posted on March 29, 2003 06:23:25 PM new
"You mentioned nothing about inhabitant of the house, as I said, since you mentioed no evidence of their presence at the time, I assumed they had already left. No blood, no bodies, no mention of them at all. Who was in harms way?"
We don't know who was in harm's way. Maybe someone, maybe no one. I also said I didn't accept the newsguy's automatic conclusion that these Marines were there at all. It might very well be that they were never in the house and that their gear was put there later, by someone else. If they were, if they weren't, if there were people there or not, I would say - people do what perceive they need to.
It's comforting to think that we'd never do that, whatever 'that' is. But I think that's not the nature of people, and I think when push comes to shove, "good" people will eat their dead, and when even that situation gets worse, the stronger eye the weaker, and the weaker get nervous.
And when atrocities are committed, do I say "They're animals?" No, because that's stating the obvious. We're all animals. I'd say - they're people. And that should be as obvious but, for some reason, it's not. To note that people are people is the most damning observation that can be made.
"Our soldiers were no where in the vicintity of Bagdahd to be distract by the shells that were lobbed into the groups of fleeing citizens"
Aren't we talking about Basra, where the group of civilians was attempting to cross the bridge where we were? I think we are... if our soldiers weren't there, we wouldn't know anything about this, would we, since our reporters are, for the most part, embedded with the coalition forces.
Actually, others will see that I have supported my comments over and over. You, however, are guilty of making so many spurious and unsubstantiated allegations that I will no longer respond. I can see now why a major poster here repeatedly referred to you as dummy.
posted on March 29, 2003 06:50:23 PM new
::"Our soldiers were no where in the vicintity of Bagdahd to be distract by the shells that were lobbed into the groups of fleeing citizens"
Aren't we talking about Basra, where the group of civilians was attempting to cross the bridge where we were? I think we are... if our soldiers weren't there, we wouldn't know anything about this, would we, since our reporters are, for the most part, embedded with the coalition forces. ::
It happened in both locations. There were reports from the embedded reporters regarding Basrah but the were also reports out of Bagdahd where there are still reporters tfrom numerous countries that this happened there are well.
posted on March 29, 2003 07:22:57 PM new
A yahoo news search for baghdad refugees killed brings up no story like this... are you thinking of that busload of Syrian refugees?
posted on March 29, 2003 08:49:22 PM new
Dang, I'm glad I don't spend 24/7 on the internet
Hey Colin! Great pictures!
kraftdinner, I know you have to dissect everything I say now, but, well, don't.
I was answering austbounty.
Helen, you know how rude you are?
kraftdinner
"thinking?" lol
Yes I do, seems you don't.
You just cannot support our nation, this free nation, this nation, that allows people to say the sh*t they do about this country, you cannot just support our troops?
Yes Helen, war is hell, as you said.
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on March 29, 2003 09:37:57 PM new
Donny, nope, not the Syrian bus, it was during one of my nights of insomnia, I was watching NBC and one of the reporters, (I want to say it was a woman on a phone but don't quote me on that ) talked about soldiers firing at groups of people attempting to leave the city.
posted on March 29, 2003 10:07:15 PM new
Near, I don't have to dissect anything. You, more or less, asked me why I asked questions about the end of times when you figured I was anti-religious. I merely asked what you were thinking. Why are you so mad at me?
posted on March 29, 2003 10:36:16 PM new
If you go back on this thread, you'll see that austbounti wanted to know what else to expect..... so I gave it a shot, though this thread isn't what it started out to be is it?
Yes, way back before that, someone said you were non religious, I never said ANTI (there it is again ) so I said basically... why drop a 'red herring' if you will, if you are not religious?
Obviously, this thread is not talking about end time prophesy.
Yes I read the link at the beginning you posted. I always check where they come from also, that was obvious, from the linkage. It was from an anti war site, NOT a religous site, not an end times site, not a prophesy site.
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on March 29, 2003 11:00:59 PM new
I already regret asking, but NearTheSea, who was this directed at?
"You just cannot support our nation, this free nation, this nation, that allows people to say the sh*t they do about this country, you cannot just support our troops?"
