The Marine who shot dead an injured man

[Dr. Tom 0]

I love how you guys are responding to his dumb posts with equally moronic posts about killing him.

He'd still be alive. We're *compassionate* conservatives...

[AlwaysPissedOff 0]

Yeah, because a guy who claims he'd do the same thing the Iraqi insurgents are doing now deserves to be taken seriously, right?

[theintensifier 0]

Screw the head in the door routine, gotta go with a top rope curb stomp.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I love how you guys are responding to his dumb posts with equally moronic posts about killing him.

Nah, it's best to just wait for his girlfriend to finally snap and do it.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

As far as liberalism being a mental disease, he means the far left, the extreme left, the real nut-jobs.

 

Well I consider him part of the far right, the extreme right, the real nut-jobs.

[theintensifier 0]

How is it moronic talking about killing someone we don't like? Oh I forgot, we're American's, we're not allowed to do that kind of thing, but if we were Iraqi, you'd be cheering us on.

[Swift Terror 0]

I'm not too fond of this particular war, but I'm very fond of our soldiers and, generally, how they do the job that our government gives them.

 

I see, you are not fond of the policy that they are carrying out....but you are fond of how they carry out the policy...

 

You need to examine your thinking on this.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Yeah, because a guy who claims he'd do the same thing the Iraqi insurgents are doing now deserves to be taken seriously, right?

Then, here's an idea. Don't read what he posts. Instead of making stupid violent remarks, just ignore him. It would be much more effective.

[theintensifier 0]

*EDIT*

 

Oops

[Swift Terror 0]

Well I consider him part of the far right, the extreme right, the real nut-jobs.

 

Consider yourself as being wrong. I've known him for 25 years.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You can say that again.

 

How is it moronic talking about killing someone we don't like?

 

It's juvenile and gross.

 

Oh I forgot, we're American's, we're not allowed to do that kind of thing, but if we were Iraqi, you'd be cheering us on.

 

I would be? WTF are you talking about?

 

And, please, don't quote me in your rambling, angry posts anymore (I'm referring to the one where you said ALL AMERICANS SHOULD THINK LIKE THIS!!!!! and stuff like that).

[Special K 0]

Fuck, even Bush said he wouldn't want to be occupied.

There's a stupid level of rhetoric here about 'subhuman monkies'. Sure, the beheaders and the suicide bombers and the ones who target civilians could easily be referred to taht way, but what would you do if your country was invaded, and some of your family was killed? That doesn't mean I want them to win. I wish the stupid-ass war hadn't been started in the first place, and I hope our guys win there, because the overall outcome could end up being good, and they're our guys.

 

Yet saying that every misguided fool out there, or everyone who lost a family member is a 'subhuman monkey' is arrogant, stupid, propogandist bullshit. If you're firing out of a mosque, and we're firing into a mosque, how does that make them terrorists? Suicide bombings and beheadings are terrorist activities, not firing on our troops with guns.

[Guest MikeSC]

Let's try and keep one thing in mind --- if you watch the video, they do not shoot an insurgent who is showing his hands to them and obviously surrendering.

 

The insurgent in question DID NOT do the same.

-=Mike

[Special K 0]

^

||

 

Exactamundo.

[Guest MikeSC]

Fuck, even Bush said he wouldn't want to be occupied.

There's a stupid level of rhetoric here about 'subhuman monkies'. Sure, the beheaders and the suicide bombers and the ones who target civilians could easily be referred to taht way, but what would you do if your country was invaded, and some of your family was killed?

I'd be pissed --- I wouldn't grab people at random and start lopping off heads.

 

But that's just me.

 

I'd join a military and fight back. I'd make it a point to NOT target innocent civilans, though.

 

Again, that's just me.

Yet saying that every misguided fool out there, or everyone who lost a family member is a 'subhuman monkey' is arrogant, stupid, propogandist bullshit.

Since I was the one who first coined the term, I'll explain:

 

The MOMENT you INTENTIONALLY target innocent civilians to achieve your goals, you have forfeited your right to be referred to as a human. You are a little, useless monkey of no benefit to humanity and your death should be handled as quickly as possible.

 

If they were JUST targeting the military, it'd be one thing. They aren't.

If you're firing out of a mosque, and we're firing into a mosque, how does that make them terrorists?

Well, detonating yourself WHILE surrendering tends to be a fairly low move.

Suicide bombings and beheadings are terrorist activities, not firing on our troops with guns.

And many of them ALSO are homcide bombers.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Fuck, even Bush said he wouldn't want to be occupied.

