The Marine who shot dead an injured man

[Guest INXS]

That's my whole point! Israel is NOT trying to co-exist peacefully!

 

And no, I don't hate Americans or Jews...why did you make that up?

 

bob barron hates Americans, Jews and blacks, hows that?

 

See, I can make stuff up too!

[bob_barron 0]

I don't make anything up. I just read your posts

[Guest MikeSC]

Nice attempt pal, but the fact is that I am NOT anti semetic ("It is not anti-semetic to criticize the policies of israel - Colin Powell") and nor am I "somebody who blows terrorists", infact I despise all violence especially violence directed towards innocent civilians.

Funny, only you seem to think that.

 

And, for a guy who hates violence against innocents, taking the side of Palestinians over Israel is more than mildly baffling.

Although I don't know the exact figures, I am willing to bet that more Iraqi civilians have been killed by Americans since the invasion than any terrorist group have killed civilians in the last decade.

Do you REALLY want to make that bet?

 

I bet you none of the individual American attacks in Iraq or Afghanistan COME CLOSE to the number of deaths on 9/11.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

Uh, 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq compared to 3,000 on 9/11.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

100,000 has even been proven yet. One study that is at least 83,000 people higher than the next one AND came out on a Tuesday.

 

I don't know why I even bothered to post this because it's not like facts mean anything to you.

[Guest MikeSC]

Uh, 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq compared to 3,000 on 9/11.

Um,

 

1) Individual attack --- not 18 months of hostilities

2) Let's stick with REAL numbers, not fictitious numbers yanked out of somebody's ass.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

I think you edited your post to include "individual". Even if you didn't, that wasn't my original claim.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think you edited your post to include "individual". Even if you didn't, that wasn't my original claim.

Nope. Nice try.

 

And if you want to use long-term numbers, terrorism has killed far more than the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I'd imagine the scum in Iraq right now has killed more Iraqis than the U.S. forces have.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'd imagine the scum in Iraq right now has killed more Iraqis than the U.S. forces have.

Mad Dog, INXS doesn't care about dark-skinned folk.

-=Mike

[Highland 0]

I'd imagine the scum in Iraq right now has killed more Iraqis than the U.S. forces have.

Mad Dog, INXS doesn't care about dark-skinned folk.

-=Mike

Or anyone else, judging from the content of his threads from the LSD folder.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I'd imagine the scum in Iraq right now has killed more Iraqis than the U.S. forces have.

Mad Dog, INXS doesn't care about dark-skinned folk.

-=Mike

Or anyone else, judging from the content of his threads from the LSD folder.

Well, all he has to do is prove he's a homophobe to complete the set.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Put yourself in this young Marine’s place. You walk into a building which has been used by insurgents to attack American Marines and there are bodies on the floor. They all look dead and suddenly one of them moves. You know he’s the enemy, you know their bodies have been known to be booby trapped, you know these people are willing to die just to kill one American.

 

So what do you do, stand there and let this terrorist kill you or possibly everybody in your group or do you defend yourself and your buddies and shoot him? These Marines have been combat trained and combat hardened and their eyes have seen more that Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, the entire staff at CNN and the fruitcakes at the New York Times will ever see.

 

This young man had been shot in the face just the day before and I’m sure he had a healthy distrust for insurgents.

- Charlie Daniels

[Guest BDC]

Put yourself in this young Marine’s place. You walk into a building which has been used by insurgents to attack American Marines and there are bodies on the floor. They all look dead and suddenly one of them moves. You know he’s the enemy, you know their bodies have been known to be booby trapped, you know these people are willing to die just to kill one American.

 

So what do you do, stand there and let this terrorist kill you or possibly everybody in your group or do you defend yourself and your buddies and shoot him? These Marines have been combat trained and combat hardened and their eyes have seen more that Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, the entire staff at CNN and the fruitcakes at the New York Times will ever see.

 

This young man had been shot in the face just the day before and I’m sure he had a healthy distrust for insurgents.

- Charlie Daniels

God bless that man, I love him the more I hear out of him.

