US Soldier captured by Iraqi terrorist scum

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: No, Terrorist is a term that describes "Terrorism refers to the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political goal" Religious nutcases, well I wouldn't want to violate the moratorium with my title And yes I know most of the actual "terrorists" in Iraq are foreign nationals hoping to be able to take a portion of the spoils (land and power in Iraq), don't believe me? those are the rules Islam has operated under for 1400 years, and they won't change now just because they're largely fighting coreligionists in this instance. They're not all looking to "liberate" or get their 72 virgins. Terrorists who blow themselves up, or kidnap civilians, or do any of the other hundreds of despicable acts these bastards do deserve the title scum, as do any who support their acts, or would on any level defend them. btw thanks for reminding me why I avoid this forum. [img]graemlins/flickoff.gif[/img]

[img]smile.gif[/img] I agree with the sentiment, anyone who kills civilians, especially in such a cruel and callous way deserves to be labelled scum. But just three little points:

1) If killing civilians makes you scum, it probably should be pointed out that in the last half a year that military operations have been responsible for about a thousand more civilian deaths than terrorist attacks (this also includes operations by Iraqi security forces).

2) Even the Pentagon has largely given up pretending that most of the insurgents are foreign - the vast majority are in fact Iraqi. The general consensus (based upon Iraqi national intelligence agency estimates) are a 'hard core' of 20-40,000 fighters, with a further 150-200,000 'active supporters'. Of these, only several hundred (and I would certainly think no more than a couple of thousand at most) are foreign militants like Al-Zarqawi.

3) 72 virgins is an absolutely woeful mistranslation that's been somewhat seized upon for various nefarious purposes (both by extremists and western media) - the correct translation would be 'angels'. The notion of virgins in the afterlife is generally considered to have popped up in written tradition later (rather than in the Qu'ran) and thus is of dubious authenticity.

And don't leave the forum! What, with Magik being temporarily MIA, the CE forum is in danger of becoming 'left-heavy'. And that just wouldn't be interesting.

[ 02-02-2005, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: 3) 72 virgins is an absolutely woeful mistranslation that's been somewhat seized upon for various nefarious purposes (both by extremists and western media) - the correct translation would be 'angels'. The notion of virgins in the afterlife is generally considered to have popped up in written tradition later (rather than in the Qu'ran) and thus is of dubious authenticity. And don't leave the forum! What, with Magik being temporarily MIA, the CE forum is in danger of becoming 'left-heavy'. And that just wouldn't be interesting. [/QB]

Actually, I've seen another translation apparently taken from the original languages that were merged to create Arabic (Aramaic, and Hebrew IIRC) and it translated that bit as grapes, 72 grapes for jihadis.

Thanks for the sentiment Shamrock, but I keep my presence here scarce for a reason, various idiots here get me worked up to the point where I risk a "vacation" from the site as a whole.

an update on the situation.

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002050.html Captive U.S. Soldier Doll Rescued by Bush Doll by Scott Ott (2005-02-01) -- Just hours after Islamic militants in Iraq threatened to behead a kidnapped U.S. soldier doll, the camouflaged action figure was rescued in a daring nighttime operation by a toy George W. Bush action figure. The nine-inch-tall replica of the president left Andrews Air Force Base in a scale model of Air Force One within minutes after the Pentagon learned of the kidnapping from a picture on an Islamic website. The top-secret flight was reminiscent of the life-size president's Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad in 2003. During the long trip, the presidential doll was programmed to say intimidating things in Arabic, and reportedly spent several hours practicing his kung-fu grip. Even as the mission was secretly under way, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-MA, went before the Senate to call for the immediate withdrawal of 12,000 military action figures from Iraq. Upon hearing of the Bush doll's successful mission, Sen. John Kerry, D-MA, warned against "overhyping" the significance of the apparently heroic deed.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: 3) 72 virgins is an absolutely woeful mistranslation that's been somewhat seized upon for various nefarious purposes (both by extremists and western media) - the correct translation would be 'angels'. The notion of virgins in the afterlife is generally considered to have popped up in written tradition later (rather than in the Qu'ran) and thus is of dubious authenticity.

"Angels" I believe that is an accurate description of lovely young ladies, well southern Belles at least.

[ 02-02-2005, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Violet: Our soldier's are over there dying to protect the freedom of speech you know.

No, I don't know that and I have seen nothing to prove such a statement.

Our soldier's are dying over there for nothing that has to do with protecting The homeland or defending the constitution.

