quote:

---

What they should do in Fallujah is, line up all the prisoners, and then get Al Jazeera over there with their footage of all the recent beheadings. Then they should show the beheadings one by one, and each time a head comes off, shoot twenty-five prisoners. That will make the point to these people that you can't just go around killing people!

---

quote:

---

What we need to do in Fallujah is just bomb that place into a crater. Why are we putting American lives at risk for a bunch of terrorists? Just level the place, and then count the bodies afterward!

---

You know why we don't do that stuff? BECAUSE WE'RE THE FRICKING GOODGUYS, THAT'S WHY!

Seriously, it just shocks and offends me that there are people out there who can sit in their comfy armchairs, listening to their radios and eating their yummy doughnuts, thinking about how all these other people across the world should be killed or incinerated. I mean, WHO THE HELL ARE THEY?

Yes, there are times when a good person can argue in favor of war for a good cause. But never at ANY point can a good person take lightly the cost of that decision. When you carpet-bomb a city, hundreds or thousands of innocent people die. When you shoot helpless prisoners, you violate all the standards of "civilized" warfare.

As Americans, our military personnel have risked their lives to engage in a higher standard of warfare and to preserve the lives of civilians. Instead of carpet-bombing, we make dangerous incursions into enemy territory. We prosecute soldiers who violate or kill helpless prisoners to the fullest extent of the law. That is what gives us what little moral authority we still have. That is why we are the good guys. We don't just risk our lives to preserve American ideals and American civilians. We risk our lives to protect foreign civilians, and even to preserve the most vicious of our enemies.

So when I hear these little armchair Hitlers [my apologies to Godwin] clamoring for us to abandon our high moral standards and return to the rules of war practiced by the Vikings and the Mongols, it REALLY PISSES ME OFF. (And incidentally, even Genghis Khan didn't torture people. I remember back in 2001, these same people were calling for us to torture prisoners with impunity ... without even any specific reasons or situations to justify it. Like they were just waiting for a chance to torture someone, and the WTC attack was the perfect opportunity.)

Do they even get what America is supposed to be? Do they care? Can I get them shipped to a war zone in central Africa, so they can see what it's like when people make decisions like that?

[ November 16, 2004, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
When it starts affecting your bloodpressure, it's time to find a different radio station. I avoid call-in shows in general. You maybe should too.
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
[sigh] For the first time, I'm beginning to realize that there really are people out there in America who would just love to have their own people in charge of some terrible police state, and see every opportunity to kill, torture, or abuse an "enemy" as a thing of beauty. Another step towards their ideal America. Those people scare the crap out of me.

[Luckily, they're still in the vast minority. I would like to call a moratorium right now on people laying this particular charge against the Bush administration We've had enough of that already, and I'm in no mood.]

[ November 16, 2004, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Yep! Me too.

I attempt to influence people through thoughtful conversation where I can. Where I cannot, I plug my ears and yell "I'm not listening!" really loud. Talk radio falls in the second catagory.

But I'm not moving to Canada. Yet.

Edit: I don't think it's a vast minority. And I wouldn't dream of blaming the Bush administration for them. I'm blaming them for the Bush administration.

[ November 16, 2004, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
This thread made me think of the convictions in the ICTR for incitement to genocide via radio.

Much, much more extreme than arm-chair idiots but nonethless a reminder of how powerful a broadcast opinion can be.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Hmmm.... you need to find a "Blue" radio station.
 

---

Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
 
even more scary is meeting these people in person. I've been told by a normal seeming guy that the Inquisition was really a good idea, and that the state NEEDED to be able to weed out people whose faith was impure. VERY normal seeming guy, but honestly believed this and a bunch of other stuff (like that slavery was a good idea, just people abused it)
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
You know, when I saw the thing about the Marine who killed the injured Iraqi, I was sick. However, as the day went on and I listened to all the mitigating factors, I could see why someone might do that. I even thought that if I were a different person, I might react the same way. Yet it still was bothering me a lot. Yeah, their side is doing horrible things, like pretending to surrender and then killing our troops. So I couldn't figure out why it was bothering me so much. Why did I care about a dead Iraqi who probably would have tried to kill a different Marine once he was healed?

I finally figured it out last night and it was exactly the reason Puppy gave. We're supposed to be the good guys. We aren't supposed to behave like them. I think that's what bothers me about the images of our troops acting all excited on camera about some upcoming assault. We're supposed to be the good guys. We aren't supposed to be blood-thirsty.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
I think there's a deeper reason to why America (and the other countries with troops committed) have to be the good guys in Iraq.