I think I know it's not directed at me... is it Kraftdinner?
And since Kraftdinner went through the trouble to approve of the way I said something (though I'm not sure what that was), I feel kind of like I should mention something that has to do with the original theme, war and prophesy, at least peripherally.
Every so often I like to reread Defoe's "Journal of the Plague Year," and when I do I wonder if people back then saw signs of the end times prophecy in the events of that day, and if, through history, people always have in connection with cataclysmic events of the times.
posted on March 29, 2003 11:05:59 PM new
donny, sorry, I was posting to kraftdinner, and before that, I was posting to Helen
Yes, I believe throughout the centuries, since Christ died, and the Book of Revelations was written (well after He was on the cross) I think people have always thought it would be in their time.
There has always been awful things happening, always been conflicts, and always been wars.
So, could it be now? sure. Will it be now? Only God knows.
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on March 30, 2003 12:54:15 AM new
Yes, I would think also that people would always think it was in their time and there would be plenty of events in any period to fit the bill. And I'd agree also that if the Revelations are true, could be now, could be way after our time, only God knows.
posted on March 30, 2003 02:25:52 AM new
Backing up a bit to say touch on this:
Linda says:
"I feel differently here too, people aren't basically the same. Some people are serial murders, some never kill. Broad brush there."
Yes, there are differences between individuals, but, on the whole, people are basically the same. If a country were composed of only serial killers, I guess there wouldn't be as much of a moral dilemma on whether to bomb that country or not. It'd also be a lot easier operation, since there'd be a population of 1.
"I feel America IS more nobile than nations with rulers like Saddam. And I really believe this is, in part, a difference that comes about from believing there is right and wrong. Good and evil."
Well, a belief in right and wrong and good and evil isn't limited to America, I'd say that's pretty much a universal concept. A couple of nights ago I heard a broadcast of Saddam Hussein, one of the many "is it live or is it Memorex" variety. What struck me was how similar his message was to Bush's, in some respects. Heavy on God, and heavy on evil. Except in his version, God is on his side, and the evil is us. I consider that propoganda... every time I hear it.
"There have been many people who have been desperate, who would never choose to steal, kill, or etc....others in order to survive. To me it's one's 'moral beliefs'. Nor speaking religious moral beliefs here...must moral in general."
Well, morals are great, if you can afford them. And, really, what's your point here? Isn't part of the rationale for this war that America is fighting for its survival, the deadly threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein, and that therefore we must wage war on Iraq to assure our safety? Where does that definition of "morality," come into play when we wage war on another nation?
You seem to suggest that the truly moral, although very desperate, "would never choose to steal, kill, or etc....others in order to survive." And yet one of our reasons, the first reason we offered, for this war, is that we have to kill Iraqis to survive... remember the whole "disarmament" rationale?
posted on March 30, 2003 03:33:33 AM new
For those that asked. I stand by my comment of many here being anti-American.
Especially the ones that start with the "war for oil" BS. When this is proven incorrect they go on the Imperialist America and then one even stated in a message that "Bush killed cats when he was a kid"
They will say anything to degrade the president or country. That's anti-American.
As far as Moron. Read it in context. Frustrated.. Shows in many of your posts. Lonely ... shows in your posts too. You have no life, if you did you wouldn't be on here so much.
Get out and enjoy the Freedoms you now have. If you want to protest the war, do so but don't lay down in traffic or break windows to prove your point. If you want the change the polices of the USA.. run for office.
You don't have to like the President but he deserves the respect of the people. It's a tough job and someone has to do it.
I support the President in this action (war with Iraq) because I see where the world is going otherwise. It's turning into a terrorize Universe, a place where no one will be safe. A place where terrorism will be thought of as an everyday crime.
I believe it will take a while to get Iraq it's freedom but have NO problem with that. I'll looking forward to a safer world.
posted on March 30, 2003 07:00:11 AM new
NearTheSea
"You just cannot support our nation, this free nation, this nation, that allows people to say the sh*t they do about this country, you cannot just support our troops?"