There's a stupid level of rhetoric here about 'subhuman monkies'. Sure, the beheaders and the suicide bombers and the ones who target civilians could easily be referred to taht way, but what would you do if your country was invaded, and some of your family was killed? That doesn't mean I want them to win. I wish the stupid-ass war hadn't been started in the first place, and I hope our guys win there, because the overall outcome could end up being good, and they're our guys.

 

But would you go around killing everything that moves? I bet the guys in Iraq have killed more Iraqis than American soldiers through their actions. Doesn't really make you look good when you indiscriminately kill whoever just because.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I'm not too fond of this particular war, but I'm very fond of our soldiers and, generally, how they do the job that our government gives them.

 

I see, you are not fond of the policy that they are carrying out....but you are fond of how they carry out the policy...

 

You need to examine your thinking on this.

No, I really don't. It's not that complicated. I admire what our soldiers do and the good job they do at it. The administration chooses a policy. I'm an individual who doesn't get to vote on issues of war or national foreign policy, and it would make no sense for me to deny the reality of the decision they make. So I hope it works out as well as it can, and that as many soldiers as possible come back alive. Whether I agree with the declared policy or not, they're over there with guns ostensibly fighting for my interest; far be it from me to tell them that they don't deserve my respect, or that I wish for the nation's declared policy to fail at their expense.

 

If you don't buy that, fine, but I think it's an awfully easy outlook to grasp.

[Highland 0]

The top picture doesn't tell me anything, but is that a dead insurgent or Marine at the bottom picture?

I could pile on, but instead I'll be more than happy to forgive you. After all, it's not like you saw these images anywhere on Big Media...

Actually, I didn't look closely enough at the top picture, I can't believe I missed that...

[Special K 0]

I'd be pissed --- I wouldn't grab people at random and start lopping off heads.

 

But that's just me.

 

I'd join a military and fight back. I'd make it a point to NOT target innocent civilans, though.

 

Again, that's just me.

Read what I posted, Mike. 36 people have been beheaded in Iraq. That's obviously 36 too fucking many, but how many people were responsible for those beheadings? Not everyone. And the people in this particular case WERE targetting our military. I agree with you that if you target civilians, you are worthless shit. But not everyone with a gun in Iraq is targetting civilians.

 

War is hell. And the type of the war many are making is Iraq is against all civilized custom. However, just because many Iraqis use these tactics does not make every Iraqi with a grudge subhuman. Moreover, who knows how many Iraqis who are fighting were terrorists before the war started? We'll never know, but I'm sure it's not the majority.

[Special K 0]

And yes, you can hate the war and love our soldiers. I have friends in the military. One hates the war, two believe in what they're doing. Just because I think Bush pushed us into war far to quickly because he had a hardon for Iraq, doesn't mean I can't love the men and women who put their life on the line for us, because that's who they're fighting for, not the administration.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'd be pissed --- I wouldn't grab people at random and start lopping off heads.

 

But that's just me.

 

I'd join a military and fight back. I'd make it a point to NOT target innocent civilans, though.

 

Again, that's just me.

Read what I posted, Mike. 36 people have been beheaded in Iraq. That's obviously 36 too fucking many, but how many people were responsible for those beheadings? Not everyone.

 

The LEADER of the "insurgency" is one.

And the people in this particular case WERE targetting our military. I agree with you that if you target civilians, you are worthless shit. But not everyone with a gun in Iraq is targetting civilians.

And they aren't all monkeys. Some are just outside morons who also warrant death --- as they have no problem with the practices.

War is hell. And the type of the war many are making is Iraq is against all civilized custom. However, just because many Iraqis use these tactics does not make every Iraqi with a grudge subhuman. Moreover, who knows how many Iraqis who are fighting were terrorists before the war started? We'll never know, but I'm sure it's not the majority.

Which is irrelevant, since Iraqis are a minority in the insurgency.

-=Mike

[Special K 0]

I agree, except for the 'warrant death' comment.

[cbacon 0]

1: Cerberus: Give yourself a pat on the back for being the leading guru on the Geneva Convention and other military legalities. If you step down from your high horse for a second, you'd realize that various war crimes have been committed during this invasion/occupation, which was the point I was trying to make . And thank you, I will continue to read articles from Common Dreams and other progressive sites, since they relay stories that might otherwise be ignored by the 'big media' and often depict a realistic picture of what is going on the world. Chomsky, although controversial also exemplifies these truths that escape the media, and does so through extensively with footnotes and resources in all of his works. I would however, like to hear your conservative spin on Iraq's past, be sure to include the part where the US supported Saddam during his rise to power (which mainstram media typically ignores) and how they were still supporting him as the injustices the Iraqi people suffered, which ironically they are saving them from now.

