IRAQ

[Ayla]

Not to open this can of worms again...but I recieved this forward in my email and just had to share it. I agree with every single word. Every one.


The lady that wrote this letter is Pam Foster of
Pamela Foster and
Associates in Atlanta. She's been in business since
1980 doing interior
design and home planning. She recently wrote a
letter to a family member
serving in Iraq. Read it!



WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS?


"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was
it or
was it not started by Islamic people who brought
it to our shores on
September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the
world, mostly
Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in
downtown Manhattan, across
the
Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field
in Pennsylvania? Did
nearly three thousand men, women and children die
a horrible, burning or
crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran
was "desecrated" when
an
overworked American soldier kicked it or got it
wet?
Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns
himself in and repents for
incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the
Middle East start
caring
About the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which
is a crime in Saudi
Arabia.
I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the
orld he is sorry for
hacking
off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through
his gurgling, slashed
throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents"
in Iraq come out and
fight like men instead of disrespecting their own
religion by hiding in
mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow
themselves up in search of
nirvana care about the innocent children within
range of their suicide
bombs.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending
that their First
Amendment liberties are somehow derived from
international law instead
of
the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave
marine roughing up an
Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this:
I don't care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi
prisoners who have
been
humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing
incident, rest assured
that I
don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the
head when he is told not
to
move because he might be booby-trapped, you can
take it to the bank that
I
don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a
Koran and a prayer mat,
and
fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax
dollars, is complaining
that
his holy book is being "mishandled," you can
absolutely believe in your
heart of hearts that I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes
it's spelled "Koran" and

other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and --
you guessed it, I
could
not have said this any better myself!

If you agree with this view point, pass this on to
all your e-mail
friends.
Sooner or later, it'll get to the people
responsible for this ridiculous

behavior! If you don't agree, then by all means
hit the delete button.
Should you choose the latter, then please don't
complain when more
atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen
here in our great
country.


:bigthumb:

[Vautrin]

What a nihilistic post. Why should Islamic people care what happens to "Christians", if they okey-dokey terror and violence against them too? The only result will be the perpetuating of a vicious cycle. Great :twisted: :twisted:

[Ayla]

Originally Posted by Vautrin

What a nihilistic post. Why should Islamic people care what happens to "Christians", if they okey-dokey terror and violence against them too? The only result will be the perpetuating of a vicious cycle. Great :twisted: :twisted:

First off, I had to look up nihilistic. From the surrounding verbiage I got the meaning of the word but I wanted to know all avenues. So...

ni·hil·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-lzm, n-)
n.
Philosophy.
An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.
also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.
Psychiatry. A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one's mind, body, or self does not exist.

Now...that being said... How was the post a nihilistic post? Hmmm? If you don't agree with the post that's fine. I don't ask you to. Just because YOU say it's a nihilistic makes it so?

No offense, but unless you are an American you won't feel that strongly about the situation. Not that you don't have strong feelings about the war, you just won't have the strong patriotism that I have. Yes, that does bias my opinion of the situation. As your background biases yours.

Perhaps you didn't read the post clearly the first time. I just read it again and I didn't see anywhere in there where it says a darn thing about the "Islamic" people as a whole. And I didn't see where it said they were doing it to "Christians". They're doing it to Americans. We're a country not a religion. It refers to terrorist and terrorist situations that occur in a WAR. And no, frankly, I don't give a rats arse about if the terrorist are offended if a soldier "handles" the Koran wrong. If it was the other way around they'd burn our bible and darn sure never provide our prisoner's with one. As a matter of fact they'd scream "Allah is great!" as they cut their heads off...not give them a prayer mat and a copy of the Koran!

I apologize if there was any unintentional flaming in my post. I get a little heated when someone says my post was nothing.

[darkangelism]

i think what vaturin is referring to is the fact that it basically says the US can do whatever we want and we will always be right.

I mean i am for the war, for torture, for not giving prisoners any rights, and for pulling out of the geneva convention...but because we wont do that, i think we should follow the laws and rules that we have made.

