NationStates Jolt Archive

My comment: WTF???

50 minutes ago
http://yahoo.com/
U.S. seizes suspected Iraqi insurgents' wives.
The U.S. Army has seized and jailed the wives of suspected insurgents in hopes of "leveraging" their husbands into surrender, U.S. military documents show.

In one case, a secretive task force locked up the young mother of a nursing baby, a U.S. intelligence officer reported. In the case of a second detainee, one American colonel suggested to another that they catch her husband by tacking a note to the family's door telling him "to come get his wife."

The issue of female detentions in Iraq has taken on a higher profile since kidnappers seized American journalist Jill Carroll on Jan. 7 and threatened to kill her unless all Iraqi women detainees are freed.

The U.S. military on Thursday freed five of what it said were 11 women among the 14,000 detainees currently held in the 2 1/2-year-old insurgency. All were accused of "aiding terrorists or planting explosives," but an Iraqi government commission found that evidence was lacking.

Iraqi human rights activist Hind al-Salehi contends that U.S. anti-insurgent units, coming up empty-handed in raids on suspects' houses, have at times detained wives to pressure men into turning themselves in.

snip ...it was recommended by TF personnel that if the wife were present, she be detained and held in order to leverage the primary target's surrender, wrote the 14-year veteran officer.

He said he objected, but when they raided the house the team leader, a senior sergeant, seized her anyway.

"The 28-year-old woman had three young children at the house, one being as young as six months and still nursing," the intelligence officer wrote. She was held for two days and was released after he complained, he said.

Like most names in the released documents, the officer's signature is blacked out on this for-the-record memorandum about his complaint.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc.

Okay, now that's just crossing the line. I can understand property searches if you're suspected (and ONLY if you have a warrant and have proof which can support the "compelling interest" of the state)

It is for a tactic like this that we should support on-going conflict in the Middle East...

I say we kidnap the whole family, and if they still want to mess us, kill the family. This America we dont play around. We are badasses and if you dont like it, sorry. America owns you!

Wow? Where is the honor in that?

Hmmm I wonder what the apologists will say about that?

I agree with this tactic. The enemy is using it, so if we don't we handicap our ability to win. This wouldn't be a problem if we were facing and organized i.e. military opposition who identify themselves. However what we are facing is a bunch of citizens/arab militants that are willing to fight a guerilla war. Well we should take what they hold dear and leverage it against them. No offense to them, but I value an American life over their lives. Even if they are right. They want to kick us out, do it Gandhi style non violent protest.

Wow? Where is the honor in that?

Hmmm I wonder what the apologists will say about that?

"Gawd bless 'merica" would be my guess.

I say we kidnap the whole family, and if they still want to mess us, kill the family. This America we dont play around. We are badasses and if you dont like it, sorry. America owns you!
God I hope you are kidding

I say we kidnap the whole family, and if they still want to mess us, kill the family. This America we dont play around. We are badasses and if you dont like it, sorry. America owns you!

Yeah. We'll show those terrorists. We'll kill your family. We'll drown your pets. We'll torture you to death for voting against us. Terrorists are assholes and anything that the US does to them is justified because it's the US that's doing it. As the Simpsons said, "no child has ever stood against the Republican Party and lived."

I agree with this tactic. The enemy is using it, so if we don't we handicap our ability to win.
If we use all their methods of fighting (which is the whole reason we are fighting them to begin with)
What makes us any better then them?

I thought we were suposed to be fighting terrorism not encouraging it

I agree with this tactic. The enemy is using it, so if we don't we handicap our ability to win.

Oh, bloody good reasoning there. I expect you'll be volunteering for the "Fly Jumbo Jets into Commercial Buildings" Brigade or maybe the "Rape Innocent Women And Kill Innocent Children Or Else Evil People Win" Division? We wouldn't want to handicap ourselves by holding any sort of moral high ground here would we?

I agree with this tactic. The enemy is using it, so if we don't we handicap our ability to win. This wouldn't be a problem if we were facing and organized i.e. military opposition who identify themselves. However what we are facing is a bunch of citizens/arab militants that are willing to fight a guerilla war. Well we should take what they hold dear and leverage it against them. No offense to them, but I value an American life over their lives. Even if they are right. They want to kick us out, do it Gandhi style non violent protest.

I thought their tactics were exactly what we were at war against? That's like saying that cocaine dealers make money selling drugs and kidnapping villagers and selling them into prostitution, so if we don't let our law enforcement officers hustle, pimp, and push they won't be able to compete in the war on drugs.

You're essentially saying that the only proper response for anyone other than the US is "if we kill you, just let us do it until we get bored. You're not entitled to fight back because you're not us."

The problem with the Gandhi tactic is that, while arrogant and callous, the British empire had some principles and morals. The American Empire does not. We'll happily kill women and children just because it's cheaper to do it that way. We'll vaporize entire cities and say, "we had to because they hate freedom." Pacifism works against warriors. It doesn't work against murderers. (btw, I mean the administration, not the armed forces.)

from the story:

In a second e-mail, a command staff officer asked an officer of the unit holding the women, "What are you guys doing to try to get the husband — have you tacked a note on the door and challenged him to come get his wife?"

Two days later, the brigade's deputy commander advised the higher command, "As each day goes by, I get more input that these gals have some info and/or will result in getting the husband."

He went on, "These ladies fought back extremely hard during the original detention. They have shown indications of deceit and misinformation."

The command staff colonel wrote in reply, referring to a commanding general, "CG wants the husband."

The released e-mails stop there, and the women's eventual status could not be immediately determined.

Of this episode, Johnson said, "It is clear the unit believed the females detained had substantial knowledge of insurgent activity and warranted being held."

So these are not just innocent wives, they may be part of the "insurgency," along with their husbands.

I say we kidnap the whole family, and if they still want to mess us, kill the family. This America we dont play around. We are badasses and if you dont like it, sorry. America owns you!

The problem is, they see "family" differently than we do. Every person you kidnap has a dozen cousins that will kill to avenge, or free, him or her. You kidnap the "terrorist's" dozen cousins then their collective gross of cousins will join the insurgency. If you manage to round all of them up at the same time then you get 20736 coming at you.

The administration knows this of course. War is a big seller for them. The more that people are scared the more that they vote Republican and let the Republicans do whatever they want. So the Republicans just make the world a scarier place to ensure that they get more votes. It's the same problem you get by making the war on drugs self-financing. You end up with an incentive to create the problem that you exist to solve. The administration is following its policies specifically to promote terrorism and then send Karl Rove out to address the glazed masses and say "Democrats = more terrorism Republicans = less terrorism" and bump up the Republican numbers a bit.

Clearly the problem is that we don't take this far enough. If we suspect someone of insurgency we should nuke their village/city/town. That'll teach 'em to mess with the good ole US of A.


:rolleyes:


Here's a little brain puzzle. What's the difference between an insurgent and a revolutionary?

Please note, I am not expressing an opinion on the immeadietly above. I am merely trying to provoke thought or failing that, discussion.

I say we kidnap the whole family, and if they still want to mess us, kill the family. This America we dont play around. We are badasses and if you dont like it, sorry. America owns you!

