Do Barbaric Peoples Really Deserve Freedom?

[johnny]

Originally posted by Sir Degrader: Anti war protesters squawk when mosques are accidently bombed and civilians killed by mistake, then remain silent when mutilated US bodies are dragged through streets then hung up. How typically left wing. I bet none of them raised a fuss when Clinton bombed Serbia in 1998, only now that it's a republican in the white house. Shamefull.

Actually, they did. Peaceprotests have nothing to do with republicans and democrats, it's about bombs dropping on civilian areas.

[Chewbacca]

Terrible, but somewhat predictable- given the recent history of the area.

As equally terrible (and barbaric) as gunning down women and children. Of course where were the cries of anger and indignance when that happened in Fallujah last year?

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Sir Degrader: Anti war protesters squawk when mosques are accidently bombed and civilians killed by mistake, then remain silent when mutilated US bodies are dragged through streets then hung up. How typically left wing. I bet none of them raised a fuss when Clinton bombed Serbia in 1998, only now that it's a republican in the white house. Shamefull.

Poor strawman, didnt even see it coming.

[sarcasm]

Of course we anti-war protestors are responsible for the invasion and occupation of Iraq which correspondingly lead to this event happening.
[/sarcasm]


What is shameful is how, in the apparent spirit of partisanship, you have made gross generalizations about anti-war protestors and the so-called left wing.

I am an independent anti-war protestor and I am not silent on this issue.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Sir Degrader: Anti war protesters squawk when mosques are accidently bombed and civilians killed by mistake, then remain silent when mutilated US bodies are dragged through streets then hung up. How typically left wing. I bet none of them raised a fuss when Clinton bombed Serbia in 1998, only now that it's a republican in the white house. Shamefull.

It angers me when people accuse doves of using peace protests to strike against (Insert party of whomever is in office). It's a cheap shot and almost entirely groundless. It might be hard to believe, but some people don't have agendas against the Republican party per se. I was at the recent rally in New York and yes, I dislike Bush. But I wasn't there because I didn't like Bush. I was there because I don't approve of the war.
As for the mutilated US bodies... Would they be there if we hadn't invaded? We put ourselves in that position, and now we have to live with it.

As for comments about 'deserving' freedom... Freedom, in most cases, has to be fought for and has to be earned. You can't hand a people freedom if they don't want it or if they aren't ready for it.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Sir Degrader: Anti war protesters squawk when mosques are accidently bombed and civilians killed by mistake, then remain silent when mutilated US bodies are dragged through streets then hung up. How typically left wing. I bet none of them raised a fuss when Clinton bombed Serbia in 1998, only now that it's a republican in the white house. Shamefull.

And you note that with just one post separating yours from mine.

The kind of behaviour shown by this mob and their level of 'love' towards the US was exactly what those 'lefties' were warning of before the war. The consequences were pointed out - but fell on deaf ears.

And yeah, I made a BIG fuss over Clintion's strategy in Serbia in 1998. Bombing Belgrade, hitting hospitals, embassies and TV stations far outside Kosovo was designed to wear down the populace's support for the war - rather than halt the cleansing process in Kosovo.

Where in reality, ground troops backed by air-support in Kosovo was required - not some poll-friendly, no-risk-to-NATO troops strategy...

This isn't about partisan issues - it's about doing what's right - and recognising the consequences of 'wrongdoing'.

[ 04-01-2004, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Timber Loftis]

I think the fallujah thing last year was addressed here, but I can't be bothered to search out the posts.

I totally object to using US action as an excuse for killing -- BARBARICALLY -- civilians who are trying to do the right thing and rebuild the country so it can be handed over to the Iraqis. I know a partner from my firm who is assisting with building a legal system in Iraq, and if you've visited the Oasis, you may have seen them.

Skunk, sorry, but in my mind you dontinue to be a mild terrorist sympathizer, which I cannot abide. While you do post the occassional interesting tidbit of information, I nevertheless take most of your posts with a grain of salt based on your sympathies.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I totally object to using US action as an excuse for killing -- BARBARICALLY --

What is the difference between making excuses and seeking reasons. Why would the people there do this? It seems logical to suppose that past/present greivances would fuel hatred and revenge.

