Biggest attack in Iraq since the surge.

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Or, would you suggest another way to describe those who have raped and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children?

AQ did this?

It's like a blank statement. Americans have raped and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children, is also true

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Or, would you suggest another way to describe those who have raped and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children?

AQ did this?

It's like a blank statement. Americans have raped and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children, is also true

nice straw man.

Since 2003, members of Al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers have been directly involved in the intentional slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Since 1992, Taliban forces have raped and intentionally murdered tens of thousands of innocent Afghanis and Pakistanis.

Since 1993, AQ has murdered at least 3,464 innocent people outside of Iraq.

How many innocents have coalition soldiers raped and/or murdered in that time?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: bamacre
A war started with a lack of sanity won't be fought with any.

Sounded like a moonbeam quote, good one

Was a good one and thanks for the comparison and applicable to this question as to whether it's the terrorist or us that are bad, no?

People meet terror with more terror because people are insane.

The root cause of terror is terror.

The way to perpetuate terror is to be afraid.

Fear is self importance.

Self importance is attachment to illusion.

Fixated delusion is insanity.

People meet terror with more terror because people are insane.

 

[Gaard]

Gosh, I feel like such a nitpicker for doing this, but oh well...

AQ = the Taliban?

tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis = hundreds of thousands of women and children?


Oh, and this is really nitpicking...isn't the phrase intentionally murdered a little redundant?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Gosh, I feel like such a nitpicker for doing this, but oh well...

AQ = the Taliban?

Their MO's, records, and ideals are very similar, but no.

tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis = hundreds of thousands of women and children?

my bad. the later post clarifies what I exaggerated in the first.

Oh, and this is really nitpicking...isn't the phrase intentionally murdered a little redundant?

The redundancy was itself intentional -- I did so in an attempt to head off the straw men and semantic games Earl, and now you, seem to be playing.

The facts and figures in my last post were accurate, and I'd appreciate a response to the question I posed therein.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Since 2003, members of Al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers have been directly involved in the intentional slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Since 1992, Taliban forces have raped and intentionally murdered tens of thousands of innocent Afghanis and Pakistanis.

Since 1993, AQ has murdered at least 3,464 innocent people outside of Iraq.

That's better, except no need for the Taliban one, right? AQ was your quote

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Common sense and decency tell us that AQ are the bad guys.

Or, would you suggest another way to describe those who have raped and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children?

But your still no where near your hundreds of thousands

How many innocents have coalition soldiers raped and/or murdered in that time?

I was just typing about civilian Americans killing and raping other Americans. There was no time period in your first statement
You know, blank statement and all

edit- heh, by the time I get a post out 3/4 of it is dealt with alreaady

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Just when you think they couldn't get any sicker. Next up, exploding kittens.

You are worried about blowing up kittens when human lives is at stake?

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Aren't suicide bombers mentally retarded by definition?

Are you serious?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Gaard
Gosh, I feel like such a nitpicker for doing this, but oh well...

AQ = the Taliban?

Their MO's, records, and ideals are very similar, but no.

tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis = hundreds of thousands of women and children?

my bad. the later post clarifies what I exaggerated in the first.

Oh, and this is really nitpicking...isn't the phrase intentionally murdered a little redundant?

The redundancy was itself intentional -- I did so in an attempt to head off the straw men and semantic games Earl, and now you, seem to be playing.

The facts and figures in my last post were accurate, and I'd appreciate a response to the question I posed therein.

This question?
"How many innocents have coalition soldiers raped and/or murdered in that time?"

I really haven't a clue. If we're talking intentional, probably not even close to your figures. If we include unintentional, I suspect your figures would pale in comparison. (BTW, which classification would you put "collateral damage" under...intentional or unintentional?)

^ too semantic?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Gaard
BTW, which classification would you put "collateral damage" under...intentional or unintentional?)

certainly unintentional -- which happens to be the key difference between coalition forces and our enemies.

For coalition forces, the goal, in every encounter, is to minimize civilian casualties.

For our enemies, the more innocents who die, the more they consider their attacks a success!

But you knew that already, right? And you're just playing semantic games because you think that you're witty... ya....

