the past....they will lose any legitimacy AND credibility that they may now have achieved.no no no...

if hamas reverts to it's terrorist tactics, then it will be both a legitimate government and a terrorist organization...

but that won't make it a legitimate terrorist organization...

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 01:45 PM
I agree with this when it comes to the terrorists using the insurgency as a REASON to kill American troops.

However, I have a hard time with that when it is Average Ali defending his country against what he sees as an unwanted and illegal occupation of his land. He sees his country being evaded and the American soldiers as the enemy. Unfortunately for us, he's doing what we'd expect every American worth their salt to do here on this land.You are right....

Even those cowardly Nazi-French killed and terrorized Allied soldiers who "invaded" and "occupied" France following D-Day.....:rolleyes:

And who can forget the horrendous American casualities of the seven year "occupation" of Japan, those brave Japanese Militarist-Fascists who used terrorist tactics to drive out the "occupation forces...." :shake:

The INSURGENCY is the equivalent of the NAZIS or the MILITARISTS in post-WWII Europe and Japan....they were defeated; they lost. And, now, they are lashing back in the only way they can.....so, they don't like losing. So what? Who cares? It's just a matter of time.....before the Iraqi insurgents go the way of the Nazis and the Militarists.

For Pete's sake, how twisted do you have to be to NOT see that? :cuss:

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 01:45 PM
We are talking about you, D-nise, and your beliefs.

I'm beginning to understand why some here loathe you with such intensity. I saw a little part of it during Katrina, when you grotesquely brought up politics while Americans were being drowned.

And, now, this. I cannot believe that ANY American would not come out and say that, "No, of course I don't support the actions of the Iraqi insurgency." You can understand their actions without supporting them.

You truly are a despicable person.

Go f*ck yourself, permanently.

I don't support the actions of the insurgency. I guess I support their rights. Is that better?

It is unfortunate unintended consequence that it is American soliders dying because Iraqis are exercising their right to protect their homeland. I hate the consequences of their actions but believe they have the right to do them.

Logical
06-09-2006, 01:46 PM
There is no yes or no answer.

No, I don't like that their actions are killing Americans. That is why I don't want American troops there.

Yes, I believe it's their right as a sovereign nation to do so. We are on their soil.

I'd like to think if it were another country on our soil that we'd have people fighting their presence here as well. I pray we do. Certainly that would be bad for the soldiers of the nation who's invaded but it would be OUR RIGHT as a sovereign country. I certainly wouldn't deny other sovereign people's the same right especially in the name of democracy.:clap: Some people say you cannot provide a clear statement, I used to be among them. This post is a perfectly clear and rationale answer. Well done.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 01:47 PM
That's a pretty straight forward question that very few Americans would have trouble answering. You are a real gunt for having this opinion.

No, I'm a person who believes in allowing others to have the same rights as I do even if sometimes that right isn't what I'd want them to have OR exercise.

Donger
06-09-2006, 01:48 PM
I don't support the actions of the insurgency. I guess I support their rights. Is that better?

No, it isn't. They are the enemy of our troops. You support the intentions of our enemies? That's just peachy.

Oh, I see. You changed "I support their intentions" to "I guess I support their rights." Cute, but very little difference.

Bootlegged
06-09-2006, 01:49 PM
Beautiful. It's a full-on DC FEST now!!!!


DC in the main lounge
DC in the main lounge
you don't have to bitch and scrounge
cause you're arguing in the main lounge

Logical
06-09-2006, 01:50 PM
i guess i'll do a little spitting then...

of course the majority in the country doesn't support the insurgency...

as is often the case, the insurgency is limited to a miniority group, the sunni...

within that group, there are obviously supporters of the insurgency and i'm quite sure that in their minds, the insurgency is legititimate...

and i don't agree that because the insurgency lacks support in the other (majority) ethnic groups, the are by definition terrorists...

terrorists are people who use indiscriminate violence to kill or injure as many innocent (non-combatant) people as possible for a presumed political purpose...

insurgents who use conventional weapons against an occupying force (and not directed at the general populace) are not terrorists at all...

our bitter enemies to be sure, but not terrorists unless they employ terror against the general population, as aq does...

so far as i know, the suicide bombers all come from the terrorists in aq...

ied's are more likely the work of insurgents, not terrorists...

and no, i would not send my children to another country if the draft is reinstated (i would however recommend that they enlist in the air force or navy instead of the army)...

As I would expect a perfect response.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 01:50 PM
No, it isn't. They are the enemy of our troops. You support the intentions of our enemies? That's just peachy.

Oh, I see. You changed "I support their intentions" to "I guess I support their rights." Cute, but very little difference.

Because their intentions are to kill Americans. I can't support that.

I can support support their right to defend their country. And sometimes an unintended consequence of that defense is the killing of the 'offender.' Unfortunately for us, in their view, it's our fellow Americans. That is why I don't want us there.

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 01:51 PM
This is correct, as much as some people would like to deny it. People tend to support the status quo over change it takes progress for change to be adopted as the favorite position for the majority. Especially in a country as factionally divided as Iraq.

No. Wrong.

An insurgency is a revolt against a government. Period.

A legitimate insurgency has popular support; an illegitimate insurgency does NOT have popular support. Either may engage in terrorists actions.

shakesthecat
06-09-2006, 01:52 PM
Beautiful. It's a full-on DC FEST now!!!!


