Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070925/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_snipers)WASHINGTON) - Army snipers hunting insurgents in Iraq were under orders to "bait" their targets with suspicious materials, such as detonation cords, and then kill whoever picked up the items, according to the defense attorney for a soldier accused of planting evidence on an Iraqi he killed. Gary Myers, an attorney for Sgt. Evan Vela, said Monday his client had acted "pursuant to orders." Oh geez...

Only 16 months until the next president takes office.

I object. There is no proof.

So, who's accusing the guy of actually planting evidence? The "enemy"? Tim Mcgirk? The big problem here appears to be that the military is operating under orders that put the men at risk, b/c as soon as things like this "hit the papers", the immediate political impulse appears to be to throw soldiers under the bus. :carms:

He CLAIMS that the military ordered him to set bait. He could be lying.

At first blush it looks like something truly immoral. However, we're never going to know the whole story because of the 'classified Ranger tactics' thing, so it's going to be incredibly difficult to make a really informed decision on this. This is just a really odd story, too, in terms of what's happening over in Iraq with these snipers.

And the problem with baiting targets after detonation codes into a trap is what, exactly?

And the problem with baiting targets after detonation codes into a trap is what, exactly?

Mohamed is walking home from work and sees something strange lying the street. Mohamed is curious and pics it up, and end up as "collateral damage".

Yes, I'm exagarating, but that is the problem with it

Well, I guess as long as Mohamed isn't like 3 years old or something....(yeah, they can tell that much with their scopes and spotters).

Well, I guess as long as Mohamed isn't like 3 years old or something....(yeah, they can tell that much with their scopes and spotters).

So it's okay to kill an innocent person as long as he is not a child?

First off Sergeant Evan Vela credibility isn’t the greatest since he charged with planting weapons on an Iraqi that he killed. Still with the information coming from more than one source (not just the three accused in this case) I believe it is feasible that such a program exist. I agree with Jae's line. However, we're never going to know the whole story because of the 'classified Ranger tactics' thing, so it's going to be incredibly difficult to make a really informed decision on this.Since we don’t know all the facts relevant to this case such as location and exact wording of orders, I cannot personally make a informed decision to either condemn or applauded this tactic.

This is a different kind of war; the enemy does not obey any rules of engagement. I would like to believe the American military is above stooping to such under handed tactics and are doing everything possible to protect themselves and the civilian population. If they are indeed under orders to kill anyone that picks up “suspicious materials” then it is indeed time for new leadership and to bring our soldiers home, because our current leadership has given up trying to get the Iraqi populations support.

Personally I doubt very much this is going on at all. However if it is I would find such actions deplorable, it's no better IMO than booby traping dead bodies.

@ Corinthian you have a good point there is no proof beside one Captain's unsubstantiated word that this is a tactic used by the army.

There is no proof of this really. As immoral as it seems, we are not there and do not know what our soldiers have to face on a day to day basis. Therefore as inhuman as this tactic may seem it may actually be a very effective means on drawing out the enemy without a risk to too many of our soldiers lives. With all the bull**** in Iraq and Afganistan going on at the minute with blue on blue attacks, sudden enemy strikes and an uncertainty of life or death would mean that commanders would be willing to try anything to complete an objective or more importantly, to stay alive. My point being here people is that we shouldn't judge our forces too harshly with morals that basically will not exist in a warzone, it's war and casualties on both sides will occur.

This is a different kind of war; the enemy does not obey any rules of engagement. We've heard this before, no? Not really "different" then, is it?

guerrilla: a person who engages in irregular warfare especially as a member of an independent unit carrying out harassment and sabotage.

Examples:
American Revolutionary War
American Civil War
Vietnam War
Iraq

I would like to believe the American military is above stooping to such under handed tactics and are doing everything possible to protect themselves and the civilian population. Me too, but I suspect that we both know better. This is the same problem we faced in Vietnam: when the civilians look like insurgents and vice versa, how do you know who to kill and who to protect?

We have women in burkas suicide bombing shopping bazaars. How many of those do you live through before all women and burkas start to register as enemies?

If they are indeed under orders to kill anyone that picks up “suspicious materials” then it is indeed time for new leadership and to bring our soldiers home, because our current leadership has given up trying to get the Iraqi populations support.I'm not convinced we ever started. It seems our priorities center around the Iraqi oil ministry and the 14 permanent military bases that we're building there. At no point did we attempt to stop any of the looting that took place (even when what was being looted was weapon depots). Iraqis are still without electricity for 20+ hours per day (highs above 110 in the summer and lows around 40 in the winter). We go into cities that have insurgents and destroy homes and infrastructure. Unemployment is estimated between 18-40%.

$2 billion dollars per day for what? Guns or butter?

We've heard this before, no? Not really "different" then, is it?
guerrilla: a person who engages in irregular warfare especially as a member of an independent unit carrying out harassment and sabotage. Very true, but forgive me for not being clear in my earlier response. I was speaking more to an enemy and war that would go out of its way to inflict damage to its own people. I understand many would say these are insurgent fighters and from a different culture, but the idea of United States slaughtering thousands of Canadians or Mexicans to win a war against al-Qaeda just wouldn’t make sense to me.

This is the same problem we faced in Vietnam: when the civilians look like insurgents and vice versa, how do you know who to kill and who to protect?That is why you plan out and look at as many possibilities and contingencies as possible before entering into this type of war. You can say a lot of things about George H Bush, but at least he knew the occupation of Iraq was a bad idea.

$2 billion dollars per day for what? Guns or butter?Revenge.

Very true, but forgive me for not being clear in my earlier response. I was speaking more to an enemy and war that would go out of its way to inflict damage to its own people. That sounds more like civil war.

I understand many would say these are insurgent fighters and from a different culture, but the idea of United States slaughtering thousands of Canadians or Mexicans to win a war against al-Qaeda just wouldn’t make sense to me. Unless of course we had deep-seeded animosity toward Canadians (who burnt down the first white house) or the Mexicans (who we were at war against about 150 years ago).

Remember that Iraq only exists because of British colonialism. The modern country known as Iraq didn't exist until the 1920s. The ethnic tensions which we are now seeing have roots that go back decades (if not centuries).

The point is that we don't just have one war going on over there.

That is why you plan out and look at as many possibilities and contingencies as possible before entering into this type of war. You can say a lot of things about George H Bush, but at least he knew the occupation of Iraq was a bad idea. You don't get to be Director of the CIA by being a dummy :)

Revenge.Or imperialism.

You don't get to be Director of the CIA by being a dummy.

Same is true for SecDef, but that didn't make Robert Mcnamarra a good one. Book smarts is only part of the equation. Besides, there have always been a lot of "smart" people who get into government, then f-up monumentally. Look at John Deutsch, who even with his pedigree, was apparently more concerned w/downloading porn than much else. Guess his missing files were probably with HRC's Rose law firm files. :D

@mur'phon--that of course assumes that the adults picking it up ARE "innocent".