The justification for the invasion was, ultimately, one of morality. Because the very presence of foreign troops is in Iraq is predicated on the protection and liberation of the Iraqi people any immoral actions taken by those troops against the same people is especially heinous.

By comparison the Iraqi resistance are fighting the foreign troops on the basis of soveriegnty - their country was, after all, invaded. This in no way justifies the actions they take, or the many killed, but because their cause is not based on protecting or helping the foreign troops, the same disparity between objective and action does not exist.

At least, that's what I think.

[ November 16, 2004, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
This is why I get so angry about incidents like the tortures in Abu Gharib. We are supposed to represent honour and justice. None of this "bomb them into a crater." or who cares if a few thousand of them die as long as it saves 1 American life nonsense.
I am disgusted to share the same country as people like this.
Like I said before. It's not enough to say you have honour. Your actions must prove it.

And don't listen to talk radio! Listen to jazz, man. It's all about the jazz!
That is the reason why I just can't wake up to NPR.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
It amazes me the people who think we should be nice during a time of war. Lets do everything possble (good or bad) to win, and then start talking about becoming the good guys again. It is this "lets play nice" that continues to put America in quagmire wars. The same people who complain about the number of dead American soldiers (that usually end up that way because they do play nice and open themselves up to less protection in the name of civility?), are also the ones who complain about the soldiers doing things to make sure to stay alive.

Do you want soldiers getting the job done and coming home safe, or do you want humanitarianism? You can't have both.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
It's not a matter of being nice, it's about honour.
If America is representing itself as a good guy, as a liberator then it puts them in the position of having to be as surgecally precise as possible. Sure the war could be won with one well-aimed nuclear weapon.
But do you want that blood on your hands?
Do you want to live knowing that in order to "win" this war millions of Iraqi men, women and children would have to be crushed into pulp for it to happen?
Do you REALLY want people to be tortured in your name?
I certainly do not!
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 

quote:

---

It amazes me the people who think we should be nice during a time of war.

---

quote:

---

So we can do the same bad things that we went to war with another country over, because we're the good guys . . . wait . . .

---

quote:

---

We cannot be the good guys if we are going to win.

---

quote:

---

And I don't believe we are dealing with human beings.

---

Wow.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Why does it have to be military?

How about crimes? After all, the criminals have done a pretty analogous thing to the terrorists, at least in some cases. If not when dealing with crimes, why not? What is the crucial difference?

Of course, I have an example handy

Say we think you have information that may lead to a murderer, yet you won't tell because it was told to you as intercessor (don't know if that's sacrosanct in the LDS faith) (its not information about the murderer himself, just information that the police think'll help lead to him). So the police start pulling off your fingernails and toenails with some plyers to get you to tell.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Military reason behind the action and being for it because of that...

think.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
And if the would-be crater people really wanted freedom, why don't they fight the terrorists (well, some of them are, but not nearly enough). If your not part of the solution, your part of the problem.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 

quote:

---

And I don't believe we are dealing with human beings. At least they haven't given me a reason to see them as anything other than animals.

---

quote:

---

And if the would-be crater people really wanted freedom, why don't they fight the terrorists (well, some of them are, but not nearly enough). If your not part of the solution, your part of the problem.

---

Any time part of the moral justification for an action is that the people being hurt by the action aren't human beings, there's a good indication you're way off base.

Humans are capable of a range of violence and cruelty that goes far beyond what animals can do, even without taking technology into account.

And condemning thousands of people to death who may be doing nothing more than being afraid for their lives is not a particular humane response - although it is depressingly human.

Dagonee

[ November 17, 2004, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
You aren't out there hunting down criminals, Occasional, so clearly we should lock you in jail -- if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

You aren't out there fighting against terrorists, Occasional, so clearly it doesn't matter if someone kills you -- if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Have you talked about these issues with the leaders of your church? Have you mentioned that in a war you feel it is justified to (in order to extract military information, of course), inflict slow, painful wounds over an extended period of time, cut off someone's genitals, and then sodomize them with a broomstick? I suggest you bring such acceptance up, you might find the responses surprising.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
You're right Dagonee.

In fact in some ways "you're a human being" should be the real insult.



(I know we have redeeming features. Nonetheless the capacity of our species for cruelty and violence saddens me greatly.)
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
If I knew there was criminal activity and could give you names and evidence, than I should be hunted down as a criminal. I would be an accomplice.

I would love to be fighting terrorists, but the military wouldn't accept me even if I tried.