While we're at it, let's just nuke the rest of the world and save time!

they just want to protect the women from their violent, murderous husbands. if you have reason to suspect, that a man has set his life to blowing up innocent men, women and children, it would be completely irresponsible to leave his wife at their home without protection. what if the husband returns and turns his craze on her? being of such violent nature, that he commits acts of massmurder, he probably wont shy away from abusing her too!
it is the duty of the us military to evacuate these vulnerable women as long as their violent husbands are not caught, if they didnt, it would be complete negligence.

they just want to protect the women from their violent, murderous husbands. if you have reason to suspect, that a man has set his life to blowing up innocent men, women and children, it would be completely irresponsible to leave his wife at their home without protection. what if the husband returns and turns his craze on her? being of such violent nature, that he commits acts of massmurder, he probably wont shy away from abusing her too!
it is the duty of the us military to evacuate these vulnerable women as long as their violent husbands are not caught, if they didnt, it would be complete negligence.
Yeah they are doing it because they care about her:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Kossackja
they just want to protect the women from their violent, murderous husbands. if you have reason to suspect, that a man has set his life to blowing up innocent men, women and children, it would be completely irresponsible to leave his wife at their home without protection. what if the husband returns and turns his craze on her? being of such violent nature, that he commits acts of massmurder, he probably wont shy away from abusing her too!
it is the duty of the us military to evacuate these vulnerable women as long as their violent husbands are not caught, if they didnt, it would be complete negligence.
You may want to note that they were KIDNAPING wives of people they ALREADY HAD IN CUSTODY

Now exactly HOW does that “protect” them more? Their husbands are ALREADY locked up

You may want to note that they were KIDNAPING wives of people they ALREADY HAD IN CUSTODYthe story doesnt say thatNow exactly HOW does that “protect” them more? Their husbands are ALREADY locked uptheir husbands accomplices may suspect, that they helped the coalition capture their husbands, that they collaborated and then take revenge on them. ofcourse the army is putting out this ridiculous story about detaining them against their will to force their husbands to surrender, hoping it will fool the terrorists, but they may not be so dumb and see through this crude misinformation attempt and take their revenge on the women anyway.

I guess we like getting blown up.

they just want to protect the women from their violent, murderous husbands.Hahahahaaa...

that was some funny shit.. :D

what if the husband returns and turns his craze on her? being of such violent nature, that he commits acts of massmurder, he probably wont shy away from abusing her too!Wuahahaha.. You should be writting some Itchy-&-Scrachy Cartoons... :D :D

I say we kidnap the whole family, and if they still want to mess us, kill the family. This America we dont play around. We are badasses and if you dont like it, sorry. America owns you!
You're funny when you're evil.

He went on, "These ladies fought back extremely hard during the original detention. They have shown indications of deceit and misinformation."
Oh, what a surprise...did he expect a "Oh, please, Americans, whom I primarily know from reports about Abu Ghraib and stories about raping Arab women, please take me away from my family and take me to some dark prison, where I will then tell you all the details my chauvinistic radical Islamist husband has told me about his daily life!"

I thought their tactics were exactly what we were at war against? That's like saying that cocaine dealers make money selling drugs and kidnapping villagers and selling them into prostitution, so if we don't let our law enforcement officers hustle, pimp, and push they won't be able to compete in the war on drugs.

You're essentially saying that the only proper response for anyone other than the US is "if we kill you, just let us do it until we get bored. You're not entitled to fight back because you're not us."

The problem with the Gandhi tactic is that, while arrogant and callous, the British empire had some principles and morals. The American Empire does not. We'll happily kill women and children just because it's cheaper to do it that way. We'll vaporize entire cities and say, "we had to because they hate freedom." Pacifism works against warriors. It doesn't work against murderers. (btw, I mean the administration, not the armed forces.)

i agree with your analogy,however...assuming the report is true?what are we to do?
you do realise these "militants" are by and large,murderous evil scum..that like the stone age mentality towards women,and just as soon cut your wifes head off,or daughters, then care about stepping on an ant!

also a lot of them are old batthists that don't want to lose their "good old days"
you know secret prisons,mass graves,real torture..all by the thousands...whoopee

kills me that people that hate america try to equal the b.s. at abu ghraib as even remotely equal to what they did to eachother.

nude human pyramids...big deal,sounds like nude twister to me...fun

just kidding about that,but to compare abu ghraib and the abuses by saddam and his buddies(the ones running around now chopping off heads and blowing up civvies)is absurd,and intellectually dishonest....to the extreme.

i agree we should hold the higher ground,and i bet in 99% of cases we do,there will always be abuses in war..but to compare war time misddeds perpetrated by a small number of men at WAR to peacetime mass murder and torture shows ones true bias and is bullshit if you ask me.
which i know you didn't,but when someone equates what few abuses we have done during war time with what when on during supposed peacetime,well,your opinion matters as much to me as next to nothing.

we are trying to help these people,like we have always tried to help people.yes we are greedy capitalists(is that really what the issue is)but we are by nature a country that trys to help people,yes we take,but we also give..to the extreme.
we could easily blow them off the map and be done with it..who's gonna stop us?why don't we?cause contrary to popular belief...we arent an evil country bent on world domination.

i do not think we should yank some women from her kids..to be perfectly clear,unless she is a combatant or enabling her husband,and only if we could prove it,which we cant..so we shouldn't do it period.

we gotta help the gov. form,kill all the nuts we can..then get the hell outta there.

Oceandrive3, could you do us all a favor and fix your link so that it actually clicks onto the story you wish us to be appalled by rather than merely onto Yahoo's homepage instead? :rolleyes: Thanks.

That said, I will note that from details mentioned on this message board that this sounds suspiciously like the recycling of a story that was in circulation a couple of years back that feel apart upon closer examination. Nice to know that the power of urban folklore is still strong. :p

I thought their tactics were exactly what we were at war against? That's like saying that cocaine dealers make money selling drugs and kidnapping villagers and selling them into prostitution, so if we don't let our law enforcement officers hustle, pimp, and push they won't be able to compete in the war on drugs.

You're essentially saying that the only proper response for anyone other than the US is "if we kill you, just let us do it until we get bored. You're not entitled to fight back because you're not us."

The problem with the Gandhi tactic is that, while arrogant and callous, the British empire had some principles and morals. The American Empire does not. We'll happily kill women and children just because it's cheaper to do it that way. We'll vaporize entire cities and say, "we had to because they hate freedom." Pacifism works against warriors. It doesn't work against murderers. (btw, I mean the administration, not the armed forces.)

Good point that is why Martin Luther King Jr used them we shot the hell out of all of them and kept all blacks as second class citizens. Just the other day I kicked a black man for looking me in the eye...:P Whatever the US is as moral as any other government out there. Though I am still pissed that more Generals and politicians didn't fry over Abu Ghaib...hell I would settle for one. As for the taking of family members of insurgents..I am not saying shoot the members in the head...but certainly hold them until the insurgents turn them in.

Here's a little brain puzzle. What's the difference between an insurgent and a revolutionary?

Please note, I am not expressing an opinion on the immeadietly above. I am merely trying to provoke thought or failing that, discussion.

Is there a difference? I don't think so. Same thing...someone said that one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. I just choose american lives over Iraqis. And I am never voting Republican again. They gave us Bush and that cost them my open mind. It looks like it is going to be Democrat or any other 3rd party candidate out there.

Oceandrive3, could you do us all a favor and fix your link so that it actually clicks onto the story you wish us to be appalled by rather than merely onto Yahoo's homepage instead? :rolleyes: Thanks.

That said, I will note that from details mentioned on this message board that this sounds suspiciously like the recycling of a story that was in circulation a couple of years back that feel apart upon closer examination. Nice to know that the power of urban folklore is still strong. :pIt that link is where I got the it... the story was on Yahoo First Page during most of the day...

