maybe he'll get thrown in with chong

Are you fucking serious?
yes it's infinitely worse because of the nature of the targets usually picked by suicide bombers...very rarely are they targeting military sites or targets..more often than not the targets being chosen are for maximum shock value and maximum civilian casualties....israeli buses, day care centers , shopping malls, restaurants, parks , niteclubs, open air markets, synagogues etc.... none of these targets were attacked by accident or by an errant bomb going off course....these scumbag motherfuckers do it for one reason and one reason only: to cause as much havoc and carnage amongst non-combatants as possible. Key words dipshit:WILLFULLY targeting Non-Combatants. Will you please, please post something condoning or defending the actions of douchebags like islamic jihad, al queda, hezzbollah etc. that will open the eyes of the rest of us who are obviously blind and in need of enlightenment?They are nothing but murderous scum who wouldn't hesitate to cut your throat given the chance, and should be eradicated like the lice, yes I said LICE , that they are.

How do things down here look from your ivory tower?

In the post I replied to you sated

"Ummm, Ok, but your interest or lack thereof in the the second most significant destablizing scenario in all of south Asia relly doesn't have much at all to do with the fact that they are in the midst of a decades long bloody insurrection, and they did pioneer the kind of suicide bombings at issue, and theyre notMuslim or Arab, making Soul Kitchen, well, wrong.

In other words you wanted to pick a fight with me that had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand.

It was pretty goddamn clear in the original iteration. Souljacker asserted, before numerous backpedals and qualifications designed to save face, that Arab muslims has a monopoly on suicide bombing. They don't. They are in fact copycats and frankly pikers compared to the Talmil who, as you probably don't recall, assasinated the Prime minister of India with one a few years back.

I was recapitualting for the historically ignorant.

I'm not avoidng it at all, I answered it rather directly. You've just latched onto it as the only area in which you have the slightest plausable deniability. Honestly, I don't think you even believe what you claim.

He said, specifically "did physically aggress" Its a euphamism, it means attacked. You can pretend he meant shoved or slapped or something else that using a euphamism for would actually make sound worse if you like. You can remain steadfast in your assertion that it means anything else entirely, just as you did with all your other ridiculous and frankly not very genuous assertions, but the fact isn't going to change.

Dude, agress has several meanings. Some pertain to contact of a violent manner with another person or persons. The level of contact varies. You went straight for beat the shit out of and the first time I asked you about it the best you had was "you know".

As for having a monopoly on suicide bombings, origin is not relevant. Who has the highest number now? Who basically has the market cornered? How many bombs went off in SriLanka this year conducted by their own as opposed to suicide bombings conducted by others? sorry but they do currently have a monopoly on it. They're the fucking Miscrosoft of suicide bombers. And I have little need to pick a fight with you. I just wanted a clear answer. You don't know what they did when they agressed the dude. You just assume the max. Now if you can find something that says they did "beat the shit of him", I'll read it, more than once this time so as to be clear.

And now you basically call these guys amateurs compared to Sri Lanka? Ha ha, read the article I posted again since you decided to take this turn on your own this time. They've improved suicide bombing.

And something tells me that if I slapped you, you'd consider that an attack on you, if I punched you once, you'd probably call that an attack as well, if I beat the shit out you, I'm betting you'd still say you were attacked. So again, I ask, how do you know which happened?

[Edited on Nov 12, 2003 by Troll]

well, i'm partly serious. i mean, are the group of you guys serious in your collective pages of ranting, near (if not blatantly) racist vitriol?

i mean, seriously, you are saying they should "be eradicated" because "they wouldn't hesitate to cut (our) throats". um. dude. it sounds like it's you that wouldn't hesitate to cut their throats. i mean, you might be right about them, but...

and i repeat: we WILLFULLY target non-combatants. we might 'try to avoid it', but if we drop 1,000 bombs and we know we are going to kill approximately X innocents and we push the button anyway, we willfully killed them. they were acceptable loss. they were collateral damage. they are dead. our fault. our responsibility. it's just cleaner because we can blame the innacurracy of our bombs and invoke our 'intent' to avoid killing civiilians as some sort of shield from responsibility.

as for willfully targeting non-combatants? obviously, i think it's wrong. hell, i don't think we should be in iraq in the first place. but the level of crap some of you guys sell sounds nearer to genocide than anything else.

levezletoi said:






I find it amusing that you take his word in proclamation of guilt but you stop listening to his story and question his word after that.





Why am I being attributed to this quote? I never said that.

Ah, so we're doing box scores now? You might want to look up things like this before you go and ask me by the way.

The answer is still the Tamil. Theyre significantly in the thousands and got a head of state.

When? This week? 'Cause if you go back much further than that the answer is nobody. Its pretty much a free market in death for all of the groups I named.

The word monoply doesn't actually mean what you seem to think, Mr. Semantics. It means 100%, rather like the 100% of all suicide bombings Souljacker asserted. You can play games with my pithy summation if it makes you feel better, but the fact remains that what I said was both accurate and pertinant and youre just splitting hairs again becuase you don't read for content and are looking rather foolish again.