If I was an LDS Bishp who heard about a Murder, I would be abliged to endulge that information to the proper authorities. Part of repentance is accepting punishment. Mormons don't believe in confidentiality when it comes to legal matters.

If I was to express what I do here to my acclesiatistic authorities, they would challenge me as "regular people off the street," but do nothing about it so long as I offered it as my oppinions only.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
"You are a son of Adam. That is enough to humble the proudest king, or to raise up the humblest beggar."

Badly quoted C.S. Lewis, but you get the idea.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
...what?

[to occasional]

[ November 17, 2004, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: mackillian ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

If I knew there was criminal activity and could give you names and evidence, than I should be hunted down as a criminal. I would be an accomplice.

---

quote:

---

When they are walking the streets where everyone can see, how can you NOT know?

---

quote:

---

even more scary is meeting these people in person. I've been told by a normal seeming guy that the Inquisition was really a good idea, and that the state NEEDED to be able to weed out people whose faith was impure. VERY normal seeming guy, but honestly believed this and a bunch of other stuff (like that slavery was a good idea, just people abused it)

---

quote:

---

Carrying a gun openly is pretty much a "badge" as far as I am concerned. So, yes i would say they have one.

---

So does that make the troops "terrorists" as well?

(Yes, I'm being fatuous. I'll try and stop. And nice call on the English, Dagonee. )
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
You know what, you provide backup for a single thing you've asserted in this thread and I'll go dig some documentation up about not everyone with a gun being a terrorist tomorrow, OK?
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
Iraq is a very different place from the United States. You know they don't carry guns to hunt animals (non-humans) for food or fun. As for carrying a gun out in the open of a city in the U.S., yes they would be considered criminal unless they were cops.

No the troops aren't terrorists because they are in uniform and act under the authority of an internationally recognized country.

[ November 17, 2004, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Or they had a permit.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
Yes, there is that Mac.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Iraq is a very different place from the United States. You know they don't carry guns to hunt animals (non-humans) for food or fun. As for carrying a gun out in the open of a city in the U.S., yes they would be considered criminal unless they were cops.

---

quote:

---

RICHMOND -- Philip Van Cleave, a slight, balding, 52-year-old computer programmer, chose beige corduroys to wear this morning, a blue tie and a white shirt with thin blue strips. And a gun to match the outfit.

Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, always carries a gun because you never know when you'll need it. But which one to carry and how can be complicated, he said, much like the choice a woman faces in accessorizing her outfit with the right shoes. Today, he picked a compact black .40-caliber Kahr pistol, slipped it into a special holster and dropped it in his front pocket.

"It's a pain to re-conceal it. Sometimes you may have to literally do a striptease," he said. "Isn't it asinine that I even have to worry about that?"

He walked into the restaurant. No one blinked. "Smoking or non?" the waiter asked.

Van Cleave believes that every citizen should have the right to carry guns virtually anywhere, at any time, with no background checks, mandatory training or any other interference from government. "If I do something wrong with a gun, put me in jail," he said. "If I don't, leave me alone."

The Virginia Citizens Defense League and its 2,400 members have gone a long way toward achieving that goal in Virginia. In the past few years, the group has successfully sought out and helped strike down gun control ordinances throughout the state.

Its members fought to overturn a decades-old ban on guns in state parks. Then they went after gun prohibitions in city parks. Some cities, such as Radford, acquiesced within days, quickly painting over "No Firearms" signs. Others, including Norfolk, put up a fight before giving in. They've taken on libraries and Lowe's hardware stores so that gun owners can carry inside. They've boycotted shopping malls that bar guns, and they've published "gun unfriendly business" lists.

They sued Fairfax County and "won big time," Van Cleave said gleefully, to prevent officials from banning guns at recreation centers and county buildings. Thanks, in part, to the league, gun owners soon will be able to carry their weapons as far as the terminal doors at Reagan National and Dulles International airports. But to get lawmakers to allow guns on those airports' property, gun owners lost the long-standing ability to carry weapons all the way up to the metal detectors at most other airport terminals in the state. The league won't stop fighting until they can do so again.

And the group won't stop fighting until gun owners can bring their guns inside, right up to the metal detectors, the way they could in most other Virginia airports until the new airport law passed.

In the past few months, Van Cleave and other group members have been turning up in Northern Virginia with their guns, at restaurants and malls and a contentious Falls Church City Council meeting. The show of weapons was intended to test the resolve of city leaders who, in Van Cleave's view, proposed to "harass" gun owners by calling the police if they showed up with any gun, concealed or exposed, on city property. City leaders called it something else: intimidation.

