Stuart,

The post above was your invitation to respond.

I never made any comment for or against the actions of our military in my post. I interpreted your response as elevating the terrorist thugs to which I refer by pointing to what you believe to be a relatively greater evil. I came to such an interpretation based on your quoting me before holding up the US military as thugs. I likewise concluded that you agree with Pat's notion of freedom fighters. There in lies the moral relativism to which I refer.

To restate my point by analogy, if two criminal organizations get into a turf war, one need not be virtuous and the other purely evil. Both may well be morally reprehensible.

I know. I wish FastPat understood his garage better too.

The French Resistance (full of communists, etc. who did exactly that), the Serb Resistance, the Bulgarian Resistance, the Polish Resistance (what there was of it, communists), and on and on. If you think Freedom Fighters in previous wars were paragons of virtue, think again.

The point is that those in Iraq who resist the invasion and occupation of the US government are in fact just as much Freedom Fighters for their country as those I listed above.

The US government in Iraq is behaving exactly like the Germans did in the european countries they occupied. Destroying whole villages to "get terrorists", killing hundreds of thousands of people, putting puppet governments in power, and sadly, much more.

Pat,

This was the question I really wanted you to answer.

I'm not talking about resisting puppet governments. I'm talking about targeting innocent victims of this war. Your freedom fighters are not killing innocent civilians as unintended targets. Civilians are the primary target in many cases and it is happening on a daily basis.

How can killing innocent Iraqis help to expel American invaders? I don't see anything heroic in their actions.

Tell us more. 'splain to us morons about how you're going to stomp out terrorism using our military. 'splain to us idiots how you're going to scare them into not attacking us any more. Or perhaps you're thinking the military will eradictate them all. Outline this for us and please, go really slowly and use small words. We're not familiar with mature and complex "we've got lots of bombs and guns, more than you've got, and we're going to blow your asses to smithereens" policy.

We're very impressed by this maturity, and we'll be more impressed as you explain the details. Please excuse those of us who think the terrorism problem will not be solved by this deliciously simple and convenient strategy. We're ahhhhh......awfully stupid. Just as you say.

Re: Re: Re: Re: They have NO idea of what they are messing with
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JSDSKI
Force has certainly worked well so far - hope you are calmer in the cockpit than you are on the typewriter. [/QUOTE
that is ok...as long as they don't nuke chicago, afterall that is where all the good muslims are..... :rolleyes:

I think that would depend on circumstances. Adopting the techniques used by the US government to shut down Germany wherein they bombed churches, stores, and the private homes of Germans, and now are doing that in Iraq; would require special circumstances. For example, if the southern states elected to secede again and were invaded again; blowing up quite a few things in order to deny that invader solace, privacy, and the look of secuity would have to be considered.

Iraq is a complicated situation unleashed by the US government's illegal, immoral, and illadvised militarism. You must ask and then answer; were any of these activities happening in locations where they're happening now prior to March 2003, or did they begin after March 2003; when you've answered that honestly, then you should see the Iraqi Freedom Fighters as just that.

I only consider what is working to stop the US government in its' tracks and don't care who or why they're accomplishing that. A weaker or weakened US government is good for America and that's all I care about. I do not have divided loyalties nor do I have a loyalty to any government entity, I am loyal to America and Americans only.

I won't understand my garage until I build it. http://images14.fotki.com/v370/photo.../smokin-vi.gif

"Blade: You obviously do not KNOW WHO YOU'RE ******* WITH!"

Well, have we figured out how to alert the terrorists that we are WAY more powerful than they are and we have bigger dicks? That we're going to just blow them all back to the Stone Age if they don't stop hating IMMEDIATELY?

Of course, that assumes that our strategy is to scare then into not attacking us any more. Is that our strategy? Or are we going to just pull a genocide thing and eradicate them all?

Perhaps Snowjob is just busy now, and he'll get us these answers when he has a moment.

Pat,

I never believed for a moment that your loyalties were divided. I've read too many of your posts.

That said, the above is the most evasive tap dance routine I've ever seen you post.

Those so-called freedom fighters are not blowing up "things", they are targeting people who are simply trying to get on with their lives in the aftermath of the invasion and ouster of Saddam. Women, children and the elderly are being targeted to destabilize the situation and create further chaos.

So, I'm not quite hearing if you are ready to kill your fellow Americans to repel those nasty invader/occupiers.

I for one, cannot see how intentionally killing a hundred of my own for every one of the enemy is a smart strategy in Iraq.

In addition, the violence against civilians is keeping American troops in the country rather than quickening their departure. The spectre of an explosion of violence and a total lack of security is the stated concern offered as justification for a troop surge. So I really don't see how killing more women shopping for food for their dinner table accomplishes much.

