Cindy Sheehan ends protest

12467

Comments

  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    RainDog wrote:
    Do you have a definition for terrorist?
    in this case?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    jlew24asu wrote:
    in this case?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency

    Note that the piece relates the motives of the insurgency to "civil war", which is what I was saying. It is no longer about fighting Americans, at least not to the extent that this is the major motive.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Note that the piece relates the motives of the insurgency to "civil war", which is what I was saying. It is no longer about fighting Americans, at least not to the extent that this is the major motive.
    The first sentence is "The Iraq resistance movement is the armed resistance by diverse groups to the American-led coalition occupation of Iraq."

    Sounds like the people we funded to oust the Soviets back in the day.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    RainDog wrote:
    The first sentence is "The Iraq resistance movement is the armed resistance by diverse groups to the American-led coalition occupation of Iraq."

    Sounds like the people we funded to oust the Soviets back in the day.

    You're not going to believe what I am saying, I think that much is clear. Truly though, dude. Do you honestly think its still about resistance to foreign influence? You don't think that, if it were still largely about this, that the vast majority of targets/victims would not be other Iraqis?
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    RainDog wrote:
    Sounds like the people we funded to oust the Soviets back in the day.

    Did these people focus largely on killing other Arabs who were not members of their own sect?
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    jlew24asu wrote:
    in this case?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency
    "According to a February-March 2007 poll, 51% of the Iraqi population approve of the attacks on Coalition forces."

    Damn, dude. Thems a lotta terrorist sympathizers. Good thing they're not fighting for freedom from outside influence - or we'd be havin' some trouble there.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Did these people focus largely on killing other Arabs who were not members of their own sect?
    They weren't called warlords for nothing. I'm pretty sure that in Afghanistan, the Taliban didn't rise to the top peacefully.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    reborncareerist wrote:
    You're not going to believe what I am saying, I think that much is clear. Truly though, dude. Do you honestly think its still about resistance to foreign influence? You don't think that, if it were still largely about this, that the vast majority of targets/victims would not be other Iraqis?

    it's all one big convuluted cluster fuck with the only purpose to create instability ... i don't call them freedom fighters nor would i call the "coalition" liberators ... they are pawns in a game where the end goal has nothing to do with freedom nor liberty nor democracy ...

    without these insurgents/terrorists/freedom fighters - the US has no reason in being there ... they need these people to prolong this charade that is war-profiteering at its finest ...
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    RainDog wrote:
    "According to a February-March 2007 poll, 51% of the Iraqi population approve of the attacks on Coalition forces."

    Damn, dude. Thems a lotta terrorist sympathizers. Good thing they're not fighting for freedom from outside influence - or we'd be havin' some trouble there.

    Ask a loaded question, get the obvious answer, and suddenly you have solid evidence that backs your point?
    I wonder what kind of answer you'd get if you switched "coalition forces" for "other Iraqis", which have become the actual target these days.
    Also ... 51% is LOW.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris wrote:
    it's all one big convuluted cluster fuck with the only purpose to create instability ... i don't call them freedom fighters nor would i call the "coalition" liberators ... they are pawns in a game where the end goal has nothing to do with freedom nor liberty nor democracy ...

    without these insurgents/terrorists/freedom fighters - the US has no reason in being there ... they need these people to prolong this charade that is war-profiteering at its finest ...

    Exactly! Without the so-called insurgents, would the U.S. still be there? A question worth asking. There are deeper political motives at work on both sides ... Of course, its a common logical fallacy on here to assume that only the U.S. and its allies have shady political goals. The Iraqis? They are just apolitical creatures with totally pure motives! (sarcasm)
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    reborncareerist wrote:
    You're not going to believe what I am saying, I think that much is clear. Truly though, dude. Do you honestly think its still about resistance to foreign influence? You don't think that, if it were still largely about this, that the vast majority of targets/victims would not be other Iraqis?
    It's not just to remove outside influence, sure. But that is a significant part of the violence there. However, and this is a sad fact, American forces are simply harder to kill. So they do the "next best thing" - kill those who they perceive as supporting the Americans (oh, yeah - and all those other people they hate, too. As well as anyone who gets in the way.)
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    RainDog wrote:
    It's not just to remove outside influence, sure. But that is a significant part of the violence there. However, and this is a sad fact, American forces are simply harder to kill. So they do the "next best thing" - kill those who they perceive as supporting the Americans (oh, yeah - and all those other people they hate, too. As well as anyone who gets in the way.)