[Ayla]

Originally Posted by darkangelism

i think what vaturin is referring to is the fact that it basically says the US can do whatever we want and we will always be right.

See I didn't read that in there. I got that when it comes to terrorist that the woman who wrote it didn't give a flying peice of poo if they were humiliated or abused and that the terrorist gave up their "rights" as far as she was concerned when THEY ATTACKED US.

It just so happens that I agree with her.

[darkangelism]

but then we are going down to their level. We are supposed to take the moral high ground. We are supposed to set an example. Though i personally dont care what we do to them, they are not US citizens and shouldnt be protected. Saddam shouldnt get a trial we should just kill him.

[Vautrin]

First of all I had tried for twenty minutes to post last night, and it did not come through - so I am surprised to see the post here actually.

And what DA is saying is right about my position. You can as easily argue that the opposition to Iran (and support for Israel - and we can go decades, if not centuries back) may be an act of terrorism in the eyes of the people who support Islamic Fundamentalism. Which is only one of many possible brands of fundamentalism, or other anti-Western sentiments in the world. So that the attacks of 9/11 were only a limited payback for past grievances, from the point of view of some Islamic fundamentalists.
Now - a perfect vicious cycle has set in. 3,000 dead in the attacks of 9/11. 2,000 American soldiers in Iraq. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians - and the resistance in Iraq is anything but defeated. If this is civilization, then barbary must be peace.

BTW, the correct term may be nationalism.

[Ayla]

Originally Posted by Vautrin

First of all I had tried for twenty minutes to post last night, and it did not come through - so I am surprised to see the post here actually.

And what DA is saying is right about my position. You can as easily argue that the opposition to Iran (and support for Israel - and we can go decades, if not centuries back) may be an act of terrorism in the eyes of the people who support Islamic Fundamentalism. Which is only one of many possible brands of fundamentalism, or other anti-Western sentiments in the world. So that the attacks of 9/11 were only a limited payback for past grievances, from the point of view of some Islamic fundamentalists.
Now - a perfect vicious cycle has set in. 3,000 dead in the attacks of 9/11. 2,000 American soldiers in Iraq. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians - and the resistance in Iraq is anything but defeated. If this is civilization, then barbary must be peace.

BTW, the correct term may be nationalism.

Yes, this may by a vicious cycle but what do you propose the Americans do when attacked? Do you thing we should say "Oh well maybe it won't happen again" and let it go? I don't think the American public has that in them. We want retaliation. Watch footage from 9-11-01 and those poor people jumping to their deaths, put yourself in their families shoes....should we sit back and say "GOOD ONE!" and keep on about our business? I think not. So if a terrorist, who by the way doesnt just attack Americans, gets mad because he was piled up naked tough poop. I could care less what that terrorist wants or if he feels humilated. I say good. Do it some more, except this time when his naked butt is in the air lets give a few good lashes. Ah...but see we didn't really hurt him we embarrassed him. Tough poop because how many has he already killed before we got him??????

[Vautrin]

Um - America has a history of retaliating against any people or country. And yes, it is the only country that has been condemned internationally for terrorism.

As for what the US could have done?
1. not supporting dictatorships - many of which give rise to fundamentalist thoughts. I.E. 15 out of 19 hijackers were Saudi-Arabian. Coincidence? No.
2. Choosing different paths to protect their concerns. Why is it legal for the CIA to make plans to overthrow Chavez, but is it illegal for anyone to make plans to overthrow Tony Blair? If your position on matters like these is dependent on who and what, there is already a problem.
3. Informing the public factfully on what goes on in the world - something which does not happen too well in Europe either.
4. 3000 dead? Of course I am sorry about the losses - but we are now at roughly 100,000 (amonst others: Afghanistan, Iraqi civilians, Coalition soldiers, Iraqi servicemen, the bombings in Europe) dead - which is 33.3 times as much - and don't you think non-Americans have the ability to grief, and feel anger, and have a desire for revenge?

So where has this gotten us? In a bigger mess. Great way of solving problems, I must admit.