DC in the main lounge
DC in the main lounge
you don't have to bitch and scrounge
cause you're arguing in the main lounge


At least it isn't the same 4 or 5 people having the same pointless agruement they've been having for 6 years now.

Oh wait, that's exactly what it is.

Donger
06-09-2006, 01:53 PM
Because their intentions are to kill Americans. I can't support that.

I can support support their right to defend their country. And sometimes an unintended consequence of that defense is the killing of the offender. Unfortunately for us, it's our fellow Americans. That is why I don't want us there.

Interesting. That was you're initial response. I assume you wrote it. Forgive me if I don't believe that you're initial response was/is the truth.

Let the record show that D-nise supports the right of Iraqi insurgents to kill Americans.

Is that a fair and accurate statement?

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 01:53 PM
No. Wrong.

An insurgency is a revolt against a government. Period.

A legitimate insurgency has popular support; an illegitimate insurgency does NOT have popular support. Either may engage in terrorists actions.

The PLO was a government in the Palestinian territories.

The US is the government running the country in Iraq right now. They appointed the interim government which was in power when the insurgency began. Since then there have been elections that the insurgency views are illegitimate because they were done while under occupation. Hence, the insurgency is fighting an occupying force who's in control of the government.

go bowe
06-09-2006, 01:53 PM
I agree with you, John.

However, in this particular case.....the insurgency in Iraq, the line between the illegitimate insurgency and terrorist group has been blurred. They've become, largely one in the same.

To be clear, I view insurgencies (in general,) as in one of three classes:

1. Legitimate insurgencies (blessed with popular support) -- America in 1776
2. Illegitimate insurgencies (no majority support) -- Communist Chinese, Hamas today
3. Terrorist insurgencies (no majority support, use terrorist tactics) -- Communist Chinese, Hamas, and the current Iraqi Insurgency.

Many insurgent groups engage in terrorist activities. Legitimacy, to my way of thinking, is determined based on whether a society endorses the insurgents and their actions. JMHO.didn't you say lack of majority support = terrorist?...And, until an insurgency reaches critical mass.....majority support of citizens across the country....it is not, legitimate; it is a terrorist group.
wether or not a group is terrorist has nothing to do with whether or not they're "legitimate" and everything to do with the tactics they employ to further their political goals...

if hamas takes up terror again, it will not be a legitimate insurgency despite it's majority support, it will be terrorism committed by a legitimate government...

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 01:55 PM
Interesting. That was you're initial response. I assume you wrote it. Forgive me if I don't believe that you're initial response was/is the truth.

Let the record show that D-nise supports the right of Iraqi insurgents to kill Americans.

Is that a fair and accurate statement?

No, it was not my initial response. It was a response I wrote without finishing my sentence.

I was trying to address your question and use your terminology and realized I could not apply it to my view because it's NOT MY VIEW. I almost fell for your trap...

caught myself.

And I don't support the rights of Iraqi insurgents to kill Americans. I support their right to defend their country against whomever they feel is illegally occupying it. Unfortunately, in this case it is Americans.

My view that they have rights doesn't cease because it's Americans. What kind of rights, freedoms, sovereignty is that?

Cochise
06-09-2006, 01:55 PM
It is unfortunate unintended consequence that it is American soliders dying because Iraqis are exercising their right to protect their homeland.

You're a wretched human being. :shake:

Logical
06-09-2006, 01:55 PM
Honost native Iraqi people (insurgence) = Saddams brutal henchmen.

If you believe that is the only insurgents you are sadly mistaken. Some are of the minority religious sects who are not in their opinion getting a fair shake in what is forming. Saddam's henchman came from the majority religious sect.

Duck Dog
06-09-2006, 01:55 PM
No, I'm a person who believes in allowing others to have the same rights as I do even if sometimes that right isn't what I'd want them to have OR exercise.


WOW, I wish I could say I am surprised. The insugence have the right to surrender or die, you asshole. They are entitled to shit. They are ex-Saddam henchmen who lost a fuc kin g battle and are grasping at last straws by IEDing our troops who are trying to make life better for he MAJORITY of Iraqis. You can not support both sides.

You and Logicdick can GFY's. You're both a disgrace.

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 01:55 PM
:clap: Some people say you cannot provide a clear statement, I used to be among them. This post is a perfectly clear and rationale answer. Well done.

So, just to be clear, you applaud her statement, which was....

"I'd like to think if it were another country on our soil that we'd have people fighting their presence here as well. I pray we do. "

So, if the French or Japanese citizens (even a small group--some who likely had supported Nazi or Militarist regimes) had engaged in terrorist actions and killings of U.S. and other Allied soldiers in the aftermath of WW II, you think that would have been hunky dory and legitimate? :hmmm:

Duck Dog
06-09-2006, 01:56 PM
If you believe that is the only insurgents you are sadly mistaken. Some are of the minority religious sects who are not in their opinion getting a fair shake in what is forming. Saddam's henchman came from the majority religious sect.


Minority religious sects = Muslim douchbag terrorists. Nice.

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 01:57 PM
didn't you say lack of majority support = terrorist?wether or not a group is terrorist has nothing to do with whether or not their "legitimate" and everything to do with the tactics they employ to further their political goals....
In Iraq, those engage in terrorism, lack popular backing.....from what I see and know.