*wonders if these are the innocents worried about....
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/armed-children-.html)


@Achilles--interesting oversight on the guerilla front. You forgot to add WW2, probably WW1, the campaigns in the Phillipines and central America too (early 20th century). No doubt there are loads more. Intersting thing is that there is no full blown civil war in Iraq along the lines of the one in America. More like if the US govt tried to start suppressing/eradicating gangs in the US (LA has 4x as many gang bangers as police). There'd be a lot of "blue on blue" (ie "Americans" killing Americans) w/o the entire country lapsing into "civil war".

At first blush it looks like something truly immoral. However, we're never going to know the whole story because of the 'classified Ranger tactics' thing, so it's going to be incredibly difficult to make a really informed decision on this. This is just a really odd story, too, in terms of what's happening over in Iraq with these snipers.

Plus, we don't know how exactly the said victim is acting, and the situation of nearby events, like combat actually going on in these blocks and such. Picking up a weird item in the middle of a starbucks is quite different from picking the aid item up on a street filled with ammo shells and burnt vehicles.

I mean, yes the event is sad, but it might just be an unfortunate case of the unfortunate tides of war.

This is a move straight out of the FBI handbook, so given the loose rules of engagement in the armed forces I do not consider this as bad as, say, Abu Ghraib, if of course there is any truth at all to this.

Could you please tell me where I might find this in our FBI handbook? I'd be very interested in what they're teaching in the academy.

Penthouse magazine did an article back in 1995 on Hogan's Alley, the FBI's training grounds. Yes, I know, but you get that living with a bunch of boys. Unfortunately it was destroyed when the plumbing blew but I can tell you about it and try and hunt down the article in question. It tells of it evolving from a shoot\don't shoot gallery to a proper, functional town where FBI agents not only train but run the businesses including the cafe, hotel, fuel depot, ect. One of the cases trainee agents go through is a kidnapping and they leave the ransom money for the kidnapper, then pounce when he goes for it. This actually happened to a jogger who took interest in the money and the trap was reset. When the real deal happened a device was found in the car, a bomb, with the kidnapper's history saying he was an explosives expert. In the real world they would have all died, this and other mistakes are covered later at a debriefing.

First of all, as people have said, there is no proof.

Secondly, if it is true, it did say "insurgents", which basically means enemies. And if they are planting a piece of something in the ground to bait these guys, I don't see anything wrong with it. Its a war, people, geez. Its not like we're the ones who kidnap innocent civilians and cut off their heads in videotapes.

First of all, as people have said, there is no proof. Correct.

Secondly, if it is true, it did say "insurgents", which basically means enemies. And these enemies are wearing uniforms? How do the snipers distinguish between insurgents and curious civilians that have been used to looting for the last 5 years?

And if they are planting a piece of something in the ground to bait these guys, I don't see anything wrong with it. Its a war, people, geez. So anything goes? "War crimes" should be considered PC rhetoric? Geneva Conventions should be ignored when inconvenient?

Its not like we're the ones who kidnap innocent civilians and cut off their heads in videotapes. No, we drop bombs on them. Or abduct them from their homes in the middle of the night and stick them in abu ghraib.

No, we drop bombs on them.

Oh, yea, Achilles. That totally compares to taking people who are KNOWN to be civilians and torturing them and killing them brutally. Yea.

Oh, its not like they didn't bomb the World Trade Centers and kill thousands of other innocent Americans either.

Not trying to be overly sarcastic here, but I can't believe you just said that. In fact, could you possible provide proof of the abduction thing? Just wondering.... or is that just the propaganda that the Media spreads on a day-to-day basis.

Or abduct them from their homes in the middle of the night and stick them in abu ghraib.

Oh yes, Abu Ghraib, the famed tropical resor- I mean jail.

So anything goes? "War crimes" should be considered PC rhetoric? Geneva Conventions should be ignored when inconvenient?

You're defending people who don't give a rats ass about the Geneva Convention. They use it against us. We can't kill Mohammed because he might be a civilian and not dressed in uniform, even though he's just toting his car-bombs up the next hill.

You know what most soldiers in Iraq think about this kind of argument you make? Why don't you go read Lone Survivor, it's a great book. And it shows just how evil and crafty these guys are and how they use these "rules" against us everyday, all by a guy who was there.

And these enemies are wearing uniforms? How do the snipers distinguish between insurgents and curious civilians that have been used to looting for the last 5 years?

Were the people in the Trade Centers wearing uniforms? No. I get so hot when I hear people say stuff like this, because it seems like no one cares what happened on 9/11 anymore. No, everyone goes ballistic when we "violate" Iraqi insurgent's rights.

To be fair, I see Achilles points. We're Americans, not Barbarians. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. Be that as it may, as I have stated before, THERE IS NO PROOF.

Oh, yea, Achilles. That totally compares to taking people who are KNOWN to be civilians and torturing them and killing them brutally. Yea. I'm not sure how one condones collateral damage while snubbing torture.

Oh, its not like they didn't bomb the World Trade Centers and kill thousands of other innocent Americans either. The innocent iraqi civilians suffering at american hands or the alleged 19 hijackers that died when their planes crashed? Last time I checked, the official story was the attacks that took place on September 11th were carried out by al qaeda terrorists, not Iraqi women and children. By the way most of the hijackers are believed to have been Saudi Arabians. Odd that we're not at war there, huh?

Not trying to be overly sarcastic here, but I can't believe you just said that. Because it's not true or...?

In fact, could you possible provide proof of the abduction thing? Just wondering.... or is that just the propaganda that the Media spreads on a day-to-day basis. Yes, I could. Go check your local movie listings for the documentary No End in Sight, buy a ticket, and go watch it. If you aren't persuaded, let me know and I'll refund the cost of your ticket (you're on your own for popcorn).

Oh yes, Abu Ghraib, the famed tropical resor- I mean jail. Oh good. You've heard of it.

You're defending people who don't give a rats ass about the Geneva Convention. I'm not sure how what they do or do not "give a rats ass" about is relevant. How does what they care about condone our conduct? How do we maintain credibility if we cast aside Geneva Conventions (which we've already done, btw)?

They use it against us. We can't kill Mohammed because he might be a civilian and not dressed in uniform, even though he's just toting his car-bombs up the next hill. So kill them all without regard for whose a civilian and whose actually an insurgent? And what do you think that will do for our troops psychologically when they come home to face their own wives and children? Or do you not care?

You know what most soldiers in Iraq think about this kind of argument you make? Why don't you go read Lone Survivor, it's a great book. And it shows just how evil and crafty these guys are and how they use these "rules" against us everyday, all by a guy who was there. Relevance? According to the blurb on Amazon.com, the author was stationed in Afghanistan.