Good point that is why Martin Luther King Jr used them we shot the hell out of all of them and kept all blacks as second class citizens. Just the other day I kicked a black man for looking me in the eye...:P Whatever the US is as moral as any other government out there. Though I am still pissed that more Generals and politicians didn't fry over Abu Ghaib...hell I would settle for one. quite honest so far... As for the taking of family members of insurgents..I am not saying shoot the members in the head...but certainly hold them until the insurgents turn them in.maybe..

but at least call it what it is... Its Kidnapping.. (not "taking").. and the ransom is their Husbands.. or fathers.. or sons.

While we're at it, let's just nuke the rest of the world and save time!
You might be on to something, I like where your heads at. Maybe not nuke, but bomb HEAVILY.

You might be on to something, I like where your heads at. Maybe not nuke, but bomb HEAVILY.

I'm still not sure if you're a troll or a puppet, I'm leaning towards puppet at the moment.

*grin* Knowing a little about arab.. cultural weaknesses... I'm delighted to see this. The more they yammer, the more we have hurt them. Do this right, and they might even genocide THEMSELVES out of existence. ( think: honour-killings ). If they want to retain their own cultural 'values'... that's their problem, not ours.

The US Constitution is the Compact of the American people. Not of foreigners.

The US Constitution is the Compact of the American people. Not of foreigners.

And hence why it is worthless as a document meant to hold principles, seeing as with your assertions it loses them all. Then to "fight" for what you've rendered a worthless piece of paper you've just wiped your ass with, tells us something about US "cultural weaknesses."

And hence why it is worthless as a document meant to hold principles, seeing as with your assertions it loses them all. Then to "fight" for what you've rendered a worthless piece of paper you've just wiped your ass with, tells us something about US "cultural weaknesses."

It is something OUR ancestors obtained for US.

If we 'deprive' a foreigner in a foreign country of his 'constitutional' rights, we deprive a man who doesn't own shares in General Motors from his ( non-existent ) shares in General Motors.

It is something OUR ancestors obtained for US.

And which you take a dump on by behaving like the people your ancestors fought. You dishonour their struggle and make it futile, becoming the last person in the world to be proud of your ancestors' achievements.

If we 'deprive' a foreigner in a foreign country of his 'constitutional' rights, we deprive a man who doesn't own shares in General Motors from his ( non-existent ) shares in General Motors.

The US constitution is not the be all and end all on the rights humans on this planet have, contrary to what cultural myopia makes you believe (ironically, since you claim not to be culturally myopic by making ridiculous claims about arab culture), and this violates those as well.

My comment: WTF???

50 minutes ago
http://yahoo.com/
U.S. seizes suspected Iraqi insurgents' wives.
The U.S. Army has seized and jailed the wives of suspected insurgents in hopes of "leveraging" their husbands into surrender, U.S. military documents show.

In one case, a secretive task force locked up the young mother of a nursing baby, a U.S. intelligence officer reported. In the case of a second detainee, one American colonel suggested to another that they catch her husband by tacking a note to the family's door telling him "to come get his wife."

The issue of female detentions in Iraq has taken on a higher profile since kidnappers seized American journalist Jill Carroll on Jan. 7 and threatened to kill her unless all Iraqi women detainees are freed.

The U.S. military on Thursday freed five of what it said were 11 women among the 14,000 detainees currently held in the 2 1/2-year-old insurgency. All were accused of "aiding terrorists or planting explosives," but an Iraqi government commission found that evidence was lacking.

Iraqi human rights activist Hind al-Salehi contends that U.S. anti-insurgent units, coming up empty-handed in raids on suspects' houses, have at times detained wives to pressure men into turning themselves in.

snip ...it was recommended by TF personnel that if the wife were present, she be detained and held in order to leverage the primary target's surrender, wrote the 14-year veteran officer.

He said he objected, but when they raided the house the team leader, a senior sergeant, seized her anyway.

"The 28-year-old woman had three young children at the house, one being as young as six months and still nursing," the intelligence officer wrote. She was held for two days and was released after he complained, he said.

Like most names in the released documents, the officer's signature is blacked out on this for-the-record memorandum about his complaint.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc.
If this is true, this is outragous! We need to make sure the US does not think it can do this crap and get away with it.

And which you take a dump on by behaving like the people your ancestors fought. You dishonour their struggle and make it futile, becoming the last person in the world to be proud of your ancestors' achievements.



The US constitution is not the be all and end all on the rights humans on this planet have, contrary to what cultural myopia makes you believe (ironically, since you claim not to be culturally myopic by making ridiculous claims about arab culture), and this violates those as well.


Show me EXACTLY where the US Constitution gives rights to foreigners in foreign lands. And EXACTLY what those rights are.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death.

Show me EXACTLY where the US Constitution gives rights to foreigners in foreign lands. And EXACTLY what those rights are.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death.
Screw the US consitution! If your in the US, you obey it, but you do not have to obey it outside of the US! Stop with this supremicist viewpoint already!

Edit: And you can't commit treason against a country unless you are a citzen of that country. That law doesn't (or at least shouldn't) apply to people in the Middle East.

Screw the US consitution! If your in the US, you obey it, but you do not have to obey it outside of the US! Stop with this supremicist viewpoint already!

Not before you refrain from giving aid or comfort to enemies of the United States. In case you missed it: a criminal offense punishable with death.

Edit: And you can't commit treason against a country unless you are a citzen of that country. That law doesn't (or at least shouldn't) apply to people in the Middle East.

I did not mean those folks...

'Here I abandon peace and desecrated law.

Fortune, it is you I follow.

Farewell to treaties.

From now on war is our judge.'

Win we must, and win we shall.

Show me EXACTLY where the US Constitution gives rights to foreigners in foreign lands. And EXACTLY what those rights are.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death.

As I wrote - the US constitution is not the end all and be all of the rights humans have on this planet.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/convention4.html

The excuse that they are foreigners and thus should have no right not to be harassed and kidnapped and tortured by the US because the US betrays the spirit of its own constitution, and spits upon the struggles of its ancestors that fought exactly that sort of tyranny and brought forth the constitution you seem fit to defile, simply just does not fly. You are expected to live by the principles you espouse in the founding document of your nation, but failing that, there are many other protections that humans as human beings have, despite what your little and obviously poorly written constitution says.

As I wrote - the US constitution is not the end all and be all of the rights humans have on this planet.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/convention4.html

The excuse that they are foreigners and thus should have no right not to be harassed and kidnapped and tortured by the US because the US betrays the spirit of its own constitution, and spits upon the struggles of its ancestors that fought exactly that sort of tyranny and brought forth the constitution you seem fit to defile, simply just does not fly. You are expected to live by the principles you espouse in the founding document of your nation, but failing that, there are many other protections that humans as human beings have, despite what your little and obviously poorly written constitution says.

I don't need, nor am interested in, an excuse.
To put the matter very bluntly:
WE have certain rights because we mutually agreed upon those.
But since there is no compact between me and, say, Sunni Iraqi's bearing Kalashnikovs, I have no rights in relation to them, and they have none in relation with me.
There are NO rights but those arrived at as a result of a mutual compact.

OUR rights, or interests, as you please, are facts on the ground.
THEIRS are quite simply non-existent.



If you assert that THEY have rights, you are committing treason ( aid and comfort ) ... unless you are a foreigner.

