Report by the NBC reporter inside the Fallujah mosque
-
How about this then: Fight by the rules...... until the other side doesn't. "The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." Albert Einstein Dave
-
Do you honestly think anything will come of that though? How do you grab a non-state terrorist, try and punish them? I'm not asking to be arguementative, but to try to see how people honestly think we should try to deal with these kind of people. Its one thing if they are killed during the conflict in open combat, quite another of they are captured. What would we do with Zharqawi if we did catch him, or bin Laden? Lock him away in a max sucurity federal prison with Noriega? Do we have to let them be visited by the Red Cross, or would they be just regular prisoners? It might be worthwhile if the Iraqis took care of them for us, but even then there is a danger they could be released by people elected in January. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: Do you honestly think anything will come of that though? of course not. Amnesty has no authority to do anything. Doug Goulden wrote: Lock him away in a max sucurity federal prison with Noriega? i'd be OK with that. Doug Goulden wrote: Do we have to let them be visited by the Red Cross, or would they be just regular prisoners? not sure what the laws are here. but, either way - as long as they aren't getting out and aren't happy about it... Software | Cleek
-
DRHuff wrote: How about this then: Fight by the rules...... until the other side doesn't. I would prefer: Fight by the rules...even when the other side doesn't. Why would anyone waste time arguing with an accountant about anything? Their sole function is to record what happenned, and any higher aspirations are mere delusions of grandeur. On the ladder of productive contributions they are the little rubber pads at the bottom that keep the thing from sliding out from under you. - Roger Wright
Rob Graham wrote: I would prefer: Fight by the rules...even when the other side doesn't. I agree in general, but if I remember right the Geneva Convention says we can't hit things like mosques and schools. Seems like we should avoid hitting them whenever possible, but when they are being used to attack us from or to story weapons, I think we have to act. Unfortunately, the reason we had to enter a school or mosque doesn't make the news in the Middle East. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
How about this then: Fight by the rules...... until the other side doesn't. "The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." Albert Einstein Dave
Pretty slippery slope there isn't it? How far do you go once they broke the rules? I can see entering a mosque where there are snipers or weapons stored, but how much more can you do? Do yah just blast the hell out of a church and level it to save our guys lives, and how do you deal with the fallout from the media coverage.... Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
How about this then: Fight by the rules...... until the other side doesn't. "The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." Albert Einstein Dave
DRHuff wrote: Fight by the rules...... until the other side doesn't I agree in general, but if I remember right the Geneva Convention says we can't hit things like mosques and schools. Seems like we should avoid hitting them whenever possible, but when they are being used to attack us from or to story weapons, I think we have to act. Unfortunately, the reason we had to enter a school or mosque doesn't make the news in the Middle East. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Read this this morning. Though others might be interested, I would say its pretty thought provoking. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6556034/[^] Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
These "embedded journalist" remind me of the begining of the American civil war. The first few battles used to have seats and audiences. It was not until the people saw the carnage and danger in front of their very eyes that they knew he mistake they had made. War is not pretty, it never has been, it never will be. To those who really think that war can be moderated, as if it were some social event, are sorely mistaken. To say "your nto playing fair" or "time out" is stupid. These kids are out there with one thing on their mind, coming home. Most have been there too long, and must fear anything the insurgents can throw at them. This is why war is a last measure, not a pre-emptive move. Now that they are their, they do what they must, thats war. Those who do not like it, hate the war, not the kids fighting it. Discovery consist of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought -- Albert Szent-Györgyi Name the greatest of all the inventors: accident --Mark Twain
-
These "embedded journalist" remind me of the begining of the American civil war. The first few battles used to have seats and audiences. It was not until the people saw the carnage and danger in front of their very eyes that they knew he mistake they had made. War is not pretty, it never has been, it never will be. To those who really think that war can be moderated, as if it were some social event, are sorely mistaken. To say "your nto playing fair" or "time out" is stupid. These kids are out there with one thing on their mind, coming home. Most have been there too long, and must fear anything the insurgents can throw at them. This is why war is a last measure, not a pre-emptive move. Now that they are their, they do what they must, thats war. Those who do not like it, hate the war, not the kids fighting it. Discovery consist of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought -- Albert Szent-Györgyi Name the greatest of all the inventors: accident --Mark Twain
You get my coveted 5 for the post of the day. Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.