 

Oh, and btw INXS, the number of 100,00 is WRONG. It's been discredited. Even if it hasn't, you have it at mor than TRIPLE the next number, there's something wrong with that. Or are you too busy sticking your fingers in your ears to understand that?

[cbacon 0]

I'll get to much of the drivel posted by MikeSC and Powerplay later since i'm strapped for time at the moment. However, i'd like to refer to 2 points that each made that really stuck out:

 

1. Powerplay, you had the audacity to compare the death counts between Pinochet and Pol Pot. Not only were these dictators of 2 seperate countries, they weren't even on the same continent! Once Pinochet was put into power by the US, 3000 Chilians were slaughtered. I'm sure those famalies of the dead Chilians would really take solace in the fact that millions more were dying all the way in Cambodia, since more people were slaughtered somewhere else, it takes the heat off the US right? Well, no not really when you take into acount the US also had a hand in Pol Pot's regieme anyway. Amazing logic.

 

2. Mike, the quote in your sig is another example of your ability to misconstrue the past and take things out of context. Chomsky did not flat out deny the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rogue. In fact, he's written VASTS amounts on the subject, which I could provide you with if you wish. Getting back to your quote, which was taken out of context; I can see how that standing alone would lead one to think that Chomsky denies the genocide, but he was merely referring to Robert Moss' reports of the actual numbers. Here is the exact paragraph from which the quote was taken:

 

"In the New York Times Magazine, May 1, 1977, Robert Moss (editor of a dubious offshoot of Britain's Economist called "Foreign Report" which specializes in sensational rumors from the world's intelligence agencies) asserts that "Cambodia's pursuit of total revolution has resulted, by the official admission of its Head of State, Khieu Samphan, in the slaughter of a million people." Moss informs us that the source of this statement is Barron and Paul, who claim that in an interview with the Italian weekly Famiglia Cristiana Khieu Samphan stated that more than a million died during the war, and that the population had been 7 million before the war and is now 5 million. Even if one places some credence in the reported interview nowhere in it does Khieu Samphan suggest that the million postwar deaths were a result of official policies (as opposed to the lag effects of a war that left large numbers ill, injured, and on the verge of starvation). The "slaughter" by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times creation." 

 

Of course both of you forget to mention that Pol Pot's most serious atrocities occured in 1978, when the US were supporting him. And let us not forget that in 1975 the US not only helped to create the conditions that brought the Khmer Rouge to power by bombing Cambodia and killing thousands, but actively supported the genocidal force, politically and financially. They were also secretly funding Pol Pot's exiled forces.

And that's scratching the surface one of the many atrocities that US either directly or indirectly committed during this era.

[El Psycho Diablo 0]

I can't believe some of you are actually defending the terrorists. Really.

 

I don't step into the wasteland of CE often, but here are my thoughts on the situation:

 

That Marine did nothing wrong. Put yourself into his situation, why don't you? Your enemy had been shooting at you from a mosque..something that goes against the rules of "civilized war". You go in, and he's laying there on the floor..he may or may not be dead. How many hundreds of our guys have been killed by lunatics willing to take one of us with them? I'd have shot him, too. Better to be safe..and alive..than 'play be the rules', and get an arm or a leg blown off, or get yourself or your buddies killed.

 

All the media using this to play to their own agendas disgusts me. They've been beheading civillians..people there to -help- Iraq. They're stringing our people's charred bodies up and parading. The media basically fucking ignores it, yet makes a spectacle of this.

 

I guarantee you if those roles were reversed, you'd hear a lot more of an uproar about it..

[Guest INXS]

I'd imagine the scum in Iraq right now has killed more Iraqis than the U.S. forces have.

Mad Dog, INXS doesn't care about dark-skinned folk.

-=Mike

Of course I do, if I didn't I wouldn't be oppossed to the invasion of Iraq and the killing of civilians would I?

 

Quit trying to paint me as a racist. It's childish at the very least and flame baiting at the worst.

[Guest INXS]

I'd imagine the scum in Iraq right now has killed more Iraqis than the U.S. forces have.

Mad Dog, INXS doesn't care about dark-skinned folk.

-=Mike

Or anyone else, judging from the content of his threads from the LSD folder.

