support the Marine acused of murder
zombiesarebad
12-31-2004, 10:17 AM
Irrelevant. :rolleyes:
I don't usual bother with advice from people who either can't comprehend plain English, or choose to ignore it.
I DO NOT CONDONE TERRORISM
If you cannot get your head around the concept that being anti-Bush is entirely different from being pro-terrorism, you're wasting your time posting in a debating forum.Simple logic and the ability to take in both angles of the debate are a bare minimum to avoid looking stupid.
Once again I will tell you that this is how it came across to me in your first postings. You have since made it quite clear that you do not condone terrorism. I don't believe that being anti-bush and pro-terrorist is the same thing, this is an assumption on your part.
I can see you now as you read my postings, looking like the guy in your picture all red in the face and working up a sweat. You don't have to cool it if you don't want to, I was just saying that for your benefit. Don't want you to have a heart attack over some forum on the internet.
Your entire argument that I think terrorism and anti-bushism is the same thing is undermined by the fact that I am telling you that I do not and never did. The fact that you think that is my thinking is a failure of your reading comprehension, not mine.
I'm leaving for Salt Lake City to start a new job tomorrow and it's a 3 day drive so I won't be here to post anymore after tomorrow for at least a week. Not that any of you will miss me but just thought I would let you know.
I don't usual bother with advice from people who either can't comprehend plain English, or choose to ignore it.
I DO NOT CONDONE TERRORISM
If you cannot get your head around the concept that being anti-Bush is entirely different from being pro-terrorism, you're wasting your time posting in a debating forum.Simple logic and the ability to take in both angles of the debate are a bare minimum to avoid looking stupid.
Once again I will tell you that this is how it came across to me in your first postings. You have since made it quite clear that you do not condone terrorism. I don't believe that being anti-bush and pro-terrorist is the same thing, this is an assumption on your part.
I can see you now as you read my postings, looking like the guy in your picture all red in the face and working up a sweat. You don't have to cool it if you don't want to, I was just saying that for your benefit. Don't want you to have a heart attack over some forum on the internet.
Your entire argument that I think terrorism and anti-bushism is the same thing is undermined by the fact that I am telling you that I do not and never did. The fact that you think that is my thinking is a failure of your reading comprehension, not mine.
I'm leaving for Salt Lake City to start a new job tomorrow and it's a 3 day drive so I won't be here to post anymore after tomorrow for at least a week. Not that any of you will miss me but just thought I would let you know.
Heep
12-31-2004, 10:57 AM
I'm leaving for Salt Lake City to start a new job tomorrow and it's a 3 day drive so I won't be here to post anymore after tomorrow for at least a week. Not that any of you will miss me but just thought I would let you know.
Good luck with it :) :thumbsup:
Lol, I'm seriously considering re-naming this thread the "General Iraq debate thread" :lol2:
Good luck with it :) :thumbsup:
Lol, I'm seriously considering re-naming this thread the "General Iraq debate thread" :lol2:
Flatrater
12-31-2004, 05:51 PM
Flatrater- The reason i said that they must DEFEND IRAQ against any invaders no matter how bad there leader is. Let me make it clearer to you. It is up to the IRAQIS to remove Saddam and not the world. According to the Qur'an one self has the right to defend or remove the leader who is very oppressive but do NOT go against him by teaming up with the outside enemies or non muslims.
I understand what you are saying. Most people in any country believe that they should take care of there own problems and not let other nations do it for them. But the last 5 words in your post bother me. You are saying that if you are not a muslim you are the enemy. Just because I am not a muslim doesn't make me your enemy. That is the same thing that everyone is bashing Bush about. You know the either you are with us or against us quote.
Calling non muslims the enemy will not help your cause but it will only distance the rest of the world from the muslims.
I understand what you are saying. Most people in any country believe that they should take care of there own problems and not let other nations do it for them. But the last 5 words in your post bother me. You are saying that if you are not a muslim you are the enemy. Just because I am not a muslim doesn't make me your enemy. That is the same thing that everyone is bashing Bush about. You know the either you are with us or against us quote.
Calling non muslims the enemy will not help your cause but it will only distance the rest of the world from the muslims.
Flatrater
12-31-2004, 06:00 PM
Most may not condone acts of terrorism but some here condone acts of terrorism from the insurgents towards the US sooliders and the Iraq citizens that are happening now.