They are dying to try and provide a nice new U.S. friendly Iraq government that doesn't neccessarily care about concepts like freedom of speech. Don't offer any of that "its a democracy" propaganda. I see through the smoke and mirrors. Last weeks elections could only be considered successful if Iraq were three seperate countries (Kurds, Shite, and Sunni). And even then only two out of the three would carry the appearance of success at this early stage. We'll see how much freedom Iraq has after it's constitution is formed by the recently elected.

They are dying to fill the coffers of Haliburton and other corporations that are friendly with the Bush government.

Ultimately they are dying ( and being maimed and wounded) because of a a great series of mistakes and blunders that no one has yet to take any responsibility for and nobody has yet been held accountable for.

[ 02-02-2005, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Davros]

Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: Originally posted by Morgeruat: btw thanks for reminding me why I avoid this forum. [img]graemlins/flickoff.gif[/img] Morg, don't let'em get you down, "If'n you're soring with Eagles, you can't be worried about the Gobblers on the ground that make only short bursts into the air."

Gee - I woulda just said don't let the door hitya.

The title shows a lack of class on his part and racist xenophobia. He could have used lots of alternatives. His only defence is "I won't change". Sounds like a bit of the "Fair and Balanced" one coming through. I can understand how people get this mindset if they watch too much FOX.

It should not be OK to offend people - the title is offensive. Linking Iraqi and terrorist is OK, linking terrorist and scum is OK - either of those would have done the trick. Linking a country with scum is offensive. It doesn't become unoffensive because you have troops in that country.

Link a country and their citizens to the word scum and you develop the inbred hatred and rage that dominated those that dished out the way over the top abuse at Abu Ghraib. I bet all those guys wandered about calling Iraqii's scum too. Let's promote that shall we?

Not me!!!

[Azred]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: They [soldiers] are dying to try and provide a nice new U.S. friendly Iraq government that doesn't neccessarily care about concepts like freedom of speech. Don't offer any of that "its a democracy" propaganda. I see through the smoke and mirrors. Last weeks elections could only be considered successful if Iraq were three seperate countries (Kurds, Shite, and Sunni). And even then only two out of the three would carry the appearance of success at this early stage. We'll see how much freedom Iraq has after it's constitution is formed by the recently elected.

I agree with you here. We definitely have an interest in making sure the new Iraqi government is more West-friendly than the previous one. Only an idiot would do otherwise.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: They are dying to fill the coffers of Haliburton and other corporations that are friendly with the Bush government. Ultimately they are dying ( and being maimed and wounded) because of a a great series of mistakes and blunders that no one has yet to take any responsibility for and nobody has yet been held accountable for.

Have a little corporate paranoia, do you? [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

Halliburton didn't order troops over there and create ways to cash in from their deaths. Halliburton is over there doing some of the jobs that no other company in the world can do; at least, they are doing jobs that no one else in the world placed bids to perform.

Who should be held accountable for letting Hussein perpetrate the atrocities he committed during his reign? Who should be held accountable for working with him to embezzle billions of dollars from the oil-for-food program?

[ 02-02-2005, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Azred ]

[Azred]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: And don't leave the forum! What, with Magik being temporarily MIA, the CE forum is in danger of becoming 'left-heavy'. And that just wouldn't be interesting.

Fear not, shamrock_uk! I will make sure the forum is not "left-heavy". I am on the right because I am right. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

[Dace De'Briago]

Halliburton is over there doing some of the jobs that no other company in the world can do; at least, they are doing jobs that no one else in the world placed bids to perform.

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.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Azred: Have a little corporate paranoia, do you? [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

Nope. Paranoia suggests irrational beleifs based on dleusion or imagination, not facts. 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.

[/qb] Who should be held accountable for letting Hussein perpetrate the atrocities he committed during his reign? Who should be held accountable for working with him to embezzle billions of dollars from the oil-for-food program? [/QB]

How is this relevant to the rush to war and poorly planned and executed occupation? It is not. 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. The war is just one facet of the fiscal incompetence Bush and Congress has shown in the last four years with even more on the horizon.

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.

[ 02-02-2005, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: How is this relevant to the rush to war and poorly planned and executed occupation?

Who says there was a rush to war? You? Who says it was poorly planed? You? Who says there is an occupation? You? Sorry but you will have to...oh what was that turned phrase...Oh yeah...You'll have to try a new schitck to impress or sway me.

[ 02-02-2005, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]