-
I think there are some interesting fallacies going on here. First off, is the idea that: We wanted viewers to have a very clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding the fighting on that frontline. such understanding can even be conveyed to someone sipping a beer in his comfy living room in suburban America. Second is that the viewer has the intelligence to understand it even if it can be conveyed. And everyone seems to forget that these "insurgents" (a whitewashed name for terrorist to begin with) had plenty of chances to "negotiate" and to resolve the situation peacefully. They chose not to. I guess it's the plight of people who have some standards for human rights, that they be accused of violating human rights when it comes to dealing with people who have absolutely no standards for human rights to begin with. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
Marc Clifton wrote: And everyone seems to forget that these "insurgents" (a whitewashed name for terrorist to begin with) had plenty of chances to "negotiate" and to resolve the situation peacefully. They chose not to. The US media is trying to dehumanize these "insurgents". I think "resistant fighters" is the right word. Attacking occupation forces and their helpers should not be called terrorim. They are just people who can't stand US occupation and willing to die for their cause. They were out-gunned so they have to use some unconventional methods. As many have pointed out, war is never pretty. In the end, the dead is dead, there is no difference how he/she was killed. These days the killing of innocents is called "collateral damage" if you do it with tanks and fighter jets, "terrorists act" if you do it with TNT.
-
Marc Clifton wrote: And everyone seems to forget that these "insurgents" (a whitewashed name for terrorist to begin with) had plenty of chances to "negotiate" and to resolve the situation peacefully. They chose not to. The US media is trying to dehumanize these "insurgents". I think "resistant fighters" is the right word. Attacking occupation forces and their helpers should not be called terrorim. They are just people who can't stand US occupation and willing to die for their cause. They were out-gunned so they have to use some unconventional methods. As many have pointed out, war is never pretty. In the end, the dead is dead, there is no difference how he/she was killed. These days the killing of innocents is called "collateral damage" if you do it with tanks and fighter jets, "terrorists act" if you do it with TNT.
S-M-O-K-E-R wrote: The US media is trying to dehumanize these "insurgents". DEHUMANIZED!?!?!? ANYONE THAT USES KIDNAPPING AND BEHEADING AS A TACTIC IS NOT HUMAN!!!!! Yes, I'm screaming that at you. S-M-O-K-E-R wrote: In the end, the dead is dead, there is no difference how he/she was killed. Bullshit. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
-
I think there are some interesting fallacies going on here. First off, is the idea that: We wanted viewers to have a very clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding the fighting on that frontline. such understanding can even be conveyed to someone sipping a beer in his comfy living room in suburban America. Second is that the viewer has the intelligence to understand it even if it can be conveyed. And everyone seems to forget that these "insurgents" (a whitewashed name for terrorist to begin with) had plenty of chances to "negotiate" and to resolve the situation peacefully. They chose not to. I guess it's the plight of people who have some standards for human rights, that they be accused of violating human rights when it comes to dealing with people who have absolutely no standards for human rights to begin with. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
Marc Clifton wrote: And everyone seems to forget that these "insurgents" (a whitewashed name for terrorist to begin with) Ah Yes, let's call them terrorists, then we can torture and murder them without remorse. Marc Clifton wrote: had plenty of chances to "negotiate" and to resolve the situation peacefully. They chose not to. Is this what you would expect back home?. When an armed criminal has refused to surrender, then gets caught, it's ok to murder him? Marc Clifton wrote: I guess it's the plight of people who have some standards for human rights, that they be accused of violating human rights when it comes to dealing with people who have absolutely no standards for human rights to begin with. Yep, it's quite hard to learn your kids empathy by beating the crap out them. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Doug Goulden wrote: Do you honestly think anything will come of that though? of course not. Amnesty has no authority to do anything. Doug Goulden wrote: Lock him away in a max sucurity federal prison with Noriega? i'd be OK with that. Doug Goulden wrote: Do we have to let them be visited by the Red Cross, or would they be just regular prisoners? not sure what the laws are here. but, either way - as long as they aren't getting out and aren't happy about it... Software | Cleek