Well, all he has to do is prove he's a homophobe to complete the set.

I'm the tree hugging, peacenik dirty liberal around these parts, how the fuck does that make me a racist and a homophobe? I don't appreciate your unfounded smears...

[Guest Cerebus]

I'd imagine the scum in Iraq right now has killed more Iraqis than the U.S. forces have.

Mad Dog, INXS doesn't care about dark-skinned folk.

-=Mike

Of course I do, if I didn't I wouldn't be oppossed to the invasion of Iraq and the killing of civilians would I?

 

Quit trying to paint me as a racist. It's childish at the very least and flame baiting at the worst.

Right, its not that we brown-skinned folk burn bodies because we're sick in the head, its just part of our barbaric, primitive culture!

[Guest MikeSC]

1. Powerplay, you had the audacity to compare the death counts between Pinochet and Pol Pot. Not only were these dictators of 2 seperate countries, they weren't even on the same continent! Once Pinochet was put into power by the US, 3000 Chilians were slaughtered.

3000 Chileans vs 1/4 of all Cambodians? Yeah, there's some equivalence.

I'm sure those famalies of the dead Chilians would really take solace in the fact that millions more were dying all the way in Cambodia, since more people were slaughtered somewhere else, it takes the heat off the US right? Well, no not really when you take into acount the US also had a hand in Pol Pot's regieme anyway. Amazing logic.

No, our leaving Vietnam led to all of that crap.

 

You know, the move people like YOU supported.

2. Mike, the quote in your sig is another example of your ability to misconstrue the past and take things out of context.

I gave you a quote, source, AND page number. Refute it, if you can.

Chomsky did not flat out deny the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rogue.

He, flat-out, did. He and Ed Hermann wrote three quite infamous book reviews in the 6/25/77 The Nation where he discounts the genocide. Keep in mind, even in liberal circles (Le Monda reported heavily on it), the genocide was a very well-known crisis.

 

He reiterates that in The Political Economy of Human Rights in 1979, where they praised the "positive contributions" of the Khmer Rouge (contributions nobody seems able to recognize). He routinely denied the reports of the genocide. ANY book favorable of the Khmer Rouge was given praise by Chomsky. He trashed Cambodia: Year Zero, the most definitive book on the regime, in The Nation, referring to the author as little more than a liar.

 

Then, in 1986, he "always" thought the Khmer Rouge committed genocide, a statement routinely, repeatedly, and blatantly contradicted over the previous nearly 10 years. He made no comment on it for the first 2 years of the Khmer Rouge's reign of terror, so he can't claim he didn't comment with full knowledge. It'd be on the same level as Dan Rather saying he always knew the Guard memos were fakes.

In fact, he's written VASTS amounts on the subject, which I could provide you with if you wish.

Already beat you to it, skippy.

Getting back to your quote, which was taken out of context; I can see how that standing alone would lead one to think that Chomsky denies the genocide, but he was merely referring to Robert Moss' reports of the actual numbers. Here is the exact paragraph from which the quote was taken:

 

"In the New York Times Magazine, May 1, 1977, Robert Moss (editor of a dubious offshoot of Britain's Economist called "Foreign Report" which specializes in sensational rumors from the world's intelligence agencies) asserts that "Cambodia's pursuit of total revolution has resulted, by the official admission of its Head of State, Khieu Samphan, in the slaughter of a million people." Moss informs us that the source of this statement is Barron and Paul, who claim that in an interview with the Italian weekly Famiglia Cristiana Khieu Samphan stated that more than a million died during the war, and that the population had been 7 million before the war and is now 5 million. Even if one places some credence in the reported interview nowhere in it does Khieu Samphan suggest that the million postwar deaths were a result of official policies (as opposed to the lag effects of a war that left large numbers ill, injured, and on the verge of starvation). The "slaughter" by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times creation." 

Which is one damning quote for Chomsky. The reports UNDERSTATED how bad it was. He denied it over and over, in spite of the wealth of interviews of refugees who told the same story.

Of course both of you forget to mention that Pol Pot's most serious atrocities occured in 1978, when the US were supporting him.