I was speaking specifically, of the current situation in Iraq.

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 01:59 PM
You are right....

Even those cowardly Nazi-French killed and terrorized Allied soldiers who "invaded" and "occupied" France following D-Day.....:rolleyes:

And who can forget the horrendous American casualities of the seven year "occupation" of Japan, those brave Japanese Militarist-Fascists who used terrorist tactics to drive out the "occupation forces...." :shake:

The INSURGENCY is the equivalent of the NAZIS or the MILITARISTS in post-WWII Europe and Japan....they were defeated; they lost. And, now, they are lashing back in the only way they can.....so, they don't like losing. So what? Who cares? It's just a matter of time.....before the Iraqi insurgents go the way of the Nazis and the Militarists.

For Pete's sake, how twisted do you have to be to NOT see that? :cuss:

Uh-huh.....THAT's what I thought. Yo. :harumph:

stevieray
06-09-2006, 01:59 PM
At least it isn't the same 4 or 5 people having the same pointless agruement they've been having for 6 years now.

Oh wait, that's exactly what it is.

If anything it shows "noobs" why pigskin and the planet were created, why pigskin died and the main reason the dc forum was created here.

Duck Dog
06-09-2006, 02:01 PM
If anything it shows noobs why pigskin and the planet were created, why pigskin died and the main reason the dc forum was created here.


Exaclty. All because of one anti-American, pro-terrorist bitch that won't die.

memyselfI
06-09-2006, 02:04 PM
WOW, I wish I could say I am surprised. The insugence have the right to surrender or die, you asshole. They are entitled to shit. They are ex-Saddam henchmen .

Some are, yes.

But what you fail to understand is that SH was a secular leader. Many of the people fighting as insurgents are NOT his supporters. They are fighting a westernized/pro-Israeli government being established on their land. Some of them want it to be a Muslim country, others would like it to be socialist, some what it to be Sunni, some want it to be Shiite, others would like it to be secular, etc.

The insurgency in Iraq is made up of MANY factions of people. That is why it is so hard to defeat. That is also why it is so hard to control because civil war lies waiting beneath it.

The one commonality the insurgency has is that they have a common enemy in the coalition forces on their land. When they leave any sort of cooperation or tolerance will be gone and that energy will be turned against one another.

Inspector
06-09-2006, 02:06 PM
There is no yes or no answer.

No, I don't like that their actions are killing Americans. That is why I don't want American troops there.

Yes, I believe it's their right as a sovereign nation to do so. We are on their soil.

I'd like to think if it were another country on our soil that we'd have people fighting their presence here as well. I pray we do. Certainly that would be bad for the soldiers of the nation who's invaded but it would be OUR RIGHT as a sovereign country. I certainly wouldn't deny other sovereign people's the same right especially in the name of democracy.

I hope we eventually get the terrorists out of our country. Clearly there are some here amongst us.

Iowanian
06-09-2006, 02:07 PM
Enough of this ignorance, even if its coming from someone with apparent inside information.

Ok. Here is the thing. AZ, has been having his asshole friends blowing up Shiite shrines, police stations, army recruitment lines, sawing the heads off of civilians and using intimidation on the locals. His main goal....Insighting a civil war between the factions in Iraq to cause trouble for the US.

Now...He's a worm farm, 40 raids were immediately carried out, which cut out more of his weapons and funding(for the terrorism and intimidation).

Without his ordered attacks on Iraqi Civilians, there is likely to be LESS events, causing turmoil between Sunni and Shiite. Less Turmoil=More success= conditions for US withdrawl.

Do I think his death stops the fighting? Hell no...the place is full of assholes(see foreign fighters, Shiite Militia and former Bathists Sunni Assholes). Someone will step up, and hopefully, will be dead very soon afterwards. The new leader is a bomb maker....a manufacturer of bombs that have killed ALOT of innocent, civilian iraqis. You should also take note, with your very informed opinion, that many of the locals(including Shiite Badr Brigade and Sunni Insurgents) have been fighting with, and killing Foreign TERRORISTS.

Chopping down the trouble makers can do nothing but improve the Stability.


I'm serious. I think AZ was a distraction for the home grown insurgents. They will not be sorry he's gone. Perhaps AQ will be weakened in Iraq and those who are serious about 'defending their country' can do so without seeming to align themselves with him or AQ.

go bowe
06-09-2006, 02:08 PM
In Iraq, those engage in terrorism, lack popular backing.....from what I see and know.

I was speaking specifically, of the current situation in Iraq. hee hee, nice slide away from what you first said...

you are smooth, i have to give you that... :thumb:

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 02:08 PM
The PLO was a government in the Palestinian territories.

The US is the government running the country in Iraq right now. They appointed the interim government which was in power when the insurgency began. Since then there have been elections that the insurgency views are illegitimate because they were done while under occupation. Hence, the insurgency is fighting an occupying force who's in control of the government.

An insurgency fights an established government....the U.S. is occupying Iraq, to reestablish order--like in France and Japan, after WWII. We are NOT a government; except in the eyes for whom it is convenient for them to view us that way.