Off the top of my head I remember something to the effect of the actions of the insurgents being praised. All the road side bombs, the beheadings being justified because the US iinvaded Iraq. Terrorism is terrorism there is no good terrorism.
Reading my local newspaper toady there was a piece on 3 different insurgent groups claiming that anyone voting in January will be killed. They claimed that voting and becoming a democracy is anti-muslim. According to these groups muslims should not have a right to choose or have the freedom to choose.
Off the top of my head I remember something to the effect of the actions of the insurgents being praised. All the road side bombs, the beheadings being justified because the US iinvaded Iraq. Terrorism is terrorism there is no good terrorism.
Reading my local newspaper toady there was a piece on 3 different insurgent groups claiming that anyone voting in January will be killed. They claimed that voting and becoming a democracy is anti-muslim. According to these groups muslims should not have a right to choose or have the freedom to choose.
mellowboy
12-31-2004, 06:16 PM
I understand what you are saying. Most people in any country believe that they should take care of there own problems and not let other nations do it for them. But the last 5 words in your post bother me. You are saying that if you are not a muslim you are the enemy. Just because I am not a muslim doesn't make me your enemy. That is the same thing that everyone is bashing Bush about. You know the either you are with us or against us quote.
Calling non muslims the enemy will not help your cause but it will only distance the rest of the world from the muslims.
No bro you still didn't understand what i'm tryin to tell you. I'm sayin its like for an example. You and your father for an EXAMPLE. Lets say he treats your family really bad. Abusive , doesn't give money and so on ....
Your mom either divorce him or she has to deal with it. Right? Wouldn't it be wrong if some non family member/friend comes in and beats up your dad? I mean after all hes your father and u should protect him from someone thats outside your family cause its your business not theres. I never said all non muslims are enemies. Thats not what i'm sayin. I'm sayin it is bad for muslims teaming up with non muslims to get rid of a muslim. You get what i'm sayin? I may not be the best guy to explain things so thats why i recommended www.islam-online.net (http://www.islam-online.net) to you. Ask the scholars. They know alot more and i'm sure they can explain it alot better than i. My mom is Chaldean. She catholic. ;)
Calling non muslims the enemy will not help your cause but it will only distance the rest of the world from the muslims.
No bro you still didn't understand what i'm tryin to tell you. I'm sayin its like for an example. You and your father for an EXAMPLE. Lets say he treats your family really bad. Abusive , doesn't give money and so on ....
Your mom either divorce him or she has to deal with it. Right? Wouldn't it be wrong if some non family member/friend comes in and beats up your dad? I mean after all hes your father and u should protect him from someone thats outside your family cause its your business not theres. I never said all non muslims are enemies. Thats not what i'm sayin. I'm sayin it is bad for muslims teaming up with non muslims to get rid of a muslim. You get what i'm sayin? I may not be the best guy to explain things so thats why i recommended www.islam-online.net (http://www.islam-online.net) to you. Ask the scholars. They know alot more and i'm sure they can explain it alot better than i. My mom is Chaldean. She catholic. ;)
mellowboy
12-31-2004, 06:23 PM
Most may not condone acts of terrorism but some here condone acts of terrorism from the insurgents towards the US sooliders and the Iraq citizens that are happening now.
Off the top of my head I remember something to the effect of the actions of the insurgents being praised. All the road side bombs, the beheadings being justified because the US iinvaded Iraq. Terrorism is terrorism there is no good terrorism.
Reading my local newspaper toady there was a piece on 3 different insurgent groups claiming that anyone voting in January will be killed. They claimed that voting and becoming a democracy is anti-muslim. According to these groups muslims should not have a right to choose or have the freedom to choose.
The "insurgents" are all about revenge. Farmers/business men/ anyone are probably retaliating the americans cause some did lose there sons/daughters/wife/uncle/aunts/cousins. Like i mentioned before..Iraqis take revenge very seriously. Another thing is that what you're sayin that theres no good terrorism is CORRECT. BUT they're not "terrorists." I dont agree with the elections because it is set up by the ENEMY which is the US and the Brits. The war is illegal and therefore the election is INVALID. Thats what they're trying to tell us.
Off the top of my head I remember something to the effect of the actions of the insurgents being praised. All the road side bombs, the beheadings being justified because the US iinvaded Iraq. Terrorism is terrorism there is no good terrorism.
