lurch 0 #26 November 11, 2005 Bill, I'd like to respectfully suggest that your comparison is invalid. " And if that ever came to pass, and a US soldier drove his Bradley into an enemy fortification, killing himself and taking out ten enemy soldiers - we'd call him a hero. " Yes we would. But that is not what the slammic fundies are doing. If you wanted to be fair, you'd alter that statement a bit, more like... " And if that ever came to pass, and a US soldier drove his Bradley loaded with explosives into a recruitment office in a manhattan shopping mall killing himself and taking out ten enemy soldiers and over four hundred innocent men women and children" - we'd call him an abomination, hunt him down and execute him. In fact, we already did that. Timmy Mcveigh ring a bell? In the islamic world, this behavior is usually applauded and called heroism or martyrdom. This particular incident is considered an outrage by arabs because of the poor targeting. They don't give a shit if a fundy self detonates in an Israeli mall or teeny-bopper discotheque taking out 2 soldiers and 400 children because hey, they DID bag a couple soldiers among all those dead jewish children... This time they're outraged because Zarqawi has apparently lost what little care he had for "his own" and apparently did not care if he bagged a couple hundred innocent islamic arabs along with a couple foreign infidels. That kind of defines the borderline between warfare and sheer atrocity. If Zarqy (not to mention palestinians, etc) limited themselves to military targets they'd probably have a lot more support and be seen as a lot less psycho. I've read stuff from both sides and its like they both try to outdo each other as to who can be more evil...what the Israelis do to the palestinians is atrocious...If I were a palestinian I'd be doing everything I could, to kill Israeli SOLDIERS... Not detonating explosives in malls trying to kill as many kids as I could. If the US was invaded conquered and occupied by, say, China, that wouldn't change. Psycho is psycho no matter the religion or nationality or situation used to justify it. I'd be part of the resistance, trying to bag as many Chinese -soldiers- as I could. I most specifically would NOT detonate explosives in neighborhood malls slaughtering hundreds of innocent people and justifying it by claiming it was an ok target since some chinese soldiers sometimes go to the mall. Sad thing is Jordan didn't deserve this, dammit, so far as I know it is the only country in that neck of the woods that has been trying to get its shit together...Live and learn... or die, and teach by example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #27 November 11, 2005 >If the US was invaded conquered and occupied by, say, China, that > wouldn't change. Psycho is psycho no matter the religion or > nationality or situation used to justify it. I'd be part of the > resistance, trying to bag as many Chinese -soldiers- as I could. I > most specifically would NOT detonate explosives in neighborhood > malls slaughtering hundreds of innocent people and justifying it by > claiming it was an ok target since some chinese soldiers sometimes > go to the mall. That's fine. And if you screwed up, and you DID take out hundreds of innocent Chinese in your attempt to get a convoy of Chinese soldiers, you'd still be called a hero. And all the same people here who are justifying killing of Iraqi civilians would justify all those people killed in the mall. Heck, by that time, we would have done the same thing we did in World War II, and defined all Chinese as the devil incarnate; it would be a moral imperative to kill them! We can sit here and argue what-ifs because we can sleep in our beds at night, wake up, go to work and come home again without fear of being shot or blown to bits or seeing our friends executed. And STILL there are people on this board in favor of "just kill em all and let God sort em out." If we were in the same position the Iraqis are in - in cities where violence, assassination, "accidental killings" and bombings were an everyday occurrence - there would be far more hatred. And there would be a ready excuse for anything that hurt the occupiers who brought the violence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #28 November 11, 2005 QuoteWhile the foreign fighters may stoke the insurgency flames, ... Bill what does this mean in context with the story? To me it implies more foreign involvement by someone... Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #29 November 11, 2005 >Bill what does this mean in context with the story? In other words, most of the fighters are Iraqis. The foreign fighters who enter, although they are a minority, just make things worse. I don't think the point of the piece is that "there are no foreign fighters," nor is it that they are not a problem. They are just not the majority. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #30 November 15, 2005 Note that they did not get upset until it was Muslims getting killed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slink2 0 #31 November 15, 2005 US policy my lad, US policy! Who is the number one recipient of US aid? Do some research and then ask some questions. You might be shocked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #32 November 15, 2005 Quote Note that they did not get upset until it was Muslims getting killed. And note that we didn't start taking an interest in stopping terrorism until it was Americans getting killed. Your bias is showing, as usual. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #33 November 15, 2005 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note that they did not get upset until it was Muslims getting killed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And note that we didn't start taking an interest in stopping terrorism until it was Americans getting killed. no we were interested when jews were getting killed. and muslims as well. Your bias is showing, as usual. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #34 November 15, 2005 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note that they did not get upset until it was Muslims getting killed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And note that we didn't start taking an interest in stopping terrorism until it was Americans getting killed. no we were interested when jews were getting killed. and muslims as well. Your bias is showing, as usual. Didn't show a lot of interest when the IRA was killing Brits. Just sent money to the IRA.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #35 November 15, 2005 >Didn't show a lot of interest when the IRA was killing Brits. Just sent >money to the IRA. That's christians killing christians, and that causes cognitive dissonance. So no more mention of that, please. Only muslims kill because of religion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #36 November 15, 2005 QuoteQuoteWhile the foreign fighters may stoke the insurgency flames, ... Bill what does this mean in context with the story? To me it implies more foreign involvement by someone... US and UK troops are foreigners in Iraq.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
