US Soldier captured by Iraqi terrorist scum

[Larry_OHF]

A silent reminder

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: davros the tactics you accuse me of using are the same ones I've seen you use over and over again, within this very thread.

What? Davros has accused you of being un-Australian? Of "hating Australia with all your heart"? And he has done it over and over again? Come on then, I'll make things easy for you - just show me one of the times he's done that. I'm not even asking you to show me how he's done it "over and over", just once will do.

You have consistently dodged Davros' accusation of racism and failed to see that he has not said you explicitly call all Iraqi's terrorists but instead make a xenophobic connection between Iraqi's and terrorist scum. The argument that you didn't bring up Abu Ghraib but he did is neither here nor there as Davros is attempting to show how attitudes like yours contribute to events like Abu Ghraib. He is not, as far as I can tell, attempting to show you explicitly support it, but that your attitude contributes to the brutalisation of a nation.

He has taken your points apart and argued against them piece by piece in a very clear fashion, despite an almost palpable (and quite justifiable, IMO) rage at your inability to see how annoying your debating tactics can be. You, on the other hand, have either misunderstood or misrepresented his points and accused him of casual racism with pretty much no justification. This is not the behaviour of a soaring eagle, to borrow a phrase from John D.

[Melusine]

Davros, you rock mate. I have nothing to add to your defense that Barry hasn't already said, but I just wanted to let you know how impressive I thought your post was. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Edit: And I laughed out loud at the comment about "Achy Breaky Heart". Which I've now got stuck in my head, thanks a bunch. [img]graemlins/1disgust.gif[/img]

[ 02-03-2005, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: quote: Originally posted by Morgeruat: davros the tactics you accuse me of using are the same ones I've seen you use over and over again, within this very thread.

What? Davros has accused you of being un-Australian? Of "hating Australia with all your heart"? And he has done it over and over again? Come on then, I'll make things easy for you - just show me one of the times he's done that. I'm not even asking you to show me how he's done it "over and over", just once will do.

You have consistently dodged Davros' accusation of racism and failed to see that he has not said you explicitly call all Iraqi's terrorists but instead make a xenophobic connection between Iraqi's and terrorist scum. The argument that you didn't bring up Abu Ghraib but he did is neither here nor there as Davros is attempting to show how attitudes like yours contribute to events like Abu Ghraib. He is not, as far as I can tell, attempting to show you explicitly support it, but that your attitude contributes to the brutalisation of a nation.

He has taken your points apart and argued against them piece by piece in a very clear fashion, despite an almost palpable (and quite justifiable, IMO) rage at your inability to see how annoying your debating tactics can be. You, on the other hand, have either misunderstood or misrepresented his points and accused him of casual racism with pretty much no justification. This is not the behaviour of a soaring eagle, to borrow a phrase from John D. [/QUOTE]Barry, no where does Morg use what can be equated to be "xenophobic connection between Iraqi's and terrorist scum." Morg uses the term "Iraqi terrorist Scum"
In in the way the words are used "Terrorist scum" is a sub-set of Iraqi's, not the entire set of Iraqi's. A SUB-SET of Iraqi's!! Not Iraqi's AND Terrorist Scum! (2 sets) But only the the Iraqi's that fall within the sub-set terrorist scum.(sub-set:"terrorist scum" of the set: Iraqi) Anybody bother to ask him what he meant by "Iraqi terrorist scum"? Does he mean terrorist that happen to be within the borders of Iraq? Or does he mean Iraqi are terrorist scum? *note the addition of the word "are" and how that changes the meaning of the phrase*

Morg, I figured I'd do a little swooping, and give you a good bird's eye view of the gobblers scramblin', enjoy the show.

[ 02-03-2005, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Davros]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: quote: Originally posted by Morgeruat: davros the tactics you accuse me of using are the same ones I've seen you use over and over again, within this very thread.

What? Davros has accused you of being un-Australian? Of "hating Australia with all your heart"? And he has done it over and over again? Come on then, I'll make things easy for you - just show me one of the times he's done that. I'm not even asking you to show me how he's done it "over and over", just once will do.

You have consistently dodged Davros' accusation of racism and failed to see that he has not said you explicitly call all Iraqi's terrorists but instead make a xenophobic connection between Iraqi's and terrorist scum. The argument that you didn't bring up Abu Ghraib but he did is neither here nor there as Davros is attempting to show how attitudes like yours contribute to events like Abu Ghraib. He is not, as far as I can tell, attempting to show you explicitly support it, but that your attitude contributes to the brutalisation of a nation.

He has taken your points apart and argued against them piece by piece in a very clear fashion, despite an almost palpable (and quite justifiable, IMO) rage at your inability to see how annoying your debating tactics can be. You, on the other hand, have either misunderstood or misrepresented his points and accused him of casual racism with pretty much no justification. This is not the behaviour of a soaring eagle, to borrow a phrase from John D. [/QUOTE]Thanks Barry, and good to see you back in these here parts. Cheers man. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Davros]

Originally posted by Melusine: Davros, you rock mate. I have nothing to add to your defense that Barry hasn't already said, but I just wanted to let you know how impressive I thought your post was. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] Edit: And I laughed out loud at the comment about "Achy Breaky Heart". Which I've now got stuck in my head, thanks a bunch. [img]graemlins/1disgust.gif[/img]

A shucks Mel - you will have me blushing now [img]smile.gif[/img] . Sorry about the Achy Breaky Heart thing - I should have known that would afflict many other people with the same problem I had yesterday. That bloody song takes about 3 or days to get out of your head once it worms its way back in.

