American beheaded in Iraq

[Ermac]

I think we should Nuke them till they Glow and then Shoot Them in the Dark!
:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

 

[AgentXen]

I think we should Nuke them till they Glow and then Shoot Them in the Dark!
:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

One A-Bomb should do the trick, no?

 

[moz4rt]

Do you know what I find sick about all of this? Not the torture and the humiliation, but what the marines are ORDERED to do when in combat. There was a video a couple days ago of an american apache attacking a convoy. 5 seconds and all the trucks were down. The lucky iraqis that survived came crawling out of there vehicles, limping and screaming in pain. Some made it about 3 steps before giving in to the pain, falling down and sobbing. That didnt stop the american helicopter from firing round after round at the wounded and dying on the ground. They couldnt even defend themselves.

The Iraqis you speak of were Saddam loyalists. They are our enemy. What the Americans did is nothing compared what the terrorists do. We attack terrorists. They attack innocent civilians cut their heads off.

 

[63]

The Iraqis you speak of were Saddam loyalists. They are our enemy. What the Americans did is nothing compared what the terrorists do. We attack terrorists. They attack innocent civilians cut their heads off.

thats because that is the only way they can fight. How do you fight a war against a technology superior nation? They seem to be making their point rather nicely though..

 

[moz4rt]

thats because that is the only way they can fight. How do you fight a war against a technology superior nation? They seem to be making their point rather nicely though..

So it's ok for terrorists to attack civilians, but it's wrong for Americans to attack terrorists. Ok, I think I get your point.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

The Iraqis you speak of were Saddam loyalists. They are our enemy. What the Americans did is nothing compared what the terrorists do. We attack terrorists. They attack innocent civilians cut their heads off.

How is it any different to launching tank shells into civillian areas which tear people apart, limbs flying everywhere? How it is different to dropping laser guided bombs onto civillians from high altitudes? The U.S's form of terrorism is far more anonymous and less personal. But the same thing results, horrific deaths and hatred of the purpetrators.

The evil is on both sides and i fear it's going to be tit for tat now (refer to the neverending Palestinian/Israeli conflict). Obviously this beheading is going to frustrate and anger a lot of U.S soldiers, in future engagements i doubt they'll be so hesitant to kill civillians if it it means killing more iraqi "terrorists".

In conclusion, there is something horribly ****ed up with the entire middle east. The history is ancient and the culture is deep rooted. Changing culture cannot be done by simply invading and removing a leader. It's unfortunate that the war planners were such a bunch of absolute retards that couldn't forsee that.

 

[Apos]

The Iraqis you speak of were Saddam loyalists. They are our enemy. What the Americans did is nothing compared what the terrorists do. We attack terrorists. They attack innocent civilians cut their heads off.

I'm desperately trying to understand what the point of this is.

Nobody was claiming that what the U.S. did was the worst bunch of acts in the history of the universe. And nobody cliamed that Al Qaeda was a decent bunch of dudes: hell, they beheaded Daniel Pearl as well.

So... what's your point? I don't understand people's palpable glee at Berg's murder, this elation of "ha ha, now we can show everyone that they are worse, so what we doesn't matter anymore." What sense does it make? Don't people realize how sick they look gloating over an insane act of violence? The fact that Saddam and Al Qaeda can both do things that are worse is utterly, totally, completely, irrelevant. Nobody expects them to be the good guys. We are trying to win a war in part by saying that we are the good guys. We set ourselves up to work on a higher standard, and our President's pathetic administration and lack of planning got our reputation as the white shirts ruined for decades.

Finally, the people in those prisons were not all Saddam loyalsts. In fact, it's likely that only a few of them were. The Red Cross also found that the U.S. had no system, as is demanded under the Geneva Convention, of figuring out who was guilty and who was just picked up in a dragnet. They estimate that a majority of the people in there had no business being in prison at all: yet they were people who were simply "disappeared" in the middle of the night without any contacting of their familes or anything. This is the sort of thing that used to happen in Stalinist Russia, btw.

 

[moz4rt]

How is it any different to launching tank shells into civillian areas which tear people apart, limbs flying everywhere? How it is different to dropping laser guided bombs onto civillians from high altitudes?

The terrorists choose where they want to fight. They choose to attack us from civillian neighborhoods and mosques because they are cowards. They are hoping we won't drop bombs on civillians. By hiding in populated areas they can protect themselves while making us look bad if we attack them. We will drop bombs on terrorists who are hiding among civillians, but only as a last resort. I don't like it at all but they are the ones who are putting innocent people in danger.

 

[Apos]

OK how about Howard Dean's nuclear plant in Vermont? It was rated the least safe in the country, and he is a Dem.