If and when an Iraqi government takes charge, and the U.S. leaves, then the insurgency will become a true insurgency.....illegitimate, until it attains support of the majority of Iraqis. For now, they are terrorists. Period.

Radar Chief
06-09-2006, 02:08 PM
That's F'in Hilarious. :) Does anybody remember this Cretin's name? Was he a wideout? Does GoChiefs have footage of this stored away somewhere?

Doubt Go Chiefs is gonna have that one, long before his time. In the ‘90’s when Schottenheimer was coach.
IIRC, it was on a punt return and a rookie run’n back was return’n the ball. Busted loose down the side line, but spiked the ball just a wee bit too early. The opposing team recovered the “fumble” and when he realized what he’d done he had a look on his face like’e wanted to die. I remember it mainly ‘cause I felt sorry for the dumb azz.

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 02:09 PM
hee hee, nice slide away from what you first said...

you are smooth, i have to give you that... :thumb:

You expect anything less.....:)

Iowanian
06-09-2006, 02:10 PM
I need to stop wasting my time and use the Iggy.

go bowe
06-09-2006, 02:12 PM
Enough of this ignorance, even if its coming from someone with apparent inside information.

Ok. Here is the thing. AZ, has been having his asshole friends blowing up Shiite shrines, police stations, army recruitment lines, sawing the heads off of civilians and using intimidation on the locals. His main goal....Insighting a civil war between the factions in Iraq to cause trouble for the US.

Now...He's a worm farm, 40 raids were immediately carried out, which cut out more of his weapons and funding(for the terrorism and intimidation).

Without his ordered attacks on Iraqi Civilians, there is likely to be LESS events, causing turmoil between Sunni and Shiite. Less Turmoil=More success= conditions for US withdrawl.

Do I think his death stops the fighting? Hell no...the place is full of assholes(see foreign fighters and former Bathists). Someone will step up, and hopefully, will be dead very soon afterwards. The new leader is a bomb maker....a manufacturer of bombs that have killed ALOT of innocent, civilian iraqis. You should also take note, with your very informed opinion, that many of the locals(including Shiite Badr Brigade and Sunni Insurgents) have been fighting with, and killing Foreign TERRORISTS.

Chopping down the trouble makers can do nothing but improve the Stability.exactly right... :thumb:

Mr. Kotter
06-09-2006, 02:14 PM
So what you're saying is that the rigteousness or unrighteousness of a cause does not determine whether one is a terrorist or a revolutionary?

You are saying that the degree of popular support will determine whether one who may have a righteous cause is a rebel or a terrorist?

Granted, the American Revolutionary War did maintain a level of popular support throughout (especially after France entered the fray and gave us a bit more hope). Yet, it doesn't necessarily have to be the case considering that many people of impoverished nations don't have the benefit of understanding the strife that surrounds them. Especially when they have only known dictatorship. To them, peace may be more desirable than conflict when they have never known prosperity.

Your thought is an ideal worthy of contemplation but also seems more complicated than that when all factors are considered.

Sorry, I missed this one on the first sweep through penchief....

Yes, popular support determines legitimacy....at least in Democratic government.

Righteousness of the cause? Righteousness of the cause??? Who gets to determine that? You. Or me? :)

An insurgency is a fight against an established government. A legitimate insurgency, by definition in Democracy (and, in the ideal, I would argue) has popular support.

Radar Chief
06-09-2006, 02:15 PM
You have this backwards. Hamas was an insurgency. Hamas has terror as a weapon in their arsenal. Hamas appealed to the masses and gained popular support inspite of, not because of, their terrorist element. Hamas now is considered by the people they represent to be legitimate representatives of them.

Doubt this is gonna make a dent in your rhetoric since you’re so entrenched in rattle’n cages here, but Hamas has broken into homes of Palestinians that dared to speak against them, dragged the dissenters into the street and shot them dead as “Jew Collaborators”.
This certainly casts doubt on just how “legitimate” they’re considered by Palestinians.

Logical
06-09-2006, 02:16 PM
No. Wrong.

An insurgency is a revolt against a government. Period.

A legitimate insurgency has popular support; an illegitimate insurgency does NOT have popular support. Either may engage in terrorists actions.

I will just say I disagree, what is legitimate is what the final outcome says was legitimate. Right now we do not know the answer to that, we know that their are non-AQ insurgents who have a legitimate desire to have their countries government turn out the way they feel is best. It is not up to the US to decide they are legitimate or illegetimate. It is the US's right to defend it's troops there against said insurgents, though some would legitimately question the right of the US to be there as occupiers.

Radar Chief
06-09-2006, 02:17 PM
I need to stop wasting my time and use the Iggy.

Hope ya don’t, I appreciate your input. :thumb:

Logical
06-09-2006, 02:18 PM
Interesting. That was you're initial response. I assume you wrote it. Forgive me if I don't believe that you're initial response was/is the truth.

Let the record show that D-nise supports the right of Iraqi insurgents to kill Americans.

Is that a fair and accurate statement?

I don't read it that way at all. Understanding their motivations is not the same as supporting the US troops being killed. There is a huge difference.

Donger
06-09-2006, 02:18 PM
And I don't support the rights of Iraqi insurgents to kill Americans. I support their right to defend their country against whomever they feel is illegally occupying it. Unfortunately, in this case it is Americans.

Defending their country by deadly force.

