The only thing you agreed with was said statement.
Yes, because it was the only thing that made sense.
America's extremism does not invalidate insurgent tactics. Yes, we are the perpetrators of large-scale, unnecessary violence based on flawed premises and outright deception. We are definitely the largest extremist party in this situation.
First, I ask that you clearly define what you believe to be "insurgent tactics." If you are referring to car bombs, suicide bombings, rioting etc, I also ask that you provide examples of the tactics you
believe they
should implement. After this, I would like for you to explain how and why the current tactics are "wrong" when the insurgents are A.) Defending their land/cause and B.) Fighting with limited armaments. Yes, america is the largest extremist party in this situation, yet in various phases of your position you seem to be implying that the insurgents are just as bad, if not worse than america.
American forces did not personally kill all 100,000 of the civilians, (
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ places the number of those killed by insurgents, American military, or other forms of violence at between 33 and 45k) but their actions invariably led to the circumstances which cuased those deaths.
Here is something from the link you provided:
It is not "probable" that IBC, which counts the dead and doesn't estimate them, is at present an undercount: it is almost inevitable that it will be so, as we have insisted since our project began. But it is neither a fact, nor "likely", nor "probable", that this undercount misrepresents reality by a "factor of five or ten" , or any other large factor arrived at by our critics via ill-informed speculation or an error-filled and unexamined "sensitivity analysis".
What these people are basically saying is "Yeah, the numbers are kinda low, but we aren't off by a factor of five or ten." Also, when writing for Znet and analyzing new numbers, Stephen Soldz, a psychoanalyst, researcher and faculty member at the Institute for the Study of Violence of the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis stated, "So, have excess 100,000 Iraqis died since the invasion? I don't know for sure.
But this study convinces me that it is extremely likely that many tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, far more than the Iraqi Body Count estimate that I had previously relied upon.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6565
I don't believe America's stated goals, mission statements, or Bush soundbytes put us on any higher ethical or moral ground.Those are simply government trash. I do believe the philosophical idioms of Americans and our exposure to a somewhat more open ethical environment and national dialogue than say, Ansar Al-Islam, regional militias, or various assorted insurgent groups mean we have a more pronounced standard and ideal of justice and a reticence to simply employ tactics of mass murder indiscriminately.
So what
do you believe places america on a higher ethical or moral ground? The so-called "philosophical idioms of Americans?" Please list these idioms (which you probably won't which is why you probably used idiom in the first place), and after that let us compare and contrast them to the stated goals and mission statements provided by the government prior to illegally invading Iraq.
Also, you are starting to contradict yourself. Previously you have stated the united states are "the perpetrators of large-scale, unnecessary violence based on flawed premises and outright deception. We are definitely the largest extremist party in this situation", but now you are basically saying the ideaologies you ascribe to pave way for america to be more reluctant to mass murder (indiscriminately) than groups/organizations that popped up during the START of the invasion. So, with that being said, I would like for you to explain why you paint the insurgents in a negative and barbaric light when they are simply defending themselves or striking out because of american policy or support for america. You are implying that these forces are more prone to employ tactics of mass murder indiscriminately, but you provide no proof showing this to be true and actually contradict your previous claim that the us is the largest extremist party involved and the perpetrators of large-scale, unnecessary violence based on flawed premises and outright deception.
Yes, you
BELIEVE american idioms (that you have yet to name), but what do the FACTS show to be TRUE? Do the facts show insurgents are less civilized because they preached a radical interpretation of Islam to combat forces against them? Do the facts show that a so-called civilized country invaded another land under false pretense? WD, you need to be ashamed for even attempting to compare these groups to america. So far
NONE of the attacks by the insurgents have done damage to the extent of americas assault. The insurgents have not crippled an entire country, have not even
destroyed a
BASIC infrastructure nor have the insurgents destroyed Iraqi historical and cultural monuments. This was ALL done by america. :dead:
Instead of simple mass civilian homicide, we bungle diplomatic missions, employ simplistic machinations to protect economic advantages, fail to understand foreign cultures, and undertake failed gambles that lead to our inevitable conflict with local and regional entities.
Which leads to mass civilian homicide. Please refer to the link you posted if you need a reminder. :dead:
If these were their only stated goals (toppling Zionism, removing the US presence), why are there continued instances of internecine warfare? Why are civilians, shrines, and children deliberately targeted? Why are there calls from Iran to Morocco to "focus on the US and Israel and leave the Shia-Sunni war for another time?" Why is there an attempt to simply disrupt civic order? Because the US-installed officials are all puppets? Are not at least *some* Iraqi public officials genuinely concerned for their country, or are they all CIA implants? These are not all revolutionary patriots. Among them fundamentalists, anarchists, opportunists, and others.
