Iraq video

[Eric5273]

I did mean "trained to hate", but in an indirect way. There is even more propoganda aimed at the soldiers than at the general public.

One example is the stories during the Gulf War that were told about Iraqi soldiers removing Kuwaiti babies from incabators and leaving them to die. Anybody would hate someone who did that. The problem is that those stories were fictional and were made up to sell the war.

Another example is how the Iraqi rebels are being called "terrorists". They are no different than the American soldiers. They believe they are fighting for freedom as well. Yet American soliders are lead to believe these are people who enjoy killing women and children and do this for sport. Yet I have not read a single report of a bombing of a bus, or a supermarket or some other public place. All the bombings have been of police stations, military checkpoints, government offices, etc -- all political targets. Those killed in these attacks are no different than the "colateral damage" (Pentagon terminology) done by our bombing. A couple of years ago, the word "terrorist" was used to describe someone who targets civilians. But now it seems to be used to describe anyone who attacks are soldiers as well. This has reduced the word "terrorist" to mean "enemy".

During WWI, a common belief among French and British soldiers was that if they were captured, the German soldiers would kill them, cook their bodies, and eat them.

The goal is to demonize the enemy. Normal people cannot kill someone they do not dislike or hate. If you have no problem killing someone who you do not dislike or hate, then you are not a stable human being.

 

[19dcavscout]

terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]

A terrorist is one who does this act. So how are they not terrorists? They target civilians, this is proven.

And I do not remember getting any training on hating anybody. Sure I will shoot without hesitating but mainly because it is better them than me, and because my fellow soldiers standing to the left and right of me are expecting me to do so. And I tell you what, id you do not like what our government is doing you can leave. Or better yet go to Iraq for a little while and see what happens if they get a hold of you. Do you think they care whether or not that you are against the war? No. So go over there for a little while and tell me if after a little while you too are not loking at everyone trying to determine if they want to kill you or not.

 

[NSXrebel]

And last time I heard, they were called insurgents.

 

[Eric5273]

I have not seen one report of the Iraqi insurgency targeting civilians. All the reports are attacks on Police Stations, Military targets, and government offices.

If terrorism is only considered to be attacks on civilian targets, then why was the attack on the USS Cole considered a terrorist attack? Is that a civilian ship?

What about the 1982 attack on the Marine Barracks in Lebenon? Was that a civilian target?

They have muddied the term by lumping everyone who fights against us together as "terrrorists" and in the process have made the term "terrorism" quite ambiguous. It does not have any meaning anymore. It simply means "enemy".

 

[Eric5273]

And last time I heard, they were called insurgents.

That is the term the "liberal' press has used. The conservative press always says "terrorists". The front page of the New York Post last week said "Terrorists attempt to disrupt elections".

What they are is "rebels".

 

[Viper Driver]

What they are is "rebels".

No, they are terrorists.

 

[Eric5273]

No, they are terrorists.

Define what a "terrorist" is. I really have no idea what that means. And be clear....I will assume whatever your defition is that it is complete and final.

 

[Sig]

And be clear....I will assume whatever your defition is that it is complete and final.

LOL. If anything, your posts are written in a tone that you feel your opinion is the only thing that is 'complete and final'. Ignoring the fact that there are no absolutes in this life aside from death, is a major ommission. This applies to everything from politics to the speed of light. This lack of absolutes is the cause of the gray areas people the world over... for all of history have argued over and will argue over until the day we no longer exist.

There are valid points on both sides of an issue... beit political, business strategy, or personal debates.

Be well and may we all keep our sense of moral/idea superiority in check.

 

[Eric5273]

I'm just tired of "terrorism" or "terrorist" being used as a term which seems to change in meaning as they apply it to everything and everyone they dislike. Please explain exactly what it means, because I really have no idea.

For example, if the target of an attack is a military target, but innocent civilians are killed in the process, is that terrorism?

 

[19dcavscout]

I dont care what your reports say. I have seen it and that is all the reports I need. I wont go into details because I dont feel that I need to. These people have targeted civilians which make them terrorists because there goal is to put terror intot the minds of the people.

 

[newby]

They are called Terrorists because :

there goal is to put terror into the minds of the people.

That's a good enough defination for me :smile:

 

[Eric5273]

there goal is to put terror intot the minds of the people.

And you know this how? ESP?

 

[nkb]

And I tell you what, id you do not like what our government is doing you can leave.

That is such an ignorant, narrow-minded, knee-jerk reaction.

If you do not understand every individual's rights to voice their opinion, and disagree with their government, then maybe you should consider leaving, because democracy is obviously not your thing.