Force against Americans.

Face it, despite your pathetic attempt above, you DO support the right of insurgents to kill Americans. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised; you are the same person that became a Raiders fan after Gannon went there, right? Switching sides seems easy for you.

I agree it's unfortuante, but I would never allow that feeling to overcome my loyalty and support of my troops. That fact that you give precendence to the insurgents rights as opposed to our troops is revolting.

vailpass
06-09-2006, 02:21 PM
This thread has now run it's course at the big kid's table. The usual 4 or 5 suspects are rehashing the same old shit they never tire of propagating in the DC forum.

Thank yo for providing a vivid example of why there must be a DC and why it must be walled off.

Tag it and bag it and move it to the DC ghetto.

Donger
06-09-2006, 02:22 PM
I don't read it that way at all. Understanding their motivations is not the same as supporting the US troops being killed. There is a huge difference.

I can support support their right to defend their country. And sometimes an unintended consequence of that defense is the killing of the offender. Unfortunately for us, it's our fellow Americans. That is why I don't want us there.

She supports their right to defend their country. They are 'defending' their country with INTENDED deadly force. Deadly force against Americans.

Those are the facts. Let's see how logical you truly are.

Donger
06-09-2006, 02:23 PM
Tag it and bag it and move it to the DC ghetto.

Fine by me. It's been a good reminder of why I left that shithole in the first place.

KC Dan
06-09-2006, 02:25 PM
This thread has now run it's course at the big kid's table. The usual 4 or 5 suspects are rehashing the same old shit they never tire of propagating in the DC forum.

Thank yo for providing a vivid example of why there must be a DC and why it must be walled off.

Tag it and bag it and move it to the DC ghetto.
Hear, Hear! I can sum it up for everyone before it moves. Most here support the killing of Zarqawi, Mememymymimi supports anyone killing Americans in Iraq no matter how she tries to parse her reasoning, and Jim supports her. Most others continue trying to argue her words against her, and oh -yeah - they hate Bush....

Get it outta here...

go bowe
06-09-2006, 02:25 PM
Doubt this is gonna make a dent in your rhetoric since you’re so entrenched in rattle’n cages here, but Hamas has broken into homes of Palestinians that dared to speak against them, dragged the dissenters into the street and shot them dead as “Jew Collaborators”.
This certainly casts doubt on just how “legitimate” they’re considered by Palestinians.despicable as they are, hamas is the legitimately elected government of palestine because a majority of palestinians voted for them...

i'd guess that the majority consider hamas to be "legitimate", even if some members go to terroristic extremes...

nobody except for the majority of palestinians views hamas as anything more than a terrorist organization, but they are still the legitimately elected government there...

it presents a very difficult problem for the west, inasmuch as we talk about how much we respect democracy but don't want to respect and engage the democratically elected government in gaza and the west bank...

ChiefaRoo
06-09-2006, 02:27 PM
I agree with this when it comes to the terrorists using the insurgency as a REASON to kill American troops.

However, I have a hard time with that when it is Average Ali defending his country against what he sees as an unwanted and illegal occupation of his land. He sees his country being evaded and the American soldiers as the enemy. Unfortunately for us, he's doing what we'd expect every American worth their salt to do here on this land.


MMI - "Average Ali" as you put it wants a form of democratic govt. and he and over 70% of the voting population went to the polls under threat of death to vote. In the USA we only get roughly 50% to vote and no one is threatening to blow us up while we wait in line. We are NOT fighting the Iraqi people as a majority we are fighting a small, ultra violent minority from around the world and from Iraqi's who have a vested interest in getting back to the back old days of Saddam's regime.

Logical
06-09-2006, 02:28 PM
WOW, I wish I could say I am surprised. The insugence have the right to surrender or die, you asshole. They are entitled to shit. They are ex-Saddam henchmen who lost a fuc kin g battle and are grasping at last straws by IEDing our troops who are trying to make life better for he MAJORITY of Iraqis. You can not support both sides.

You and Logicdick can GFY's. You're both a disgrace.

If you disagree with me you might have the courtesy to at least reply to my points. As to your insult I only find it amusing and satisfying to know that you are so incapable of rationale discourse that you had to resort to such an immature response. People wonder why DC has to be kept separte, it is such immaturity that provides the rationale for such a separation. You see some people are offended by such statements even when they are not the direct victim.

See how I wrote this response without resorting to childish name calling. You might want to try it.

Radar Chief
06-09-2006, 02:30 PM
despicable as they are, hamas is the legitimately elected government of palestine because a majority of palestinians voted for them...

i'd guess that the majority consider hamas to be "legitimate", even if some members go to terroristic extremes...

nobody except for the majority of palestinians views hamas as anything more than a terrorist organization, but they are still the legitimately elected government there...

it presents a very difficult problem for the west, inasmuch as we talk about how much we respect democracy but don't want to respect and engage the democratically elected government in gaza and the west bank...

I wouldn’t try to claim there legitimacy, or lack of, among Palestinians since I don’t personally know any. All I know is what I read, much like ‘bout everyone here, but it certainly casts doubt on that legitimacy.
That’s all I’m say’n.

go bowe
06-09-2006, 02:30 PM
If you disagree with me you might have the courtesy to at least reply to my points. As to your insult I only find it amusing and satisfying to know that you are so incapable of rationale discourse that you had to resort to such an immature response. People wonder why DC has to be kept separte, it is such immaturity that provides the rationale for such a separation. You see some people are offended by such statements even when they are not the direct victim.