What the heck does this have to do with anything? Who gives a flying hoop at the moon what Howard Dean is doing: he's not even running for President. If Dean was irresponsible, then too bad for Dean, but ultimately the President is the one in charge of national security. Just because other people aren't saints doesn't mean this President should get off the hook for gross errors in judgement and execution.

Furthermore, waste is a lot different from weapons like a nuclear bomb or an anthrax bomb.

A nuclear bomb maybe, but you are dead wrong about waste: those chemicals are the things needed to easily make horrible chemical weapons which can easily be spread over wide areas, killing hundreds in one shot and so badly poisoning many many more and certain areas that the devastation would be unthinkable. If that's not a WMD, what is?

Yes and we, and the other western nations, STILL believed he was making weapons! Surveillance can only cover so much ground!

Except that most of the claimed reasons to think that were debunked: and yet the President kept on lying about them!

Obviously it isnt complete fanatasism, no need for the blatant misrepresenation of my character either, by no means am I a fanatic. I am not calling you a liberal hippy, so I would appreciate the same respect.

How could I even be thought to be a liberal hippy when I am pro-war, pro-small government, etc.? You don't have to be a liberal to understand that lying to the American public to sell a war and then totally botching the promise of that war through gross incompetance is a bad thing.

What do you call the terrorist camps which housed thousands upon thousands of terrorists at a time in Afghanistan? Al Qaeda HAS succeeded, 9.11 is proof enough for me.

You're not even making any sense any more, or else you know nothing about this subject. 9/11 was just the first big move in what Al Qaeda sees as a century long chessgame to defeat the U.S. Destroying the WTC was not their final, ultimate goal. It was a gambit to lure us into getting heavily involved in the Middle East, stretching our military and will thin in a pointless war that would tire us but inflame the ME. That's exactly what they got. We fell for it, even though they told us exactly what they wanted to begin with. In fact, we didn't even succeed as much as they thought we would. They expected that we would kill Osama and make him a martyr. But we quickly dropped that task because Bush was more obsessed with Iraq than with fighting the war on terrorism.

There also have been links between Iraq and terrorism, just not as major as an Afghanistan type situation.

Yes, but not with Al Qaeda in planning 9/11. They sent money to suicide bombers in Israel. Their last attempt at terrorism was in 1993, when they may have tried to assisinate George Bush Sr. Clinton uncovered the plot, bombed them into the ground, told them they could expect more of the same if they ever tried something like that again, and there is no evidence of them ever beig involved in threatening terror on U.S. since then. They were not a big threat. Certainly not as big a threat as Saudi Arabia. But no: the rulers there were family buddies and business partners of good ole GW, so they got a pass.

The stance of taking out individual cells of terrorism was proven to be a failure under Clinton.

Except not. They foiled the major plots on their watch, and would have foiled 9/11 if the do-nothings had no taken power and decided that the most pressing concern we faced was stem cell research and scoffed at stepping up funding for fighting terrorism.

Bush's policy of taking down any country harboring terrorism seems to be working better so far (Libya), again only time will tell.

You really are just regurgitating the spin right wingers put out to mislead. Libya's new openness was purely craven and insincere, and what did get done was not solely because of the U.S., but due to the tireless work of Eurpean negotiators who worked out a deal. And even that isn't much: he's STILL threatening terrorism if we don't do what he wants on various issues. He's politely "giving up" WMDs he doesn't even really have.

 

[DarkStar]

What I don't understand is this: Why in the hell did these Iraqi insurgents squander the good faith they've recieved lately (due to the US torture scandal) by chopping an American's head off? They could have milked that scandal for all it was worth, now they're reminding everyone that they are just as bad (if not worse) than the US military. Seems really dumb. I guess these guys aren't exactly thinking on that level though.

 

[A2597]

there are times, like these, where I say pull out our troops begging for forgivness and admitting defeat...

then Nuke the whole freaking middle east while they chear in the streets, political backlash be damned.

 

[moz4rt]

I'm desperately trying to understand what the point of this is.

Nobody was claiming that what the U.S. did was the worst bunch of acts in the history of the universe. And nobody cliamed that Al Qaeda was a decent bunch of dudes: hell, they beheaded Daniel Pearl as well.

So... what's your point? I don't understand people's palpable glee at Berg's murder, this elation of "ha ha, now we can show everyone that they are worse, so what we doesn't matter anymore." What sense does it make?

I don't see anyone gloating at Berg's death except the terrorists who killed him. Even though they are much worse, that doesn't excuse the crimes of the soldiers who humiliated the Iraqi prisoners.

Don't people realize how sick they look gloating over an insane act of violence? The fact that Saddam and Al Qaeda can both do things that are worse is utterly, totally, completely, irrelevant. Nobody expects them to be the good guys. We are trying to win a war in part by saying that we are the good guys. We set ourselves up to work on a higher standard, and our President's pathetic administration and lack of planning got our reputation as the white shirts ruined for decades.