I further submit the following for your perusal:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/humanrights/

Since THEY define rights as derived from Allah, and WE do not recognise Allah as a grantor of rights, no serious Jihadi even appeals to such snivelling notion as universal human rights. They are consistent, and I do not see an internal flaw in their reasoning.

and further:


http://www.secularislam.org/humanrights/compatible.htm

Articles 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 deal with the rights of an accused person to a fair trial.

Comments (1) As Schacht has shown under the Sharia considerations of good faith, fairness, justice, truth, and so on play only a subordinate role. The idea of criminal guilt is lacking.

(2) Revenge for a killing is officially sanctioned, though a money recompense is also possible.

(3) The legal procedure, under Islam, can hardly be called impartial or fair, for in the matter of witnesses all sorts of injustices emerge. A non _Muslim may not testify against a Muslim. For example, a Muslim may rob a non _Muslim in his home with impunity if there are no witnesses except the non_ Muslim himself. The evidence of Muslim women is admitted only very exceptionally and then only from twice the number required of men.


I repeat: we need no excuses. By applying their own logic upon them... we can do EXACTLY as we please. Without even the inconvenience of having to listen to THEIR claims to human rights in the first place. For the simple fact is... no serious Islamic militant has ever even BOTHERED to appeal to such. Their lawyers have... but they themselves never do so. ( I'm rather certain that any serious Islamic militant would consider doing so 'shirk', an offense that condemns a muslim to hell according to islamic theology. )

So BogMarsh, by your logic any American who ventures out of the US is fair game to any foreign country they enter because that country only has to respect the rights of its citizens. Is this your view?

So BogMarsh, by your logic any American who ventures out of the US is fair game to any foreign country they enter because that country only has to respect the rights of its citizens. Is this your view?


Have you counted the number of nuclear warheads the US has lately?

The list of countries who even dare to think of such a course of action is somewhat limited...
As I said before: OUR rights are facts on the ground.

Meanwhile: http://www.jamaat.org/islam/HumanRightsPolitical.html

Hence, it is not for us to decide the aim and purpose of our existence or to set the limits of our worldly authority; nor does anyone else have the right to make these decisions for us. This right rests only with Allah. This principle of the Oneness of Allah makes meaningless the concept of the legal and political sovereignty of human beings. No individual, family, class or race can set themselves above Allah. Allah alone is the Ruler and His commandments constitute the law of Islam.

Once again: a serious islamic militant does not entertain such snivelling notions as universal human rights... and does not appeal to them.

--snip--

What a bunch of BS. Really. Human rights are inalienable, no matter how much you want to cry "waaah, but they're bad guys." The point is, you're supposed to be the good guys. When you stop being such, your ultimate destruction - which will come - will be a blessing upon this world. That they're bad guys in no way gives you permission to act as they do.

And, as I said, if the US acts as they do, then your fight in this war is futile. You've become the enemy, and that little constitution of yours and "America, rah, rah, rah!" you like to throw around is as valuable as Saudi democracy.

Have you counted the number of nuclear warheads the US has lately?

The list of countries who even dare to think of such a course of action is somewhat limited...
As I said before: OUR rights are facts on the ground.

Meanwhile: http://www.jamaat.org/islam/HumanRightsPolitical.html

Hence, it is not for us to decide the aim and purpose of our existence or to set the limits of our worldly authority; nor does anyone else have the right to make these decisions for us. This right rests only with Allah. This principle of the Oneness of Allah makes meaningless the concept of the legal and political sovereignty of human beings. No individual, family, class or race can set themselves above Allah. Allah alone is the Ruler and His commandments constitute the law of Islam.

Once again: a serious islamic militant does not entertain such snivelling notions as universal human rights... and does not appeal to them.

Way to miss the point.:rolleyes:

What a bunch of BS. Really. Human rights are inalienable, no matter how much you want to cry "waaah, but they're bad guys." The point is, you're supposed to be the good guys. When you stop being such, your ultimate destruction - which will come - will be a blessing upon this world. That they're bad guys in no way gives you permission to act as they do.

And, as I said, if the US acts as they do, then your fight in this war is futile. You've become the enemy, and that little constitution of yours and "America, rah, rah, rah!" you like to throw around is as valuable as Saudi democracy.

Exactly HOW are they inalienable?
And exactly HOW is the war futile?
We're alive, they're dead.. that's the outcome that would suit me best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomlittleisland
Way to miss the point.


What point?

What point?

That you expect other nations to respect the rights of Americans but don't see why you should return the favour.

Exactly HOW are they inalienable?

By not being something you can lose. Ever. As per their definition.

And exactly HOW is the war futile?

What is the point in fighting Ussama if you turn into him? If in fighting him, you lay waste to "freedoms" and "values" and "rights" you claim he so hates about you? He will have won, no matter if you kill him. He will have destroyed your way of life through your very own actions. If you cannot see the futility in that, well, there is no point in discussing with you the principles that we as civilised nations are supposed to have, as you will have proved yourself incapable of grasping them, and how your Abel will have become their and your Kain.

We're alive, they're dead.. that's the outcome that would suit me best.

And you will deserve destruction as much as they do, since you will be no better. You may be alive, but they will have robbed you, with you as an accomplice, of your raison d'être - which is in fact what they set out to do in the first place. So, losers you will be, as they are today.

That you expect other nations to respect the rights of Americans but don't see why you should return the favour.

And why should I? Suppose I didn't... what can you actually DO about it?
I'm not speaking of favours. Have you forgotten the old poems?

Walk wide from the Widow of Windsor / For half of Creation she owns.

The only factor to be taken into consideration ( and rest assured - foreign policy relied on that when the Spartans told the Persians to shove it, and will still do after the last barrel oil has been depleted by SUV's ) is the relative strength of the Parties asserting their Rights.

By not being something you can lose. Ever. As per their definition.
If that were so, there is no point to your assertions. By your own reasoning, whatever I did to whatever rights they have is quite irrelevant... for they still stand.



What is the point in fighting Ussama if you turn into him?
I, for one, have never fired a shot in anger for the sake of rights.
But I most certainly have done so for the sake of MY interests.


And you will deserve destruction as much as they do, since you will be no better. You may be alive, but they will have robbed you, with you as an accomplice, of your raison d'être - which is in fact what they set out to do in the first place. So, losers you will be, as they are today.

My raison d´etre is to do as I please. And the message is plain and simple.
Don't interfere. For the very thought of such interference means your guaranteed extinction.

Good and bad are highly dependent on culture. I don't waste time discussing good and bad with outsiders, for it is utterly and totally pointless.

if you wish to talk principles, I'll keep it plain and simple.
The cardinal point of my policy, it's founding principle, is very simple.
ANY attempt to interfere in MY voluntary relations with MY compatriots will be met with whatever means present themselves.
No let or hindrance, no objection, no argument, will be brooked - EVER.

And why should I? Suppose I didn't... what can you actually DO about it?
I'm not speaking of favours. Have you forgotten the old poems?

Walk wide from the Widow of Windsor / For half of Creation she owns.

The only factor to be taken into consideration ( and rest assured - foreign policy relied on that when the Spartans told the Persians to shove it, and will still do after the last barrel oil has been depleted by SUV's ) is the relative strength of the Parties asserting their Rights.

In other words if you're big and tough enough to get away with something then it's right to do so? Theft? Torture? Rape? Murder?

You're either mad or you haven't really given your views very much thought.

