Abu Musab Al-zarqawi Killed In Iraq

[Annie]

The "Master," hands down, of misinterpretation on this board is YOU. There isn't even a close second.

You have YET to make an honest argument that I have seen. You're just one of those lying, wannabe intellectuals who posts long-winded, boring-ass gibberish in hopes of overwhelminging your opponent in BULLSHIT.

Disproving your arguments is simple. Getting you to admit you're wrong and shut the Hell up quite another matter.

Well said!

 

[mattskramer]

Disproving your arguments is simple

Then do so.

 

[mattskramer]

The "Master," hands down, of misinterpretation on this board is YOU. There isn't even a close second.

You have YET to make an honest argument that I have seen. You're just one of those lying, wannabe intellectuals who posts long-winded, boring-ass gibberish in hopes of overwhelminging your opponent in BULLSHIT.

Disproving your arguments is simple. Getting you to admit you're wrong and shut the Hell up quite another matter.

See message number 34: “Time Magazine asked the MG "Were there any other VICTIMS (of the bombing)?” There were accusations that the person who asked this question meant more. I claim that the word Victim is a legitimate word to use challenge accusers to prove that the reported was trying to communicate more. So far, I received no answer. Stop trying to read stuff that does not exist.

 

[mattskramer]

No, the onus is on you to prove your assertations. In any good debate, you should have reliable experts, facts, statistics, and information from credible sources to support youo conclusion. That is the basis of scientific research and good debate. Your detractors are not responsible for proving you right, you are.

I know. I was being sarcastic. This is the game that other people are trying to play.

 

[Gunny]

See message number 34: “Time Magazine asked the MG "Were there any other VICTIMS (of the bombing)?” There were accusations that the person who asked this question meant more. I claim that the word Victim is a legitimate word to use challenge accusers to prove that the reported was trying to communicate more. So far, I received no answer. Stop trying to read stuff that does not exist.

Right. And the sorry subliminal attempt at portraying Zarqawi as a victim isn't as obvious as your blatant disregard for the truth.

YOU stop trying to deny obvious left-wing bullshit.

 

[mattskramer]

Right. And the sorry subliminal attempt at portraying Zarqawi as a victim isn't as obvious as your blatant disregard for the truth.

YOU stop trying to deny obvious left-wing bullshit.

Dictionary.com defines a Victim as One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition: victims of war. The word carries no indication of innocence or guilt. It does not say that one should or should not be a victim. The reported did not say that we should have killed him. He did not say that we should not have killed him. The bottom line is that he asked a question.

 

[CockySOB]

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/victim
Main Entry: vic·tim
Pronunciation: 'vik-t&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English vyctym, from Latin victima; perhaps akin to Old High German wIh holy
1 : a living being sacrificed to a deity or in the performance of a religious rite
2 : one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent <the schools are victims of the social system>: as a (1) : one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions <a victim of cancer> <a victim of the auto crash> <a murder victim> (2) : one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment <a frequent victim of political attacks> b : one that is tricked or duped <a con man's victim>

I guess neither of these entries would help your argument, Matt. Zarqawi was an active participant in the terrorist activities as he himself has said. But let's not lose heart! Let's give your own cited source a try....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/victim
vic·tim Audio pronunciation of "victim" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vktm)
n.

1. One who is harmed or killed by another: a victim of a mugging.
2. A living creature slain and offered as a sacrifice during a religious rite.
3. One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition: victims of war.
4. A person who suffers injury, loss, or death as a result of a voluntary undertaking: You are a victim of your own scheming.
5. A person who is tricked, swindled, or taken advantage of: the victim of a cruel hoax.

Still not much help, especially when one considers the sample usage supplied with each definition. Maybe we should look for relevant synonymns?

http://www.ask.com/reference/thesaurus/roget/6888/victim
victim - noun

1. One or more living creatures slain and offered to a deity as part of a religious rite: hecatomb, immolation, offering, sacrifice. See religion.
2. One that is made to suffer injury, loss, or death: casualty, prey. See help.
3. A person who is easily deceived or victimized: butt, dupe, fool, gull, lamb, pushover. Informal sucker. Slang fall guy, gudgeon, mark, monkey, patsy, pigeon, sap. Chiefly British mug. See wise.

Gee, the synonyms don't really seem to fit Zarqawi either.