[Weiser]

I can see where she is coming from though. I agree with that entire letter. What if that happened to Canada? Say they took out the CN tower and alot of downtown Toronto? You can be damn sure I would feel the same way she does. I probably would have enlisted and gone over myself (if they don't need require a strict eye exam).

Would your views be the same way if it happened to a different Western Country Vautrin?

[darkangelism]

I think the easiest solution is take no prisoners and just kill them all, that way we dont have to feed them or waste money supporting them.

[Weiser]

Hmm, now that would be rather barbaric. We are supposed to be civilized here are we not.

[Duke]

Originally Posted by Weiser

I can see where she is coming from though. I agree with that entire letter. What if that happened to Canada? Say they took out the CN tower and alot of downtown Toronto? You can be damn sure I would feel the same way she does. I probably would have enlisted and gone over myself (if they don't need require a strict eye exam).

The Canadian Military doesn't have any stiff regulations against eyesight because they let me in and my eyes are horrible. There are some things they won't let you do such as fly choppers but you can do pretty much everything else, including carrying a weapon.

[Weiser]

See I don't have depth perseption...I need to look at the ground to see where stuff is. I don't notice it anymore and I function just as good as anyone else, but I could never be a crane operator or anything like that.

It makes me wonder how I was ever good at baseball, basketball, football, etc.

[Ayla]

Um - America has a history of retaliating against any people or country. And yes, it is the only country that has been condemned internationally for terrorism.

Yeah so you think people would figure it out...STOP P*SSING US OFF.

As for what the US could have done?
1. not supporting dictatorships - many of which give rise to fundamentalist thoughts. I.E. 15 out of 19 hijackers were Saudi-Arabian. Coincidence? No.
2. Choosing different paths to protect their concerns. Why is it legal for the CIA to make plans to overthrow Chavez, but is it illegal for anyone to make plans to overthrow Tony Blair? If your position on matters like these is dependent on who and what, there is already a problem.
3. Informing the public factfully on what goes on in the world - something which does not happen too well in Europe either.

1. Granted. We shouldn't support dictatorships. I find a lot of fault with the Bush family's personal relationship with the Suadi government. That doesn't justify terrorist attacks by their countrymen. Let them attack their own government if they're not happy with them and leave the US citizens out of their bad days.

2. How are Tony Blair and Hugo Chavez even on the same level? Does Tony Blair steal peoples land and not compensate for it? Is Tony Blair slowly trying to turn England into a communist country? (that's my opion only) Not that Tony Blair is without blemishes...but you can't compare the two realistically.

3. The media worldwide is a bunch of bull. They only care about ratings not the truth.

4. 3000 dead? Of course I am sorry about the losses - but we are now at roughly 100,000 (amonst others: Afghanistan, Iraqi civilians, Coalition soldiers, Iraqi servicemen, the bombings in Europe) dead - which is 33.3 times as much - and don't you think non-Americans have the ability to grief, and feel anger, and have a desire for revenge?

4. Afghanistan...they harbored and supported Osama Bin Laden and his training camps. They asked for trouble.
Iraq...I fell bad for the innocents... They didn't ask for Saddam and the mess that has followed his control...and his fall...however they too should take more steps in ousting terrorist. If they don't harbor them...they will not be staying there long...As for the Iraq servicemen....they are aware of the risks when they sign up...just like our boys and the the other Coalition soldiers.
The bombing in Europe: A small taste of 9-11. Wait until they fly planes into London Tower, the Eifel Tower, or Notre Dame Cathedral.
Of course non-Americans have the ability to grieve, and feel anger, and have a desire for revenge. Let the Europens retaliate against the terrorist who did that to them. Let the Iraqi and Afghan people retaliate against the terrorist among them and help to end war.

So where has this gotten us? In a bigger mess. Great way of solving problems, I must admit.

I'm so glad you agree. No pain no gain right?

[darkangelism]

Originally Posted by Weiser

Hmm, now that would be rather barbaric. We are supposed to be civilized here are we not.

That is the whole point of the argument of this thread, if killing them is barbaric then how come not respecting their religion isnt or piling naked bodies or whatever else is fine?