 

2. Powerplay: Yes, women in Iraq basically had to vote for Saddam, but the point of that statement was in relation to how women's rights are worse in other US supported dictatorships. Mike's point about such support being reasonable is very weak, and dosen't validate the hypocrisy involved here. The initial reason for this war was WMD and regieme change. Only the latter can be considered a reasonable excuse since there were no WMD. So to save face, we have the notion of bringing 'democracy' to a country that the US essentially helped to oppress in yesteryears and all of a sudden the US cares about them? But the people of Saudi Arabia and Egypt amongst others, are of lesser concern? Because the US still supports their regiemes? The 'threat of terror' is all to convenient of an excuse. Which leads to...

 

3. Mike: The sanctions placed led to a dependency on Saddam. Money was not flowing into the country as well as it could be, so they were essentially forced to cooperate with the Ba'ath government. Had the US supported the Shiite uprising, he would have been gone. And why not? It's not like the US hasn't overthrown enough democratically elected leaders they didn't like in the past, so why not Saddam? Instead, they sat back and refused to supporrt the uprising and tens of thousands died as a result, and torture rooms, rapes and other horrible atrocities became even more the norm.

[Justice 0]

2. Powerplay: Yes, women in Iraq basically had to vote for Saddam, but the point of that statement was in relation to how women's rights are worse in other US supported dictatorships.

No, you see, when there is no choice in who you are voting for, there is no voting rights. It a sham, and you trying to pass this off as a valid point is weaker than anything Mike is pulling right now. His point that while they had voting rights, they still were the target of vicious attacks from the Saddam regieme basically shows it's all a sham. Seriously.

 

The initial reason for this war was WMD and regieme change. Only the latter can be considered a reasonable excuse since there were no WMD. So to save face, we have the notion of bringing 'democracy' to a country that we essentially helped to oppress in yesteryears and all of a sudden the US cares about them?

 

You are a rock. Seriously, you just don't comprehend the idea of multiple reasons for going into a country. I gave a long rant in another thread (Which, for all intents and purposes, you ignored to spout off more tired, irrelevant talking points) about the full reason of why we chose Iraq. That contains WMDs, Humanitarian reasons, the Regieme change, and many others.

 

We helped oppress? Are you kidding me? Get past the one time we helped them out and give us something substantial here: where is the US's continued support of Saddam? We have nothing on most European nations when it comes to supporting, arming, and funding Saddam. It's inane to try and compare our meager support to theirs.

 

But the people of Saudi Arabia and Egypt amongst others, are of lesser concern? Because the US still supports their regiemes? The 'threat of terror' is all to convenient of an excuse.

 

Fuck, let's just invade them all, right?

 

First off, give me your solution to the region. You refuse to because you lack one and I'm going to continue to call you out on this. If you don't have a solution, I don't see how you can criticize what I've been saying.

 

Secondly, give us time. Changing the face of a region takes a lot of time. You still don't seem to understand that changing Saudi Arabia through invasion would actually cause the outrage you seem to think is happening all over the world.

 

Thirdly, gotta love the hypocracy. We should continue to invade other countries besides Iraq, even though you certainly wouldn't support it? Asking us why we haven't invaded other countries yet is not a defense because you wouldn't invade them either. It's a sad talking point. Explain to me this: Why not Iraq? It's the safest of the three, has the worst leader of the three, and is perhaps the best foothold that the US can get into the region. Explain to me why we should consider the other 2 over Iraq?

 

Which leads to...

 

Another irrelevant point?

 

3. Mike: The sanctions placed led to a dependency on Saddam. Money was not flowing into the country as well as it could be, so they were essentially forced to cooperate with the Ba'ath government. Had the UN supported the Shiite uprising, he would have been gone.

 

Changed for Accuracy. The UN and Powell didn't want to support the Shiites, not Bush Sr. Seriously, you were talking before about the Shiites rising up against Saddam in a few years. Why did they need US support then, when they were stronger and Saddam's military was in shambles? Or was that you talking out of your ass there?

 

And why not? It's not like the US hasn't overthrown enough democratically elected leaders they didn't like in the past, so why not Saddam?

 

Yeah, Saddam, that excellent 'democratically-elected' leader. Then again, many of the Democratically elected leaders were, well, communist, and if Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, and Ho Chi Minh were any indication on how communist leaders turn their country around, that's something we REALLY wanted to keep around. Not say that some of them didn't turn out well, but then again they are nothing compared to any of the communist regiemes above. Like to ignore that though, don't you?