In other words if you're big and tough enough to get away with something then it's right to do so? Theft? Torture? Rape? Murder?

You're either mad or you haven't really given your views very much thought.

Since when does foreign policy depend on right or wrong?
Never has, never will.

Just a few thoughts to... relativize... the concept.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A207433

Since when does foreign policy depend on right or wrong?
Never has, never will.

If you'd paid attention you would have noticed that I was pointing out that if you apply your logic to personal life you can use it to justify theft, rape and murder so it's pretty flawed.

If you'd paid attention you would have noticed that I was pointing out that if you apply your logic to personal life you can use it to justify theft, rape and murder so it's pretty flawed.

Where did I justify? ( In the moral sense )
The whole thing is.... I abstemiously abstain from such notions.
ESPECIALLY when dealing with outsiders.

Where did I justify? ( In the moral sense )
The whole thing is.... I abstemiously abstain from such notions.

Because you're either saying:

1. If one is powerful enough to do a thing then it is right.
or
2. We should act independantly of whether an action is right or wrong.

Thus justifying the aforementioned crimes.

Because you're either saying:

1. If one is powerful enough to do a thing then it is right.
or
2. We should act independantly of whether an action is right or wrong.

Thus justifying the aforementioned crimes.

Where did I say either of the two? If I did... I should ask my Alma Mater for a refund.

Where did I say either of the two? If I did... I should ask my Alma Mater for a refund.

In post 51.

And why should I? Suppose I didn't... what can you actually DO about it?
I'm not speaking of favours. Have you forgotten the old poems?

Walk wide from the Widow of Windsor / For half of Creation she owns.

The only factor to be taken into consideration... is the relative strength of the Parties asserting their Rights.

Where did I justify? ( In the moral sense )
The whole thing is.... I abstemiously abstain from such notions.
ESPECIALLY when dealing with outsiders.

Well let's see

My raison d´etre is to do as I please.

The only factor to be taken into consideration *snip* is the relative strength of the Parties asserting their Rights.

So, taking those two together, as long as you're stronger than the other party, their rights don't matter. Whether your invading a country, or murdering your next-door neighbor is just a matter of scale.

In post 51.

How does that constitute justification?
I'm merely stating a fact.
You know, a fact.
Things like: the table is made of wood.

Does the statement: 'the table is made of wood' constitute a justication?

Well let's see





So, taking those two together, as long as you're stronger than the other party, their rights don't matter. Whether your invading a country, or murdering your next-door neighbor is just a matter of scale.

It seems I missed the first one, thanks.:)

It seems I missed the first one, thanks.:)

I'm still waiting for evidence that this constitutes a justification... or excuse... or anything similar.
As I've stated explicitly, I do not require nor need them.
And I'm certainly not interested in them.

How does that constitute justification?
I'm merely stating a fact.
You know, a fact.
Things like: the table is made of wood.

Does the statement: 'the table is made of wood' constitute a justication?

Friend, every post you'#ve made on this thread has been justifying that view: 'It doesn't matter what we do to them, we're American and they're foreign so it's ok.'

I'm still waiting for evidence that this constitutes a justification... or excuse... or anything similar.
As I've stated explicitly, I do not require nor need them.
And I'm certainly not interested in them.

Well, saying 'My raison d'etre is to do as I please' seems to be justifying acting amoraly to me.

Friend, every post you'#ve made on this thread has been justifying that view: 'It doesn't matter what we do to them, we're American and they're foreign so it's ok.'

Bulshit.
What I have stated is that there are rules between americans.
What I have stated is that there are rules between islamic militants.
What I have stated is that there are no rules between the 2 opposing sides.
What I have stated is that no religious islamic militant would dream of even invoking such notions as universal human rights.

What I will state further is that no such notions can have value.
They depend on metaphysics.
Metaphysics are not objective.
Therefore, metaphysics are pointless, unless one happens to have the same point of view.

'Well, saying 'My raison d'etre is to do as I please' seems to be justifying acting amoraly to me.'

Seems - to you. POV, therefore irrelevant.
Justifying. A thing I don't indulge in.

Do me a favour, if it pleases you, and next time accuse me of seeking to legalise marihuana... or any other 'sin' of which I am actually 'guilty'.

'Friend, every post you'#ve made on this thread has been justifying that view: 'It doesn't matter what we do to them, we're American and they're foreign so it's ok.'
Sorry. I don't do justifications, friend.
If you look for someone who does... try Grover Norquist or Karl Rove.
I admit it might not look like a Big Deal to foreigners, but I try to keep away from folks who actually do that. For I would tend to agree that justifications always end up in hipocrisy.

Let me break it down into a syllogism.

1] We are Americans.
2] Whatever Americans do is good.
3] therefore, whatever Americans do is good.

You don't buy it, and neither do I.
Why you don't buy it, I'll leave to you.
Why I don't buy it is simply:
2] Whatever Americans do is good.
good = metaphysical, theferfore, pointless.
That being so... I don't buy 3] either.

Bulshit.
What I have stated is that there are rules between americans.
What I have stated is that there are rules between islamic militants.
What I have stated is that there are no rules between the 2 opposing sides.
What I have stated is that no religious islamic militant would dream of even invoking such notions as universal human rights.

What I will state further is that no such notions can have value.
They depend on metaphysics.
Metaphysics are not objective.
Therefore, metaphysics are pointless, unless one happens to have the same point of view.

'Well, saying 'My raison d'etre is to do as I please' seems to be justifying acting amoraly to me.'

Seems - to you. POV, therefore irrelevant.
Justifying. A thing I don't indulge in.

Do me a favour, if it pleases you, and next time accuse me of seeking to legalise marihuana... or any other 'sin' of which I am actually 'guilty'.

*sigh* Do you actually understand what 'amoral' means? It means that you have no notion of right and wrong and you don't look for justification for your actions, that my friend is 'amoral'.

Amoral: lacking any sense of moral standards or principles; "a completely amoral person" link (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

I'm tired of talking to you and I'm tired of your denials. Have a nice life.

Bulshit.
What I have stated is that there are rules between americans.

As there should be.

What I have stated is that there are rules between islamic militants.

As there should be.

What I have stated is that there are no rules between the 2 opposing sides.

And this is where we start running into problems. If there's no rules between the two opposing sides, nothing one side does to the other can be wrong. If it is not wrong, it is okay to do it. Therefore, by your reasoning it is ok to do anything to them. It is ok for them to do anything to us. Therefore, by your reasoning, any and all attacks by Islamic millitants on non islamic targets are ok.

See a problem there?

As there should be.



As there should be.



And this is where we start running into problems. If there's no rules between the two opposing sides, nothing one side does to the other can be wrong. If it is not wrong, it is okay to do it. Therefore, by your reasoning it is ok to do anything to them. It is ok for them to do anything to us. Therefore, by your reasoning, any and all attacks by Islamic millitants on non islamic targets are ok.

See a problem there?
No. For I have no interest in outside POV's. And neither do I have the slightest interest in the very existence of islamic militants, regardless of right and wrong. In fact.. I consider their very existence unbearable.
There are things that work, and things that don't.
And making the other folks fight in fallujah, and not in New York is working wonderfully well.

I don't give a hoot about the justification of an act I don't like.
I only care about stopping it.

*sigh* Do you actually understand what 'amoral' means? It means that you have no notion of right and wrong and you don't look for justification for your actions, that my friend is 'amoral'.