Finally, the people in those prisons were not all Saddam loyalsts. In fact, it's likely that only a few of them were.

I wasn't even talking about the prisons. I was speaking of an isolated incident. What you say is true though. Most of the inmates were not crimminals at all. Many of the prisoners are there because of crimes they committed under Saddam's regime. They'd through you in prison for farting in their presence.

 

[A2597]

*Skims thread*

And while I'm in a rant mood...

I'm sick and tired of you morons blaming RELIGION for this ...FILTH. Most religions, including Islam, preach LOVE. The only place on the face of this planet that religion causes wars is in the middle east, mainly due to fanatics like those...things, they certainly arn't people at that point, firing the first shot.

Educate before communicate people!

 

[Lucifer Crass]

You can't hug your children with nuclear arms If religion is real then there would be no use for science, that in itself proves religion is non-sense. Yeah I said it, religion in non-sense.

 

[crabcakes66]

Vietnam anyone?

 

[Mr-Fusion]

The only place on the face of this planet that religion causes wars is in the middle east, mainly due to fanatics like those...things, they certainly arn't people at that point, firing the first shot.

Educate before communicate people!

Ever heard of the conflicts between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland? Educate before communicate!

 

[crabcakes66]

*Skims thread*

And while I'm in a rant mood...

I'm sick and tired of you morons blaming RELIGION for this ...FILTH. Most religions, including Islam, preach LOVE. The only place on the face of this planet that religion causes wars is in the middle east, mainly due to fanatics like those...things, they certainly arn't people at that point, firing the first shot.

Educate before communicate people!

Im not able to remember a war that religion wasnt a factor.

 

[Lucifer Crass]

it rubs the lotion on the skin or else it gets the hose again

 

[phantomdesign]

What happened in the prisons was just an excuse, not the cause.

Secondly, I cannot stand how the media is throwing blame for the prisoner's treatment at Bush. What did Bush have to do with any of that? It would have happened the same under any other president.

On that note, why is the media showing a lot of pictures they shouldn't be? Remember the war-dead photos of hte flag-draped coffins? I'm not saying we should restrict the rights of hte media, but hte media should know better (hopefully no US media was stupid enough to show the actual beheading on the air).

 

[DarkStar]

Secondly, I cannot stand how the media is throwing blame for the prisoner's treatment at Bush. What did Bush have to do with any of that? It would have happened the same under any other president.

Umm...we wouldn't even be in Iraq had another president been elected.

 

[phantomdesign]

1. You dont know that.
2. That still does not adequately place any blame on Bush.

If I joined the army, then burned down your house, could I blame it on the President? lame

 

[DarkStar]

^^ You're saying Gore would have invaded Iraq? Highly doubtful.

 

[Sui]

shit. that harsh. 5 pages have been made in one night- this really is a bulging post... and a very serios subject.

its only natural that if you americans are supposed to be better than then, that the iraquis will then do something worse back. So was this kind of thing really that much of a shock, or was it inevitable from the moment the pictures got released?

 

[Pitbul]

Im not able to remember a war that religion wasnt a factor.

hes not quite saying religion was not a subject in War, but hes saying that most Religion does not condone nore support War. but this is you crabcakes66 im talking to so this post of your is the kind of "putting words in peoples mouths" post i'd expect from things like you.

 

[crabcakes66]

shit. that harsh. 5 pages have been made in one night- this really is a bulging post... and a very serios subject.

its only natural that if you americans are supposed to be better than then, that the iraquis will then do something worse back. So was this kind of thing really that much of a shock, or was it inevitable from the moment the pictures got released?

not a shock to me....



tit for tat You cant not expect things like this when you bomb men women and children and torture/molest prisoners.


....only the super patriotic/close minded idiots here in american could believe otherwise.

 

[crabcakes66]

hes not quite saying religion was not a subject in War, but hes saying that most Religion does not condone nore support War.

The only place on the face of this planet that religion causes wars is in the middle east

umm....you lost me

#1

He calls everyone morons and then rants about how religion is all about peace and love and never cuases wars outside of the mid-east.I say that religion has been a factor in any major war i can remember in modern times.
Please elaborate.

#2 putting words in peoples mouths is about the exact opposite of my personality......please if your going to start shit do it over something worthwhile.

 

[Jackal hit]

.I say that religion has been a factor in any major war i can remember in modern times.

hell, doesn't even have to be modern times.

 

[AH_Viper]

Christ I wake up and there's 10 pages on this subject.... I was going to read them all when I thought there might only be 3 but then I stopped when I notticed thier was 10, so sorry if this was mentioned before.