See how I wrote this response without resorting to childish name calling. You might want to try it.hey, stuff it you old fart...

your a moran...

go bowe
06-09-2006, 02:32 PM
I wouldn’t try to claim there legitimacy, or lack of, among Palestinians since I don’t personally know any. All I know is what I read, much like ‘bout everyone here, but it certainly casts doubt on that legitimacy.
That’s all I’m say’n.there's plenty of doubt, no question about that...

and well-deserved...

Logical
06-09-2006, 02:34 PM
So, just to be clear, you applaud her statement, which was....

"I'd like to think if it were another country on our soil that we'd have people fighting their presence here as well. I pray we do. "

So, if the French or Japanese citizens (even a small group--some who likely had supported Nazi or Militarist regimes) had engaged in terrorist actions and killings of U.S. and other Allied soldiers in the aftermath of WW II, you think that would have been hunky dory and legitimate? :hmmm:

Yes I do understand why they would be fighting our occupying force, that does not mean that I support them killing our men, just as DEnise has made it clear she does not support Americans being killed. I certainly would understand the Germans and the Japanese fighting the occupying forces of Russia, US etc. does not mean we support it. You of all people being a teacher should understand the distinction.

Logical
06-09-2006, 02:50 PM
If anything it shows "noobs" why pigskin and the planet were created, why pigskin died and the main reason the dc forum was created here.Actually it does nothing of the kind. Pigskin had two separate forum Pigskin Park for football/sports and Pigskin Pen for politics. Pigskin Park when it was a single forum thrived but died when it was made a football/sports only forum while the Pen thrived for many, many months afterward. What actually killed the Pen was when Kyle solved his initial server problems and everyone could come to the Planet to escape a few posters. Fortuanately only Thomas followed of those posters.

KC Dan
06-09-2006, 02:54 PM
Here you go Jim & mememymymimi,

Up - ?

Left - ?

Wrong - ?

Yes - ?

ok, commence arguing.....

Iowanian
06-09-2006, 02:54 PM
It died because Dense Killed it...

But Its shake and Bake, and you helped!

Logical
06-09-2006, 03:21 PM
Enough of this ignorance, even if its coming from someone with apparent inside information.

Ok. Here is the thing. AZ, has been having his asshole friends blowing up Shiite shrines, police stations, army recruitment lines, sawing the heads off of civilians and using intimidation on the locals. His main goal....Insighting a civil war between the factions in Iraq to cause trouble for the US.

Now...He's a worm farm, 40 raids were immediately carried out, which cut out more of his weapons and funding(for the terrorism and intimidation).

Without his ordered attacks on Iraqi Civilians, there is likely to be LESS events, causing turmoil between Sunni and Shiite. Less Turmoil=More success= conditions for US withdrawl.

Do I think his death stops the fighting? Hell no...the place is full of assholes(see foreign fighters, Shiite Militia and former Bathists Sunni Assholes). Someone will step up, and hopefully, will be dead very soon afterwards. The new leader is a bomb maker....a manufacturer of bombs that have killed ALOT of innocent, civilian iraqis. You should also take note, with your very informed opinion, that many of the locals(including Shiite Badr Brigade and Sunni Insurgents) have been fighting with, and killing Foreign TERRORISTS.

Chopping down the trouble makers can do nothing but improve the Stability.I agree with everything but the last statement. Unfortunately when a leader is taken out the vacuum created can initially cause more instability than previously existed. Witness what happened in Iraq now that Saddam has been removed as the most recent example of that in spades.

go bowe
06-09-2006, 03:21 PM
oh oh...

the teacher card... ROFL ROFL ROFL

vailpass
06-09-2006, 03:24 PM
Actually it does nothing of the kind. Pigskin had two separate forum Pigskin Park for football/sports and Pigskin Pen for politics. Pigskin Park when it was a single forum thrived but died when it was made a football/sports only forum while the Pen thrived for many, many months afterward. What actually killed the Pen was when Kyle solved his initial server problems and everyone could come to the Planet to escape a few posters. Fortuanately only Thomas followed of those posters.

Look me in the eye and say this with a straight face.

Logical
06-09-2006, 03:26 PM
She supports their right to defend their country. They are 'defending' their country with INTENDED deadly force. Deadly force against Americans.

Those are the facts. Let's see how logical you truly are.Actually her logic is ugly as hell but irrefutable.

Try looking at it this way, do you as a US citizen have an obligation to fight to the death on after we have been overtaken by the Red Chinese or are you obligated to roll over to your occupiers rule. I say we are obligated to fight to the death. I believe any patriot in any country would feel the same way.

Logical
06-09-2006, 03:28 PM
Look me in the eye and say this with a straight face.

DeNise did not follow for many, many months, yes she followed but she tried going back to the Star BB first. The other two just went away and never showed up over here unless it was under a completely different username with completely different tactics.

Cochise
06-09-2006, 03:33 PM
I need to stop wasting my time and use the Iggy.

I don't know how some of these people ever made it off mine, but I've corrected that situation. Some of the things you read here are just depressing.