Reading my local newspaper toady there was a piece on 3 different insurgent groups claiming that anyone voting in January will be killed. They claimed that voting and becoming a democracy is anti-muslim. According to these groups muslims should not have a right to choose or have the freedom to choose.
The "insurgents" are all about revenge. Farmers/business men/ anyone are probably retaliating the americans cause some did lose there sons/daughters/wife/uncle/aunts/cousins. Like i mentioned before..Iraqis take revenge very seriously. Another thing is that what you're sayin that theres no good terrorism is CORRECT. BUT they're not "terrorists." I dont agree with the elections because it is set up by the ENEMY which is the US and the Brits. The war is illegal and therefore the election is INVALID. Thats what they're trying to tell us.
YogsVR4
12-31-2004, 06:30 PM
Then the question not answered is then how is a government elected if you don't hold an election. Put Saddam back in power? Pull out and let the strongest warlord work their way to rule or watch as the country splits into three seperate ones?
The only people that are afraid of the Iraqis voting for a leader are the people who could never be elected. The ones who can only maintain control through violence. There is nothing invalid about an Iraqi casting their vote and the winner being recognized.
The only people that are afraid of the Iraqis voting for a leader are the people who could never be elected. The ones who can only maintain control through violence. There is nothing invalid about an Iraqi casting their vote and the winner being recognized.
mellowboy
12-31-2004, 06:55 PM
Then the question not answered is then how is a government elected if you don't hold an election. Put Saddam back in power? Pull out and let the strongest warlord work their way to rule or watch as the country splits into three seperate ones?
The only people that are afraid of the Iraqis voting for a leader are the people who could never be elected. The ones who can only maintain control through violence. There is nothing invalid about an Iraqi casting their vote and the winner being recognized.
Saddam is still the president whether u like it or not. The war is illegal and you know this. It is up to the Iraqis to remove him. Not Americans.
The only people that are afraid of the Iraqis voting for a leader are the people who could never be elected. The ones who can only maintain control through violence. There is nothing invalid about an Iraqi casting their vote and the winner being recognized.
Saddam is still the president whether u like it or not. The war is illegal and you know this. It is up to the Iraqis to remove him. Not Americans.
T4 Primera
12-31-2004, 07:13 PM
Then the question not answered is then how is a government elected if you don't hold an election. Put Saddam back in power? Pull out and let the strongest warlord work their way to rule or watch as the country splits into three seperate ones?
I think that instead of an election, they should first have a referendum on that very issue. Would the Iraqis feel safer if the occupation forces stayed or left.
The outcome won't matter if the election is viewed as an attempt to legitimise another puppet. I believe that this is exactly what will happen.
The only people that are afraid of the Iraqis voting for a leader are the people who could never be elected. The ones who can only maintain control through violence. There is nothing invalid about an Iraqi casting their vote and the winner being recognized.
Many people assume that the Shia will take control by virtue of numbers. However, that is too simplistic a view of how the electorate is divided. There are many, many Iraqis from all factions who believe in the separation of state and religion. In other words, they may be this religion or that religion but they would vote secular.
I think that instead of an election, they should first have a referendum on that very issue. Would the Iraqis feel safer if the occupation forces stayed or left.
The outcome won't matter if the election is viewed as an attempt to legitimise another puppet. I believe that this is exactly what will happen.
The only people that are afraid of the Iraqis voting for a leader are the people who could never be elected. The ones who can only maintain control through violence. There is nothing invalid about an Iraqi casting their vote and the winner being recognized.
Many people assume that the Shia will take control by virtue of numbers. However, that is too simplistic a view of how the electorate is divided. There are many, many Iraqis from all factions who believe in the separation of state and religion. In other words, they may be this religion or that religion but they would vote secular.
taranaki
12-31-2004, 07:25 PM
Saddam is still the president whether u like it or not. The war is illegal and you know this. It is up to the Iraqis to remove him. Not Americans.
Is a very noble,but unrealistic sentiment.
The average Iraqi has two options-
Do as the Americans tell him, and choose a new leader from the Pentagon's list of approved candidates when the Pentagon deigns to hold its 'elections'
or
Die trying to enforce their moral right to their own sovereignty.
America does not want to defeat Saddam's loyalists.It now wants to defeat Iraq.