Amoral: lacking any sense of moral standards or principles; "a completely amoral person" link (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

I'm tired of talking to you and I'm tired of your denials. Have a nice life.

If I am amoral, then it stands to reason I have no interest in justification.
Therefore, your entirely line of reasoning was pointless.

No. For I have no interest in outside POV's. And neither do I have the slightest interest in the very existence of islamic militants, regardless of right and wrong. In fact.. I consider their very existence unbearable.

Now hold on a moment. That was just stupid. That was simply, undeniably flawed. You don't have any interest in them, in fact you find them unbearable. What? What? :headbang:


I don't give a hoot about the justification of an act I don't like.
I only care about stopping it.

See, no one's accusing you of trying to justify acts you don't like. They're saying that your inherently flawed arguments that it is ok, and therefore justified, to torture, kidnap, etc. can be applied to more localized things, like rape, theft etc.

So your arguement is useless.

And this is where we start running into problems. If there's no rules between the two opposing sides, nothing one side does to the other can be wrong. If it is not wrong, it is okay to do it. Therefore, by your reasoning it is ok to do anything to them. It is ok for them to do anything to us. Therefore, by your reasoning, any and all attacks by Islamic millitants on non islamic targets are ok.

See a problem there?

No. For I have no interest in outside POV's. And neither do I have the slightest interest in the very existence of islamic militants, regardless of right and wrong.
There are things that work, and things that don't.
And making the other folks fight in fallujah, and not in New York is working wonderfully well.

I don't give a hoot about the justification of an act I don't like.
I only care about stopping it.

I dont even understand how the reply you made to that post is supposed to make sense and thats the first time that's happened to me on NS. You explicity stated that there are no rules between people of differening contries despite numerous treaties that have been signed. This surely, boils down to 'might makes right' which is how the world operated a couple of thousand years ago. So by your logic after September 11th if the president had wanted to he could have just nuked Afghanistan and be done with it.

If I am amoral, then it stands to reason I have no interest in justification.
Therefore, your entirely line of reasoning was pointless.

So you then admit that you are immoral?

I dont even understand how the reply you made to that post is supposed to make sense and thats the first time that's happened to me on NS. You explicity stated that there are no rules between people of differening contries despite numerous treaties that have been signed. This surely, boils down to 'might makes right' which is how the world operated a couple of thousand years ago. So by your logic after September 11th if the president had wanted to he could have just nuked Afghanistan and be done with it.

It still does so now.
Treaties are mutual agreements.
Often arrived to at the point of a gun.

Anyway... where's the treaty between US and THEM?

So you then admit that you are immoral?

Why should I?

What I will - gladly! - admit to, is that Government should ALWAYS be ammoral. For Government is not a moral actor.

What I will - gladly! - admit to, is that MY morals are private, and no other person has the right to judge them - or an obligation to take them into account.
If you wish to voluntarily take them into account... more fool you.

It still does so now.
Treaties are mutual agreements.
Often arrived to at the point of a gun.

Anyway... where's the treaty between US and THEM?

Way to miss my point. What i said was: If you think these treaties are useless, then what is to stop the president nuking any country he takes a dislike to that isnt involved with america by trade?

Way to miss my point. What i said was: If you think these treaties are useless, then what is to stop the president nuking any country he takes a dislike to that isnt involved with america by trade?


Nuffin....
*immitates Dick Cheney's voice*
Be afraid... be very afraid.


I'm sure you can't have missed the White House unilaterally breaking Treaties left and right. I won't claim it's wise. But meanwhile... I don't think it is wise to behave in a way that arouses the umbrage of a President who claims to be ruled by Moral Clarity.

Screw the US consitution! If your in the US, you obey it, but you do not have to obey it outside of the US! Stop with this supremicist viewpoint already!

Edit: And you can't commit treason against a country unless you are a citzen of that country. That law doesn't (or at least shouldn't) apply to people in the Middle East.
Actually as an American the rules in America still apply to you no matter where you are. As such John Walker did commit treason by fighting for the Taliban when America attacked them. It doesn't work just for treason. But that I think is the most applicable here.

Actually as an American the rules in America still apply to you no matter where you are. As such John Walker did commit treason by fighting for the Taliban when America attacked them. It doesn't work just for treason. But that I think is the most applicable here.
I mean, they do not apply to people in other countries who are not american. And if I leave America and don't come back, ever, they can't exactly force it on me. The US consituition is a good one, the arguement that the rights it gives aren't universal is true idiocy. You can quote me on that.

I'm sure you can't have missed the White House unilaterally breaking Treaties left and right.Maybe some of US missed it...

But Osama sure did not.

The U.S. government doing something bad is hardly news. The U.S. people doing something good about their government would be news.

Actually as an American the rules in America still apply to you no matter where you are. As such John Walker did commit treason by fighting for the Taliban when America attacked them. It doesn't work just for treason. But that I think is the most applicable here.

That would depend on whether or not he was a "citizen of the Taliban". If such were the case, then he'd be a dual citizen. When we went into Afghanistan, he could have been tried for treason on the grounds that he is opposing the US fight forces, but I somehow doubt that we were taking any renunciations of American citizenship at the time.

I'm still not sure if you're a troll or a puppet, I'm leaning towards puppet at the moment.
Im not a troll or puppet and I would hope we can refrain for name-calling. Im simply a man who loves his country and believes in doing whatever it takes to protect it.

I'm still not sure if you're a troll or a puppet, I'm leaning towards puppet at the moment.
I am guessing parody

Why should I?

What I will - gladly! - admit to, is that Government should ALWAYS be ammoral. For Government is not a moral actor.

What I will - gladly! - admit to, is that MY morals are private, and no other person has the right to judge them - or an obligation to take them into account.
If you wish to voluntarily take them into account... more fool you.
I will -gladly!- admit that you are an immoral jerk.

(Let's go rape their woman! I mean, like, there's no law stopping us from doing it, so while we're at it, we should rape their children too!)

In the end, no nation's law will matter. What will matter is the law of men: morality.

No offense to them, but I value an American life over their lives. Even if they are right. They want to kick us out, do it Gandhi style non violent protest.LOL.. are you actually asking the insurgents to become "Gandhi" ? :D

is that a Joke??

LOL.. are you actually asking the insurgents to become "Gandhi" ? :D

is that a Joke??


Right. Won't work, because we will have people like our :rolleyes: friend :rolleyes: BogMarsh telling us that it's perfectly all right to shoot them all in the head during their peaceful protest, because it's not like they signed the Geneva Conventions.

Right. Won't work, because we will have people like our :rolleyes: friend :rolleyes: BogMarsh telling us that it's perfectly all right to shoot them all in the head during their peaceful protest, because it's not like they signed the Geneva Conventions.
And people like Bush who actually do that...:rolleyes:

My comment: WTF???

50 minutes ago
http://yahoo.com/
U.S. seizes suspected Iraqi insurgents' wives.
The U.S. Army has seized and jailed the wives of suspected insurgents in hopes of "leveraging" their husbands into surrender, U.S. military documents show.

In one case, a secretive task force locked up the young mother of a nursing baby, a U.S. intelligence officer reported. In the case of a second detainee, one American colonel suggested to another that they catch her husband by tacking a note to the family's door telling him "to come get his wife."

The issue of female detentions in Iraq has taken on a higher profile since kidnappers seized American journalist Jill Carroll on Jan. 7 and threatened to kill her unless all Iraqi women detainees are freed.