Were the people in the Trade Centers wearing uniforms? No. I get so hot when I hear people say stuff like this, because it seems like no one cares what happened on 9/11 anymore. No, everyone goes ballistic when we "violate" Iraqi insurgent's rights. I'm afraid that this doesn't answer my question.

And for the record, how I feel about the deaths in September 11th have nothing to do with it.

I'm not sure how one condones collateral damage while snubbing torture.

I'm not. I'm wondering how you can be outraged at one and ok with the other.

Especially since we were bombing military targets. Now we aren't perfect, and civilians will die. It always happens in war.

Now I know what you're going to say: "You don't care about civilians dying, as long as it suits your purpose." No, I do care. But some things just happen, and no matter what you do, short of not going to war no matter what, it will happen.

The innocent iraqi civilians suffering at american hands or the alleged 19 hijackers that died when their planes crashed? Last time I checked, the official story was the attacks that took place on September 11th were carried out by al qaeda terrorists, not Iraqi women and children. By the way most of the hijackers are believed to have been Saudi Arabians. Odd that we're not at war there, huh?

Where have you been? Did you have some mistaken idea that those 19 guys were the only terrorists? This is not a war between countries, this is a war between the US and a group of terrorists across the world, most of which have been stationed, trained, and supported in that area. Have you not heard of all the terrorist training camps they have found in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or that Saddam was supporting it all?

Oh, and stop with all the Iraqi women and children crap. Give me a case of where American soldiers indiscriminately slaughtered women and children. And stop making our soldiers out to be criminals, like all the people in the Media do all day. (yes I am harping on the Media, because they spread this crap all the time)

Yes, I could. Go check your local movie listings for the documentary No End in Sight, buy a ticket, and go watch it. If you aren't persuaded, let me know and I'll refund the cost of your ticket (you're on your own for popcorn).

Oh yea, that movie documentary. *That* has all the facts in it.

Go read this (http://www.nypost.com/seven/07272007/entertainment/movies/end_cant_justify_scenes_movies_kyle_smith.htm). All these documentary movies are pretty much the same, by the way. Could you back up most the claims made in No End in Sight? Or make me feel that they aren't just hunting up little tidbits to justify Bush-hating?

Oh good. You've heard of it.

Yeah. Quite the pleasure resort.

I'm not sure how what they do or do not "give a rats ass" about is relevant. How does what they care about condone our conduct? How do we maintain credibility if we cast aside Geneva Conventions (which we've already done, btw)?

I agree. But it should be shrunk down to size, not this huge issue that people have made it into. Or at least people shouldn't start screaming about it when it comes to these terrorists who violate it all the time. We should give it to them, but not when it endangers American lives.

So kill them all without regard for whose a civilian and whose actually an insurgent? And what do you think that will do for our troops psychologically when they come home to face their own wives and children? Or do you not care?

That's not what I said.... You're putting words in my mouth, making me out to have no regard for civilian lives.

Psychologically? What? What are you talking about? Your way, they would come back in a box, because good old Abdul would now still be at large and churning out bombs. I'm not saying they shouldn't exercise caution. But first off all, this is not proven at all, and anyways, it says "insurgents", as I said. Hopefully known insurgents, of course, but all should be regarded as equally a threat. They are who we are fighting right now, dude. We're not talking about just some American sniper practice here, come on. They're targeting *insurgents*. If they are insurgents, they are no longer civilians.

Relevance? According to the blurb on Amazon.com, the author was stationed in Afghanistan.

The story in the book takes place there, yes. But its the same guys. As I said, we aren't fighting a country, we are fighting a group of terrorists that have roots in many areas.

I'm afraid that this doesn't answer my question.

And for the record, how I feel about the deaths in September 11th have nothing to do with it.

It has very much to do with it. This same group are killing our troops. And if you don't feel that 9/11 was all that terrible, then obviously you would find some random unproven "abuses" of Iraqi civilian's (no, actually insurgents) "rights" very important. I don't. Those civilians, yes, they do have rights, and I would uphold them. But the Geneva Convention applies to armies that have uniforms and a nationality, and they don't. They're a group of evil terrorists.

Actually, the Geneva Conventions are a lot broader than that.

Achilles, you still have yet to address that this guy could just be lying. Is there any evidence that anyone else has been planting bait?

I'm not. That would appear to be your earlier argument.

I'm wondering how you can be outraged at one and ok with the other. I'm not ok with either and I'm not sure how you got the impression that I was.

Especially since we were bombing military targets. Now we aren't perfect, and civilians will die. It always happens in war. Fine. But that doesn't tell me how collateral damage is ok but torture is not.

Now I know what you're going to say: "You don't care about civilians dying, as long as it suits your purpose." No, I do care. But some things just happen, and no matter what you do, short of not going to war no matter what, it will happen. If you guess wrong, do I get a cookie?

Where have you been? Did you have some mistaken idea that those 19 guys were the only terrorists? Nope not at all. But most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and the al qaeda is based out of Afghanistan. So what are we doing in Iraq? And why aren't we at war in Saudi Arabia (hint: they're our allies, just like Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden once were)?

This is not a war between countries, this is a war between the US and a group of terrorists across the world, most of which have been stationed, trained, and supported in that area. Fascinating. Then why are we in Afghanistan? I thought that's where the al qaeda training camps were.

Have you not heard of all the terrorist training camps they have found in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or that Saddam was supporting it all? No, I'm afraid I haven't heard that regarding Iraq or Saddam. Perhaps you'd like to educate me.

Oh, and stop with all the Iraqi women and children crap. Give me a case of where American soldiers indiscriminately slaughtered women and children. 100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html)The) analysis, an extrapolation based on a relatively small number of documented deaths, indicated that many of the excess deaths have occurred due to aerial attacks by coalition forces, with women and children being frequent victims, wrote the international team of public health researchers making the calculations.

And stop making our soldiers out to be criminals, like all the people in the Media do all day. (yes I am harping on the Media, because they spread this crap all the time) I'm not criminalizing them at all. They're just trying to survive. The sooner we bring them home, the better.

What I'm also not doing is pretending that none of this is really happening.

Oh yea, that movie documentary. *That* has all the facts in it. The offer still stands. Take your parents. I'll cover their tickets too.

PS: Actual footage of events doesn't lie.

Go read this (http://www.nypost.com/seven/07272007/entertainment/movies/end_cant_justify_scenes_movies_kyle_smith.htm). All these documentary movies are pretty much the same, by the way. Could you back up most the claims made in No End in Sight? Or make me feel that they aren't just hunting up little tidbits to justify Bush-hating? Well, I'm sorry to hear that Kyle Smith didn't care for the film. I'm not sure what his opinion of the film has to do with anything.