Also, you may continue to be unwilling to admit to the logical conclusion that these and similiar tragedies would have never happened if the the invasion and occupation had never happened, but that is a fact. This is not making excuses, this is cold hard logical analysis.

War is ugly, disgusting and immoral. I don't like the results of it, so I don't support it, especially a policy of offensive preemption that includes the occupation of a hostile populace. Why? Because the giant year long tragedy that is the invasion & occuaption of Iraq is exactly why. One tragedy after another. DEATH DEATH DEATH. Every F-ing day- DEATH. Aside from the bodies being dragged through town square by a huge mob, this was just another sad and terrible day in circa 2003-2004 Iraq.




On another note... I'm going to not mind my own business....

Calling someone a terror sympathizer is a pretty serious accusation, even if watered down with a qualifier such as "mild".


A terror sypathyzer, as I define it, would be a supporter of the 9-11 attacks, the attacks in Bali, Spain, and the reoccuring terror attacks in Isreal, ect. So unless you have a different definition of the term 'terror sympathizer" I have never seen Skunk make statements that supports the actions of terrorists. Quite the contrary actually.


Like I said, I find accusing someone of supporting or sympathizing terrorists to be a fairly serious accusation. It can certianly be percieved as a character attack and could even be percieved as libel or defamation. At the least it is an ad hom attack that has nothing to do with the issue at hand and other hot-button issue that may casue disagreeance.

So unless you would like to offer some compelling evidence to back up the persisent and wild claims of terrorist sympathy- I suggest sticking a sock in it.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Skunk, sorry, but in my mind you dontinue to be a mild terrorist sympathizer, which I cannot abide. While you do post the occassional interesting tidbit of information, I nevertheless take most of your posts with a grain of salt based on your sympathies.

*clap clap* good for you. Try fishing your candy out of that bitter sandpit. I for one have never read a Skunk post that I didn't agree with.

[ 04-01-2004, 03:52 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: It certainly sparks such sympathies in me -- much as I hate it. I don't want to be prejudiced against a peoples, and I dislike this crowd for inching me in that direction.

Then stop watching the news. Forget about them. Return to your metropolitan utopia.

Rile up your impotent anger if you wish, such sentiments make for big bucks in the pockets of news agencies. Iraq doesn't concern you, despite what American patriotism and nationalism may incline you to believe. You are not a politician, you are not a general, you are a lawyer, go back to your law clients. Because for now, all you do is feed off've the scraps of slanted information thrown to you by news aganecies, perpetuating your addiction to an illusory sense of empowerment.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Skunk, sorry, but in my mind you dontinue to be a mild terrorist sympathizer, which I cannot abide. While you do post the occassional interesting tidbit of information, I nevertheless take most of your posts with a grain of salt based on your sympathies.

No I do NOT sympathise with 'terrorists' - I merely do what so many people here (including yourself) seem to find too difficult. I stand in the other person's shoes and ask myself how I would feel if the same things were happening to me.

Tell me TL, how would you feel if:
At least one member of your family was killed by a foreign invader? Prepared to forgive?
You are banned from working and recieving state aid because you joined a political party that the invader doesn't like? Still happy?
You have no access to money (and therefore food is irregular) and your surviving kids are going hungry. Would you still feel passive without a shred of resentment and bitterness?

Questions like these need to be asked so that solutions can be found and stupid mistakes like the Iraq war are not repeated.


If standing in the other person's shoes and gaining an understanding of their viewpoint and emotions makes me a 'bad' person, then so be it.
If critically examining the motives of my country and acknowledging its faults is wrong, then so be it.
If being prepared to understand the causes of violence is wrong, then so be it.
If all of that make me a 'terrorist sympahiser' - then it's a label that I am proud of.


Maybe its easier to label someone as a 'terrorist sympathiser' rather than to undergo the painful process of critical self-examination. It's certainly easier to call people 'barbaric' because then you don't have to ask "Why"?
And the "Why?" is the question that we really want to avoid isn't it?

We don't really want to know what made a previously law-abiding town engage in such a savage act of bloodlust, do we? Because we don't want our own consciences to be disturbed by what we might have done TO them rather than FOR them. And for people to be so stirred up and so crazed, what we must have done TO them must have been pretty bad - and we wouldn't want to admit it, would we?

[ 04-01-2004, 04:25 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]