The U.S. military on Thursday freed five of what it said were 11 women among the 14,000 detainees currently held in the 2 1/2-year-old insurgency. All were accused of "aiding terrorists or planting explosives," but an Iraqi government commission found that evidence was lacking.

Iraqi human rights activist Hind al-Salehi contends that U.S. anti-insurgent units, coming up empty-handed in raids on suspects' houses, have at times detained wives to pressure men into turning themselves in.

snip ...it was recommended by TF personnel that if the wife were present, she be detained and held in order to leverage the primary target's surrender, wrote the 14-year veteran officer.

He said he objected, but when they raided the house the team leader, a senior sergeant, seized her anyway.

"The 28-year-old woman had three young children at the house, one being as young as six months and still nursing," the intelligence officer wrote. She was held for two days and was released after he complained, he said.

Like most names in the released documents, the officer's signature is blacked out on this for-the-record memorandum about his complaint.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc.

As I recall, the former Soviet Union had the right idea on how to deal with hostage-taking insurgents.

They had the same problem in Beirut, Lebanon that other nations did - the local militias were kidnapping various foreign nationals and issuing demands. In this case, they kidnapped several embasy personnel and threatened to kill them if their demands were not met.

The Russians figured out who the relatives of the kidnappers were, went to their homes, and killed them. They then cut some of the bodies into nearly unrecognizable chunks, put them in a plastic bag together, and sent it to where the kidnappers were via courier.

No letter, no demands along with the bag. Just the parts.

Within an hour, the kidnappers released their hostages. It's the only language they really understand. No militia in Lebanon ever kidnapped another Russian national after that.

I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out, to anyone that may have missed it that the Soviet Union has since collapsed. Thank you.

I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out, to anyone that may have missed it that the Soviet Union has since collapsed. Thank you.

I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out, to anyone who didn't read my post, that I said "former Soviet Union".

Then again, most people don't bother reading a post before they fire back. :rolleyes:

As I recall, the former Soviet Union had the right idea on how to deal with hostage-taking insurgents.

They had the same problem in Beirut, Lebanon that other nations did - the local militias were kidnapping various foreign nationals and issuing demands. In this case, they kidnapped several embasy personnel and threatened to kill them if their demands were not met.

The Russians figured out who the relatives of the kidnappers were, went to their homes, and killed them. They then cut some of the bodies into nearly unrecognizable chunks, put them in a plastic bag together, and sent it to where the kidnappers were via courier.

No letter, no demands along with the bag. Just the parts.

Within an hour, the kidnappers released their hostages. It's the only language they really understand. No militia in Lebanon ever kidnapped another Russian national after that.

Do you actually beleive that is an acceptable way of doing things? I don't know about you, but I was taught that two wrongs don't make a right. :rolleyes:

I would at this point like to point out that you missed my point. And now that that thouroughly confusing sentence is out of the way, here's what my point was. The former Soviet Union used that tactic. The people of the Soviet Union did not choose to keep the Soviet Union. Using decisions of collapsed governments as examples is risky ground.

I might as well say, Hitler invaded Russia in the winter. No Russian winter has ever defeated a german invasion since.

Do you actually beleive that is an acceptable way of doing things? I don't know about you, but I was taught that two wrongs don't make a right. :rolleyes:
If it keeps them from screwing with you from then on, you only have to do it once.

If it keeps them from screwing with you from then on, you only have to do it once.
There's more than one person in the word 'them'.

There's more than one person in the word 'them'.
Sure worked in Lebanon for the USSR. Did it once, and NO ONE bothered them again.

Sure worked in Lebanon for the USSR. Did it once, and NO ONE bothered them again.

And we should make a point of following the same policies as the USSR? I should certainly hope not. I tend to be of the opinion that hostage taking is immoral and falling to the level of your enemy doesn't make you any better than them. Then again, when have pesky things like wrong and right bothered the U.S. during war time.

Okay, now that's just crossing the line. I can understand property searches if you're suspected (and ONLY if you have a warrant and have proof which can support the "compelling interest" of the state)
Keep in mind this is all written by a bunch of idiot liberals. Also, if yahoo supplies some evidence, that would be nice too. Those are serious accusations, never forget the power of false stories.
And for all those of you who are democrats... lets not forget that all of your senators at the beginning of the war supported it, and now they are complaining. And why you ask? because it's popular. They don't care about whats right, about the intention, they want 2 things. 1) to be popular among their voters, after they need their job for their nice lavish lifestyle. and 2) to complain about the actions of the republicans, and notice that when chatting about the war they have removal of troop plans. These are just to win some votes, they only care about the public eye. They realize that it would be redicolous to remove the troops now. No democrat has sucked it up and just said stick with us.(because it's not popular.)
They are going to lead a dramatic change and are really trying to get along with the republicans? Give me a break, they sling just as much mud, and if they have not noticed, they are the majority.

Keep in mind this is all written by a bunch of idiot liberals. Also, if yahoo supplies some evidence, that would be nice too. Those are serious accusations, never forget the power of false stories.
And for all those of you who are democrats... lets not forget that all of your senators at the beginning of the war supported it, and now they are complaining. And why you ask? because it's popular. They don't care about whats right, about the intention, they want 2 things. 1) to be popular among their voters, after they need their job for their nice lavish lifestyle. and 2) to complain about the actions of the republicans, and notice that when chatting about the war they have removal of troop plans. These are just to win some votes, they only care about the public eye. They realize that it would be redicolous to remove the troops now. No democrat has sucked it up and just said stick with us.(because it's not popular.)
They are going to lead a dramatic change and are really trying to get along with the republicans? Give me a break, they sling just as much mud, and if they have not noticed, they are the majority.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

WHAT ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORT THE TROOPS IN IRAQ?

And no, I don't agree that they should have supported the war in the beginning. But really, how DARE they change their minds in the light of new evidence. I mean, what were they THINKING?

My comment: WTF???

50 minutes ago
http://yahoo.com/
U.S. seizes suspected Iraqi insurgents' wives.
It would be nice if you provided a link to the article itself that actually, you know ... like, worked?

...never forget the power of false stories..
http://boke.com/ACS/images/ACS/Karl_Rove_Win_WEB.jpg

Do not worry.. we will never Forget.

Where is the link to the story?

Provide a working link, please.

Is there actually a link to this story?

http://boke.com/ACS/images/ACS/Karl_Rove_Win_WEB.jpg

Do not worry.. we will never Forget.

Nice link to a story that doesn't exist.

It would be nice if you provided a link to the article itself that actually, you know ... like, worked?It was working the day I posted it..

Too bad it did not work for you..

Where is the link to the story?I dont know.. It was working before...

Provide a working link, please.are you trying to spam my thread Eutrusca?

I dont know.. It was working before...
Surely you could find a link to a story that controversial again?

Is there actually a link to this story?..or are you saying I invented this story?

are you trying to spam my thread Eutrusca?
I half expected you to ask a question like that. No, I'm just trying to get you to provide proof that this is a real news article and not just some infammatory fairy tale made out of whole-cloth.

Nice link to a story that doesn't exist.are you calling me a liar?

..or are you saying I inveted this story?
I don't recall saying that at all. What I actually said was ... please provide a working link to this alleged story of yours.

are you calling me a liar?
Quote my saying that.

Just provide a working link to this story and I'll be very happy to ignore this thread entirely.

Surely you can provide a working link to such an important story?