Is a very noble,but unrealistic sentiment.
The average Iraqi has two options-
Do as the Americans tell him, and choose a new leader from the Pentagon's list of approved candidates when the Pentagon deigns to hold its 'elections'
or
Die trying to enforce their moral right to their own sovereignty.
America does not want to defeat Saddam's loyalists.It now wants to defeat Iraq.
Tehvisseeus
01-01-2005, 05:02 PM
Saddam is still the president whether u like it or not. The war is illegal and you know this. It is up to the Iraqis to remove him. Not Americans.
A) Saddam considered himself at war with the US so why should the US keep holding back.
B) A rebellion can not be successful without the support of a countries military. Thus the citizenry would be unable to successfully remove Saddam and would need outside help. This is one of the key parts of Machiavellis "The Prince." Read up.
A) Saddam considered himself at war with the US so why should the US keep holding back.
B) A rebellion can not be successful without the support of a countries military. Thus the citizenry would be unable to successfully remove Saddam and would need outside help. This is one of the key parts of Machiavellis "The Prince." Read up.
mellowboy
01-01-2005, 05:36 PM
B) A rebellion can not be successful without the support of a countries military. Thus the citizenry would be unable to successfully remove Saddam and would need outside help. This is one of the key parts of Machiavellis "The Prince." Read up.
No one asked for help. Iraqis did overthrown there past leaders WITHOUT any outside help.
No one asked for help. Iraqis did overthrown there past leaders WITHOUT any outside help.
taranaki
01-01-2005, 06:24 PM
Would be interested to find out when, since the US was also partly responsible for puting Saddam into control in the first place.
[Perhaps if they'd minded their own goddamn business then, they wouldn't be getting shot at there now]
Anyways..........does anyone know with any certainty whether this matter was put to an inquiry?
[Perhaps if they'd minded their own goddamn business then, they wouldn't be getting shot at there now]
Anyways..........does anyone know with any certainty whether this matter was put to an inquiry?
Kurtdg19
01-01-2005, 11:18 PM
Well after reading a portion (mainly the firsties and lasties) of the pages (17 is quite a few!), I would like to chime in and give my honest opinion.
Just to say a few things prior to my opinions. I am not nearly as educated about this matter than a lot of people. I don't intend on trying to give my opinion in a way to reflect this (if I ever do, it was never the intentions). I have kept track as well as I could to the current ongoing affairs, but there is just to much information to soak in. Add the media's twist, then try to sort out whether to fully believe and accept their reflection of the events.
The begining of the thread was asking to sign a petition for a very tragic event. I choose not to sign it.
I chose this in a matter not that I believe that he is wrong. I don't in fact believe that at all. War is not cut and dry. And it most absolutely cannot be upheld by rules (although as honorable as its intentions). History has only further proved this time and time. But there will never be (at least I think) peace in a world of such conflict. Two wrongs do not make a right. War does not bring about anything good.
I choose not to sign it because I don't believe that I am educated enough on this matter. I have never been to war nor first hand witnessed war. I don't understand what the soldiers, insurgents, and civilians go through (physically, mentally, or emotionally). I cannot relate, (no matter how much I think I can) so I shouldn't be the one to make a possible ill fated judgement (whichever way) for an event I cannot relate to. So hey, I figure I'm doing both of us a favor and making the right decision in this particular case.
In lamens terms.....I'm neutral. :cool: Lets give 1 for the 0 team. :lol:
Curt
Just to say a few things prior to my opinions. I am not nearly as educated about this matter than a lot of people. I don't intend on trying to give my opinion in a way to reflect this (if I ever do, it was never the intentions). I have kept track as well as I could to the current ongoing affairs, but there is just to much information to soak in. Add the media's twist, then try to sort out whether to fully believe and accept their reflection of the events.
The begining of the thread was asking to sign a petition for a very tragic event. I choose not to sign it.
I chose this in a matter not that I believe that he is wrong. I don't in fact believe that at all. War is not cut and dry. And it most absolutely cannot be upheld by rules (although as honorable as its intentions). History has only further proved this time and time. But there will never be (at least I think) peace in a world of such conflict. Two wrongs do not make a right. War does not bring about anything good.