I just must hope you understand .
Cos if you ...... arrrrgh!!!!!!!

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Davros: Thanks Barry, and good to see you back in these here parts. Cheers man. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Always a pleasure.

I don't really post here much anymore but just drop in occasionally. That comment just riled me so much I felt I had to let fly somewhat.

John, I understand that the phrase does not necessarily posit a literal connection between every man, woman, and child in Iraq and terrorism. But nevertheless it can be read in that manner, and its the ambiguous nature of it that causes problems really. "Iraqi terrorist scum" can be read as saying either "Iraqi's are terrorist scum" or "These terrorist scum are Iraqi".

Sure, you could argue against the racism charge using technicalities of language, but at a literal reading you have to see that the phrase could quite conceivably be seen as racist. Similarly Big Ron could probably claim that when he called a black footballer a "stupid ****ing ■■■■■■" that he meant he was a stupid ****er who also happened to be black, and that nothing negative was implied to the black people who aren't stupid ****ers. He still lost his job at the Beeb, because no one would've bought it.

[Dace De'Briago]

You left off 8.

8) Lack of care about the environment and the continued evasion of the worthwhile Kyoto accords.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Dace De'briago: That isn't actually true. Bids from foreign countries outside of the coalition were automatically rejected. Bids from inside the coalition were given second running to US contractors (not a suprise though). The manner in which Halliburton was awarded the contract is up for debate though. They were NOT the lowest bidder on several of the contracts they were awarded, and their ties with the US government make this decision dubious at best.

Why shouldn't bids from non-Coalition companies be rejected? Non-Coalitions countries didn't help the situation before thus they should be happy not to help now.

Halliburton is not alone in its mixing of corporate, military, and governmental contacts to keep a strong position in its industry. Although that is unethical, I doubt we could find any company that doesn't act similarly; neither could we find a company that doesn't envy Halliburton's position.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Halliburton's, amongst other companies with interests to profit from war, close ties to the government are factual, obvious, and a case of public record. Also a matter of public record is the alleged and actual gross fraud and mismanagment that has been commited on my taxpaying dime by Haliburton. Its my dime so I have a right and a responsibility to be skeptical and call for accountability. To gloss over such serious fiscal mismanagemnt is irresponsible. Do so at your own peril. I didn't say Halliburton shouldn't be held accountable for its less-than-reputable behavior, when such behavior occurs. All I said was that there is nothing wrong with Halliburton earning money for doing jobs in Iraq. I would hope that Halliburton hires as many Iraqis as possible to generate a cash influx into their economy, but I haven't heard stories of such. Anyway...Halliburton is only a corporation, not a conglomerate of evil. Pointing out Saddam's Husseins' documented and alleged wickedness does not cover the failures of Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bremmer, and the rest of the gang, nor excuse them one little bit. What failures? Unless I am completely mistaken, the Iraqis held elections last Sunday, which is a damn sight better than many others were able to bring about over the last couple of decades. They have done nothing immoral or illegal; thus, they need no explanation or excusing for their actions. Sorry the standard neo-con Bush supporter apologetics have grown old and worn out. You'll have to try a new schitck to impress or sway me. Nah. I have no interest in trying to impress or sway you. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Davros: 1) The role that FOX plays in making the US populace that views it more ignorant I usually watch FOX news, as well as CNN; I could never be placed in the category "ignorant". [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] Many of my fellow citizens could, though.... 2) The neo-con section of the repugs that promotes the "go it alone" forms of unilateralism and would seek to tear down the UN rather than fix the system. Why is multilaterism better? 3) The song "Achy Breaky Heart" ick. [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] Where's my mullet? [img]tongue.gif[/img] 4) The element that want to shut up shop and isolate themselves from the whole wide world rather than care about what happens to anyone else. Name one good reason why I should care about what happens to others? No one takes care of me except me and I expect the same from other folks. 5) The element that brand anything they disagree with as unamerican. That is the crappiest and lowest form of irrational argument ending that I have ever heard of. Completely true. America has always been about inclusion. Again, some of my fellow citizens are "intellectually disadvantaged". 6) US trade policy when it is entirely self centred and damages the innocent Name one country whose economic policy is designed not to be self-centered or detrimental to some group. 7) Genetically modified foods *sigh* I know you haven't been listening to those technophobes again, have you? [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

[Azred]

Originally posted by Dace De'Briago: You left off 8. 8) Lack of care about the environment and the continued evasion of the worthwhile Kyoto accords.

There are many countries who are contributing negatively to the environment, yet environmentalists choose to focus only on the US. I wonder why that is? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

China doesn't care a whit for Kyoto, either. I doubt anyone will try to force them to comply, either. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]