I have seen the enemy, he talks like this:

[MtnBiker]

Hmmm let's see:

Headline -
"Today 5 Muslim Patriots beheaded a dirty infidel"

Is that better?

 

[insein]

Originally posted by scubamike
Legitimate sure, but misleading. It is like the use of words such as "insurgents" or "terrorists".
Imagine if they said "Resistance fighters" and "Patriots" (which I'm sure they do in the appropriate supporting literature).

Im sorry whenver i glance at your name it reads scumbagmike to me. This is a joke BTW. It just looks that way to me at a glance.

When we fought the British because of their tyranny we used the terms freedom fighters and patriots rightfully so. We fought against an oppressive government that had taken away basic liberties of the colonists. Brittain was the agressor.

Terrorists are not members of our society. They have never been oppressed by us. We do not govern their actions. when they decided to declare war on us in the name of their God, that is when we took notice (albeit it took a decade for us to notice).

They inflict terror on people that do not believe in what they believe. They are the agressors. When you are the agressor you are not a freedom fighter. I don't care what propagandized bullshit they show people to get them to strap a bomb to their chest, they are the enemy. the sooner the WHOLE WORLD realizes this, the better.

 

[scubamike]

Originally posted by insein
Im sorry whenver i glance at your name it reads scumbagmike to me.

When we fought the British because of their tyranny we used the terms freedom fighters and patriots rightfully so. We fought against an oppressive government that had taken away basic liberties of the colonists. Brittain was the agressor.

Are base insults really necessary, seems like a school yard approach. Detracts from you otherwise reasoned arguement.
In Iraq you have an American military force governing the Iraqi people (and padding the new "government" with American "sympathisers").
Basic rights to religion and freedom of speech have been taken away.
So the Iraqis would be justified in using such terms, from a certain point of view.

I'm not saying the removal of Saddam is a bad thing, but the often one-sided reporting really sucks.

Headline -
"Today 5 Muslim Patriots beheaded a dirty infidel"

Is that better?

Maybe it is to the Arabs....

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by scubamike


Maybe it is to the Arabs....

I'm asking you!

 

[insein]

Originally posted by scubamike
Are base insults really necessary, seems like a school yard approach. Detracts from you otherwise reasoned arguement.
In Iraq you have an American military force governing the Iraqi people (and padding the new "government" with American "sympathisers").
Basic rights to religion and freedom of speech have been taken away.
So the Iraqis would be justified in using such terms, from a certain point of view.

I'm not saying the removal of Saddam is a bad thing, but the often one-sided reporting really sucks.





Maybe it is to the Arabs....

Sorry about the insult. I mistook you for a typical anti-US dolt. You seem to actually be conversing though as opposed to most of the other "crash test dummies" that hit and run.

I don't know what news your watching but i wish we got it here. If you were to watch American news, you'd think that we lost the War in Iraq and that our government is ready to implode.

As for "being padded with american sympathesizers" any offical that is being placed into office and not elected will be criticised. We could have placed Al sadr into office in Iraq and their would outrage that the Americans are getting something out of it. Same thing happened in Germany. Same thing Happened in Japan. It will continue to draw sriticism until general elections are held later this year or early next year. Which is quite remarkable i might add. For a country to go from over 30 years under a tyrannical dictator to a self governed nation in less than 2 years is astounding. Germany took over a decade as did japan before they become wholey self governing. Iraq is definitely on the fast track.

 

[scubamike]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
I'm asking you!

To me this would seem less biased:
"US civilian beheaded by militant extremists."

Pretty hard to argue with such descriptions, or?
My concern is more about the rhetoric which enforces a "good/evil" judgement.
As Ben Kenobi said "As you get older you will find that many of the truths we hold to depend very much on our own points of view." Or similar.

 

[scubamike]

Originally posted by insein
Sorry about the insult. I mistook you for a typical anti-US dolt. You seem to actually be conversing though as opposed to most of the other "crash test dummies" that hit and run.

Yeah, I see a lot of them on both sides around the Net. Vainly searching for reasoned debate...

I don't know what news your watching but i wish we got it here. If you were to watch American news, you'd think that we lost the War in Iraq and that our government is ready to implode.

That is pretty much the concensus around the world. www.nzherald.co.nz
Is one of my main news sources. A good educational background in history and warfare helps filter the B.S. University education and all that.

As for "being padded with american sympathesizers" any offical that is being placed into office and not elected will be criticised.

Hence the "" around "sympathisers"

For a country to go from over 30 years under a tyrannical dictator to a self governed nation in less than 2 years is astounding. Germany took over a decade as did japan before they become wholey self governing. Iraq is definitely on the fast track.

Modern media requires it. Today people are used to instant gratification. I think Iraq will suffer as a result. Better media control and troop discipline would be ideal but media control is seen as evil. Go figure.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by scubamike
Yeah, I see a lot of them on both sides around the Net. Vainly searching for reasoned debate...



That is pretty much the concensus around the world. www.nzherald.co.nz
Is one of my main news sources. A good educational background in history and warfare helps filter the B.S. University education and all that.




Hence the "" around "sympathisers"




Modern media requires it. Today people are used to instant gratification. I think Iraq will suffer as a result. Better media control and troop discipline would be ideal but media control is seen as evil. Go figure.

