"When I kill one I create three"

[billwald]

How come I never heard of an "insurgent" until this war?

 

[Sycophant]

Surely there are more productive and noble forms of protest than killing innocent people, such as setting oneself on fire. Not only would they be on the news, but I'm sure people would acknowledge their grievances as authentic. But killing innocent people? Should we respect that and treat that as mere "protest?"

It's not protest. It is a fight. Protest is rioting and burning flags. Make no mistake, these people are fighting, not protesting. They seek revenge and retribution. It's a familiar emotion for most people.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Surely there are more productive and noble forms of protest than killing innocent people, such as setting oneself on fire. Not only would they be on the news, but I'm sure people would acknowledge their grievances as authentic. But killing innocent people? Should we respect that and treat that as mere "protest?"

Talk to Bush about killing innocent people--he's the master. Only when he, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice--at a minimum--are impeached will I start to "have faith" in the American political system again.

 

[jasperbound]

Talk to Bush about killing innocent people--he's the master. Only when he, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice--at a minimum--are impeached will I start to "have faith" in the American political system again.

Perhaps, but that doesn't justify the terrorists killing innocent people, does it?

 

[Sycophant]

Perhaps, but that doesn't justify the terrorists killing innocent people, does it?

Killing innocent people is pretty standard in a war. Like I said before, the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq are generally not targeting civilians, they are targeting coalition troops, Iraq troops and police - which are all valid targets. Killing civilians is collateral damage (like when the US was dropping 1600lb bombs on Baghdad during Shock and Awe).

Of course the killing of civilians also serves the purpose of distabilising the population, and lessening support for the coalition and the new Iraqi government, but they have never been the primary target of these activities.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Perhaps, but that doesn't justify the terrorists killing innocent people, does it?

No, but it does explain it.

 

[jasperbound]

Killing innocent people is pretty standard in a war. Like I said before, the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq are generally not targeting civilians, they are targeting coalition troops, Iraq troops and police - which are all valid targets. Killing civilians is collateral damage (like when the US was dropping 1600lb bombs on Baghdad during Shock and Awe).

Of course the killing of civilians also serves the purpose of distabilising the population, and lessening support for the coalition and the new Iraqi government, but they have never been the primary target of these activities.

I thought the whole "war on terrorism" was a Bush thing, not something that people believed was an actual war. If that's the case, then surely we can't blame Bush for starting the war, unless he did something that lead to 9/11.

 

[Sycophant]

I thought the whole "war on terrorism" was a Bush thing, not something that people believed was an actual war. If that's the case, then surely we can't blame Bush for starting the war, unless he did something that lead to 9/11.

I was talking more specifically about Iraq. Where it is a war, there are pretty much clearly defined sides.

As for 9/11 and the reasons for it - I'll just say that these things do not occur in a vaccum.

 

[Norseman]

Then drop more neutron bombs on the entire Middle East. They will eventually surrender or die. You don't coddle your enemies and try to reason with them if they want to kill you. You kill them first. First rule of warfare as ugly as it is

Well once the rest of the world sees America commit genocide and warcrimes, I think they won't have second thoughts about nuking us. Naturally, we'll nuke them back. Huzzah, nuclear winter can set in while the entire surface of the Earth becomes irradiated and scorched. Good job.

 

[Zippythepinhead]

Well once the rest of the world sees America commit genocide and warcrimes, I think they won't have second thoughts about nuking us. Naturally, we'll nuke them back. Huzzah, nuclear winter can set in while the entire surface of the Earth becomes irradiated and scorched. Good job.

In addition unleash Israel on them. Tell Sharon to go get em. Israel could put the whole Arab world out of our misery

 

[Machjo]

Then drop more neutron bombs on the entire Middle East. They will eventually surrender or die. You don't coddle your enemies and try to reason with them if they want to kill you. You kill them first. First rule of warfare as ugly as it is

... and let the fallout drop all over Eurasia and Africa!

Hey, not our problem! Complements to you, Pinhead; you chose your log-in name well!

 

[Machjo]

I thought the whole "war on terrorism" was a Bush thing, not something that people believed was an actual war. If that's the case, then surely we can't blame Bush for starting the war, unless he did something that lead to 9/11.

And how does 9/11 relate to Iraq again, other than the fact that it was a good excuse?

John kills your brother Bill, so you decide to chase after Bob while you're chasing John, saying, without any proof whatsoever, that somehow Bob was involved in John killing your brother Bill. And sinse you cannot chase two people at once, you forget about John while still chasing Bill. How did that happen?

 

[White Horse]

You start wiping 'em out a few thousand at a time and they won't triple.

 

[ScottishJohn]

You start wiping 'em out a few thousand at a time and they won't triple.

Yeah and how are you going to do that? Wait for a terrorist football match? Al Quaeda utd Versus Iraq Insurgents Athletic?

I thought that our respect for human life was one of the reasons we were fighting the War on terror? (One of the spurious reasons to soothe our consciences?)

 

[Zippythepinhead]

Yeah and how are you going to do that? Wait for a terrorist football match? Al Quaeda utd Versus Iraq Insurgents Athletic?

I thought that our respect for human life was one of the reasons we were fighting the War on terror? (One of the spurious reasons to soothe our consciences?)

Respect for human life yes. Evil life no!

 

[Sycophant]

Respect for human life yes. Evil life no!

Oh you were talking about those "Smart Nukes" that only kill evil people, not the thousands of innocent people in the same vacinity.

 

[gnine]

You start wiping 'em out a few thousand at a time and they won't triple.

How Christian of you, brother.

 

[armyman_83]

Military leaders admit they can't stop the insurgency through military means

I think that the problem is, we can't stop insurgency through "enemy-friendly" tactics. We need to have a "if your outside with an rpg you are dead policy", and in areas we know to be unloyal and unfriendly to us; if an attack takes place you take 100 males and kill them.
There are two ways this can turn out (1) They get even madder and fight harder or (2) They[civilians] are so scared that they turn in the insurgents instead of helping them.

The fear of a loved one dying is a powerful incentive. But Arabs seem to be those kind of people where when you slap them in the face they respect you.

 

[gnine]

(2) They[civilians] are so scared that they turn in the insurgents instead of helping them.

Nice theory, trouble is that I can't think of a single historical occupation where this method has worked... can you?

 

[Cliche Guevara]

In addition unleash Israel on them. Tell Sharon to go get em. Israel could put the whole Arab world out of our misery

LOL. That's pretty funny considering Israel is in the business of selling arms to US *enemies*.