I agree. But it should be shrunk down to size, not this huge issue that people have made it into. Or at least people shouldn't start screaming about it when it comes to these terrorists who violate it all the time. We should give it to them, but not when it endangers American lives. We can either exemplify that we deserve to be the world's sole superpower or we do not. Not sure how violating and/or ignoring international treaties accomplished the former.

That's not what I said.... You're putting words in my mouth, making me out to have no regard for civilian lives. It was a question, sir (technically, more than one). You're free to answer however you'd like. Careful that you don't contradict yourself though.

Psychologically? What? What are you talking about? Your way, they would come back in a box, because good old Abdul would now still be at large and churning out bombs. Nope, my way they would come home before "Abdul" had an opportunity to "put them in a box". I hope that I was adequately able to reciprocate your articulate use of metaphor and pejoratives with that last part.

I'm not saying they shouldn't exercise caution. But first off all, this is not proven at all, and anyways, it says "insurgents", as I said. Hopefully known insurgents, of course, but all should be regarded as equally a threat. They are who we are fighting right now, dude. We're not talking about just some American sniper practice here, come on. They're targeting *insurgents*. If they are insurgents, they are no longer civilians. Which brings me back to my earlier question:

And these enemies are wearing uniforms? How do the snipers distinguish between insurgents and curious civilians that have been used to looting for the last 5 years?

The story in the book takes place there, yes. But its the same guys. As I said, we aren't fighting a country, we are fighting a group of terrorists that have roots in many areas. Still not sure how that's relevant.

It has very much to do with it. This same group are killing our troops. Yes, al qaeda are fighting against our troops. Iraqi insurgents are also fighting against our troops. September 11th has nothing to do with Iraqi insurgents outside of our using it as a pretense for invading Iraq. So, as I stated earlier, my feelings regarding the attacks of September 11th have nothing to do with it.

I'd feel much safer if we were spending $2 billion dollars per day making our country safer rather than inspiring millions of middle easterns to hate americans while our soldiers die.

And if you don't feel that 9/11 was all that terrible, then obviously you would find some random unproven "abuses" of Iraqi civilian's (no, actually insurgents) "rights" very important. Not sure I follow.

I don't. Those civilians, yes, they do have rights, and I would uphold them. But the Geneva Convention applies to armies that have uniforms and a nationality, and they don't. They're a group of evil terrorists.Here's some info on the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention) for your perusal. I hope you find it educational.

Achilles, you still have yet to address that this guy could just be lying. I acknowledged that there is no proof (to the best of our knowledge) in post #22.

Is there any evidence that anyone else has been planting bait?Not to the best of my knowledge.

Precisely. It's just his word. So until you get some corroborating evidence, would you kindly can the definitive statements about how sadistic and evil our military commanders are.

Precisely. It's just his word. So until you get some corroborating evidence, would you kindly can the definitive statements about how sadistic and evil our military commanders are. Funny, I don't recall saying anything to that effect. Not that this specific case has much, if anything, to do with a majority of the arguments that I actually have made in this thread.

"When you're on your own behind enemy lines, no artillery, no airstrikes, no hope of an evac, you don't fight dirty. You do things that make dirty look good." Frank Castle.

How might you act in their place?

Moderator note so I don't have to double post....The staff has received a reported post on the tone used in some of the recent posts. Keep it civil, please.

Penthouse magazine did an article back in 1995 on Hogan's Alley, the FBI's training grounds....I can tell you about it and try and hunt down the article in question. Please don't send/link me a Penthouse article.... There must be some better documentation on that than a porn magazine.

Please don't send/link me a Penthouse article.... There must be some better documentation on that than a porn magazine. *Indignant*
Hey! Penthouse has some very good articles. Errmmm....*slinks away*
:D

Penthouse has articles?!

Naw.....I think they're confusing them with advertisements.....you know, pictures with words on them. ;)

Yep, sorry, my bad, I only mentioned where it came from so there was a legitimate source.

On the topic it could be considered entrapment.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070929/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq)BAGHDAD) - A military panel on Saturday sentenced an Army sniper to five months in prison, a reduction in rank and forfeiture of pay for planting evidence in connection with the deaths of two Iraqi civilians.

<snip>

Spc. Jorge G. Sandoval, 22, was acquitted of murder charges in the April and May deaths of two unidentified men. The panel decided he was guilty of a lesser charges of placing detonation wire on one of the bodies to make it look as if the man was an insurgent.

<snip>

Asked about the existence of the "baiting program," Capt. Craig Drummond, Sandoval's military defense attorney, said it was unclear "what programs were going on out there and when," especially "if there were things that were done that made the rules of engagement not clear."

*imagines the number of possible civilian deaths that most likely resulted from burning Japanese out of caves on Okinawa, wonders where all the slimy lawyers were back then, and shrugs.

note: Civilians are often unfortunate caualties of war. Until someone can demonstrate that the purpose of this "exercise" is to SPECIFICALLY and EXCLUSIVELY target "innocent civilians", I can't get excited. Seems the self styled opponents of "Bush's war" are more concerned with global opinion of America than with the actuality of the deaths themselves. Evidenced by the somewhat callous dimissal of deaths "over there" as inevitable due to sectarian strife and age old hatreds. I guess the killing is no big deal, so long as our hands aren't bloodied by it. *shrugs again.

Regarding Geneva conventions...We can either exemplify that we deserve to be the world's sole superpower or we do not. Not sure how violating and/or ignoring international treaties accomplished the former.
QFT.

Being the world's "sole superpower" is not a question of deserving in the eyes of the world as much as in actual ability to be it at all. If I can beat up everyone in the playground (whether as an act of offense OR defense), then I'm effectively the "sole superpower" in that setting. Now, to the degree our behavior has the ability to influence others for good or bad.....if we wish to have influence beyond our mere physical might, that's a different matter.

That would appear to be your earlier argument.

It was a comparison, if that was what you are referring to. I was not saying killing civilians was a good thing.

I'm not ok with either and I'm not sure how you got the impression that I was.

And yet, you have said nothing about the atrocities committed by these terrorists.

Fine. But that doesn't tell me how collateral damage is ok but torture is not.

First of all.... did I ever say that? No.

Secondly.... collateral damage is usually accidental - if a target needs to be taken out, then it should. We don't purposely go and say, oh, lets drop some bombs on them and just hope we don't kill any civilians. Whereas the other is quite intentional.

snipped


Nope not at all. But most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and the al qaeda is based out of Afghanistan. So what are we doing in Iraq? And why aren't we at war in Saudi Arabia (hint: they're our allies, just like Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden once were)?
Since when was Osama our ally?

As for Iraq, I don't know.... Maybe you might want to uh, go do some research on that. We went into Iraq because there was evidence that Saddam was arming with nuclear weapons or other types of military power - and he hadn't responded to our warnings to stop for about 12 years. He also aided many of the terrorists that planned 9/11...