Clint in Wichita
06-09-2006, 03:36 PM
Any word as to why Al-Qaeda hasn't surrendered yet?

go bowe
06-09-2006, 03:39 PM
hey clint, how's it goin?

you should post more, we need a moderate voice of compassion and harmony... :p :p :p

Donger
06-09-2006, 03:39 PM
Actually her logic is ugly as hell but irrefutable.

Try looking at it this way, do you as a US citizen have an obligation to fight to the death on after we have been overtaken by the Red Chinese or are you obligated to roll over to your occupiers rule. I say we are obligated to fight to the death. I believe any patriot in any country would feel the same way.

Let's deal with reality, shall we? We haven't been invaded. Our troops are in harm's way. And you and she are defending the very people that are killing them.

She, and you apparently, support their right to defend their country. Their defense is through the use of deadly force against our troops. You'll note that D-nise was wary enough to state that "sometimes an unintended consequence of that defense is the killing of the offender" as a way of avoiding acknowledging that supporting their right to defend their country is also tacit support of killing Americans. See, they aren't using harsh language to defend their country; they're using explosives and bullets.

Unintended my ass.

Yes, I can UNDERSTAND why they are killing Americans as a hypothetical. But, I make the break at supporting their activities or rights, especially when they are killing our soldiers in doing so.

If you can live with the opposite, so be it. Good luck to you.

Logical
06-09-2006, 03:41 PM
Hear, Hear! I can sum it up for everyone before it moves. Most here support the killing of Zarqawi, Mememymymimi supports anyone killing Americans in Iraq no matter how she tries to parse her reasoning, and Jim supports her. Most others continue trying to argue her words against her, and oh -yeah - they hate Bush....

Get it outta here...

I support the person that has the soundest reasoning IMO. I do not support what many people say DEnise is saying because when I read her words (not their interpretation) she is making sense and they are clearly distorting her words when they say she supports Americans being killed. She has at least twice explicitly stated she does not support the deaths of American soldiers.

I have also supported in this thread what go bo said, most of what Iowanian has said, part of what Kotter has said as well as making it clear I applaud Zs death and the good job by our soldiers. I don't approve of your distorting my position. For instance I have not supported DEnise statement about Hamas, just one example but I clearly do not agree with here that Hamas has not been a terrorist organization, to me that is clearly untrue.

Clint in Wichita
06-09-2006, 03:43 PM
hey clint, how's it goin?

you should post more, we need a moderate voice of compassion and harmony... :p :p :p


Seriously, where's Al Qaeda's admission of defeat? The death of someone so important to their cause should severely harm their operations in Iraq.

go bowe
06-09-2006, 03:44 PM
I don't know how some of these people ever made it off mine, but I've corrected that situation. Some of the things you read here are just depressing.you act like you are surprised at what deneese and logical are saying...

they're the same as they have been for awhile...

i'm truly sorry that others' opinions are depressing to you...

it's a great time to be not depressed, perhaps even bordering on joyful, what with the passing of zarrcowee...

that scumbag killed a lot of innocent civilians and way too many of our guys (and gals too)...

i'm thrilled he's dead...

in fact, i think i'm more thrilled than president bush, judging by his measured (and well chosen) statements on the subject...

go bowe
06-09-2006, 03:48 PM
Seriously, where's Al Qaeda's admission of defeat? The death of someone so important to their cause should severely harm their operations in Iraq.i worry that we will never totally defeat the islamic jihadist movement...

and yes, i think the loss of zarrcowee will severely harm aq's operations in iraq, at least for awhile...

Logical
06-09-2006, 03:56 PM
Let's deal with reality, shall we? We haven't been invaded. Our troops are in harm's way. And you and she are defending the very people that are killing them.

She, and you apparently, support their right to defend their country. Their defense is through the use of deadly force against our troops. You'll note that D-nise was wary enough to state that "sometimes an unintended consequence of that defense is the killing of the offender" as a way of avoiding acknowledging that supporting their right to defend their country is also tacit support of killing Americans. See, they aren't using harsh language to defend their country; they're using explosives and bullets.

Unintended my ass.

Yes, I can UNDERSTAND why they are killing Americans as a hypothetical. But, I make the break at supporting their activities or rights, especially when they are killing our soldiers in doing so.

If you can live with the opposite, so be it. Good luck to you.

I have said three times I understand which does not mean I support their actions. That is the difference. Hell you just acknowledged that difference yourself. DeNise has also said at least twice she does not support American troops being killed. I take her at her word, I have certainly used her words against her many times in the past. If you are going to use her words to attack her it is only right to accept her words when she uses them as a reason. I understand she has not been as clear as I have been in saying I do not support the insurgents killing American troops but she did say it.

Donger
06-09-2006, 04:04 PM
I have said three times I understand which does not mean I support their actions. That is the difference. Hell you just acknowledged that difference yourself. DeNise has also said at least twice she does not support American troops being killed. I take her at her word, I have certainly used her words against her many times in the past. If you are going to use her words to attack her it is only right to accept her words when she uses them as a reason. I understand she has not been as clear as I have been in saying I do not support the insurgents killing American troops but she did say it.

She said that she supports their right to defend their country (post 429). "Unfortunately," against Americans.

Logical
06-09-2006, 04:06 PM
OK for those of you who have trouble with complex statements.