Sometimes, NearTheSea, when you hear spurious insults such as Linda delivers to me, repeated over and over it has an effect that is effectively used by propagandists. Eventually the repeated message will be accepted as truth.. Most of the people who have been here for years, know that your statement or question above does not describe my beliefs. In fact, it would be difficult to find anyone so callous. That thought, linking peace demonstrators with those who "don't support our troops" is nonsense and illogical. One thought simply doesn't follow the other...there is no connection.
For the same reason, her charges that I am anti-American because I don't support this war or Bush policy in general is just as ludicrous. It's only exceeded by the outrageous charge that I am supportive of Saddam Hussein. She can offer no substantiation for this charge other than I haven't said "enough" about him. And, if that isn't enough, she asks me if I am a communist. I'm only surprised that I haven't been called a Nazi bastard by anyone...as someone called another poster here.
You accused me of being rude. What would you consider an appropriate response to these lies other than a rude response?
This kind of constant harassment is a part of the problem that I mentioned on another thread to Reamond when we were discussing the current condition of this board. Although I didn't mention harassment at the time, I believe that it's a definite factor which leads to people leaving. Several other good posters left, after complaining of the same problem and if it continues, several more will leave.
Miscognito with her thread about ad hominem attacks was right on target.
posted on March 30, 2003 07:47:17 AM new
Wait, I'm confused again, I thought that the
"You just cannot support our nation, this free nation, this nation, that allows people to say the sh*t they do about this country, you cannot just support our troops?"
was addressed to Kraftdinner, and I had finally figured out the deal. Not only are Americans required to be good Americans, non-Americans are also required to be good Americans.
But if it was directed at Helen, maybe only Americans have to be good Americans, and good Americanism for non-Americans is optional?
posted on March 30, 2003 09:15:35 AM new
Helen - You said, to my statement: "It is blatantly false to say, "They have little, if any, regard for their peoples lives or health."
Then I asked:
"So, Helen....you take this to be false. You read and hear all these reports about how they're using their people as 'human shields', shooting their own people, not allowing humanitarian aid to get to their people and you see this as blatantly false? Maybe you could show me where you see HOW they are treating their people so well.
posted on March 30, 2003 09:29:37 AM new
donny - I take most of what you're said to be that you see no difference between our country and the country of Iraq, in their behaviors.
You see no difference between the morals of Americans vs the moral of Iraqi's. We don't kill our own citizens, use them as shields in war, and have no different standards of law, and then you excuse their behavior of how they do act because 'we would too if there was no other choice'.
You see no difference between Saddam and Bush, you see only their different religious beliefs...nothing else. One's no more moral, in their actions, than the other.
You see no difference in how we treat our citizens, vs. how Saddam treats his own people.
If I am correct in what I believe you've said....then I believe you couldn't be more wrong.
posted on March 30, 2003 09:37:50 AM new
[i]Helen - You said, to my statement: "It is blatantly false to say, "They have little, if any, regard for their peoples lives or health." [i]
[i]Then I asked:[i]
[i]"So, Helen....you take this to be false You read and hear all these reports about how they're using their people as 'human shields', shooting their own people, not allowing humanitarian aid to get to their people and you see this as blatantly false? Maybe you could show me where you see HOW they are treating their people so well.[i]
[i]Want to answer the question?[i]
Linda,
It's very difficult to treat your people "so well", while you are being invaded by a foreign country with the best armed forces and weapons in the world. It's easy for you to treat your family so well. You aren't in the desperate position of losing your home, freedom and life. There's a big difference. Surely you see the difference in circumstances. Every element on which their life depends is being destroyed.
Your statement, "They have little, if any, regard for their peoples lives or health." seems to suppose that Iraqis are different animals...cruel and barbaric, unlike you see Americans as good, loving people who take care of their families.
Helen
ed. to include Linda's question
[ edited by Helenjw on Mar 30, 2003 09:44 AM ]
posted on March 30, 2003 09:45:00 AM new
"It's very difficult to treat your people "so well", while you are being invaded by a foreign country with the best armed forces and weapons in the world."