I half expected you to ask a question like that.You should expect me to know the Forum rules.. as I expect you to know them.. (We are not N00bs)

Post #100 ---Today, 8:48 PM
Post #102 ---Today, 8:58 PM
Post #103 ---Today, 9:00 PM
Post #104 ---Today, 9:01 PM

last 3 posts are rapid fire repeticion of the same question.. It is the very definition of spaming and you know it.

Now that is just you kiddie heart being impacient.. (BTW..I do know you are a Grampa)

But I do not apreciate calling me a Liar..

[ Eutrusca sings ] "Where oh where has my little link gone? Where oh where can it be?"

You should expect me to know the Forum rules.. as I expect you to..

Post #100 ---Today, 8:48 PM
Post #102 ---Today, 8:58 PM
Post #103 ---Today, 9:00 PM
Post #104 ---Today, 9:01 PM

last 3 posts are rapid fire repeticion of the same question.. It is the very definition of spaming and you know it.

Now that is just you kiddie heart being impacient.. (BTW..I do know you are a Grampa)

But I do not apreciate calling me a Liar..
( shrug ) So report me to the mods.

Jesus Eut, knock it off already. The link did work- I saw it. You made whatever point it was you were trying to make.

Jesus Eut, knock it off already. The link did work- I saw it. You made whatever point it was you were trying to make.
So where is it now? Has the story been pulled? Why has this sensational story not been picked up by the major news media?

A story this defamatory cries out to be verified.

( shrug ) So report me to the mods.are you out of your medication or something.. You just Posted 4 more rapid-fire posts repeating the same question...

stop being so childish..

are you out of your medication or something.. You just Posted 4 more rapid-fire posts repeating the same question...

stop being so childish..
Stop refusing to post a working link to a defamatory news article.

So where is it now? Has the story been pulled? Why has this sensational story not been picked up by the major news media?

A story this defamatory cries out to be verified.

Not really- this happens a lot with news websites- it has happened to me on occasion when I link from the BBC, but no one jumps down my throat looking for it when it doesn't work.

Why did you bother spamming? You could have made your point without having to resort to childish tactics. You know better than that.

Not really- this happens a lot with news websites- it has happened to me on occasion when I link from the BBC, but no one jumps down my throat looking for it when it doesn't work.

Why did you bother spamming? You could have made your point without having to resort to childish tactics. You know better than that.
Get this through your head: I am not trying to "make a point." I am simply trying to get at the truth or untruth of this story. Any story this sensational would normally have been picked up by all major news services and have been all over the planet by now. Yet I have seen no other mention of such a story anywhere, and there seems to be no working link to it anymore on Yahoo, if indeed there ever was.

If you want a working link, take your pick from these...

Google Seach Page Results (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=The+U.S.+Army+has+seized+and+jailed+the+wives&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official)

I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, the women could well be part of the insurgency themselves and do deserve to be questioned. On the other hand, if it's the men who are the targets, then why rip the women away from their kids.

I won't agree with one side or the other because I'm not there, aren't seeing and going through what the colilition soldiers are and really haven't a clue about the real circumstances around these events. I doubt the media is giving us the full story.

HERE'S YOUR BLOODY LINK THEN::mad:
http://www.thedailytimes.com/sited/story/html/228821

Courtesy of the AP.
Happy now?

Stop refusing to post a working link to a defamatory news article.I am not refusing I am looking for it..

and here it is http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-01-28-wives-tactic_x.htm?csp=34

HERE'S YOUR BLOODY LINK THEN::mad:
http://www.thedailytimes.com/sited/story/html/228821

Courtesy of the AP.
Happy now?
Thank you. Now then, that wasn't so difficult was it? :)

and here is the YAHOO one

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060127/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_leveraging_wives

BTW Calling me Liar was totally uncalled for... :mad:

Thank you. Now then, that wasn't so difficult was it? :)
No, it took me all of 10 seconds to find the blasted thing. And I didn't even want it. Thats what irritated me- you could have done the same but instead you pouted like a kid.

Bah... humbug to you all.
*sticks out tongue*

and here is the YAHOO one

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060127/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_leveraging_wives

BTW Calling me Liar was totally uncalled for... :mad:

Calm down Ocean- he didn't say you were a liar- he merely wanted the story handed to him- oblige him and let it rest.

It's shit like this that keeps General alive.

On a serious note, if there is ever a report of an Iraqi woman being raped and killed, then every Iraqi male is going to want to fucking kill everyone American in sight.

Any story this sensational would normally have been picked up by all major news services and have been all over the planet by now. Yet I have seen no other mention of such a story anywhere, and there seems to be no working link to it anymore on Yahoo, if indeed there ever was.Common Eut... You have been long enough at NS to know things do not always work that way..

I expect you to be better than the average American.. You do not have only the American-Media Point-of-View.. You also have the NS Point of View.. You are that much richer.

Calm down Ocean-.I know.. I need to Calm down... I thing I am going to AFK and go to hit The Punch bag a bit :D :D :cool: :D

Common Eut... You have been long enough at NS to know things do not always work that way..

I expect you to be better than an average American.. You do not have only the American Media Point of View.. You also have the NS Point of View.. You are that much richer.
Yes. I overreacted. My apologies.

Outrageous, despicable.

Yes. I overreacted. My apologies.
Yay! :)

Well, now that the blood is no longer boiling- what do you think of this 'defamatory' and 'insulting' news article? ;)

Seriously.

Yay! :)

Well, now that the blood is no longer boiling- what do you think of this 'defamatory' and 'insulting' news article? ;)

Seriously.


It is defamatory and insulting, clearly.

The problem is that it is entirely true.

The US is severely defamed and severely insulted by this despicable crime.

And for all those of you who are democrats... lets not forget that all of your senators at the beginning of the war supported it, and now they are complaining.

Keep your generalizations to yourself. *MY* Democratic senator at the time voted AGAINST the resolution thank you very much. Sen. Wellstone of Minnesota. So while that argument *might* work in the rest of the country, it doesn't apply to Minnesota.

Yay! :)

Well, now that the blood is no longer boiling- what do you think of this 'defamatory' and 'insulting' news article? ;)

Seriously.
I admit to being greatly embarrassed. If the events outlined in the article actually happened, all parties involved should be tried by General Courts Martial. That is precisely the sort of behavior we should be assiduously avoiding. It brings disrepute on everyone who wears the uniform. :(

I admit to being greatly embarrassed. If the events outlined in the article actually happened, all parties involved should be tried by General Courts Martial. That is precisely the sort of behavior we should be assiduously avoiding. It brings disrepute on everyone who wears the uniform. :(

Absolutely, its a crime, pure and simple.

If I met one of the people responsible for this, I would spit in his face, soldier or not, this is beyond the pale.

Absolutely, its a crime, pure and simple.

If I met one of the people responsible for this, I would spit in his face, soldier or not, this is beyond the pale.
Sigh. I would probably chew them out. I can cuss in five languages: English, Vietnamese, Spanish, Japanese and "military!" :)

Sigh. I would probably chew them out. I can cuss in five languages: English, Vietnamese, Spanish, Japanese and "military!" :)
Hate to be the Devil's Advocate, but it is possible that we aren't getting the full story. Maybe the army had actual information that the wife might be an insurgent.

Also, this is coming from an anti-warrer, so don't flame me.

And for all those of you who are democrats... lets not forget that all of your senators at the beginning of the war supported it, and now they are complaining.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the bill that you are talking about. Could you point out to me the bill that said that the US Army could detain the wives of men for no other reason except that they were suspected of being insurgents?