Fascinating. Then why are we in Afghanistan? I thought that's where the al qaeda training camps were.

We went into Afghanistan.....

?

No, I'm afraid I haven't heard that regarding Iraq or Saddam. Perhaps you'd like to educate me.

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.

The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."

The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that "al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors."

One such confirmation came in a postwar interview with one of Saddam Hussein's henchmen. As the memo details:

4. According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.

Consider yourself educated.

100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq

The analysis, an extrapolation based on a relatively small number of documented deaths, indicated that many of the excess deaths have occurred due to aerial attacks by coalition forces, with women and children being frequent victims, wrote the international team of public health researchers making the calculations.

"....extrapolation based on a relatively small number of documented deaths...."
snipped
"Merriam-Webster",
extrapolate: to use known facts as the starting point from which to draw inferences or draw conclusions about something unknown

So.... rewrite as: make a guess about the unknown from some known information, based on a relatively small amount of documented deaths.

I won't say that these people could be largely biased against the war, even though its a possibility. Come on..... "we don't have very many known deaths, but just on our estimate, we say 100,000" .... lol, it's almost funny in a sad way.

I'm not criminalizing them at all. They're just trying to survive. The sooner we bring them home, the better.

Yes, that is why you are making this claim of our soldiers "baiting" innocent Iraqis. snipped

What I'm also not doing is pretending that none of this is really happening.

What?

PS: Actual footage of events doesn't lie.
snipped

Actual footage may not lie. But (there is)....context.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that Kyle Smith didn't care for the film. I'm not sure what his opinion of the film has to do with anything.

I'm sorry to hear that you don't want us in Iraq.

We can either exemplify that we deserve to be the world's sole superpower or we do not. Not sure how violating and/or ignoring international treaties accomplished the former.

snipped Because we should always have to earn our right to be a superpower. We didn't just get there by ourselves.

BTW, did you ever realize that if you are referring to things the U.N. has passed by "international treaties" - we started the U.N.?

snipped

Nope, my way they would come home before "Abdul" had an opportunity to "put them in a box". snipped

No, they would come home and then get put in a box because "Abdul" would be masterminding more airplane attacks on prominent American cities.

And these enemies are wearing uniforms? How do the snipers distinguish between insurgents and curious civilians that have been used to looting for the last 5 years?

Tell me how that is our problem. If these insurgents are too cowardly to put on a uniform, then they are putting their own people at risk, because those soldiers, as you said, are trying to survive. They're not going to wait for them to get shot at first.

I'd feel much safer if we were spending $2 billion dollars per day making our country safer rather than inspiring millions of middle easterns to hate americans while our soldiers die.

Middle easterns have hated americans for years before we went in there. That's why they attacked on 9/11 and killed thousands of civilians.

Oh, and what do you think we are doing? Making the world more dangerous by killing these terrorists?

snipped

We've heard this before, no? Not really "different" then, is it?

guerrilla: a person who engages in irregular warfare especially as a member of an independent unit carrying out harassment and sabotage.

Examples:
American Revolutionary War
American Civil War

Huh? Since when was the Civil War a guerilla war?

Oh, and, just a thought Achilles....

Guerillas don't drive up to soldiers in their cars with bombs and blow themselves up, or go to other countries and suicide bomb airports. :xp:

It was a comparison, if that was what you are referring to. I was not saying killing civilians was a good thing. Thanks for clarifying.

And yet, you have said nothing about the atrocities committed by these terrorists. Because that isn't the topic of the thread.

First of all.... did I ever say that? No.Did I say that you did? No.

Secondly.... collateral damage is usually accidental - if a target needs to be taken out, then it should. We don't purposely go and say, oh, lets drop some bombs on them and just hope we don't kill any civilians. Whereas the other is quite intentional. None of this addresses my arguement.

snipped response to deleted comment

WTH? Since when was Osama our ally? Since we provided he and al qaeda with weapons, training, and intelligence in the 1980 while the mujahadeen was fighting Soviets in Afghanistan.

As for Iraq, I don't know.... Maybe you might want to uh, go do some research on that. We went into Iraq because there was evidence that Saddam was arming with nuclear weapons or other types of military power - and he hadn't responded to our warnings to stop for about 12 years. He also aided many of the terrorists that planned 9/11... Really? The WMD's that we still haven't found and Hans Blix told us he couldn't find? How does one respond to warnings to stop doing something that one wasn't doing in the first place?

Some evidence on the 9/11 stuff would be nice, please.

We went into Afghanistan.....

? Right, hence why I'm having difficulty following your argument. Al qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, but we're we're also fighting in Iraq.

Consider yourself educated. The Weekly Standard? The same Weekly Standard founded by Bill Kristol? The same Bill Kristol that founded the Project for a New American Century? The same PNAC that identified Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea as the axis of evil one year before the attacks of September 11th and suggested that "a new Pearl Harbor" would help speed up their agenda?

I'm afraid you'll have to do a little bit better than that source. But hey...thanks for the education.

snipped

So.... rewrite as: make a guess about the unknown from some known information, based on a relatively small amount of documented deaths. Well spun. Good job.

I won't say that these people could be largely biased against the war, even though its a possibility. Come on..... "we don't have very many known deaths, but just on our estimate, we say 100,000" .... lol, it's almost funny in a sad way. Which people? The international team that did the research or the journalistic entity which published the finding? But perhaps your beef is with the practice of extrapolating data based on a statistically significant sample of a population. snipped

snipped response to deleted quote

What? Which part was unclear?

snipped

Actual footage may not lie. snipped
snipped
But hey, maybe you could actually go watch the movie first before you decide that it's all garbage. Who knows.

I'm sorry to hear that you don't want us in Iraq. Not sure what this statement has to do with Kyle Smith's review of the film.

Oh, of course, because we should always have to earn our right to be a superpower. We didn't just get there by ourselves. Remove the sarcasm and I think you'd have the gist of it. Part of being the leader is setting an example and that isn't something you do just one time.

BTW, did you ever realize that if you are referring to things the U.N. has passed by "international treaties" - we started the U.N.? We started pet rocks too. Your point?

snipped

No, they would come home and then get put in a box because "Abdul" would be masterminding more airplane attacks on prominent American cities. And we could be spending $2 billion per day here making sure that didn't happen. You feel safer knowing that al qaeda and the madhi army are killing people over there that are supposed to protect us over here? I don't.

Tell me how that is our problem. If these insurgents are too cowardly to put on a uniform, then they are putting their own people at risk, because those soldiers, as you said, are trying to survive. They're not going to wait for them to get shot at first. Its our problem because there is a moral price to be paid. And while you and I might be paying pennies on the dollar, those men and women over there are taking the brunt of it.