Now to ayla's post, i disagree that all media cares about is ratings, they have a political agenda, the media especially in the US is very liberal and reports news that way, so its not just they that dont report the truth, they try to convince people that they are right by skewing the facts, like in Newsweek they had a headline about New Orleans that was "A nation's shame" They blame the US government.


I agree that people join that military they know what they are getting into, but not in other countries, many countries have mandatory military service.

[Vautrin]

Originally Posted by Ayla

Yeah so you think people would figure it out...STOP P*SSING US OFF.

Or the other way around? That the US should stop p*ssing people off? And if electing a left wing government is a sufficient cause to get involved in dirty business, I can perfectly see why a lot of people have problems with that. Cause and effect have become intertwined now. And become evermore intertwined.

2. How are Tony Blair and Hugo Chavez even on the same level? Does Tony Blair steal peoples land and not compensate for it? Is Tony Blair slowly trying to turn England into a communist country? (that's my opion only) Not that Tony Blair is without blemishes...but you can't compare the two realistically.

Why not? Should Chavez leave the poor to rot to dead? And why? Why should the rich be compensated? International law? I am sorry, but the US does not give a damn about international law either. Unfairness? Is it fair to let people rot to dead? Chavez got elected.

4. Afghanistan...they harbored and supported Osama Bin Laden and his training camps. They asked for trouble.

So it is perfectly legal for Chileans to strike against the US, because the School of Americas is there (a training camp for terrorists). Graduates from that school have been involved in a lot of dirty business in South America. Somehow I do have the impression that you are not okay with Chileans doing the same thing to the US, as Americans did to Afghanistan.

Let the Iraqi and Afghan people retaliate against the terrorist among them and help to end war.

And by international law, the occupation of Iraq was illegal. Hence giving every civilian in the country the legal right to resist.
If anything during WW II we had a short supply of "terrorists" (those who did not agree with the German occupation) - but of course after the war everyone "forgot" about it - and those who were least involved in "terrorist" activities prided themselves the most for being involved.

My grandfather was a freedomfighter in WW II - yet was also required to go to Indonesia, to kill "terrorists" there - who were only demanding the same thing as he did during the German occupation. Makes a lot of sense does not it? He refused to go.

Again, what is cause and what is effect? The French tortured in the Algerian war (even though officially they still deny it). The French did this and that. Same for the UK; I think it applies to most major countries. And yes people can feel because of those policies that justice had not been served, gotten into a fundamentalist mood, decide to take action - and voila, more vicious cycles have been created.

And of course, the more closedminded a person becomes, the less is needed for a pretext to attack - to the point where a stewardess on board of an airplane can be sufficient pretext to attack. But that does not apply to people only, but also to nations.

[darkangelism]

I just realized the thread title is Iraq, and that had nothing to do with terrorism, it had to do with us percieving them as being a weapons threat.

[Ayla]

Or the other way around? That the US should stop p*ssing people off? And if electing a left wing government is a sufficient cause to get involved in dirty business, I can perfectly see why a lot of people have problems with that. Cause and effect have become intertwined now. And become evermore intertwined.

And what exactly did the United States of America do to Osama Bin Laden? What did the 3000 who died on 9-11 do to the hijackers? I'm not talking about left wing v/s right wing stuff here. I'm talking about innocent people dying and the aftermath. I'm talking about not giving a rats arse if terrorist...TERRORIST...are humilated in a war time prison.

Why not? Should Chavez leave the poor to rot to dead? And why? Why should the rich be compensated? International law? I am sorry, but the US does not give a damn about international law either. Unfairness? Is it fair to let people rot to dead? Chavez got elected.

So you think Chavez is a good leader? Yes, Chavez got elected. The German people loved Hitler too, for the most part. Does that make him a good leader? Hitler, like Chavez, couldn't have risen to power without the people. They love them until they get f*cked over.

So it is perfectly legal for Chileans to strike against the US, because the School of Americas is there (a training camp for terrorists). Graduates from that school have been involved in a lot of dirty business in South America. Somehow I do have the impression that you are not okay with Chileans doing the same thing to the US, as Americans did to Afghanistan.