Matt, be honest. Calling Zarqawi a victim (by referring to "other victims") is pure and utter garbage. The reporter had a wide choice of terms to use and chose one which carries a connotation of innocence - despite your continued insistence that no such connotation exists.

 

[Gunny]

Dictionary.com defines a Victim as One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition: victims of war. The word carries no indication of innocence or guilt. It does not say that one should or should not be a victim. The reported did not say that we should have killed him. He did not say that we should not have killed him. The bottom line is that he asked a question.

You are a dishonest, lying, leftist moron. I always feel as if I have been digging in a sewer and need a shower to wash off the filth when attempting to debate with you.

 

[mattskramer]

I guess neither of these entries would help your argument, Matt. Zarqawi was an active participant in the terrorist activities as he himself has said. But let's not lose heart! Let's give your own cited source a try....



Still not much help, especially when one considers the sample usage supplied with each definition. Maybe we should look for relevant synonymns?



Gee, the synonyms don't really seem to fit Zarqawi either.

Matt, be honest. Calling Zarqawi a victim (by referring to "other victims") is pure and utter garbage. The reporter had a wide choice of terms to use and chose one which carries a connotation of innocence - despite your continued insistence that no such connotation exists.

Oh well. I thought that the word victim was a balanced and okay word to use. I don’t see it as implying that he should or should not have been killed. I did not read anything into the question or into the word choice. I suppose that the reporter could have used a different word. I just marveled at the apparent outrage exhibited by the reactions of some of the people who were surprised by the reporter’s use of that word. It seemed like some of you were going to “blow a gasket”. This “debate” is getting nowhere. It just boils down to your thinking that the reporter should have used a different word and that I think that the word victim was okay.

 

[CockySOB]

Oh well. I thought that the word victim was a balanced and okay word to use. I don’t see it as implying that he should or should not have been killed. I did not read anything into the question or into the word choice. I suppose that the reporter could have used a different word. I just marveled at the apparent outrage exhibited by the reactions of some of the people who were surprised by the reporter’s use of that word. It seemed like some of you were going to “blow a gasket”. This “debate” is getting nowhere. It just boils down to your thinking that the reporter should have used a different word and that I think that the word victim was okay.

Perhaps. Perspective does color our understanding. As I understand it (supported by a plethora of resources), "victim" carries a connotation of innocence. The fact you don't understand the connotation simply baffles me.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Actually it is the media criticizing a strange decision to show pictures of a dead man's head.

So many people say, "the beheaded Americans were not given respect"...my response: America is not a group of ******* rogue terrorists. We are the United States of America, there is no need to flaunt our victories like an attention starved slut.

Barry Sanders knew he was the best, he used to hand the ball to the ref after touchdowns. The United States just pulled a Terrell Owens...a completely classless move.

What an idiotic clown you are. Dont you realize the main reason our military HAD to display his picture was because it is the most compelling thing to the arabs, all over the middle east. Its the only thing that will make them believe it, only releasing a press release wont convince them. Idiot.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

There was no doubt that Zarqawi was dead. Al-Queda posted it on their web-site. QUOTE]

Yea, Im sure that spread the news very fast. All 312 Iraqis who own a PC got the news. In the meantime, the millions of others who dont own a pc and were watching tv would not have known.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

something's going "a whole lot better than WW2" isn't saying a lot.

Let's see, is it the MSM's fault that:

--Bush fired Admiral Shinseki rather than accept his advice that 2-3 times as many troops would be needed to secure the country as Bush wanted to send?

--that the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman stories were first reported by the military in completely false and self-glorifying terms? (making it perfectly reasonable to question every single glowing report from this administration.)

--that there was zero contingency planning to prevent looting and secure Baghdad after we took it?

--that the opinion of the U.S.--the "hearts and minds" war at its core--fell in Indonesia (the largest Muslim country) from 76% after 9/11 to less than 20% after our botched invasion?

--that poorly supervised and trained troops committed the atrocities of Abu Ghraib?

--that rather than showing the world transparently that we are morally superior in our treatment of prisoners, Bush chose to set up a gulag of secret prisons, to hold combatants without charges for as long as he wished, etc.--in other words to look more like a dictator than the leader of a free country?

--that we count our own troop deaths but refuse to count Iraqi deaths, which sends a rather blatant message to the rest of the world about our relative valuation of non-Americans' lives?