Media censorship is evil but when the media is biased to one side of the spectrum its hard to decide what the right course of action should be.

As for the instant gratification, that is one of my main problems with todays American society. they want it all and they want it all now. We took Iraq in less than 30 days and it wasnt fast enough. We're building a sovereign state in less than 2 years and it isnt fast enough. I myself admit that i want somethings to happen overnight. But i realize that if i want anything good, i have to work at it and make it happen over a period of time. Not many americans, especially kids, get that nowadays. With their parents giving them anything they want, kids are growing up thinking that they can have everything right now with little or no effort. Its these same kids that grow up expecting the government to take care of them. Adult kids that live off of welfare and other government aides.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by scubamike
Routinely massacre?!?!? Innocent?!?!?

Let's face it military forces cannot really be considered "innocent". As for massacre, the only recent such event was 9/11. Apart from that it has been only ones and twos. Hardly a massacre. You are much more likely to get hit my a bus while crossing the street than killed by a Muslim.

Here you go scubamike, perhaps this fits your definition of a massacre better:

Saudis search for clues after militant attack
22 people killed in Khobar; Britain warns more strikes likely

Saudi Arabia - Britain said Monday that more attacks were probable in Saudi Arabia, where security forces hunted suspected al-Qaida militants who killed 22 people in their second major strike in a month on the oil industry.



Attacks are “clearly possible,” Britain’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Sherard Cowper-Coles, told the British Broadcasting Corp. “I would go further than that and say they are probable.”

A Briton was among 19 who were foreigners killed in the attack.

“There is an active terrorist campaign [in Saudi Arabia], and we know that Westerners are targets,” said Cowper-Coles, whose country is the second-largest foreign investor in Saudi Arabia behind the United States.
..............................................................

But as pictures of the bloodbath were beamed around the world, Western countries urged their citizens to either leave Saudi Arabia or not to go the kingdom unless it was essential.

“There were pools of blood. Blood is everywhere,” said a member of the staff at the luxury Oasis compound, the scene of a 25-hour hostage standoff. He declined to be identified.
.................................................................

The building where the hostages were held was still sealed off after the siege, but bullet holes, bloodstains, shattered glass, empty cartridges and grenades provided evidence of the havoc, said a witness, who declined to be named.

Westerners were also among those killed earlier when the militants opened fire on the Al-Khobar Petroleum Center building, which houses offices of major Western oil firms, and then swept through housing compounds.

The militants dragged the body of a dead Briton through the streets behind a car, witnesses said. The body of an American suffered the same fate in an attack on a petrochemical site in the Red Sea town of Yanbu earlier in May.

The Interior Ministry listed the dead as an American, a Briton, an Italian, a South African, a Swede, eight Indians, two Sri Lankans, three Filipinos, an Egyptian boy and three Saudis. It said 25 people were wounded.





Full Story

Oh but wait, you are probably more likely to be killed by a charging hippo. :fu2:

 

[scubamike]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Here you go scubamike, perhaps this fits your definition of a massacre better:....

Pretty much. As for my definition of massacre... It is shown elsewhere and the most common use in this context.

Here is a good story from the events though:

Kiwi hides workers during Saudi attack
A Christchurch woman rounded up 21 colleagues and ushered them to safety as terrorists invaded the Saudi residential complex where she works.

Last night, child care worker Jo Fowler played down suggestions that her brave actions saved the lives of her workmates.

"I don't look at it like that because it's just what you do. You know what Kiwis are like, you just roll up your sleeves and get going," she said.

Full Story

Oh but wait, you are probably more likely to be killed by a charging hippo. :fu2:

Hippos kill on average 4000 people per annum. How many people dead by "terrorism" this year? And what is up with little children and obscene gestures?

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by scubamike
Pretty much

So are you in agreement that terrorist massacre innocents?

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by scubamike
Pretty much.

Ok I'll ask again, are you in agreement that terrortist massacre innocents?

 

[scubamike]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Ok I'll ask again, are you in agreement that terrortist massacre innocents?

Um, "pretty much" is a statement of agreement.
The attack in Saudi Arabia was a terrortist(sic) attack on civilians.

I don't generally bother arguing pointless semantics, but since you asked twice...

 

[MtnBiker]

No, I first asked you about the definition of a word then I asked you about the actions of terrorists. I asked again because you didn't answer.

 

[scubamike]

I did answer. You quoted my answer and then repeated the question.

 

[MtnBiker]

No, I first asked you about the definition of a word then I asked you about the actions of terrorists. I asked again because you didn't answer.

 

[scubamike]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
No, I first asked you about the definition of a word then I asked you about the actions of terrorists. I asked again because you didn't answer.

Whoa, deja vu. :

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Does the 3/11 train bombings count as a massacre?

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
Does the 3/11 train bombings count as a massacre?

My God Jihadthis, what are you implying? That scubamike's statement:

Originally posted by scubamike
As for massacre, the only recent such event was 9/11. Apart from that it has been only ones and twos. Hardly a massacre. You are much more likely to get hit my a bus while crossing the street than killed by a Muslim.

is completely wrong?

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
My God Jihadthis, what are you implying? That scubamike's statement:



is completely wrong?

Now would i do that?