---

 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Nonsense, its quite legal to carry a gun out in the open here. Take a look: http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/indiana
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
They still need a permit.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
For some reason that makes me slightly nervous.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
To tell you the truth, it does me too. I have no problem anyone owning any gun the want, but they shouldn't be packing in urban areas.

[ November 17, 2004, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Not me. If it's out in the open, at least you KNOW they're packing.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
When the U.S. invaded Iraq, some of the armories were opened and the contents rifled by civilians and the Iraqi military.

Subsequently, after we had seized Iraq, the Iraqi police force were disbanded, since a lot of the police were Baathist. You then had the much publicized situation where American troops and MPs were acting as police.

Much of the Iraqi military weaponry, of which there was a lot, fell into the hands of gangs who engaged in an orgy of looting and rapine. Again, well publicized.

People who didn't want to have their asses kicked, their stuff stolen, and their daughters abducted, raped, and held for ransom, quickly acquired guns of their own for safety. This kind of things was documented, for example, on Riverbend's site.

I am not sure how much of that kind of situation still exists in Iraq. From what I understand, it's still pretty chaotic, but getting better.

In any case, I don't doubt that some of the civilian populace was in cahoots with some of the rebels. That's been documented elsewhere pretty extensively, too.

The problem with the argument that we should be as ruthless as the rebels/terrorists is that it assumes that it would actually intimidate the rebels and the rest of the populace who weren't rebeling to behave. I think this is very questionable. I think, rather, that it would firm resolve against us. For instance, was the U.S. cowed by 9/11, or was our resolve stiffened? I think the answer is clear.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Even assuming they required a permit in Iraq, do you have some magical way of knowing whether or not someone has one? Not to mention, why can't they be a common criminal, or just a normal person illegally (if we're assuming the law requires a permit, and we can magically tell those who have them) carrying a gun in order to, say, protect himself from the terrorists who have sent threatening messages to him, because he continues doing his work (he's a power plant supervisor)?
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
I would agree with you on the last part Storm, except I am not talking about intimidation. I am talking about getting rid of them altogether. I believe that they are already resolved. Because of that, I believe that we should unresolve them to oblivion.

I do see your point on that one fugu, but that only re-inforces my stance that acting nice can only confuse the U.S. Soldiers to the point of danger and bad tactics.

[ November 17, 2004, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Well, you're kind of talking about killing the whole country then. :/
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
Partly Storm, yes. I guess I believe they really don't want freedom and certainly not Democracy. Some, but not enough to be worth the effort to try and salvage.

Why not call it a faliure and leave the Country? Because to do that would be a surity that it would someday become a hotbed of serious security risks.

[ November 17, 2004, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
...occasional, what about Sodom and Gomorrah? Even god wasn't going to destroy the city for the sake of ten righteous people that my live there.

Are you above god, that you can judge an entire population, regardless of the ten that your god may judge righteous?
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
If they don't want democracy, then we'll kill them!

How very.... odd.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
Because they have proven that they would definantly kill us.

Mac, if they want to join the U.S. as allies and fight along with us (as some have), then we will spare who we can. But, not if they don't help and only hinder. If there was a general uprising against the terrorists I would be less heavy-handed about the whole thing.

[ November 17, 2004, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Sorry? Could you provide me with the link between a non-democratic system of government and proof of killing you (or an attack against the US)?

[ November 17, 2004, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 

quote:

---

Because they have proven that they would definantly kill us.

---

quote:

---

Occasional are you suggesting that if one side does not follow the rules of war and international combat then the other side is no longer morally bound to do so as well?

[Edit: I ask morally bound because as a matter of international law such a statement is certainly not true.]

---

 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
The answer is -- I suggest that. I thought I already said that with my comment about playing.

"Those who don't play be the rules shouldn't be played with." In other words, all bets on tactical fairness and International Law are off.

[ November 17, 2004, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Right. I was just seeking to clarify the matter.

Why then do you think there are rules of war if one is only bound to follow them if the other side does so also?

Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions is "The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances."

How do you reconcile that with your statement that it is moral to abandon the provisions of these Conventions?

[Edit: formatting]

[ November 17, 2004, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
 

---

Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
Which do you deny?

1) Al-Zarqawi and his organization are behind the beheadings in Iraq.
2) Al-Zarqawi is from Jordan.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
"How do you reconcile that with your statement that it is moral to abandon the provisions of these Conventions?"