    That "perceive as helping the Americans" thing is true ... To an extent. But it is only one probably small part of what motivates the violence these days. In truth, no one side in the sectarian warfare supports the U.S. unilaterally. Everyone just kills whoever they do not like, something that probably changes from day to day. Sure, many of the foreign fighters there probably think they are fighting the infidels. Really though, its just an opportunity to rape and kill people, with their brainwashed fucking idelogy there to rationalize all the atrocities they commit. Surveys also indicate that a majority of Iraqis want foreign fighters out of the country.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Ask a loaded question, get the obvious answer, and suddenly you have solid evidence that backs your point?
    My point is, words are just that - words. People have gotten bent out of shape because Cindy Sheehan used the words "freedom fighters." Those words have been used in the past to describe the exact same groups doing the exact same things - albeit to an end we preferred.
    reborncareerist wrote:
    I wonder what kind of answer you'd get if you switched "coalition forces" for "other Iraqis", which have become the actual target these days.
    Also ... 51% is LOW.
    51% is considered a landslide in an election here - where most presidents are elected by a popular vote well below that mark.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Exactly! Without the so-called insurgents, would the U.S. still be there? A question worth asking. There are deeper political motives at work on both sides ... Of course, its a common logical fallacy on here to assume that only the U.S. and its allies have shady political goals. The Iraqis? They are just apolitical creatures with totally pure motives! (sarcasm)

    makes one wonder who is really funding this insurgency and who the real enemies are ... :|
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    RainDog wrote:
    My point is, words are just that - words. People have gotten bent out of shape because Cindy Sheehan used the words "freedom fighters." Those words have been used in the past to describe the exact same groups doing the exact same things - albeit to an end we preferred.
    51% is considered a landslide in an election here - where most presidents are elected by a popular vote well below that mark.

    I still find it remarkable that 49% of Iraqis actually do NOT support attacks on coalition forces.
    And my point is: This is NOT the "exact same group" syndrome. It was a poor choice of words. She just got dumb, dude. She started doing things that were bound to alienate people in a democracy, including me. She got so caught up in opposing Bush that she identified with not-so-good groups of people. If she had any capacity to stop and think these days, she might have realized that she was identifying with her son's killers!
  • VictoryGin
    VictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    RainDog wrote:
    You mean I can buy a doob from the local convenience store? Or a prostitute from my friendly neighborhood pimp?

    Or is it that "freedom" is just a word?

    so it appears nyc is free.

    hey raindog, do you read derrida? nice deconstruction work.
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    VictoryGin wrote:
    nice deconstruction work.

    Yes, highfives all around.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    reborncareerist wrote:
    I still find it remarkable that 49% of Iraqis actually do NOT support attacks on coalition forces.
    And my point is: This is NOT the "exact same group" syndrome. It was a poor choice of words. She just got dumb, dude. She started doing things that were bound to alienate people in a democracy, including me. She got so caught up in opposing Bush that she identified with not-so-good groups of people. If she had any capacity to stop and think these days, she might have realized that she was identifying with her son's killers!

    at the end of the day ... this war is a sham to everything that it was marketed to stand for ... mistakes or not in public relations are secondary to the awareness level of this war ... she did her part in telling people that there is no patriotism, nor honour, nor nobility in going into iraq ...

    people needed to hear that and she did her part ... are you gonna taint jarome iginla cuz of some late game antics in the heat of battle?
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris wrote:
    at the end of the day ... this war is a sham to everything that it was marketed to stand for ... mistakes or not in public relations are secondary to the awareness level of this war ... she did her part in telling people that there is no patriotism, nor honour, nor nobility in going into iraq ...

    people needed to hear that and she did her part ... are you gonna taint jarome iginla cuz of some late game antics in the heat of battle?

    LOL. No, and I agree with your points. She did indeed serve an important purpose and the good she did is not undermined by the bad. If people wonder why things went so far south, though, look no further than her recent behavior.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    reborncareerist wrote:
    That "perceive as helping the Americans" thing is true ... To an extent. But it is only one probably small part of what motivates the violence these days. In truth, no one side in the sectarian warfare supports the U.S. unilaterally. Everyone just kills whoever they do not like, something that probably changes from day to day. Sure, many of the foreign fighters there probably think they are fighting the infidels. Really though, its just an opportunity to rape and kill people, with their brainwashed fucking idelogy there to rationalize all the atrocities they commit. Surveys also indicate that a majority of Iraqis want foreign fighters out of the country.
    Wouldn't we be considered "foreign fighters" too? Or is Iraq our country now?

    I'll admit I'm being facetious here. We throw around terms to get people fired up, but they don't really mean anything outside of the emotional response they generate. Is it right for Cindy Sheehan to call the insurgents "freedom fighters"? Well, it certainly isn't objectively wrong - no matter how many people's blood boils over it.

Categories