Chris Losinger wrote: Do we have to let them be visited by the Red Cross Of course, Red Cross is written into the Geneva Convention as the body that checks if the rules are being violated. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Marc Clifton wrote: And everyone seems to forget that these "insurgents" (a whitewashed name for terrorist to begin with) Ah Yes, let's call them terrorists, then we can torture and murder them without remorse. Marc Clifton wrote: had plenty of chances to "negotiate" and to resolve the situation peacefully. They chose not to. Is this what you would expect back home?. When an armed criminal has refused to surrender, then gets caught, it's ok to murder him? Marc Clifton wrote: I guess it's the plight of people who have some standards for human rights, that they be accused of violating human rights when it comes to dealing with people who have absolutely no standards for human rights to begin with. Yep, it's quite hard to learn your kids empathy by beating the crap out them. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: Yes, let's call them terrorists, then we can torture and murder them without remorse. Yes, let's call them terrorists for the kidnappings, bombings, beheadings. jan larsen wrote: When an armed criminal has refused to surrender, then gets caught, it's ok to murder him? When an armed criminal refuses to surrender and gets killed, I don't call that murder. I call that self-defense. jan larsen wrote: Yep, it's quite hard to learn your kids empathy by beating the crap out them. If I understand your analogy, Iraqis are not "children". We are not obligated to protect them like children. Nor do they, for the most part, behave like children. As to teaching them empathy? Toward Americans? I'm not sure their culture and society fosters the ability for such feelings as a "group consciousness", if you will. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
-
jan larsen wrote: Yes, let's call them terrorists, then we can torture and murder them without remorse. Yes, let's call them terrorists for the kidnappings, bombings, beheadings. jan larsen wrote: When an armed criminal has refused to surrender, then gets caught, it's ok to murder him? When an armed criminal refuses to surrender and gets killed, I don't call that murder. I call that self-defense. jan larsen wrote: Yep, it's quite hard to learn your kids empathy by beating the crap out them. If I understand your analogy, Iraqis are not "children". We are not obligated to protect them like children. Nor do they, for the most part, behave like children. As to teaching them empathy? Toward Americans? I'm not sure their culture and society fosters the ability for such feelings as a "group consciousness", if you will. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
Marc Clifton wrote: When an armed criminal refuses to surrender and gets killed, I don't call that murder. I call that self-defense. You missed the point, I have no sympathy for armed criminals, with or without uniform, and I couldn't care less if they are killed while fighting. But I get just as sick of coldblooded murder on captives whether they are murderers or innocent people. Marc Clifton wrote: If I understand your analogy, Iraqis are not "children". We are not obligated to protect them like children. Nor do they, for the most part, behave like children. My point being, that it's really weird to point fingers at murderers and sadists if you're a murderer and a sadist yourself. It's totally pointless. If the war in Iraq has shown the middle east anything, then it's the fact, that the west is quite as good at murdering, torturing and misinforming as the average middle east dictature. Agreed, the victims are rarely western citizens, and murder on innocents is just collateral damage. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
S-M-O-K-E-R wrote: The US media is trying to dehumanize these "insurgents". DEHUMANIZED!?!?!? ANYONE THAT USES KIDNAPPING AND BEHEADING AS A TACTIC IS NOT HUMAN!!!!! Yes, I'm screaming that at you. S-M-O-K-E-R wrote: In the end, the dead is dead, there is no difference how he/she was killed. Bullshit. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
Marc Clifton wrote: DEHUMANIZED!?!?!? ANYONE THAT USES KIDNAPPING AND BEHEADING AS A TACTIC IS NOT HUMAN!!!!! All they want is for you to get out of their country and leave them alone, is that too much to ask? They don't use smart weapons because they don't have them. On the other hand, if they do have them, would you dare to invade? If you can't stand the beheading, don't set foot there, period.