I choose not to sign it because I don't believe that I am educated enough on this matter. I have never been to war nor first hand witnessed war. I don't understand what the soldiers, insurgents, and civilians go through (physically, mentally, or emotionally). I cannot relate, (no matter how much I think I can) so I shouldn't be the one to make a possible ill fated judgement (whichever way) for an event I cannot relate to. So hey, I figure I'm doing both of us a favor and making the right decision in this particular case.
In lamens terms.....I'm neutral. :cool: Lets give 1 for the 0 team. :lol:
Curt
lickem
01-02-2005, 04:36 PM
hmm both sides have taken this topic way out of perspective. I do not support the war in iraq nor am i against it, I believe the best thing to do now is to finish what we started as quickly and cleanly as possible and get the hell out. Arguing over why things happened or what caused things to happen does not solve problems. People need to work together now, including foriegn countries not just the united states in finding the best logical way to establish peace in Iraq, I would like to here some suggestions from both sides on this forum about what they think would be the best way to go about establishing Iraq and leaving. Instead of the sides on here going back and forth bickering over the others faults.
lickem
01-02-2005, 04:42 PM
i do pose one question though for all the people talking of the "illegal war." Please explain to me the sanctions of a legal war, and possibly cite some examples of "legal wars" cause silly me i thought that all wars were considered illegal and injustice was done in all
T4 Primera
01-02-2005, 05:30 PM
lickem,
I believe the US must leave first as the pre-condition required for an alternative security force and improvement in the security situation. This is not likely to happen though - for a number of reasons.
I believe the US must leave first as the pre-condition required for an alternative security force and improvement in the security situation. This is not likely to happen though - for a number of reasons.
taranaki
01-02-2005, 05:43 PM
People need to work together now, including foriegn countries not just the united states in finding the best logical way to establish peace in Iraq,
United Nations.
Too bad George is too stubborn to admit defeat.
United Nations.
Too bad George is too stubborn to admit defeat.
mellowboy
01-02-2005, 05:48 PM
i do pose one question though for all the people talking of the "illegal war." Please explain to me the sanctions of a legal war, and possibly cite some examples of "legal wars" cause silly me i thought that all wars were considered illegal and injustice was done in all
What part of invasion you dont understand?
What part of invasion you dont understand?
lickem
01-02-2005, 05:55 PM
okay so wars were the tactic of invasion is used are illegal got it, wait doesnt that still include everywar ever committed?
lickem
01-02-2005, 05:58 PM
lickem,
I believe the US must leave first as the pre-condition required for an alternative security force and improvement in the security situation. This is not likely to happen though - for a number of reasons.
i would support it, but who would compose of the alterantive securtiy force? The Un already declared it doesnt want to be involved. i think we need to clean up our mess and get out as soon as possible
I believe the US must leave first as the pre-condition required for an alternative security force and improvement in the security situation. This is not likely to happen though - for a number of reasons.
i would support it, but who would compose of the alterantive securtiy force? The Un already declared it doesnt want to be involved. i think we need to clean up our mess and get out as soon as possible
Tehvisseeus
01-02-2005, 10:24 PM
i would support it, but who would compose of the alterantive securtiy force? The Un already declared it doesnt want to be involved. i think we need to clean up our mess and get out as soon as possible
Another question would be what would happen during the transition period between the US being out and a new force getting composed and put in. Would the country be allowed to go into chaos?
Another question would be what would happen during the transition period between the US being out and a new force getting composed and put in. Would the country be allowed to go into chaos?
mellowboy
01-02-2005, 10:28 PM
Another question would be what would happen during the transition period between the US being out and a new force getting composed and put in. Would the country be allowed to go into chaos?
Ok i'm goin to tell you whats goin to happen. IF IT happens. IF the Americans leave NOW without cleaning up the mess. The Baath will take over QUICKLY. Thats what would happen.
Ok i'm goin to tell you whats goin to happen. IF IT happens. IF the Americans leave NOW without cleaning up the mess. The Baath will take over QUICKLY. Thats what would happen.
Tehvisseeus
01-03-2005, 02:41 AM
doesn't sound very likely considering most of the Ba'ath leadership is dead
taranaki
01-03-2005, 03:00 AM
Time to start a different thread.The original issue seems to have 'conveniently' disappeared without trace,as do so many war crimes committed by the victors.Of course, it may not have been a war crime,strictly speaking, but without the benefit of impartial and comprehensive scrutiny,we shall all have to make do with our own opinions.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026