My two cents on the whole beheading thing is that its wrong ( duh ). Its quite obvious that America is being the bigger man here because the Iraqi's are always going to take everything one step further, thier like children.

My point thats slightly off subject though, in short:

1) We were right to invade Iraq, Sadam ruling a country like that is just wrong
2) It was the American men that did the torturing that should say sorry, not Bush, and as much as I hate him I think he was right not to say sorry (personaly don't see it making that much difference because of 3)
3) Whatever we try to say to the Iraq people is going to be twisted, you really think the translation they get on tele is going to be that accurate.... If the T.V. producers don't want it to be then it won't added to the fact you have millita walking around all the time spearding rummors about Americans all the time.
4) My acctual point is although pretty much every Iraqi wants us out of there, don't they realise that the second we leave some gang f***er is going to take over the country??!

Christ, sorry for rambeling for such a little point

 

[crabcakes66]

1) We were right to invade Iraq, Sadam ruling a country like that is just wrong

If we are on a crusade to rid the world of evil dictators there were plenty of other choices that would have been alot easiar.


The rest i pretty much agree with...... except the iraqis acting like children(read:cruel).....that is simply human nature....however childish it might seem to developed nations.

They lash out anyway they can.

 

[Jammydodger]

This is very bad, Im curently looking for security work out in Iraq i'v been in contact with some of the security employers out there and am waiting to see if they can get me some work out there.
I know its a war zone and very dangerous but I need the money, a couple of months out there and i'll be very well off.
There's going 2 be a load of recruitment of security when the hand over is done, Lets just hope things get better out there.

 

[h00dlum]

just saw the vid..kinda pisses me off...****in cave men..they all deserve to die, they bring nothing to this world more than shit..

 

[mortiz]

As far as I understand it, Gore technically had more votes than Bush, but it came down to Bush getting California or something?

 

[GhostValkyrie]

No, that's not it at all.
The election process is based on the Electoral Cellege. Which votes for the candidate based on the majority of that state voting for that person. However, more people live in certain states - This is how Gore got the popular vote, but Bush won. A state with a higher population may vote for that candidate, but that doesn't effect the Electoral vote of another state. Just because you get the popular vote doesn't mean you win.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

gore won the popular vote, bush won the electoral vote. the main state of contention was florida, where they had the recount and whatnot. from what i understand, some people still think gore actually won florida, and the vote was riggde or something.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

imo, the electoral college needs to be retired, it's an archaic, undemocratic institution. it's basically a left over from the time when the federal government feared that states could have too much power and become involved in their own power struggles leading to things like civil war. it's funny that the US as a shining beacon of democracy doesn't even have direct elections..

 

[GhostValkyrie]

gore won the popular vote, bush won the electoral vote. the main state of contention was florida, where they had the recount and whatnot. from what i understand, some people still think gore actually won florida, and the vote was riggde or something.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

imo, the electoral college needs to be retired, it's an archaic, undemocratic institution. it's basically a left over from the time when the federal government feared that states could have too much power and become involved in their own power struggles leading to things like civil war. it's funny that the US as a shining beacon of democracy doesn't even have direct elections..

Isn't this the same system that elected Bill Clinton? No one made a fuss when Clinton was elected twice. And though this may just be a case of bad memory, didn't Bob Dole get the popular vote when he ran against Clinton? Would you have said it should have been retired then?

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Isn't this the same system that elected Bill Clinton? No one made a fuss when Clinton was elected twice. And though this may just be a case of bad memory, didn't Bob Dole get the popular vote when he ran against Clinton? Would you have said it should have been retired then?

bad memory it is, dude you can always look up public info like this. clinton won the electoral (by a huge margin) and popular vote (by 49% to 40%). and yes, i've always felt that the EC needs to be done away with, it's rediculous.

edit: wasn't this infact the first time ever that this had happened? isn't that why there was such a big fuss (although not as much as there should have been, imo)?

 

[GhostValkyrie]

Okay, I was just checking your stance on it. I know lots of people who will support something, until it doesn't support them.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

take the coming election, say bush wins the popular vote and kerry wins the electoral vote. while i'd be personally glad to have an evangelical fundamentalist out of the head office, and i may even think that america would be better off w/ kerry, ultimately, this country deserves to get what it orders. if the majority of americans elect a president, they deserve to get him, for better or worse.. simple as that.

on a completely unrelated note, let me add that i think the presidency should be limited to one 6-year term. that'd be the way to actually get something done in policy instead of 4 years of re-election posturing.

 

[mortiz]

At this rate I don't think Bush will be winning either, Kerry seems awfully popular.(compared to Bush anyway, it's probably because of Bush he is so popular)

Also Kerry has more influence with the northern states?

 

[Lil' Timmy]

who knows, the election is a long ways off, things change quickly. no predictions coming from me anymore.