Given that their tactics don't seem to advance the cause of "freedom", I cannot see the people of which you speak as even remotely resembling freedom fighters.

First, you're depending on the US government for most of your information as to what the Iraqi Freedom Fighters are blowing up, and who is doing what to whom. May I suggest that any information coming from a US government source be treated with no more validity than you'd treat a statement from the German National Socialist Party in 1938.

They're advancing the cause of freedom from the US government, and as far as I'm concerned, that's the only important thing for Americans.

Pat,
Then we should invite them to come here and fight for us.

Ok, they aren't "freedom fighters" - they're not interested in freedom, they're interested in power and money. They aren't "killing their own" - because they target different sects and tribes and they'll kill their own if they think they can blame it on the coalition troops and rile up more people. They want "troops in country" because it adds to the chaos and makes people angry enough to support insurgents (anybody but occupiers). They "kill women" for much the same reasons as all of the above. More conflict is better for the insurgents.

Im not sure that you can apply this analogy, but yes in the case of Iraq, both sides are commiting acts which are morally reprehensible.

And this is where many have a problem. The US lead COTW invaded Iraq, using a series of bogus justifications before settling "regime change". It is argued that "regime change" would never have cut it as a justifcation in the first instance.

In many peoples opinion, the morality of the war was flawed form the outset. You might think the COTW wears the white hats. To a lot of other people however, and not just in the ME, the COTW just looks like the Wermacht circa 1940.

No, then they'd be the US government.

Pat,

I don't see how a bunch of U.S. hating jihaddists really forward the cause of freedom from the US government for Americans.

In fact, many of those jihaddists are emboldening the US government to encroach on the personal freedoms of Americans under the guise of Homeland Security and the war on terror.

Iraq has become a lightning rod for Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic groups. So even if they weren't there prior to 2003, which is open to debate, the government can sell the idea of fighting terrorists in Iraq now, because they are there in places like Anbar Province.

The problem the US faces in fighting terrorists who wish to strike on our own soil, is that we have little or no human intelligence capabilities with which to pin point and destroy the real enemy. Many of those capabilities have been gone since the 60s.

So much of the public is content to see the US flail at terrorist organizations using infantry divisions to take out groups of 5 or 10 Al Qaeda operating in a cell, because they don't understand and don't want to know what it takes to compromise these organizations from within. We don't seem to have the right assets to combat terrorists and won't until we are willing to play the dirty game of infiltrating Al Qaeda and other organizations. To make matters worse, we needed to do that 15 to 25 years ago. It's a bit late now.

I see a part of your problem. You've apparently accepted the Bush'ist talking point of "they hate us for our freedoms".

The reasons for any attack upon America soil is purely because the US government has been meddling in mideastern business for more than 80 years. Murdering people directly or putting in other cooperative governments who then murder for the US government.

One last thing for5 you to ponder is that the US government has spent over $200 billion on the war on terrorism not including Iraq and Afghanistan. That's to fight about 5000 jihadist muslims worldwide, enough to give each of them a cash payment of about $40 million. With nothing to show for it.

They would take the money and still attack us, given the opportunity.

There is no way to undo the past. The British, French, Dutch and former Soviets, to name just a few, have done their share of meddling as well.

So even if the US were to clean up it's international act to suit them, we will still be left with a fight.

what's your source on this? I'm interested where the "honeypot" theory originally came from, and who's pushing it these days...

Yet, except for the British hoping to snatch crumbs, the others appear to have made a peace, and have mostly withdrawn.

Quote:

So even if the US were to clean up it's international act to suit them, we will still be left with a fight.

Since America wasn't under attack, or even consideration for an attack, until well after World War Two, your comment is ahistorical.

Further, that's a risk that must be taken. We must adopt George Washington's recommendation of long ago because we don't have the moral authority to do otherwise.

The THIRD investigation of our intelligence has just concluded the same thing as the first two. NO the intelligence was not tampered with, the analysts were not pressured, Bush did not phony up anything. It was our best intelligence and the rest of the worlds that Sadam had WMDs. The intelligence turned out to be flat out wrong. Bushes main mistake was not firing the entire lot, on the spot. His second mistake was to try to modify the mission to fit the new circumstances. Yet his course of action should not have been modified. The liberal, hate Bush crowd has offered so much hope and support to our enemy’s that they are still hanging on. They should all be hanged for treason.

Then there’s Pat. The stars and bars crowd will not have him, so where can he go? His support of our enemy is as bad or worse than the liberals. So I say hang him for treason as well.

Actually, another damning study was just released that shows that the Pentagon bullied the intel community into revising their analysis of SH as a threat.

Not sure where you get your news, but it sure isn't from any legitimate source.

