I'm not seeing this so called abuse here.

Nursey !
Do you have a link to that special envoy that had talks with Saddam before the invasion of Kuwait ?

 

Now now, diogenes! I haven't even had a chance to reply to you and you're coming back in to rant the same thing at me! It's like you are so riled up over this that you are returning to the scene of the traumatising accusation and throwing punches at phantom Nurseys! But i can't blame you. I too would find the accusation deeply insulting! But seeing as i wasn't accusing you of it, you can calm down now, 'dumb shit'. It had looked to me as though you were saying that Iraq was equally to blame for the invasion, which was what i was in disagreement over.

I was referring to the circumstances of both countries as they stood at '0 hour' of the present conflict.

I consider the term 'insurgency' as one of the west's great propaganda triumphs. Please don't use their 'doublespeak' unless you really aren't fussy about accuracy because such twisted language distorts our perception of reality. The term i find better describes those fighting to drive out an invading aggressor in an attempt to win their freedom is 'resistance'.

First of all, unlike the bloodthirsty fanatics who have, from their ivory tower, summoned the demons of war and gone completely out of their way (9996 km to be precise) to create and exist within (or rather, plunge their 'expendable rubbish' into) the situation, this is life or death for the *Iraqis* who never asked to be dragged into the neocon corpse-filled nightmare in the first place.

Second, how would you like them to operate, old chap? How about... having these unruly rabble-rousers standing back to back with the United Sates of America, both taking 15 steps in opposite directions (one in their tatty gym shoes, the other on land, sea and air), turning and drawing their rusty kalashnikov to face the colossal mountain of U.S. military might and a full arsenal of the most mind-bogglingly high-tech conventional and unconventional deathnology ever to have existed, wot!? And even then, you can bet the Americans would STILL cheat, turning around and vapourising their opponent after the 14th step citing the need for the massive pre-emptive strike in order to defend themselves from impending annhilation with their best show of Hollywood-style sincerity. America set the limits of what was acceptable...and the message is...anything goes, really!



Click pics for audio!

Thirdly, and seeing as this is really what you were really referring to by 'the unethical behaviour' of the 'insurgents' (though i am only really addressing it here in this final part of my post) we come to the brutally sensational video beheadings that have played such a powerful and lasting role in formulating the Western populace's view of the Resistance. I already gave a hint as to my opinion on this matter which you seem to have missed, so i'll repost:

And just to clarify:

April Glaspie. (See also: Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?)

 

The fact that the insurgency is attacking and kidnapping civilians makes them morally reprehensible. If you base your ethincs on the ethics of your opponent than you have no ethics. Neither the U.S. military nor the "resistance" follow any kind of ethical limits. I don't see that as acceptable. Regardless of circumstances. And maybe dumb shit was a little too far. Sorry about that. I tend to cuss way to much, so it's not really as bad as it sounds since I toss them off like they were nothing.

 

you're right following "any kind of ethical limits" should be the insurgents number one priority, they can CLEARLY afford that luxary

 

Exactly. And the Resistance aren't specifically targeting civilians with their actions...unless you mean THESE KIND. Divide and conquer.

 

That was an inadequate explanation, but i'm too tired to elaborate at present.

 

I applaud their efforts at hitting us where it hurts. I mean, what's the tally stand at? How many of us have they killed, and how many of them have we killed? Goddam, we're ignorant assholes who don't give a shit about anything all the time.

Since we don't speak out, rush to the streets and hang our leaders for getting us into this war for some buildings that our very own leaders blew up in the first place, fuck us for that shit. They hated us being in there in the first place, so now they really hate us. Diogenes, you're an idiot.

 

Many civilians killed by the US are likely labeled "insurgents".

Thats why GWB had to say that war-actions in Iraq were over. Then they have a "friendly" regime and the regime is lawfull. Its quite a piece of work. Yes :wink:

Many of the civilians killed by the insurgents are standing in line signing up for policeduty. ( their civilian-status is shady ).

The UKguys found with bomb in car, and released from iraqi prison by tank leaves some doubt as to wether the baath-insurgentsare responsible for blowing up Shiat-Ali Mosques.

But no matter the tactics used in asymetrical warfare. Most people will just wanna get by.
Does not matter much who does what. Just get it to stop :cry:

 

Source.

 

Presenting ethics violations by the U.S. doesn't justify ethics violations by the insurgency. Your arguments are weak, ad hominem abusive.

 

the argument isnt weak when you take into consideration that the insurgents "violate ethics" out of despiration while the US does it out of convenience

 

Ah, so the ends justify the means. I suppose it's game on then, since there is no objective value for human life. What the U.S. is doing is justified by their goals, and the insurgency in justified by the goals they have. An ad hominem abusive argument is invalid. What you're saying is that kidnapping and violating human rights is a per se quality of a resistance movement. The vietcong were wrong to practice their "re-education" pogroms, and the Iraqi "resistance" is wrong when it targets civilians and aid workers. How about the attacks on Iraqi police recruits, officers, and military enlistees. Those are not American targets, are those actions still moral? Could they possibly be considered non-moral, since you are choosing to end someone else's life? Under what circumstances am I justified in taking a life? Is it in defense of land, property, persons, religion? If one side is excused from it's responsibility to the higher cause of protecting life then neither side is held to that standard.

 

Are policerecruits civilians. How much cultural relativity can one allow within ethical bounds. Seems to be a problem here. But it disintegrates into pure struggle.
The fine lines are bound to be blurred. I am more worried about the aftershock of this war, than about what happens in it.

The successful sovjet-chinese strategy of providing weapons for the vietcong gave them a victory in indochina. But more important they faced a new american strategy. The real result was the fundamentalist trouble in Afghanistan, and in the end, the fall of the USSR. The CIA-involvement in creating this fundamentalist front can be seen now.
Wars suck longtime. USA would be far better of consentrating on something else, but its hard to quit in the middle of the game :?

 

Oh well. There are goals out there Diogenes that are larger than a single human life, in these people's eyes. Your opinion doesn't matter to them, because the troops representing you are all up in their booty-hole, blowing up all their shit, killing their people and diminishing their way of life. Sorry if they can't just take their huge battleships and jets and planes and come over here and remove this opressive dictator we got from power, but first bomb us back to the stone age.

There's 6 billion people on the planet, what's all going on right now is very fucked and shouldn't be, and I'm more concerned about the planet as a whole right now. All the twisted and fucked up things we remember from these times can be lost in the ages ahead, but not if we don't make it.

 

I consider the term 'insurgency' as one of the terrorist sympathizer’s great propaganda triumphs. Please don't use their 'doublespeak' unless you really aren't fussy about accuracy because such twisted language distorts our perception of reality. The term i find better describes those fighting to drive out an invading aggressor in an attempt to win their freedom is 'terrorists'.

 

Or this is actually more accurate.

I consider the term 'insurgency' as one of the terrorist sympathizer’s great propaganda triumphs. Please don't use their 'doublespeak' unless you really aren't fussy about accuracy because such twisted language distorts our perception of reality. The term I find better describes those fighting to drive out defenders of the oppressed in an attempt to win their freedom to cram more oppression down their throats is 'terrorists'.

 

You're not very bright, are you Joe?

 

Did I miss something or did he answer is starting post?

 

You must of missed it when you were trying to skip past all of Nursey's crap. Go back and skip through a little more thoroughly.