--that the war's still going on three years after Bush was clueless enough to declare "Mission Accomplished"?

--that more insurgent groups are appearing regularly a year after Cheney was clueless enough to declare the insurgency "in its last throes"?

--that Bush dragged us into this war on the basis of "secret evidence" that turned out to be nothing more than already-discredited intelligence?

Yup, all these things are the MSM's fault, "Dems"' fault, "libs"" fault, etc. None of them are in any way Bush's fault, or Republicans' fault. At least that how it is on USMB.

Mariner.

Gee, critic of the war. And I suppose you have a plan that would have been absolutely 100% flawless?

besides, half of what you state there has been refuted OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER. I think you are ******* clueless.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Of course not. Now the liberal media is saying we have made the terrorists even madder at us.

How lame!

When someone already wants to murder you and your children, how much more mad can they get at you? )

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I somewhat expected such a reply. You speak of a different era, a different war, and a different nation. Yes, years ago, it was understood that we were not to question the establishment. Before Vietnam and Watergate we were to simply nod and believe that our leaders knew what they were doing and that they were telling us the complete truth.

It would have been good to have had people ask if Japanese internment camps were really necessary and, if they were necessary, if we could treat the inhabitants better.

See http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/

Now, we understand that it is good to question and not blindly accept what we are told.

and yet you seem willing to blindly believe that the media isnt biased or stupid.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I can see it now: Abu Musab Al-zarqawi goes up to the gates of Heaven where George Washington comes out, says, "How dare you defile what I have created," and starts wailing on his ass, then 70 other members of the Continental Congress come out and start kicking the shit out of him.

Al-zarqawi will say, "Hey, wait! Where are my virgins?"

"71 *Virginians*, you asshole!"



Or maybe it's 71 Virgils going, "You got a purty mouth!"

and Al-zarqawi responding "Jesus Christ! I put in a call to Jesus Christ!"

And St. Peter goes, "Hey Jesus, did you call a cab? Come here!"

[combination of boos and cheers from audience]

I heard it! The PCs! We crossed the politically correct line! It was okay to beat the shit out of him, but don't do the ethnic joke!

[hisses]

How Buddhist of you! Yes!


(Adapted from a Robin Williams bit)

I heard the writer of the koran was dyslexic and They are really only going to get ONE 72 year old virgin. (hope this doesnt start any world wide riots)

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Calm down before you hurt yourself. The word victim is technically accurate.

See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=victim

"One who is harmed or killed by another. … One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition: victims of war.

Now thats PRETTY DAMN FUNNY!

I do notice that referring to your own link, you had to quote the THIRD DEFINITION and avoided the first two. AVOIDED: Purposely went around as an attempt to not come in contact with.

Apparently the first two definitions had enough information in them to give the original poster who had a problem with the term "victim", as used and intended by the writer of the article, to be correct in his belief of what the writer intended.
Just because you can find another defintion, that doesnt prove what the writer did or did not intend. Instead we would need to go to a comphrensive view of the writers words, and by todays more common usage of the word (as opposed to a technical dictionary definition) , and the large numbers of posters here who believe the writers use of the term "victim" was inappropriate, you can come up with enough technical crap and verbage, but it proves nothing.

Bottom line is the writer was attempting to convey something, and his conveyance was innacurate to say the least. For you to defend the writers use of terms is anal at best. AL Z was not a VICTIM by todays standards and usage of the term. You can scream all you want about the technicality of the terms used.

and as for your SUPPOSED unwillingness to "read into things" well, let me inform you my dear sir, the TERM "VICTIM" was put out there, and you cant just ignore it. Everyone who reads it has to come up with some decision as to what the writer meant/means.

Your attempting to use TECHNICAL definitions of the term is like the Pharisees condeming Jesus for doing work on the Sabbath, yet Jesus rebuked them and informed them that HE CREATED the sabbath, and that the sabbath was there to serve man, not the other way around, and being so technical was causing them to miss the spirit of the law by being so focused on the letter of the law. WORDS my dear friend are intended to convey ideas, and those ideas conveyed by the writer are NOT CONFORMED to what the dictionary declares, but are conformed to what the USER of the term intended.

Ahhh, but then I suppose it all depends on what the meaning of "IS" is, eh?