By believing that those rules are stupid to start with. They remind me of that episode in Star Trek where they use machines and radar to determine who died in attacks so the infustructure remained intact. All it ended up doing was making sure there was no clear winner as it nuetralized the reasons for wanting to end a conflict.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
I don't deny either one, but I also know he isn't a one man army.

"Why then do you think there are rules of war if one is only bound to follow them if the other side does so also?"

So that neither side would want to break them so the other side doesn't do the same. its called a deterent. It that fails, then it has no use.

[ November 17, 2004, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
So it's not so much that it's ok to abandon the rules of war when the other side does but that the rules of war in themselves are stupid?
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
Well, to a degree yes. They might sound good, but they forget that war is war. I don't think any country actually follows them anyway. At least, not if they can get away with it they don't.

[ November 17, 2004, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
However, to be clear, I don't believe that the Terrorists fall under the same catagory as what the Convention set up. As such, they shouldn't be treated the same as if they were a real military.

Now, I know a few people will argue exactly what a "terrorist" happens to be. For me, I know what I mean by it and don't agree with those who try to find some broad definition that includes regular army.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Mutual deterrence isn't a reason to have rules of war, it's a means of keeping the rules in place. The reason we have them is because we see ourselves as civilized nations who value human life regardless of nationality, and seek to transcend the barbaric behavior that has dominated war throughout our history. So while we recognize the necessity of war in many cases, we apply it judiciously and with restraint because to people with a conscience, it is better to die than to commit an atrocity. It is worth putting our own lives at greater risk to avoid committing exceptional acts of evil and barbarism. If you disagree with this, then I believe that by definition, you are not sufficiently civilized.

Actually, Occasional, when I started this thread, I had no idea I would actually attract one of the people I was talking about

I think that many people in this thread are getting sidetracked because, unbelievably, they are actually giving your arguments a degree of credence, when by their merits, they deserve none. I think these people are mostly just shocked that anyone could possibly grow up in America and come out with the opinions that you apparently espouse.

I certainly am shocked to find that you arose from the same faith and subculture that I did. Was there no lesson to be learned from the Nephites in the Book of Mormon? When they waged war for the right reasons, and in a civilized way, their nation prospered. When they descended into barbarism and torture, they lost the mandate of God, and were overrun. Descending to the level of their enemies gave them no advantage — in fact, it lost them the one advantage they had.

I think the greatest indicator of a nation's character is its behavior in war. You act as though our peacetime policies are completely separate from our wartime policies — like we can be brutal and atrocious on the battlefield, and still stand for noble principles once the treaties are signed.

That's called hypocrisy, and as a Christian, I'm sure you're aware of your supposed beliefs on that subject. If we are to truly represent honor, goodness, morality, and freedom, then we must show it even at the darkest times in our history. If we drop the principles we stand for the moment our lives are threatened, or when things get a little hot, then how good can we truly claim to be?

[ November 17, 2004, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
*points upward*

What he said. That's the problem with having a Card post to this board. They consistently manage to be both more succint and eloquent than I can be.



The reason I responded was to make sure I was interpreting Occasional's posts fairly. I think I am, and I don't really have anything more to say that hasn't already been said.

[ November 17, 2004, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Oh, and holy crap, Occasional ... are you really saying that people who don't overthrow their own oppressors deserve to die? Overthrowing an oppressor isn't exactly something you can just decide to do. To succeed, you have to be organized, well-armed, and have some hope of success. We have that advantage. The people of Fallujah do not. If a war against the terrorists is going to take place, which of us do you think should fight it? The ones who have a chance of winning? Or the ones who are guaranteed to fail and die?

On top of that, people are limited by what they know. If the terrorists are your only source of information, and everything they tell you portrays the United States as an evil oppressor and themselves as the best hope of relative freedom you've got, then are you going to rush out and attack them on the strength of ... what? A random decision to have faith in the rightness of a foreign power you have heard nothing good about? To many of these people, the Baathists and the insurgents are the only kind of government they have ever known, and keeping your head down has been the only way to survive. On what grounds and with what resources are you expecting them to suddenly rise up and throw off the shackles of oppression?

[ November 17, 2004, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
imogen, you're too kind And I wasn't intending to criticize your responses to Occasional. I think that your reaction made sense — double-checking to make sure he was really saying what he seemed to be saying. Honestly, I'm still having trouble believing it. Makes me wonder if he's somebody's fictional character
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Let me just say -- after only now reading this thread -- that I'm very, very relieved that Occasional thinks of me as a subhuman, pigheaded troll.

*wipes brow*

Whenever I start feeling a little run-down, it does my ego a world of good to visit Hatrack and see who dislikes me.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

They still need a permit.

---