Logical is delighted Zarqawi is dead.

Logical is delighted when anyone killing our American troops meet their maker.

Logical does not support the insurgents killing Americans.

Logical does understand why insurgents are killing American.

Logical thinks we should not be occupying Iraq.

Logical thinks the Iraqi's should be responsible for deciding their fate without Americns occupying and coercing a form of government upon them.

Logical thinks US troops based outside Iraq should be used to hunt down and kill like dogs the Al Quada and their followers who brought 9/11 to our shores no matter what Middle Eastern country they are residing in.

Hope these simple statements make it easier for everyone.

Logical
06-09-2006, 04:09 PM
She said that she supports their right to defend their country (post 429). "Unfortunately," against Americans.If we would get out then they would not have an occupation force to kill. I believe is clearly her point. That is a perfectly logical conclusion. Understanding that any patriot in any country is going to defend their land is not that difficult a concept to understand. Why are you confusing that with supporting Americans being killed. She said in the sentence before the one you are paraphrasing that she did not support Americans being killed.

Donger
06-09-2006, 04:10 PM
OK for those of you who have trouble with complex statements.

Logical is delighted Zarqawi is dead.

Logical is delighted when anyone killing our American troops meet their maker.

Logical does not support the insurgents killing Americans.

Logical does understand why insurgents are killing American.

Logical thinks we should not be occupying Iraq.

Logical thinks the Iraqi's should be responsible for deciding their fate without Americns occupying and coercing a form of government upon them.

Logical thinks US troops based outside Iraq should be used to hunt down and kill like dogs the Al Quada and their followers who brought 9/11 to our shores no matter what Middle Eastern country they are residing in.

Hope these simple statements make it easier for everyone.

And, does Logical support the right of Iraqi insurgents to resist American occupation?

Donger
06-09-2006, 04:12 PM
If we would get out then they would not have an occupation force to kill. I believe is clearly her point. That is a perfectly logical conclusion. Understanding that any patriot in any country is going to defend their land is not that difficult a concept to understand. Why are you confusing that with supporting Americans being killed. She said in the sentence before the one you are paraphrasing that she did not support Americans being killed.

Because supporting the right of the insurgents to resist is tacit support of their actions. Their actions result in American deaths.

For the sake of the board, I created a thread in DC if you wish to continue this discussion. Let's not continue it here.

chiefsfaninNC
06-09-2006, 04:15 PM
OK for those of you who have trouble with complex statements.

Logical is delighted Zarqawi is dead.

Logical is delighted when anyone killing our American troops meet their maker.

Logical does not support the insurgents killing Americans.

Logical does understand why insurgents are killing American.

Logical thinks we should not be occupying Iraq.

Logical thinks the Iraqi's should be responsible for deciding their fate without Americns occupying and coercing a form of government upon them.

Logical thinks US troops based outside Iraq should be used to hunt down and kill like dogs the Al Quada and their followers who brought 9/11 to our shores no matter what Middle Eastern country they are residing in.

Hope these simple statements make it easier for everyone.


I can't believe you support insurgents killing Americans. :shake:

Logical
06-09-2006, 04:15 PM
And, does Logical support the right of Iraqi insurgents to resist American occupation?

I understand it which is not the same thing as supporting it. I support our troops in their efforts to stop the insurgents. I would support and be much happier if the administration would get our men and women out of their so they do not need to die for a hopeless situation just like Vietnam was. If anyone is supporting the deaths of our troops it is the administration who for their own unacknowledged reasons are putting these men and women in harms way for no apparent logical reason.

Logical
06-09-2006, 04:16 PM
I can't believe you support insurgents killing Americans. :shake:

You seriously need to buy a dictionary.


Look up the word understand, there is nothing remotely resembling the word support in its meaning.

chiefsfaninNC
06-09-2006, 04:24 PM
You seriously need to buy a dictionary.


Look up the word understand, there is nothing remotely resembling the word support in its meaning.


I thought the word NOT was the indicative something or other in the sentence. I bend nails for a living not study English.

Logical
06-09-2006, 04:28 PM
I thought the word NOT was the indicative something or other in the sentence. I bend nails for a living not study English.

If that is the case you should reread this:

... Logical does not support the insurgents killing Americans...

stevieray
06-09-2006, 04:30 PM
What actually killed the Pen was when Kyle solved his initial server problems and everyone could come to the Planet to escape a few posters.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Taco John
06-09-2006, 04:31 PM
So why does anybody even care why Pigskin Park folded?

Logical
06-09-2006, 04:33 PM
BS, Jim.What in that statement was BS, Jamie and I were the only ones here other than Denise there to the bitter end, you bugged out at least two months before it died. Hell I was the Phil of that BB I had over 3500 posts when the next highest was around 2000. You denying the BB was split into two forums? Again what in what I said was BS?

Bootlegged
06-09-2006, 04:33 PM
I understand it which is not the same thing as supporting it. I support our troops in their efforts to stop the insurgents. I would support and be much happier if the administration would get our men and women out of their so they do not need to die for a hopeless situation just like Vietnam was. If anyone is supporting the deaths of our troops it is the administration who for their own unacknowledged reasons are putting these men and women in harms way for no apparent logical reason.


Ol' Cut & Run Jim.