That, to be generous, is horeshit.

And let us not forget that in 1975 the US not only helped to create the conditions that brought the Khmer Rouge to power by bombing Cambodia and killing thousands, but actively supported the genocidal force, politically and financially.

ALSO horseshit. I know, ALL evil is the fault of the US (who was WELL-KNOWN for supporting Communist regimes).

They were also secretly funding Pol Pot's exiled forces.

And that's scratching the surface one of the many atrocities that US either directly or indirectly committed during this era.

Chomksy denied real atrocities.

 

You bitch about imagined ones.

 

Figures.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

I'd imagine the scum in Iraq right now has killed more Iraqis than the U.S. forces have.

Mad Dog, INXS doesn't care about dark-skinned folk.

-=Mike

Of course I do, if I didn't I wouldn't be oppossed to the invasion of Iraq and the killing of civilians would I?

No, you oppose it because it's "America's fault". You don't give two shits about helping dark-skinned folks --- or, judging by your posts elsewhere, anybody else on Earth.

Quit trying to paint me as a racist. It's childish at the very least and flame baiting at the worst.

If it quacks like a duck...

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

I'd imagine the scum in Iraq right now has killed more Iraqis than the U.S. forces have.

Mad Dog, INXS doesn't care about dark-skinned folk.

-=Mike

Of course I do, if I didn't I wouldn't be oppossed to the invasion of Iraq and the killing of civilians would I?

 

Quit trying to paint me as a racist. It's childish at the very least and flame baiting at the worst.

Right, its not that we brown-skinned folk burn bodies because we're sick in the head, its just part of our barbaric, primitive culture!

Your ability to fight your barbaric culture is an inspiration, Cerebus.

-=Mike

...I'm part German and regularly have a desire to invade NC...

[Justice 0]

We didn't support Pol Pot at all during his attrocities. Our 'support' was more opposition to the Vietnamese invasion and installation of a puppet government in 1979-1989. Our support stopped promptly after Vietnam left.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

- Charlie Daniels

Wait a minute, where's the flood of Republicans bitching about how entertainers need to keep their political opinions shut to themselves and stick to their day jobs? I'm still waiting...

 

 

Anyway, the most common defense for this guy is "yeah, well the enemy has done some really shitty things, so we must kill all of them as quickly as they can." The utter retardedness of Americans today.

[Guest Cerebus]

- Charlie Daniels

Wait a minute, where's the flood of Republicans bitching about how entertainers need to keep their political opinions shut to themselves and stick to their day jobs? I'm still waiting...

Yo.

 

Anyway, the most common defense for this guy is "yeah, well the enemy has done some really shitty things, so we must kill all of them as quickly as they can." The utter retardedness of Americans today.

 

Uh it didn't have anything to do with insurgents strapping bombs to themselves or infantry being taught that one of the most dangerous situations is facing an enemy that's close to death? Yeah, utter retardedness.

[Guest Brian]

We didn't support Pol Pot at all during his attrocities. Our 'support' was more opposition to the Vietnamese invasion and installation of a puppet government in 1979-1989. Our support stopped promptly after Vietnam left.

Powerplay's right. Vietnam invaded Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge had started raiding along the borders, and the Khmer Rouge was pushed out into the border area (I think in the NE), where they received support from China and the US. China and Vietnam have a long history of not getting along. Khmer Rouge would continue to commit murders in village raids (and I've seen these villages firsthand, and it's ugly), but no where on the same scale as during their rule. One of the odd things is that the Khmer Rouge profitted greatly after US bombing of Cambodia, because they were able to gain support from the countryside and many people were forced into the cities, making it easier to kill, one of many reasons that they were able to gain power.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Wait a minute, where's the flood of Republicans bitching about how entertainers need to keep their political opinions shut to themselves and stick to their day jobs? I'm still waiting...

 

Difference is Charlie Daniels doesn't stop during his performances to bitch about Kerry last time I checked or flies all the way to Iraq to demoralize / support the USA.

[cbacon 0]

1. Powerplay, you had the audacity to compare the death counts between Pinochet and Pol Pot. Not only were these dictators of 2 seperate countries, they weren't even on the same continent! Once Pinochet was put into power by the US, 3000 Chilians were slaughtered.