GG.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Gaard
BTW, which classification would you put "collateral damage" under...intentional or unintentional?)

certainly unintentional -- which happens to be the key difference between coalition forces and our enemies.

For coalition forces, the goal, in every encounter, is to minimize civilian casualties.

For our enemies, the more innocents who die, the more they consider their attacks a success!

But you knew that already, right? And you're just playing semantic games because you think that you're witty... ya....

GG.

You say minimize and I have to agree, but isn't there ususally an expected (and accepted) amount of civilian casualties in any offensive attack? I'm thinking stuff like 'shock -n- awe'. If you agree, wouldn't you have to put that 'collateral damage' in the intentional category? Not being a military man I may be way off.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Gaard
BTW, which classification would you put "collateral damage" under...intentional or unintentional?)

certainly unintentional -- which happens to be the key difference between coalition forces and our enemies.

For coalition forces, the goal, in every encounter, is to minimize civilian casualties.

For our enemies, the more innocents who die, the more they consider their attacks a success!

But you knew that already, right? And you're just playing semantic games because you think that you're witty... ya....

GG.

You say minimize and I have to agree, but isn't there usually an expected (and accepted) amount of civilian casualties in any offensive attack? I'm thinking stuff like 'shock -n- awe'. If you agree, wouldn't you have to put that 'collateral damage' in the intentional category? Not being a military man I may be way off.

Study up on the Law of War, and the concept of proportionality.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Gaard
BTW, which classification would you put "collateral damage" under...intentional or unintentional?)

certainly unintentional -- which happens to be the key difference between coalition forces and our enemies.

For coalition forces, the goal, in every encounter, is to minimize civilian casualties.

For our enemies, the more innocents who die, the more they consider their attacks a success!

But you knew that already, right? And you're just playing semantic games because you think that you're witty... ya....

GG.

You say minimize and I have to agree, but isn't there usually an expected (and accepted) amount of civilian casualties in any offensive attack? I'm thinking stuff like 'shock -n- awe'. If you agree, wouldn't you have to put that 'collateral damage' in the intentional category? Not being a military man I may be way off.

Study up on the Law of War, and the concept of proportionality.

OK :roll:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: techs
The chief Iraqi military spokesman in Baghdad, Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, claimed the female bombers had Down syndrome . . .

Ahhhhh, excuse me if I don't jump on the ZOMG train with the rest of you until we hear from a more credible source with forensic proof.

Like he would make up a detail like that??

What does he have to gain? Everyone already knows that AQ is bad not sure what you gain by lying about people having down syndrome. Not like the anti-war crowd is going to change their mind and start supporting the war.

I'm not saying anything about the issue here one way or the other, but this is a weak post.

Yes, the military has people who would make up a story like that; in fact, I've been surprised it has not one outrageous lie, but most big stories seem to be big lies.

Remember hero soldier Jessica? Her daring rescue? The way Pat Tillman was killed in a battle with the enemy? There are many more.

And the point isn't that Al Queda is already seen as bad; it helps to pile it on.

You always want to keep the target of the propaganda from asking, 'what's the other side's point of view? Are they at all right?'

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Gaard
BTW, which classification would you put "collateral damage" under...intentional or unintentional?)

certainly unintentional -- which happens to be the key difference between coalition forces and our enemies.

For coalition forces, the goal, in every encounter, is to minimize civilian casualties.

For our enemies, the more innocents who die, the more they consider their attacks a success!

But you knew that already, right? And you're just playing semantic games because you think that you're witty... ya....

GG.

You say minimize and I have to agree, but isn't there usually an expected (and accepted) amount of civilian casualties in any offensive attack? I'm thinking stuff like 'shock -n- awe'. If you agree, wouldn't you have to put that 'collateral damage' in the intentional category? Not being a military man I may be way off.

Study up on the Law of War, and the concept of proportionality.

OK :roll:

Not being a military man, you were, as you guessed, way off. Thus, I directed you to the rules of law that military officers must follow in every engagement -- including the previously mentioned "shock and awe" bombing campaigns.

Do whatever you want with the info, but i refuse to debate the topic further until you know wtf you're talking about.

For modern U.S. forces, innocent civilian deaths are never "intentional." Period.