In fact the Department of Defense Inpector General has released a report that says the intelligence was tampered with and phonied up by Bush II appointee's, placed in office for just that purpose. See: http://www.dodig.mil/IGInformation/archives/Unclass%20%20Executive%20Summary.pdf

Quote:

It was our best intelligence and the rest of the worlds that Sadam had WMDs. The intelligence turned out to be flat out wrong.

Almost anyone in the intel business, and anyone with a modicum of intellect, knew that the Iraqi government had no special weapons capability. I knew it, and if I knew it, thousands knew it.

Quote:

Bushes main mistake was not firing the entire lot, on the spot. His second mistake was to try to modify the mission to fit the new circumstances. Yet his course of action should not have been modified.

There was never a plan in place with the slightest chance of success in Iraq.

Quote:

The liberal, hate Bush crowd has offered so much hope and support to our enemy’s that they are still hanging on. They should all be hanged for treason.

It's time for death squads in America, he says.

Quote:

Then there’s Pat. The stars and bars crowd will not have him, so where can he go? His support of our enemy is as bad or worse than the liberals. So I say hang him for treason as well.

Please believe me when I tell you that you don't want to go any farther with this line of thinking. We're not going to have death squads in America.

I read the same report and you are wrong. The report stated that nothing illegal was done and in fact that the analysis was improved by much constructive criticism. The WMD portion was unchanged. I get my news from sources like the WSJ, the acutal reports the gov publishes.

A good summary is given in todays WSJ editorial page.

Do you have a link or copy of the report?

doesn't living the past over and over get boring ?

Past is Prologue.

I don't want to speak for speeder; maybe this is what he was talking about:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070209/UPDATE/702090441/-1/rss

".......Levin pointed to statements by Vice President Dick Cheney and others before the war alleging the al-Qaida link and citing intelligence developed by Feith's office that had been leaked to a conservative magazine.

Among the inspector general's findings: Feith developed and distributed intelligence linking Iraq and al-Qaida; and Feith's conclusions differed from consensus judgments of the nation's intelligence community and were unsupported by the underlying intelligence data.

At issue is an organization called the Office of Special Plans, set up by Rumsfeld under Feith shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. Democrats have long charged, and news reports have indicated, that Feith used the office to undermine conclusions by the CIA and other intelligence agencies that there was no link between Saddam and al-Qaida. Levin asked in 2005 for an inspector general's report on Feith's activities.

Most of the inspector general's report is classified, but according to a two-page unclassified summary, the report confirmed many of Levin's allegations.

The report found that Feith's activities did not break the law, and were authorized by Rumsfeld.

But "the actions were, in our opinion, inappropriate given that the intelligence assessments were intelligence products and did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community," the summary reads......."

Yeh, and bottom line, Bush NEVER lied.

Bush II did authorize and order civilian homes to be targeted and bombed in Iraq. I know that this is fact because Bush II stated that he had done so on national TV. That's a war crime, and significantly worse than lying to America.

Re: Re: Re: They have NO idea of what they are messing with
 

COTW ya peanut.

Re: Re: Re: They have NO idea of what they are messing with
 

Dear peanut,

Some questions:

1. Who are "these people" exactly?
2. Why are they not understanding the COTW message of force?
3. Are we not using enough of it? (Force)
4. Who was the popular historical figure who said "extreme problems demand extreme solutions"? (Hint: this is a translation from German).
5. You reckon we are in danger of taking a leaf out of his book? (Another hint: Mein K_mpf)

Re: Re: Re: Re: They have NO idea of what they are messing with
 

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." - Herman Goering, April 18, 1946.

Geez, Pat...I thought I was reading something from the Project for the New American Century.

All of the ideas at PNAC were borrowed. Mostly from Leon Trotsky, but from other fellow socialists as well.

I think Orwell was an inspiration, too.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They have NO idea of what they are messing with
 

Oh, its all changed since Hermann's day. Now the poor slob can back to the farm with a trade, a pension and maybe even a college education to go with his prosthetic limb.

And the undying gratitude of his country. (NA alert: This sentence may contain traces of irony)

Sen Levin's bs has been proved wrong by a 2004 Sen Intelligence Comm report, the Robb-Silberman Comm, and last week the Defense Dept Inspector General said to Congress that Feith's actions were authorized.

The issue with attacking Iraq was WMD stockpiles. CIA Dir Tenet said it was a "slam dunk" that Saddam had such stockpiles. Bush relied upon CIA for making his case for war.

afaik in the intelligence business almost nothing is certain. Before 9/11 the CIA's intel consensus was that terrorism was a minor problem.

Sen Levin is a political hack.

Orwell frightens them, he was writing about the ultimate sociofascist state. Orwell is too revealing, he holds up the mirror and forces them to look into it.