And, btw, it's not cowardice, it's smarts and necessity.

snipped

???
snipped Middle easterns have hated americans for years before we went in there. That's why they attacked on 9/11 and killed thousands of civilians. Indeed because they are upset with americans trifling in their holy land. Since we haven't stopped, I suspect that we can look forward to more of the same in decades to come.

Oh, and what do you think we are doing? Making the world more dangerous by killing these terrorists? Yep. First, they don't care if they die. In fact, they're hoping that they do because that means a first class ticket to paradise. Second, their sons and brothers probably miss their dads and older brothers and will never forget how the americans killed the breadwinner and left his family in strife. So a decade from now when an impressionable young man with a lot of anger get offered a chance to kill americans and earn a trip to paradise all in one shot, I'm guessing he'll go for it. So yes indeed, we are in fact running a very serious risk of making the world more dangerous by killing these terrorists. Of course this doesn't really account for all the terrorists that we inadvertently create via the same process compliments of collateral damage.

Huh? Since when was the Civil War a guerilla war? Guerrilla tactics were used. Not all of the fighting took place on battle fields.

Oh, and, just a thought Achilles....
Guerillas don't drive up to soldiers in their cars with bombs and blow themselves up, or go to other countries and suicide bomb airports. :xp:Of course they do.

Guerrilla: of, relating to, or suggestive of guerrillas especially in being aggressive, radical, or unconventional

Take care. Thanks for your response.

snipped comments related to deleted material


And we could be spending $2 billion per day here making sure that didn't happen. You feel safer knowing that al qaeda and the madhi army are killing people over there that are supposed to protect us over here? I don't.

Yeah, I'm sure that NG or Army soldier is going to stop the guerrilla that straps a bomb to himself and drives into the late night Wendy's pickup window before blowing himself up. :rolleyes:


And, btw, it's not cowardice, it's smarts and necessity.
snipped


It's actually a little of both, especially if the target is civilian and not military.


Yep. First, they don't care if they die. In fact, they're hoping that they do because that means a first class ticket to paradise. Second, their sons and brothers probably miss their dads and older brothers and will never forget how the americans killed the breadwinner and left his family in strife. So a decade from now when an impressionable young man with a lot of anger get offered a chance to kill americans and earn a trip to paradise all in one shot, I'm guessing he'll go for it. So yes indeed, we are in fact running a very serious risk of making the world more dangerous by killing these terrorists. Of course this doesn't really account for all the terrorists that we inadvertently create via the same process compliments of collateral damage.

Yeah, we should just resign ourselves to the death of 1000 cuts.


Guerrilla tactics were used. Not all of the fighting took place on battle fields.

Technically, anywhere you fight is the field of battle, but I'm sure you basically meant "set piece" battlefields. Still, I agree. All major wars contain some element of guerilla warfare (especially if specops forces are involved).

If I may, the same tactics snipers in Iraq are accused of using in Iraq might also be seen used here?

Did I say that you did? No.

Erm.... Here is your original quote:

Fine. But that doesn't tell me how collateral damage is ok but torture is not.

Since that was following up on something I had said previously, I'm not sure who else you would have been talking about....

None of this addresses my arguement.

What was your argument? As I recall, you made a point of the fact that we drop bombs on civilians - after I had talked about terrorists torturing Americans - and intimated that one was no better than the other. Frankly, I think that it does address your argument.

snipped reference to deleted material

Since we provided he and al qaeda with weapons, training, and intelligence in the 1980 while the mujahadeen was fighting Soviets in Afghanistan.
fixed quote tag
Really? The WMD's that we still haven't found and Hans Blix told us he couldn't find? How does one respond to warnings to stop doing something that one wasn't doing in the first place?

We had evidence, enough evidence that there was a noticeable danger. And, think about it, would you trust Saddam if he said "no"? Or perhaps if you made him promise?

On a serious note, I wouldn't trust Saddam. And just tell me, kind sir, what should we have done? Decided to wait and just hope that he didn't drop an nuclear bomb on us?
snipped
Some evidence on the 9/11 stuff would be nice, please.

I put some, a few posts down. But I'll address that later.

Right, hence why I'm having difficulty following your argument. Al qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, but we're we're also fighting in Iraq.

You asked why we were not in Afghanistan, to which I replied "we were."
snipped
I talked about the Iraq connection just below:

The Weekly Standard? The same Weekly Standard founded by Bill Kristol? The same Bill Kristol that founded the Project for a New American Century? The same PNAC that identified Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea as the axis of evil one year before the attacks of September 11th and suggested that "a new Pearl Harbor" would help speed up their agenda?

BTW, I'm not understanding how what you said seemingly discredits this. You go from (1) the Weekly Standard, to (2) the founder Bill Kristol, (3) to something else he did - the PNAC - (4) and then a "suggestion" made by the PNAC. What in the world does that have to do with the evidence?

Are you trying to bash Kristol, the Weekly Standard, or the PNAC.....

or the info?

I could make a similar response to your idea of watching No End in Sight, but I don't usually discredit info by bashing the person who created the movie; and drawing references to other things done by that person.

Oh, and what are you intimating by the line about the PNAC's "suggestion"?

I'm afraid you'll have to do a little bit better than that source. But hey...thanks for the education.

Because in your opinion, you don't think its credible?

snipped
Well spun. Good job.

I'm glad you approve.

Oh, and just an FYI, I would venture that the article itself was a little well spun. Which is what I was showing.

Which people? The international team that did the research or the journalistic entity which published the finding? But perhaps your beef is with the practice of extrapolating data based on a statistically significant sample of a population.
snipped


Can one have faith in extrapolations based on small amounts of data?
snipped
Which part was unclear?

The only part that I quoted....

snipped
But hey, maybe you could actually go watch the movie first before you decide that it's all garbage. Who knows.

Ok. Now perhaps you could explain to me again how actual footage can never lie.

Remove the sarcasm and I think you'd have the gist of it. Part of being the leader is setting an example and that isn't something you do just one time.

You don't get to be a leader by having people "decide" that you are a leader. You take a stand and prove, and not really to those people, that you are a leader.

We started pet rocks too. Your point?

Just showing where America stands among the world.

snipped off-topic exchange

And we could be spending $2 billion per day here making sure that didn't happen. You feel safer knowing that al qaeda and the madhi army are killing people over there that are supposed to protect us over here? I don't.

Pulling troops back to American soil doesn't protect us from terrorist attacks. I don't think that they would have a better chance stopping suicide bombers on our own ground than they would going out and taking them down.

Its our problem because there is a moral price to be paid. And while you and I might be paying pennies on the dollar, those men and women over there are taking the brunt of it.

A "moral price"? So we pay the price because they fight dirty and we can't distinguish who's who. What would you suggest we do?