And if you had read what I wrote with anything other than a mind to finding an avenue for attack, you wouldn't have needed to ask.

Like I said, youre looking for plausable deniability. Go you. Youre still going to be hard pressed to find any reasonable person who isn't looking to measure his dick to support your interpretation. I may not have SERE training, but I imagine that you've never read through thousands of pages of interrogation transcripts either.

Pity you werent so discerning in your original assertions, we could avoid your playing ego catch-up now.

Firstly, there are no "these guys". They range from disaffected losers to highly orchestrated military strikes. Secondly, the Tamil took out Rajiv Ghandi under the noses of one of the best security details on the planet. Finally, speaking of selective reading, please do tell me what the two most dramatic and brutal suicide bombings of the past year are? Heres a hint: I've named them already and they weren't carried out by Arabs.

If thats monopoly, I'm afraid you don't pass go or collect $200.

My psychic friend told me, of course. Or maybe I don't just choose to ignore the obvious because I desperately want to score points and cant find any other way to do it.

Something tells me that if they slapped him, the good colonel would have said slapped and not left such a mild abuse open to exactly the kind of interpretation I and everone else who isn't you is going to make. You make vague statements when youre downplaying things, not when theyre actually minor.

And seriously, given the sheer volume of idiotic things you've posted and been shown up for, don't you think that scrabblling over how badly they beat him up is more than a little transparent and pathetic?

[Edited on Nov 13, 2003 by LordJim]

The PLO and Taliban would be two more of those non-Arab (I'm not sure if)terrorist(is the right word for these) groups. And the sort of thinking that says "The world would be a safer and more stable place if such groups and their leaders were wiped from the face of the Earth" is what leads to suicide bombing in the first place...

sure, and I say screw the high moral ground, screw that iraqi cop, screw the officials that made the fucking rule, screw any one that enforces it. As a soldier myself I would want that guy as my commander. As a 20 year veteran he knew the rules he was breaking, and he did it anyway just to save the lives of guys just like me. He's my fucking hero. I say play tough or go home. US soldiers are not roaming around in that country looking for people to kill. There are iraqis over there that have not given up the fight and they are trying to kill us. In a fight to the death there is nothing more important than winning. The soldiers on the ground understand this. Fuck the guys in the Ivory towers. Any one here want to really have this debate? Enlist, and we can talk about it across the pond.

-Joe

(in response to joe's last)

WHY did we invade their country because the former leadership was a bunch of thugs.

so that makes it okay for us to be thugs right back?

no. it doesn't.

if we don't care about the moral high ground, why the fuck are we over there at all? if we don't care about ethics and saving lives,, what's the point of trying to rebuild the country? why not just kill saddam and leave? let them rebuild themselves?

the army does not exist to preserve itself, it does not play by it's own rules. it exists to enforce the decisions of it's leaders and it follows the laws of those leaders.

our leaders have agreed that excessive force during interrogations is wrong.

the soldier has no right to simply disregard that. if he's sworn an oath to follow the orders of his commanders, to obey their rules, then he's chosen to follow all of their orders, to obey ALL of their rules. not just the ones that are convenient. there is no room for personal judgement.

even if he did save lives, that doesn't make what he did okay. even if it happens in war all the time, that doesn't make it okay either. it was against the rules, he knew it, and there's no defending that, regardless of the lives he may have saved.

what if he disobeyed an order and didn't lead his team into combat, because he knew they wouldn't survive? i know there's a difference between america holding itself to higher morals, and soldiers going into battles. but to the soldier, they should be the exact same. the leadership has said 'do this', the soldier does it. it's not his place to choose which to do and which not to do. it's not his place to decide which order is more important than the other.

the real problem here is that the US leaders, perhaps knowingly, put their soldiers into a position to either die or break the rules, and is punishing them for making that choice. better planning on their part may have avoided the situation entirely. i don't know, i'm not a soldier or a politician or a strategist.

if this were a movie, i'd probably agree with his actions. but this isn't a movie, he's not bruce willis, and there's a difference between right and wrong. supposedly, we went over there to teach that to the iraqis, and shit like this doesn't help; our actions need to match our words.

i know this won't have any effect on you, but whatever.

[Edited on Nov 13, 2003 by seanconnery]

Not sure if the PLO is a terrorist organization.......?
What have you been smoking?And have you been living in a cave for the last 30-odd years?

have your argument shot out of the water and pull the racism card!

Well Done !

p.s. you're right,... I wouldn't hesitate to cut their throats, and would have as much feeling about it as when I used to cut the throats of thousands of codfish in Alaska...about less than zero methinks...

you know what, nevermind. i forgot this was a current events thread. have at it.