 

Instead, they sat back and refused to supporrt the uprising and tens of thousands died as a result, and torture rooms, rapes and other horrible atrocities became even more the norm.

 

Tyrants like Ceausescu, Marcos and Chun Doo-Hwan were ousted without invasion. Saddam’s reign has been terribly shaky the past few years anyway. Unless the population is given the opportunity to overthrow a brutal tyrant as they did with other members of the US Dictatorship Fan club, there is no justification to resort to outside force to do so

 

Wow, isn't that you suggesting we stay out of it? Hypocrit. The US, along with that PNAC that you demonize so often, were teh ones who wanted to go in and stop this stuff. You are the one who wanted to sit back and let the UN handle it. The UN didn't want to back the Shiite uprising. Where is your scorn on that one? Then you go out and suggest that the Shiites can now defeat Saddam on their own when they couldn't when he was at his weakest...

 

You are the hypocrit, not us.

[Special K 0]

On the last post: while they may have been multiple reasons for going to war, were they expressed to the U.S. people, or congress? I payed careful attention during the ramp up to the war and ALL I heard about were WMDs and Al-Qaeda. Maybe they retroactively went back and found some good reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that the reasons they expressed for wanting to go to war were those two.

[Justice 0]

On the last post: while they may have been multiple reasons for going to war, were they expressed to the U.S. people, or congress? I payed careful attention during the ramp up to the war and ALL I heard about were WMDs and Al-Qaeda. Maybe they retroactively went back and found some good reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that the reasons they expressed for wanting to go to war were those two.

No, the WMD reason was the one expounded so much because the humanitarian ones have been ignored for a while. If the UN would have let us, I'm sure we would have went in long before 2003 for humanitarian reasons. We used WMDs because that was the one we thought we could get the UN supporting. We didn't figure out other reasons: They've been there since the first Gulf War and we've known them for a while. They've only been laughed at by the world community.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I payed careful attention during the ramp up to the war and ALL I heard about were WMDs and Al-Qaeda.

 

I agree that the links to Al-Qaeda were tenuous and that the Bush rhetoric on this subject was misleading.

 

But, from what I have read, we genuinely believed, based on intelligence, that Iraq had WMD. We haven't found any. But do you think that this renders the WMD justification of the war errant? I think that because we truly thought there were WMDs the justification is valid.

[Special K 0]

Hey, the president's more accountable by us than the UN. I didn't hear any press conferences to the people expounding on this point.

[Guest Cerebus]

Give yourself a pat on the back for being the leading guru on the Geneva Convention and other military legalities.

 

I never pretended to be a "guru." I don't know much about the Geneva Convention or military law. However, I know more than you do and I'm still not willing to claim "war crime" on anything. The fact that you do shows what you really are. A dumb ass. (No, not a leftist, that would be an insult to NoCal, Tyler, Jobber, and the other intelligent members of our board who are to the left)

 

If you step down from your high horse for a second, you'd realize that various war crimes have been committed during this invasion/occupation, which was the point I was trying to make .

 

See above.

 

And thank you, I will continue to read articles from Common Dreams and other progressive sites, since they relay stories that might otherwise be ignored by the 'big media' and often depict a realistic picture of what is going on the world.

 

If by "realistic" you mean an incredibly skewed to one side view. So go ahead, continue to get all your news from a leftist website. You're no better than people who watch nothing but Fox News but probably even less interesting to listen to.

 

Chomsky, although controversial also exemplifies these truths that escape the media, and does so through extensively with footnotes and resources in all of his works.

 

Chomsky is a linguist. Few political scientists consider his works anything more than ranting written by someone who has little to no formal training politics. Which, in truth, he is. I wouldn't pretend to know anything about linguists, why does he pretend to know jack shit about politics? The fact that you're willing to lick his ass just shows you're willing to bend over for anyone who dislikes Bush, damn whether or not he's coherent, intelligent, or knows what the hell they're talking about

 

He represents nothing beyond morons who most likely spent all of 9/11/01 masturbating and salivating at the thought of America getting comuppence.

 

I would however, like to hear your conservative spin on Iraq's past, be sure to include the part where the US supported Saddam during his rise to power (which mainstram media typically ignores) and how they were still supporting him as the injustices the Iraqi people suffered, which ironically they are saving them from now.

 

You mean the Saddam that you praised for protecting women's rights and democracy? You're a fucking joke.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

If the UN would have let us, I'm sure we would have went in long before 2003 for humanitarian reasons.

I think that's a bit naive. We would never have launched a campaign of this scale for strictly humanitarian reasons.