To answer your first question, you have to look at the people, what the believe in, their culture/way of life and what they are currently experiencing. These are NOT men fighting with the best weapons, nor do they have the extensive training as the american soldiers. What they DO have is an uncanny sense of PRIDE and FAITH (especially in their religion.) You will continue to have actes of interecine warfare
AS LONG AS THE UNITED STATES STILL OCCUPIES THE LAND, AND A PUPPET REGIME IS IN CHARGE.
To answer your second question, some are targeted because the insurgents believe they are helping the american forces. Also, I wouldn't be hasty to believe that all of the attacks carried out by insurgents are really "insurgents". The attacks could be done by any number of people wanting to continue the destabilaztion of the area, and this is NOT limited to the C.I.A or Mossad.
To answer your third question, Iran is on its way to being bombed very soon. The ONLY question is WHEN this will happen. Why SHOULDN'T they call for a cease fire between the two groups when they can set aside their differences and fight their common enemy? Yes, you have had war between the two factions for some time now, but this war is being
escalated by u.s. presence.
To answer your fourth question, outside of american presence and support for Israel, we don't know WHO or WHAT is REALLY causing civil unrest in the area nor do we know WHY. Maybe it could be to cause so much trouble that an "attack" is blamed on IRAN and thus america will have the justification to bomb it. The same thing happend with the 9-11 incident and Iraq, so I wouldn't see it as something that is an impossibility. History shows that america (at times) have favored and supported BOTH sides during the same time period (arms dealing, etc), so once again we don't know who, what or why.
To answer your fifth question, so far the new regime are puppets. We'll see how they handle these independent investigations or if they revolt against their american superiors.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0629-01.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/may2006/iraq-m24.shtml
To answer your last question, they could all very well be CIA inplants, but feel free to provide us with info on who you think they are. I could use a good laugh before I start playing this new game I purchased.
Now you switch it up.
In a macro sense, yes. What I am arguing is the day-to-day operations of the military and insurgents and the intrinsic nature of their wars. Reports of American abuses abound in Arab media, Al-Jazira, Al-Ahram, and other sources. Are these also US-controlled? Can we not get a glimpse of the way we operate through other voices? I got folks in the military, I know the general mentality of America, and that, along with the picture that foreign and independant media paint of the way we operate, is my basis for my beliefs about the way things are run.
Are the Arab sources controlled? They could very well be controlled. Follow the money trail and you'll see who is in control. Can you get a glimpse of the way america operates through other voices? Sure, are these voices actually the voice of the person holding the dummy on his lap? They could very well be. Also, I believe the basis for your beliefs about the way things are run are simply rooted in your white culture and upbringing. All the talk about having folks in the military and knowing the general mentality of america, is simply "typical" white middle class dogma. My friend, you have NO CLUE as to what is taking place around you, and the reason you have no clue is because you are deeply rooted in your white comfort zone. So now you are thinking to yourself and will probably ask or reply with "and you do" to which I will answer "moreso than you."
A robotic, mechanical war is not possible.
I have not implied this, please refer to my previous posts for proper clarification.
No war will ever be perfect in execution, reason, or implementation.
See the above.
But there is a fundamental difference in a continuum between accidentally or negligently shooting, up to intentional murder.
So, the invasion of Iraq was accidental and negligent? I do recall you saying and I quote, "we are the perpetrators of large-scale, unnecessary violence based on flawed premises and
outright deception. Outright deception is something you KNOWINGLY commit, so when and where do you draw the line and classify the intentional murders (based on deception) as accidental or negligent?
The insurgents operate with no mind to civilian casualties...they have stated that innocent civilians dying in the struggle will receive Allah (paradise).
And america operates with a mind to civilian casualties? If so, why was america in Iraq to begin with, why have they not left Iraq, and why have americans killed more civillians than insurgents? Also, at LEAST they have stated some type of remorse for their action and said the innocents will receive allah (paradise). Now tell me WD, G.W. Bush has said God told him to invade Iraq, but has he offered any solace to the innocents that have perished? Has he said they will be granted Gods mercy and entrance to heaven?
And as to how many innocent civilians insurgents are holding, kidnapping is now extremely common in Iraq. Murders, kidnapping for ransom, mass executions, etc. now exist on a very wide scale. The US military's fundamental goal is stability, with the insurgency's fundamental goal being instability...in this context, the US will err towards killing in defense, while insurgents operate on a strictly offensive basis.
You are obviously dancing around the questions. I will ask you again how many innocent civillians are the insurgents holding captive? How many innocent civillians are the americans holding captive?
If you do not understand this question I will provide clarification. The first question is
HOW MANY INNOCENT CIVILIANS ARE THE INSURGENTS HOLDING CAPTIVE? For the sake of argument you can even include AMERICAN PRISONERS OF WAR. The second question is
HOW MANY INNOCENT CIVILIANS ARE THE AMERICANS HOLDING CAPTIVE? How many innocent people are currently being held/detained on american basis because they are "thought" to be insurgents or operatives? How many people are being held and have no council?