[deleted]

[Edited on Nov 13, 2003 by ferret]

For the last part of your posting I'm merely saying that I will not condem without facts. You've assumed the facts. You make the claim of "we all know what he really means". I'd rather wait and get the facts and know without a doubt. It seems that the two got off pretty easy for what you described as a severe beating. Either they did get off easy, or the beating wasn't to the degree you try to make it out to be. Odd that you can claim someone else is posting on emotion when it's actually you making claims without actual facts.

as I said before. I missed the part where west said he did threaten. Given that I explained it how I saw it. I said if he did this then that and if he did that then this. When I saw he said threatened I apologized and admitted my mistake and agreed that he has threatened, which didn't change the fact that I have always contended that he has done something wrong and needs to at least face the process. The fact that he did threaten just heightens what he faces. I don't know about you but when I find myself to be wrong, I do have to change my view a little or look like some stubborn guy trying to claim things about the Tamil that are false.

Prabhakaran, a shy school dropout, has built one of the world's most efficient guerilla organizations. Tiger fighters pledge their loyalty to him with a commitment to die. The suicide bombers' dinner date with him is the most cherished for some 217 who have carried out attacks since the first bombing in July 1987.
from http://www.dawn.com/2001/12/04/int11.htm

The use and effect of suicide bombings in Sri Lanka's two-decade-old ethnic conflict was underscored this month, which marks the 16th anniversary of the Tigers' first official use of this weapon on July 5, 1987

On that day, Captain Miller, a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), as the Tigers are formally known, drove an explosives-laden truck into an army camp housed at a school in Nelliady in the northern Jaffna peninsula. Since then, the Black Tigers, as the suicide cadres are known, have been emulated by the likes of Hamas in the Palestinians' campaign against Israeli occupation, and by the al-Qaeda network of terrorists
On July 5, Miller and other LTTE cadres who followed him were commemorated by the LTTE all over Tamil-dominated areas in the north and east. At least 243 Tigers have since followed in Miller's footsteps, including 53 women.
from http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EG17Df03.html

Now it looks like they would like to support your claim of origin, but that's only for two groups.

I don't think I need a site to remind you of 1983 when bombings similar to that first great day for the Tamil were conducted on the US embassy, the Marine Barracks and a French Barracks. which kills your comment of "Theyre also the ones who gave the Arabs the idea in the first place."

Granted the Tamil have an estimated 64,000 kills. Those are not all suicide bombings, many of those are in outright confrontation with the army. An excerpt from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1303687.stm

On Saturday the army conceded that mortar and artillery fire from Tamil Tiger positions had caused unacceptably high casualties, forcing it to withdraw from territory it had captured after the start of the operation. They use conventional weapons as well. and the subject is suicide bombings

Now souljacker saying arabs would be incorrect. But had he said muslims, then the numbers go way the hell up on their side based soley upon the use of suicide bombings alone.

so origin goes to the muslims, numbers, I'm giving to the muslims sense it's the primary source of death as compared to military attacks within the Tamil. I give the embassy bombings and the cole and the WTC, the attacks on Israel, attacks in Bali, Jakarta, and well you can see how this list is growing, to the muslims as none of those deaths were caused using conventional warefare methods like the Tamil have also used in their fight began in 1983. Other sites list the damage done by tamil suicide bombers in the hundreds of deaths and thousands wounded and yes they did get two heads of state. But muslim suicide bombings in the same time span have generated deaths in the thousands. I did some looking. I posted it here. So now you can do some looking of your own if you want. I met your challange.

1983 muslims were using suicide bombings.
1987 Tamil starts using them.
Tamil suicide bombing deaths in hundreds with two heads of state
Muslim suicide bombing deaths in thousands, including departmental heads of CIA and corporations as well as key military and embassy personel.

You ain't. I think it just came up that way in editing. LordJim and I have been having the only ends involved on that subject and we both know it wasn't you that said it. In fact it was me.
Maybe he just messed up the editing when replying to me?

LordJim, I put this as plainly as I can and hope you understand and don't feel the need for another round.

I said what I did earlier about the guy on the assumption that he did not himself use the word threaten. As such I described the difference between threaten and scare as used when I went through the stuff.

I discovered he did in fact say threaten. I apologized for that but still defended my definitions because you has seen fit to attack them. Ironically my definition of threaten is what he did which I admit is something he should at least face the procedure of courts-martial for. Though I would give some hardcore leniency myself.

Now you keep trying to claim I'm speaking emotionally, yet you admit you don't know about the agress and are just going with your own emotions. I'm not defending them, I'm just wanting to know what exactly was done and not speculating. If asking you constitutes an attack on you ( pick a fight) then I seriously have to question your definition of attack and agress.

Aside from that, I've no issue with you. So please stop trying to use my words as some personal thing against you. They're not. If I wanted to attack you verbally, this subject would have been closed down a long time ago. I'm pretty blatant in my attacks.

So does that clear things up?

And yes I disagree with the suicide bombing comments you had, but I did say that soulhacker using the term arabs as opposed to muslim is also incorrect if he wants to supoort his claims