It's a good thing that the people who fought for our independance and the abolishment of slavery, among other causes, weren't convinced by people like you to just leave, because they didn't like the way things were.

 

[Viper Driver]

Define what a "terrorist" is. I really have no idea what that means. And be clear....I will assume whatever your defition is that it is complete and final.

All of this coming from someone who thinks Geroge Bush was responsible for 9/11. No surprises here.

It's already been posted on this thread, but here goes again for the selectively illiterate anti-everything American among us:

terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]


BTW, THERE ARE reports of terrorists targeting civilians. There are plenty of reports of Al-Zarqawi thugs using violence directly against Iraqi civilians in an attempt to intimidate/influence the masses. I don't know of a more clear-cut definition of terrorism than the Iraqi "insurgency."

You choose "rebel" for your label. I choose terrorist. BFD, what they are is unwilling to negotiate and incapable of waging peace. They (the evil among the good Muslims) are out to replace our entire society with their own macro-Talibani way of life. Given the option to do so, they'd wipe us off the face of the earth. It is either kill or be killed with these extremists, so my vote is to kill them first. What's your vote? Run and hide? Wait around for another 9/11?

Not me. I'd rather take the fight to them, thank you very much. I'd rather the bloodshed be on their front porch than mine.

 

[Eric5273]

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]

Nothing the Iraqi rebels have done resembles this.

BTW, THERE ARE reports of terrorists targeting civilians.

I have not seen any. Care to post some articles from reputable news sources of specific events? I can post dozens which show the targets to be military, police, and government targets.

There are plenty of reports of Al-Zarqawi thugs using violence directly against Iraqi civilians in an attempt to intimidate/influence the masses.

Again, I have not seen any of these reports. I have seen plenty of generalized statements and analysis such as your own which claim this to be true, but never any reports of specific events. Please post some.

BFD, what they are is unwilling to negotiate

No, they have attempted to negotiate. Last Spring they negotiated a ceasefire in Fallujah with the Iraqi government, and there was peace there until the US military invaded again in the Fall. George Bush is unwilling to negotiate....he has said so many times..."We will not negotiate with terrorists" (there's that word again).

They (the evil among the good Muslims) are out to replace our entire society with their own macro-Talibani way of life.

They don't give a crap about our society, they only care about their own, and they want us to get out of their country.

Given the option to do so, they'd wipe us off the face of the earth. It is either kill or be killed with these extremists, so my vote is to kill them first.

They are acting no different than we would act if a foreign military invaded our country. (I'm sure you will say that is different since you think different rules apply to America than apply to other countries)

I'd rather the bloodshed be on their front porch than mine.

The Iraqis never did anything to us. There did not have to be bloodshed on anyone's front porch.

 

[19dcavscout]

"That is such an ignorant, narrow-minded, knee-jerk reaction.

If you do not understand every individual's rights to voice their opinion, and disagree with their government, then maybe you should consider leaving, because democracy is obviously not your thing.

It's a good thing that the people who fought for our independance and the abolishment of slavery, among other causes, weren't convinced by people like you to just leave, because they didn't like the way things were."

Why should I leave? I am serving my country. I am sick of people who b***h about how things should be done yet they refuse to attempt to change them. I don't like people who say things they obviously have little knowledge about. What better reputable source do you need other than someone who was there? I saw it. I've been there. I more than understand every individuals right to voice there opinion, I make sure they can still do it tomorrow. And besides maybe if people realized how lucky we americans really do have it, everyone would change there mind. Like I said I have honestly met very few Iraqi's that honestly hate us being over there. Most I have met have been very grateful that we have got rid of Saddam. The minority always gets the most attention. Go over and ask the people, they will tell you.

 

[Viper Driver]

I have not seen any. Care to post some articles from reputable news sources of specific events? I can post dozens which show the targets to be military, police, and government targets.

I read SITREPs nearly every day where such instances occur. Sorry if I can't post them. Just because the media doesn't report on them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Also, there are plenty of civilians being targeted AND reported on the news. The Egyptians who were abducted a few days ago were civilians, for instance. What do you think the status was of the female British aid worker who was killed a few months ago? Was she military, government, or police?

No, they have attempted to negotiate. Last Spring they negotiated a ceasefire in Fallujah with the Iraqi government, and there was peace there until the US military invaded again in the Fall.

Are you confusing Fallujah with Najaf? My squadron was over there this past summer, and there was never a true ceasefire in Fallujah. Al-Zarqawi's thugs controlled Fallujah up until we booted them out, and we never had any kind of deal with him. And despite your assertion, it was not us who broke any ceasefire in the first place.