3000 Chileans vs 1/4 of all Cambodians? Yeah, there's some equivalence.

 

Yes, the slaughter in Cambodia was far worse. But it's not fair to compare it to Chile. In Chile, Pinochet was actually put into power by the US. Pol Pot was not (not directly at least).

 

If we were in some parallel universe where Pinochet succeeded Pol Pot and killed 3000 people in Cambodia, then maybe that argument would hold some merit. Although murder is murder and the death toll matters little to the families of the dead.

 

As for Chomsky, he was merely skeptical of the reports, but has never said the genocide never existed. Now, i'll admit that his wording can be taken the wrong way which leads to such mis-interpretations. I won't deny that he may of made some glaring omissions regarding certain aspects of the genocide but that dosen't take away his overall credibility in the field of political issues.

 

"I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury and so on and so forth."

 

Yup, sounds like a man thats denying the genocide alright. Your taking his words out of context and mis-interpreting the overall theme of what he's saying.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes, the slaughter in Cambodia was far worse. But it's not fair to compare it to Chile. In Chile, Pinochet was actually put into power by the US. Pol Pot was not (not directly at least).

Pol Pot was not --- period.

As for Chomsky, he was merely skeptical of the reports, but has never said the genocide never existed.

It is PRECISELY what he said for 10 years (such lovely gems as it wasn't inspired by the Khmer Rouge, but was simply peasant violence uttered from him). This isn't even a debatable point.

Now, i'll admit that his wording can be taken the wrong way which leads to such mis-interpretations. I won't deny that he may of made some  glaring omissions regarding certain aspects of the genocide but that dosen't take away his overall credibility in the field of political issues.

His entire field of work discredits his views. He is VIRULENTLY anti-Semitic. His work is UNIVERSALLY "The U.S is the problem". He denies the atrocities committed by Communists while exaggerating anything about capitalist governments. He comments on the popular culture while, according to him, not knowing shit about it.

"I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury and so on and so forth."

Yup, sounds like a man thats denying the genocide alright. Your taking his words out of context and mis-interpreting the overall theme of what he's saying.

Your making a quote of his from the 1980's or 1990's.

 

WHILE IT WAS GOING ON --- and the reports were exceptionally one-sided in regards to whether they were true or not --- he denied it. He denied it repeatedly.

 

He has never once explained WHY he denied it for ten years.

 

Heck, how about a source, for that matter?

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

1. Powerplay, you had the audacity to compare the death counts between Pinochet and Pol Pot. Not only were these dictators of 2 seperate countries, they weren't even on the same continent! Once Pinochet was put into power by the US, 3000 Chilians were slaughtered.

3000 Chileans vs 1/4 of all Cambodians? Yeah, there's some equivalence.

 

Yes, the slaughter in Cambodia was far worse. But it's not fair to compare it to Chile. In Chile, Pinochet was actually put into power by the US. Pol Pot was not (not directly at least).

 

If we were in some parallel universe where Pinochet succeeded Pol Pot and killed 3000 people in Cambodia, then maybe that argument would hold some merit. Although murder is murder and the death toll matters little to the families of the dead.

No, my comparison meant what happens when someone doesn't intervine. Pinochet may have been bad, but in comparison to regiemes we didn't intervine with, it's not nearly as bad as you try to make it out. You can say they aren't comparable, but they are very, very comparable. I'm not trying to dull the crimes of Pinochet, but to say they aren't comparable is an odd defense. Pinochet was bad, but his deaths don't compare to the devastation that Pol Pot. Yes, I'm sure the families feel bad, but Pol Pot's attrocities are far greater than Pinochet's.

 

Also, it proves how much more Communist Regiemes are more dangerous. 3,000 lives is a horrible crime and obviously tyranny, but things like the purges of Stalin, Mao, the conditions of North Korea, are not things that the US wanted, especially in their backyard. Not only that, but Communist regiemes are prone to invading other countries (Korea, Vietnam). You can't understate the dangers of a Communist government, especially when one looks at the past.