:?: What? :?: Elaborate please.

And by international law, the occupation of Iraq was illegal. Hence giving every civilian in the country the legal right to resist.
If anything during WW II we had a short supply of "terrorists" (those who did not agree with the German occupation) - but of course after the war everyone "forgot" about it - and those who were least involved in "terrorist" activities prided themselves the most for being involved.

So you condone the terrorist activites? You think it's right that they killed all those people on 9-11 and in London and Spain? You think it's okay that they hide in their own mosques and that their suicide bombers kill innocents of their own country everyday?

No, I don't think that the "Coalition of the Willing" should ever have invaded Iraq at the time that they did. Not withough the UN's backing. That's isn't the point of the original post though. It was that the terrorist have the nerve to whine about their conditions and the woman who wrote the letter said she ddn't care even a little bit. I agreed with her.

Now to ayla's post, i disagree that all media cares about is ratings, they have a political agenda, the media especially in the US is very liberal and reports news that way, so its not just they that dont report the truth, they try to convince people that they are right by skewing the facts, like in Newsweek they had a headline about New Orleans that was "A nation's shame" They blame the US government.


I agree that people join that military they know what they are getting into, but not in other countries, many countries have mandatory military service.

I agree that the media does have a HUGE political agenda. Fox News is a glaringly obvious example of this.

Does Iraq have mandatory military service?

[Ayla]

Originally Posted by darkangelism

I just realized the thread title is Iraq, and that had nothing to do with terrorism, it had to do with us percieving them as being a weapons threat.

true. I titled it what the email forward was titled as. I suppose she was thinking along the lines that all the topics she covered happened in Iraq.

[darkangelism]

yes they do. so do most eueopean countries.

wait so you support genova convention violations but not going to war without UN support? The UN sucks, its all coruppt, the US should pull out and kick them out of NY.

[Ayla]

Originally Posted by darkangelism

yes they do. so do most eueopean countries.

wait so you support genova convention violations but not going to war without UN support? The UN sucks, its all coruppt, the US should pull out and kick them out of NY.

No I agree the UN sucks but I don't think that the US should have invaded Iraq and overthrown their government without their consent. Either we're in or we're out. If we agree to be part of the UN then so be it. We can't say I'm in but I'm gonna do what I want. Besides, I think the Geneva Convention goes to far. Yes, prevent torture to prisoners....but come on piling them up naked is a violation? The Geneva Convention is to nit-picky. And yes, I'd say the same thing if it was our boys. At least they're alive and didn't suffer the same fate as Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg.

[darkangelism]

the UN never would have given their consent, the UN doesnt like the US.

[Vautrin]

What did every Afghani do to the US? Not much.

What did every Iraqi do to the US? Not much. 15 out of 19 hijackers came from Saudi-Arabia. You don't have to be a genius to see there might be a connection between terrorism and Saudi-Arabia. Yet the US did not retaliate on Saudi-Arabia.

First of all, the US does train terrorists. Most famous school on US soil is the School of Americas. The school is changing its names so often, because it is one of the most hated institutions on the Western hemisphere.
We are talking about training South American people in torture techniques and everything that goes with it; also support is given to people who have received such training. And graduates have been active in most South and Middle American countries.

For the countries for which that is the case (Chile is one of those countries), attack the US, it is perfectly okay according to the "let us strike against terrorists" argument. At least against the headquarters of the CIA.
And if you would say that people who work at the CIA now are innocent of those crimes, I can perfectly understand that - but why allow to attack innocent people in Iraq or Afghanistan then?

And why do you think Chavez was able to undo the coup? Avoid the coup plans of the CIA? Might it not have something to do with his true popularity? Might it not be that Venezuala is split between a few percent ultra rich people, a tenfold perhaps of people in middle-class positions and the majority living in abject poverty?

And even moreso, what the hell does the US care? If you want to say something about Venezuala, Venezuala should be able to tell something about the US - but of course, unilateralism is holy.

[darkangelism]

not every afghani, or even the majority do anything wrong, the leadership did and thats what needed to go, collateral damage is part of war, its a lot better then it used to be.