George Bush is unwilling to negotiate....he has said so many times..."We will not negotiate with terrorists" (there's that word again).

We won't negotiate with terrorists, because when we do then it opens up a whole can of worms. Prove yourself to be willing to listen (such as what Arafat was able to transform himself into, barely, in the Palestinian's case) and we'll take you seriously. Keep cutting off heads until we unilaterally pull completely out of Iraq, and you can see there's not much room for negotiation.

On a completely different level, we WERE able to negotiate a cease fire with Al-Sadr in Najaf which still holds today. There have been countless "negotiations" in both Iraq and Afghanistan which have led to peace in many areas. You and the press like to dwell on mistakes and doom/gloom scenarios, not reality.

They don't give a crap about our society, they only care about their own, and they want us to get out of their country.

And they are being led by a foreigner themselves, Al-Zarqawi, who has been annointed by another foreigner (Bin Laden) as an official cell of Al-Qaeda. How hypocritical is that? In fact, a good portion of the "insurgents" we capture or kill aren't even Iraqis at all.

The vast majority of Iraqis are glad we came in and toppled Saddam. Like the vast majority of us here in the USA, they don't want our troops on their soil one day longer than is necessary.

They are acting no different than we would act if a foreign military invaded our country. (I'm sure you will say that is different since you think different rules apply to America than apply to other countries)

Don't put words in my mouth. First of all, different rules apparently DO apply to us than them. It's called the Law of Armed Conflict and the Geneva Conventions, and it seems that only we are the ones prosecuting our own when someone disobeys them (a la Abu Ghraib).

A majority of Iraqis wanted Saddam gone. A tiny minority of people in a tiny minority of the country are the ones causing trouble. There'd be a big difference if someone invaded our country, because (despite the whiny socialists/communists/anarchists etc.) most people are happy with our system despite it's flaws. However, I see a lot going on over there perpetrated by that tiny minority that would never happen over here. A sick segment of society, maybe, but there is no way that this type of crap would have any kind of mass appeal at all. Despite media efforts to portray otherwise, it doesn't have mass appeal in Iraq, and it sure wouldn't catch on over here.

Do you think we'd kidnap innocent people and butcher them in front of video cameras?

Do you think we'd set fire to a convoy of foreign aid workers, pull the bodies from the vehicles, mutilate the corpses, and hang them from a bridge?

Do you think we'd randomly go on suicide missions, sending human-driven car bombs into our "enemy" when we know damn well that innocent bystanders will probably be killed?

Even as an occupied people, the majority of Iraqis do not condone this type of "resistance."

Al-Zarqawi and his terrorist thugs are mostly foreigners and Baathists. What they represent are little more than glorified gang members and murderers. They would be killing someone whether the USA was in Iraq or not.....it's just now they have someone to blame for their actions other than themselves.

The Iraqis never did anything to us. There did not have to be bloodshed on anyone's front porch.

What did the Serbians do to us?

What did the Afghanis themselves do to us?

What did Germany do to us before 1941? What did Italy do to us?

What did Germany do to us before 1918?

Let history be the judge.

 

[Eric5273]

In fact, a good portion of the "insurgents" we capture or kill aren't even Iraqis at all.

According to the Pentagon, of the 1500+ insurgents captured in the battle for Fallujah this past fall, 12 (twelve) were foreignors.

Do you think we'd kidnap innocent people and butcher them in front of video cameras?

Yes. And then they would show the video to the press and claim the "terrorists" did this.

Do you think we'd set fire to a convoy of foreign aid workers, pull the bodies from the vehicles, mutilate the corpses, and hang them from a bridge?

No....that is something that required absolute hate and rage. They would simply drop bombs and kill the people.

Do you think we'd randomly go on suicide missions, sending human-driven car bombs into our "enemy" when we know damn well that innocent bystanders will probably be killed?

No, we would just drop bombs. They will (and have) shoot down an entire plane to assasinate someone.

Al-Zarqawi and his terrorist thugs

This person is long since dead. He does not exist. He is a fairy tale. The boogie man...etc.

What did the Serbians do to us?

What did the Afghanis themselves do to us?

What did Germany do to us before 1941? What did Italy do to us?

What did Germany do to us before 1918?

Let history be the judge.

All wars which could have been avoided.

 

[eg9]

Right or wrong... We'll never know.... 19dcavscout could find himself in Hell when death awaits him for following evil political directives... or maybe he'll be on the right hand side of God.. or Eric might be considered an evil man with forked tongue spreading hatred amongst the mighty and good American people... or maybe he's the only true messenger of God here..... OR... none of the above because you do not believe in a God...

