Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Stelliform, Apr 30, 2004.
First off, this report was created by the State Department so it has zero credibility. Second, they did not count acts of terrorism in Iraq.
You seem pretty proud of the Bush administration. I am not.
We prosecute our criminals, those responsible for that picture are going to be put away for a very long time. You cannot expect anyone to be able to control every member of their armed forces 100% of the time. The guilty will pay along with some innocent leaders who were technically responsible for the guilty parties.
It's only happening because of the pictures. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
How can you prove it has zero credibility? Just because it was reported by the State Department doesn't mean that it's bad information. Just because the State Department, or this current administration, don't hold the same beliefs you do doesn't mean that everything they say is wrong.
You might also like to know that even Bush has called the acts of torture caused by a rogue US General (who has been relieved of her duty, and is under investigation) disgusting.
Oh, and when you attack troops on combat duty, that's not terrorism. Otherwise, every battle in history could be considered terrorism.
But when you blow up a car bomb outside a police station, a restaurant, or a hotel that IS terrorism. And that has been going on in Iraq.
Credibility is in short supply.
Somebody probably told him to say it...
When you send tanks and AC130s into civilian areas, where do you draw the line? When you have Marine snipers picking off everything that moves, is that legitimate too?
Regardless of how your personal politics allow you to perceive this situation, I think it needs to be asked in what direction this will move us in regards to Iraq, and to domestic security policy here in the US...will this be used as a reason to continue the strategy we have so far, and as a reason to further a curb of civil liberties domestically? Although my personal views hold Bush and his administration suspect, it is reasonable to allow the possibility that some good has been accomplished...an unreasonable Liberal position (ie Bush is all bad) is as bad as an unreasonable Republican one (Bush is all good) and neither constructively address the problem(s) at hand...I applaud this news, although I do not know to whom to attribute its' success...my real concern is that it will be used to promote yet another logical fallacy by the administration...I guess the point of my post, is that everyone is susceptible to that same fallacy, regardless of partisanship, the dynamics are the same...
indeed. i suspect that it has more to do w/ intelligence and police action, from many countries, than the iraq war.
it's impossible to quantify, but how much more success would there be if iraq were not a distraction?
That would be as concentrated in Iraq as say ... the Madrid bombings, the attacks in Saudi Arabia and Syria, or the plot to use chemicals against the government of Jordan? Do you read the newspapers, Stelliform? We are helping al Qaeda manufacture terrorists the world over by our actions in Iraq.
They forgot the terrorist attacks in Iraq perpetuated by the Dictator of the United States. I believe we can add over 10,700 to that.
Anyone see any recent stats on how many Iraqi's have died? I'm certain the number is over 11,000...
And let's not forget thousands of Afghani civilians vaporised by B52s....
ooo OOO or the 100's of thousands of civilians who died in carpet bombings during WWII. Ok can we get real now.
If you were under one of those B52s on a pinpoint bombing mission, it would be real enough to you. "Shock and awe" is basically a synonym for "terrorism".
Weren't they warned before the attacks to leave?
Weren't who warned? I think skunk is talking about civilians. Are you suggesting that everyone should have evacuated Iraq prior to the bombing?
That is crazy. Would you leave? That is giving into terrorism! And I'm sure that most people didn't have the means to leave.
Didn't they drop Pamphlets that told them that we are going to start bombing? I thought I heard about this somewhere.
i'm completely lost on the specifics. are we talking about afghanistan? gimme some links about the pamphlets.
No, someone mentioned Shock and Awe.
No links, I just remember hearing about them.
Kinda why I formed my post as a question, heh.
i still don't know to which country you're referring. is your intent here to change someone's mind?
Iraq, and not really. It seemed like someone was referring to Shock and Awe as a terrorist act, which it wasn't.
that's a bit subjective, wouldn't you agree?
Let's get this clear. You are seriously suggesting that everyone should have evacuated Iraq because the US asked them to? Those that didn't leave got what they deserved? Is that really what you're saying?
I tend to agree, but it depends on your definition of 'terrorism'...I usually define it as the deliberate use of civilian deaths to further an agenda...although many civilians have been killed in the fighting in Iraq by the US, it was not deliberate policy...and there lies the difference...of course to some, this is merely an academic distinction...
As far as the notion that the US gave warning prior to the invasion, I tend to think that by following the 'protocol' for war, again the US does not seem to be engaging in terrorism, but it barely makes a difference, especially to Iraqis...it is kind of like saying:
"Pardon me, but would you mind terribly if I came by later and shot you?" instead of just shooting...
The loss of life(civilian) on both the Iraqi and US side is regrettable...but it has been a long time since 'civilized' war, where both sides were clearly defined by pretty uniforms, and shot only at each other...civilians have been involved in most wars since WWII, especially those where it was difficult for each side to figure out who the enemy was...as I mentioned in another thread, the loss of life is morally repugnant to most people, but sadly a necessary evil from time to time...war is not pretty. I feel that the US military (w/ a few exceptions) has done an excellent job in Iraq, especially in the initial 'war' phase last year...unfortunately, there was no policy or plan of action put forward by the administration...the real problem...the military is not partisan, or particularily interested in politics, the Politicians are...I am sure not a few military commanders and personnel would like to wring Bush's neck...