Just so there's no confusion, is this a justification for how the Iraqi military have treated Iraqi civilians?
posted on March 30, 2003 09:57:29 AM new
Helen - See...you excuse the horrible behavior of Saddam, give all the reasons/excuses why you see him doing this. To me that is defending him and his behavior. But you have never address questions about why didn't he just step down. Why has he treated his people the way he has. Why he didn't come clean on all the UN violations he's avoided for 12 years. You appear, to me, to slip right over those 'other choices' when asked. But you sure are quick to blame an American president because you believe he's failed at deploymacy. To me, when you compare the two [Bush and Saddam] you're statements have led me to believe you find more excuses for Saddam and his form of government than you do of ours.
My statement, nor my comment, was about the Iraqi people. Although you keep making it should like I said that. I haven't. I've continually, in this thread, been addressing Saddam...you continually change it to how you see I feel about the people. It was about Saddam's treatment of this own people.
Your reply also only speaks to the issue of 'since the war began'. Do you think his treatment of his people was okay up until the beginning of this war? Are you saying that you can understand and agree with what he's doing since the war began, because you see WHY he's being FORCED to do so?
In your many posts, especially since the war discussions began, you have constantly listed all the reasons you have felt Bush, your own countries leader, has been wrong in going to war, and in everything he has done. I have not seen once in your posts, where you put any of the blame on this on Saddam's shoulders. Your criticism has only been of your country's leader.
When I've asked you why you blame Bush for wanting to remove Saddam, disarm....when Bush1 and Clinton have also agreed the same thing needed to be done, you never answer or say how you see this DIFFERENTLY.
An invasion by the United States military is justification for aberrant behavior by people who normally would be good decent individuals.
By justification, I mean that it is reasonable to expect such behavior during a time when your life and everything you own and hold dear is being decimated by foreign forces.
posted on March 30, 2003 10:13:49 AM new
Helen - An invasion by the United States military is justification for aberrant behavior by people who normally would be good decent individuals.
Oh yes, Saddam and his military are just such great people when their backs aren't to the wall.
Clue here Helen, the 'people' wouldn't be doing this if not in support of Saddam.
The military wouldn't be doing this if not in support of Saddam.
The other Iraqi's just want to survive, but they're the one's being shot. They're the one's being denied food and aid by Saddam and his military.
You're mixing the two different 'types' of Iraqi's up.
posted on March 30, 2003 10:16:59 AM new
Helen, if invading forces came onto American soil, do you think the President and our Defense dept would send the Army Navy Airforce and Marines to use us, the civilians as human shields? Really, that is this 'justification' explanation your using sounds like.
Does the President get off on exploiting us, the citizens of this country, such as torture chambers, gassings of towns?
or do you expect it to happen?
Your impression of Krs is not too swift
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on March 30, 2003 10:20:43 AM new
NTS - I couldn't decide if she was referring to krs or borillar. They both do that. But hey, either one is a MAJOR poster
Where, Linda did I excuse the horrible behavior of Saddam??? Please back up your allegations. You ask me one question and then become upset that I haven't answered the unasked question.
Where did I address Saddam's behavior "since the war began. Please copy and paste.
You said,
In your many posts, especially since the war discussions began, you have constantly listed all the reasons you have felt Bush, your own countries leader, has been wrong in going to war, and in everything he has done. I have not seen once in your posts, where you put any of the blame on this on Saddam's shoulders. Your criticism has only been of your country's leader.
When I was critical of Bush, I was critical of the war but I was also critical of issues including those over which Saddam has no control such as the economy, environment, education and health care, for example.
You ask about the difference between Clinton and Bush in regard to Iraq. As I understant it, they both agree on the necessity to control Saddam. But, as you can see the methods are dissimilar. Clinton had the support of leaders all over the world. Although you know me... I don't like the use of violence...a bomb is a bomb...but this is war.
posted on March 30, 2003 10:39:21 AM new
Your defending Hussien by defending what the Iraqi military does, and basically they are 'using the civilian population'
And in smaller towns there, not only Baghdad. They are shooting people that are trying to escape. I'm sure you've heard that.
ah, nevermind Helen, carry on.
Linda, major somethings
gotta get off this, and out
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
This topic is 9 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new