Someone said it best in one of the above posts... The ONLY... I repeat.. THE ONLY certainty here is death... THAT'T IT!! All of this debating will mean nothing until our end... Then we'll know if going into Iraq was the right thing to do or not...

or maybe not.....


Sorry guys... I'm currently enrolled in an Educational Values/Philosophy course...

 

[Viper Driver]

According to the Pentagon, of the 1500+ insurgents captured in the battle for Fallujah this past fall, 12 (twelve) were foreignors.

Checking your "statistics", but for now......

Well, hell, I'd get out of dodge if it wasn't my hometown, either. Leave the locals to fight, because they are going to be angrier when the M-1 Abrams comes barreling down their street.

It's pretty clear that the cockroaches fled when we shined the light on them. Mosul is one of the places they fled to.

Yes. And then they would show the video to the press and claim the "terrorists" did this.

Well, the "they" you are referring to here was the "we" you were referring to in an earlier post. So, you're implying that you or I would do this? Or, are you just once again implying that someone other than Al-Zarqawi was responsible for the videos? (oh, I see you are later on in your post.) Seriosuly, dude, you are delusional.

No....that is something that required absolute hate and rage. They would simply drop bombs and kill the people.

Implying that if we were invaded and occupied, we'd still have control of the air? You're trying to inject your anti-establishment politics into a hypothetical argument over what we as U.S. citizens would do if we were invaded. Sorry, doesn't work. We were talking apples, and you bring up oranges.

No, we would just drop bombs. They will (and have) shoot down an entire plane to assasinate someone.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Check your grammar.

This person (Al-Zarqawi) is long since dead. He does not exist. He is a fairy tale. The boogie man...etc.

Have any real evidence to back this up? I think you are full of crap, quite honestly. I read SITREPs on how our hunt for him is going. He IS alive and in Iraq.

Or are we all being lied to? :rolleyes

All wars which could have been avoided.

Wow, a brash statement from someone who obviously has the solution for everything. Okay, Einstein, how should we have handled each and every one of the above instances?

How should we have "peacefully" kept Hitler at bay?

How should we have "peacefully" kept genocide from happening in Kosovo?

I'd really like to hear your revisonist theories on how we'd have handled these. Your conjecture about 9/11 was hilarious enough!

 

[Eric5273]

How should we have "peacefully" kept Hitler at bay?

Economic sanctions against Germany should have been enforced. Instead, American and British companies were responsible for supplying the raw materials for Germany to build up their military during the late 1930s.

Even during the war, Standard Oil (later became Exxon) and BP were the main supplier of oil to the Germans. Roosevelt attempted to prosecute the top oil execs violating the "trading with the enemy" laws (i.e. treason), but when these execs threatened to cut off oil supplies to the American military, he backed off.

During the war American banks continued to loan money to the German government. I'm sure you have heard the "allegations" against the Bush family for their involvement in this. Prescott Bush (Dubya's grandfather) plead guilty in Federal court for such violations and was punished with a slap on the wrist (a rather small fine, no jail time).

This kind of behavour was common among American corporations. Hearst Corp. was paid by the Nazis to print propganda in their newspapers, and the large corporations like Standard Oil, US Steel, Dupont, and Ford all helped build up the Nazi war machine and continued to supply materials to the Nazis even up until 1944.

If our government and the British government had enforced these laws, the Germans would have never been able to built up such an extensive military in the 1930s. But we all know that our government is really run by the Corportions themselves, so that is why nothing happened. The banks were not dumb. They continued to loan money to the Nazis because they expected them to win the war. They were hoping fascism would spread here as well.

We have a constant habbit of giving weapons around all over the world, and then when we are later attacked with these weapons, we wonder why. Wars require weapons. Stop producing weapons, and you will prevent wars.

How should we have "peacefully" kept genocide from happening in Kosovo?

The same thing we did in Afghanistan in the 1980s was done in Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. They found religious fanatics and sent them up into this region with the goal of destabalizing the last Communist government in Eastern Europe, and they were successful. The problem they are having now is laying the blame on Milosovich. He is most likely going to be found not guilty in the Hague Court. He was president of Yugoslavia since 1980 and his policies in the 1990s were no different than his policies in the 1980s. The genocide was a result of a civil war which his government had very little control over -- at least that is what the evidence presented in court so far seems to show.

 

[Viper Driver]

Economic sanctions against Germany should have been enforced. Instead, American and British companies were responsible for supplying the raw materials for Germany to build up their military during the late 1930s.