Yes, those men and women are taking the brunt of it. Even from inside America, because they get slammed when they commit "immoral" acts.

And, btw, it's not cowardice, it's smarts and necessity.

It's smart and necessary to strap bombs to you and blow up American soldiers?

snipped

Indeed because they are upset with americans trifling in their holy land. Since we haven't stopped, I suspect that we can look forward to more of the same in decades to come.

No. I'm sorry, but I don't agree.

Tell me how we evil American's started this, could you?

Yep. First, they don't care if they die. In fact, they're hoping that they do because that means a first class ticket to paradise. Second, their sons and brothers probably miss their dads and older brothers and will never forget how the americans killed the breadwinner and left his family in strife.

It sounds like we need to completely eradicate them, don't we? Oh, and most of these people attacked us, by blowing up civilians who never did anything to them. Tell me how that backs your claim up.

So a decade from now when an impressionable young man with a lot of anger get offered a chance to kill americans and earn a trip to paradise all in one shot, I'm guessing he'll go for it.

If they're all broken up about it, maybe they shouldn't blow up skyscrapers and kill thousands of innocent Americans. If they want to keep doing it, though, keep 'em coming. It's just too bad that these dirty bastards have to take innocent people with them in their claim to glory.

So yes indeed, we are in fact running a very serious risk of making the world more dangerous by killing these terrorists.

:lol:

Yes, we shouldn't kill terrorists because if we kill them, we make the world more dangerous! So obviously we should just leave them alone no matter what they do!

Of course this doesn't really account for all the terrorists that we inadvertently create via the same process compliments of collateral damage.

Well, it is of course our fault. We shouldn't go drop bombs on terrorists because it might make other terrorists from the deaths.
snipped

Guerrilla tactics were used. Not all of the fighting took place on battle fields.

But it was not a guerilla war. Just like dropping an A-Bomb on Hiroshima did not make WW2 a nuclear war. It may have occured, but the primary fighting was done on battlefields. Little side encounters by various groups is not usually referred to to describe a war.

Of course they do.

No, they don't. Suicide bombers, however do. It isn't usual of a guerilla group to use suicidal tactics - it's a guerilla group, it is almost contradictory.

Guerrilla: of, relating to, or suggestive of guerrillas especially in being aggressive, radical, or unconventional

That says nothing to me.

It sounds like we need to completely eradicate them, don't we?
Just whom are you suggesting we “completely eradicate”? If you are taking about al-Qaeda then I completely agree, but it sounds like you are talking about the Islamic people. I’m going to assume you are not condoning genocide of a people based on where they live or their religious belief.

Oh, and most of these people attacked us, by blowing up civilians who never did anything to them. Tell me how that backs your claim up.

Are you speaking to 911 about people attacking the U.S. and blowing up civilians? If you are speaking of 911 what does that have to do with the people of Iraq?

You don't get to be a leader by having people "decide" that you are a leader.Try being one without having people “decided” you are a leader. Without followers, there cannot be a leader. Of course a leader can pay people to following them, but the followers still decide that the pay is enough to give there allegiance. A leader can use threats and fear to obtain followers, but the followers still have to decide if the peril is real.

Taking a stand may get someone admiration from people that believe similarly, but it does not by its self make someone a leader

Erm.... Here is your original quote:
<snip>
Since that was following up on something I had said previously, I'm not sure who else you would have been talking about.... The statement that I made to you was:
I'm not sure how one condones collateral damage while snubbing torture.

...after you had said:
Oh, yea, Achilles. That totally compares to taking people who are KNOWN to be civilians and torturing them and killing them brutally. Yea.

So at no point did I say that you did, however I have been waiting for you to clarify your statement for over a week.

What was your argument? As I recall, you made a point of the fact that we drop bombs on civilians - after I had talked about terrorists torturing Americans - and intimated that one was no better than the other. Frankly, I think that it does address your argument. My argument was that I'm not sure how one condones collateral damage while snubbing torture. If you're not telling me that you don't, then that's fine, however that would appear to contradict the tone of your earlier statement.

snipped reference to deleted material

We had evidence, enough evidence that there was a noticeable danger. And, think about it, would you trust Saddam if he said "no"? Or perhaps if you made him promise?

On a serious note, I wouldn't trust Saddam. And just tell me, kind sir, what should we have done? Decided to wait and just hope that he didn't drop an nuclear bomb on us?
snipped No, we didn't have evidence. In fact, we had an operative go the the country where Saddam allegedly bought the nuclear materials that came back and said that there was nothing. We had U.N. weapons inspectors in the country looking where the intelligence told them the weapons were and saying there was nothing. So, no, we didn't have any evidence.

And since your argument seems to be built entirely upon Saddam having a bomb (which we now know for certain he did not) then it would seem that the your reasoning falls flat.

But to be a good sport, I'll answer your questions anyway:

No, I wouldn't have trusted Saddam. Neither did we, that's why we sent weapons inspectors there to look for themselves.

We should have done, precisely what we did do: Try to see if he had a bomb.

Yes, if there had been evidence that he had a bomb, then we should have acted. Whether or not that action should have been invasion is another story.

I hope that helps.

You asked why we were not in Afghanistan Really? When did I ask that?

to which I replied "we were." I talked about the Iraq connection just below: No, I caught that, I'm just waiting for something from a credible source (i.e. not an neo-con think tank that helped to orchestrate the invasion of Iraq)

BTW, I'm not understanding how what you said seemingly discredits this. You go from (1) the Weekly Standard, to (2) the founder Bill Kristol, (3) to something else he did - the PNAC - (4) and then a "suggestion" made by the PNAC. What in the world does that have to do with the evidence? It shows that the "evidence" isn't evidence. It's like calling a bank after you find out there's been a robbery and then believing the robber when he answers the phone and tells you that everything's fine.

Are you trying to bash Kristol, the Weekly Standard, or the PNAC......or the info?E) All of the above.

I could make a similar response to your idea of watching No End in Sight, but I don't usually discredit info by bashing the person who created the movie; and drawing references to other things done by that person. It's called questioning sources and identifying potential sources of bias. It's key to critical thinking. snipped
Oh, and what are you intimating by the line about the PNAC's "suggestion"? That the members of the PNAC probably squealed like small children on christmas morning on September 11, 2001.

Because in your opinion, you don't think its credible? That's one way to put it. You're free to present a counter-argument if you don't agree with my thinking.

Oh, and just an FYI, I would venture that the article itself was a little well spun. Which is what I was showing. It's entirely possible, but your accusation is not going to persuade me. You'll actually need to provide some sort of evidence that should cause a reasonable person to question the validity of the information presented (i.e. flawed methodologies in the data collection, etc). Kinda like what I did when I pointed out that your source is the mouth piece of a neo-con think tank.

snipped off topic discusson

The only part that I quoted.... snipped
All you offered was "What?" so I'm not sure which part you need help with.