Economic sanctions would have had little to no effect. Some American and British companies traded with Germany pre-war, but if they didn't then Hitler would have gotten his material from somewhere else. it's not like the USA and Britain had a monopoly on the world market.

Your solution may have delayed what happened, but it wouldn't have kept the megalomaniac from pursuing his objective.

Even during the war, Standard Oil (later became Exxon) and BP were the main supplier of oil to the Germans. Roosevelt attempted to prosecute the top oil execs violating the "trading with the enemy" laws (i.e. treason), but when these execs threatened to cut off oil supplies to the American military, he backed off.

I have no argument against the assertion that our oil companies are pathetically corrupt. Even today, US companies trade freely with countries like Iran.

During the war American banks continued to loan money to the German government. I'm sure you have heard the "allegations" against the Bush family for their involvement in this. Prescott Bush (Dubya's grandfather) plead guilty in Federal court for such violations and was punished with a slap on the wrist (a rather small fine, no jail time).

Nice political injection. Would it be fair for me to hold you responsible for something your grandfather did in the 1940's? Don't do that to our President.

If our government and the British government had enforced these laws, the Germans would have never been able to built up such an extensive military in the 1930s.

Not necessarily. Once again, Hitler could have gotten his material from other sources. At best, we would have delayed the inevitable.

The banks were not dumb. They continued to loan money to the Nazis because they expected them to win the war. They were hoping fascism would spread here as well.

Yes, because corporations thrive under a dictatorship, right? Nice try.

We have a constant habbit of giving weapons around all over the world, and then when we are later attacked with these weapons, we wonder why. Wars require weapons. Stop producing weapons, and you will prevent wars.

Okay, what weapons that WE PRODUCED have we been attacked with?

I train against the threats I'd expect to see when we go to war. None of the systems I keep abreast of were made here in the USA.

(Yugoslavia) The genocide was a result of a civil war which his government had very little control over -- at least that is what the evidence presented in court so far seems to show.

Okay, so you dodged the question. I don't care if Milosevic was responsible or not.....how could we have prevented it?

BTW, we didn't FIND religious fanatics to send to Afghanistan, they went there on their own.

 

[Sig]

This person is long since dead. He does not exist. He is a fairy tale. The boogie man...etc.

The most humorous part about making this comment is that you are actually convinced of its truth. I can possibly understand being doubtful of Zarqawi's existance, but to outright claim 'fairy tale' status without first-hand knowledge otherwise is nothing more than conspiracy banter.

 

[KGP]

...to outright claim 'fairy tale' status without first-hand knowledge otherwise is nothing more than conspiracy banter.

Hey, Eric knows all. Ease up on him fellas.

Eric: It's Q&A time!
1) How many posts ago was it that you made two contributions in a row to the NSX knowledge base? Hell, when's the last NSX-specific post period?
2) Of the last 200 or so of your posts, how many have been political in nature?
3) Why is it that the NSX Prime Off Topic Forum description says "Tread lightly on religion and politics" under it?
4) Do you think that because the NSX Prime user rating system is no longer active, thus you have no red dot next to your user name, that people somehow care about or believe your banter?
5) Why the hell do you waste your political greatness trolling around here?

 

[Arshad]

First of all, I agree that this is an NSX forum and in my opinion the off-topic forum should not be for political or religious discussions. I come here first and foremost to read and learn about the NSX, and I come to off-topic to check out the latest game from Brian, humorous links from Armando etc. I don't like to come here to read political commentary.

Having said that, if we're going to allow pro-war/pro-bush opinions, then we must allow everyone to speak their mind on the topic whether we agree with them or not. Many people here feel that Eric is living in conspiracy theory land and posting all kinds of crap. I on the other hand welcome his comments because I feel it brings balance to many of the posts from people who have been drinking a bit too much of GW's kool-aid. I may not agree with every single thing he says, but at the same time, his extremism balances some of the posts which are from the other extreme (whether those posters realize it or not). Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make their viewpoint wrong or invalid, especially if they can back up many of their assertions with links to credible sources. One thing that these types of threads always deterioriate into are ad-hom attacks on Eric. If you don't agree with him, attack his message, not him as a person.

What I do know is that if I was a US citizen, I'd be PISSED that GW is asking for another $80B for the continued military operation in Iraq. He's asking people to spend more of their hard earned tax dollars on a cause that most people don't even believe in, while he eliminates and slashes 150 government wide programs including ones for getting rid of drugs from school, grants for communities hiring police officers, 48 educational programs, student loans, programs for the poor and disabled, medicaid.. and oh.. I like this one the best.. getting rid of the funding for war veterans medical services. Talk about some seriously strong kool-aid! Maybe the terrorists are winning after all...