Ok. Now perhaps you could explain to me again how actual footage can never lie. Was this a counter-argument to something? This seems very out of context for the section you quoted.

You don't get to be a leader by having people "decide" that you are a leader. You take a stand and prove, and not really to those people, that you are a leader. By doing things that are worthy of a leader?
In fairness, I think I might see the source of the division in our thinking. I would like the U.S. to be a good example of leadership for the world, aka a role model of other nations. It would seem though that you just want to U.S. to be in charge regardless of how we're viewed or how we get there.

Yes, you can lead by fear and intimidation, but that only goes so far for so long and usually there are consequences. Not how I prefer to do business.

Just showing where America stands among the world. King of the hill...for now. Yay for us.

snipped responses to deleted material

Pulling troops back to American soil doesn't protect us from terrorist attacks. I don't think that they would have a better chance stopping suicide bombers on our own ground than they would going out and taking them down. Of course it does. If the terrorists come here, we've got troops here to defend the citizens that are here. Armed guys in uniforms at the airports. Fighter pilots ready to scramble. National Guard guys at large public events to help act as security.

A "moral price"? So we pay the price because they fight dirty and we can't distinguish who's who. Right. What would you suggest we do? Right, like when you realize that the bombs that you drop may have killed innocent civilians. Our guys have to live with that. And we have to live with the reputation that sort of action earns us around the world.

I would suggest that we follow the instructions of the Framers and the Constitution and avoid foreign entanglements. As I have been trying to point out in this thread, foreign entanglements is how this situation got started in the first place (via our support of our allies in the early 20th century and again via our direct actions during the 70's-90's).

Yes, those men and women are taking the brunt of it. Even from inside America, because they get slammed when they commit "immoral" acts. Who's "slamming" them?

It's smart and necessary to strap bombs to you and blow up American soldiers? If you're a small guerrilla force trying to fight off a militarily superior occupying army? Sure. I don't like it and I don't condone it, but as you keep pointing out, war is hell.

No. I'm sorry, but I don't agree Which part? The holy land part? Don't take my word for, Osama bin Laden will tell you himself. He's been trying to tell us for more than a decade.

The blowback part? It only stands to reason. You're more than welcome to present a counter-argument if you don't agree with my thinking.

Tell me how we evil American's started this, could you? The condensed version is that we stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, which is where Mecca is (you know, the place that all muslims face when they pray 5 times per day). It also happens to be where Medina is. These two places are considered sacred and that infidels are occupying these lands really, really pissed off devout muslims (aka fundies, aka islamic extremists). So Osama bin Laden decided that the king was now in bed with the devil (figuratively, but maybe literally too) and that action must be taken against said infidels (aka us). When he didn't get our attention with the embassy bombing in Africa, the barracks bombing in Saudi Arabia, the first attack on the world trade center, or the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, he decided to set is aims higher.

And of course he was able to utilize his military and intelligence training that he recieved from us to carry this all out. Talk about full circle.

It sounds like we need to completely eradicate them, don't we? Oh, and most of these people attacked us, by blowing up civilians who never did anything to them. Tell me how that backs your claim up.

If they're all broken up about it, maybe they shouldn't blow up skyscrapers and kill thousands of innocent Americans. If they want to keep doing it, though, keep 'em coming. It's just too bad that these dirty bastards have to take innocent people with them in their claim to glory. snipped

Wow.

Yes, we shouldn't kill terrorists because if we kill them, we make the world more dangerous! Yes, that sounds exactly like what I said.

So obviously we should just leave them alone no matter what they do! LOL! Not an extreme I'm willing to adopt, but it's a free country and you're welcome to your opinion. snipped

Well, it is of course our fault. We shouldn't go drop bombs on terrorists because it might make other terrorists from the deaths. Within reason, yes, that's precisely the argument that I am making.

snipped response to deleted material

But it was not a guerilla war. Just like dropping an A-Bomb on Hiroshima did not make WW2 a nuclear war. It may have occured, but the primary fighting was done on battlefields. Little side encounters by various groups is not usually referred to to describe a war. And splitting hairs wins you what?

No, they don't. Suicide bombers, however do. It isn't usual of a guerilla group to use suicidal tactics - it's a guerilla group, it is almost contradictory. It seems to me that there is either conventional warfare or unconventional warfare. Since unconvential warfare is almost the exact definition of "guerrilla warfare", I'm not sure what you're hoping to prove here.

Thanks for reading.

Reminder to everyone: Posting about war seems to bring out the aggression in a lot of us. Double check to make sure your posts aren't overly aggressive as a result. Thanks.

No, we didn't have evidence. In fact, we had an operative go the the country where Saddam allegedly bought the nuclear materials that came back and said that there was nothing. We had U.N. weapons inspectors in the country looking where the intelligence told them the weapons were and saying there was nothing. So, no, we didn't have any evidence.

Nice job sidestepping the name of your "credible" source. He actually told 2 different stories and I believe the lawsuit he and Valery Plame tried to gin up went up in smoke. The interesting sidebar is that while Tim Russert didn't do jail time for his flagging memory on the issue, Libby did. Some justice.


snippedIt's entirely possible, but your accusation is not going to persuade me. You'll actually need to provide some sort of evidence that should cause a reasonable person to question the validity of the information presented (i.e. flawed methodologies in the data collection, etc). Kinda like what I did when I pointed out that your source is the mouth piece of a neo-con think tank.

Ashame you don't apply the same rigorous attitude toward your own sources of info.

snipped reference to deleted comments

Of course it does. If the terrorists come here, we've got troops here to defend the citizens that are here. Armed guys in uniforms at the airports. Fighter pilots ready to scramble. National Guard guys at large public events to help act as security.

Yes, they'll come in really handy when it's time to clean up AFTER the suicide bomb has gone off (assuming they aren't killed in the blast).

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Yes, we shouldn't kill terrorists because if we kill them, we make the world more dangerous!

Yes, that sounds exactly like what I said.

My but that sounds extremely naive. Makes one wonder what you'd be prepared to do beyond trying to "talk reason" to them. Like I said....death of a thousand cuts.

The interesting sidebar is that while Tim Russert didn't do jail time for his flagging memory on the issue, Libby did. Some justice.Tim Russert memory stayed the same throughout the ordeal. Mr. Libby is the one that changed his story on 07/10/2003 he told the grand jury he learned Plame’s identity from Russert. Later he recanted that and “remembered” seeing a note that jogged his memory and really heard the name from Cheney.

Another big difference Tim Russert is a reporter and private citizen, while I. Lewis Libby was a government employee and must abided by the laws and rules that job is govern by (just like the rest of us). You should not feel sorry for Mr. Libby after all the big boss pardon him, would he have done the same for Russert?