Maybe that's how they justify it, much like Christians justified some terrible things in the past, but child soldiers would be a fact regardless. As a Tamil whose parents came from Sri Lanka, I know that the LTTE used child soldiers as well and they're Hindu. I know that wars all over the world are fought using child soldiers and it has absolutely nothing to do with their religious affiliation and everything to do with them being nutjobs.
Does murders happening in a more illegal war than a less illegal war make it better somehow? The only difference, in reality between whatever the hell you are trying to say the difference is would happen to be that the wars the US have involved actions like the president usurping his natural constitutional powers rather than properly declaring war.
What about the Tamil Tigers? They were a Hindu group, that actually had trained with the PLO. They revolutionized suicide bombing, and ethnically cleansed the areas under their control of Muslims and Buddhists. I don't think that there is a terrorist tactic that they didn't use that terrorists don't normally use, in addition to having a navy, and air force, something that we should be glad that terrorists in the Middle East lack. I think that it would be safe to say that you couldn't blame Islam for terrorism anymore then you could blame the Zoroastrianism for the terrorism, as it was historically strong in the Middle East.
In the short video, the first one, the first hit they do it looks like they shoot at the crawling guy before the van comes in, as I recall. Maybe I just didn't see the van.
Nope. You can't. The Iraqi government has laws forbidding from walking around with weapons on the streets. You can keep an AK in your house, but if you go wandering around with one, don't be surprised if you get shot.
Yes, they were. They were wandering with AKs, one lined up a shot, and there was an upcoming US convoy that the Apache was sent to protect (which is why any complaints how these men weren't a threat to the Apache is irrelevant - they could have easily killed the soldiers on the ground). Those men were clearly insurgents, and so the appropriate action was taken.
I do not blaim the intire US military for the incident. Hell, if they hadn't rushed the children to the hospital they'd be dead by now.
In order to be a war, the US government has to have declared it formally. Right now, it's just an unresolved/ongoing/whatever political conflict, or something similar. So, not a war.
And how was the apache threatened there? What was their justification?
I can do the same about US Imperialism.
So, guilty until proven innocent?
Well, you guys go and mass-murder and torture innocent civillians living miles away from your country, while they are labelled as terrorists for fighting against soldiers that invaded their country.
Shit happens isn't an excuse - and cannot be. Killing a human shouldn't be so easy. War crimes do happen, you cannot prevent that - but things like Abu Ghraib and this are clearly not acceptable.
You seem to be overly concern with being "politically correct". The fact is that these terrorists ARE MUSLIMS and Islam plays a big role in their acts of violence. While the Muslim faith itself is not violent, the perverted version of it is what motivates these extremists. It is silly not to mention the role Islam plays in their acts because it is a big part about why they are terrorists. Most Muslims are non-violent people, but these Muslims are horrible, horrible, humans.
1st, political correctness is important, when we're talking about deep wounds that separate half the planet.
Read the sentence he wrote:
He is speaking from an ignorant viewpoint. If all you do is watch Fox, CNN, and god knows what else on your television, then yes, as far as you know all war in the world is contained within the Middle East and it's between "Us" and "Them".
How? I gave a detailed explanation of why political correctness is weighed too heavily. You can't blow me off with one sentence. What are the "deep wounds"? You need to acknowledge the root of the evil. Your response is simply not adequate.
First off: I watch a variety of news channels and read numerous papers.
This is the entire point I just made. It is a war in every way possible to define war. The only difference is that it is unfuckingconstitutional. When you invade a sovereign nation illegally, depose their dictator, establish war zones and rules, and spend god knows how many years it will end up being mucking around in said should-have-been-sovereign-not-really-sovereign-nation-anymore, then you are in a war.
It's important to be politically correct in cases like this because using the word "Muslim" to preface negative words is what got you to the stage where being Muslim is apparently scary to the public. Last I checked we had nuts in the United States not only thinking Barack Obama was Muslim, but thought that made him unfit to be president.
This isn't in the context of "The War on Terror", as your marketing department puts it, because Iraq isn't a part of it. We are talking about Iraq, not the Taliban.
I'm a little offended that you would say this. There are always freaks no matter what. Having accurate information didn't make them freaks. They're just freaks who would always have a crazy perception of reality. There are very few people like this.
It's important to know what motives these people have. There are always stupid people, but a few nuts can't stop us from telling the truth. Personally I think the Muslim American community should mobilize and become visible Americans who share their culture with the United States. Educating people about their culture is the best way to eliminate ignorance.
And those motives are Islamic extremism, not Islam, the same way Hutaree is classified as a Christian extremism, and not just christian, organization. It's not a question of politeness here. It's just calling things by their names. Their full, correct names.
And when quality news sources report these type of incidents, they make sure you know they a Muslim extremists. The very word terrorist tells you that this is an extremist person. The Europeans and the left are too preoccupied with making sure that we don't mention religion when it plays a role in acts of violence. It is merely being accurate.
Why don't you ask the CO? They thought there was a threat and they acted. Maybe you don't think it was justified, and maybe you think that shooting at potential threats is just one more example of imperialism.
Yes, I realize you can do a Google search and come up with communist propaganda. It does not change the fact that extremist Muslims of this type have no issue using children as soldiers in their conflicts. The United States does not use children as soldiers in their conflicts. If you cannot spot the moral difference between the two, you are beyond help.
This is not a civil trial, this is a military action in a war zone. If the CO thinks these people pose an imminent threat in some way, they have to act on that information. I suspect that in your worldview you can't swat a mosquito off your arm without consulting a lawyer to make sure it has been given due process, but places with vast civic unrest and insurgents around every corner do not have that luxury. Soldiers in general do not have that luxury. For someone like you who never has had another human being's life in their hands, who has never been subject to the vast mental stress of war, to act all high and mighty about guilt and innocence is disgusting.
Mass Murder? You mean like Saddam? You mean like the terrorists that decided it'd be honky dory to kill 3,000+ Americans on Sept. 11th? If America were really doing all the things you claim they are, why is it that the vast majority of Iraqis respect and admire America's men and women in uniform? Maybe because unlike you sitting in the safety of your anti-US cocoon, they actually interact with our soldiers on a regular basis. We can't all be self-righteous moralizers who operate based on the seriousness of the charge rather than the reality on the ground.
Humans get killed all the time, every day of their lives, in ways both mundane and horrific. Abu Ghraib was tragic but it happened once, and when discovered everyone involved was punished and it never happened again. As for "this," the context is extremely suspect. Everyone has 20/20 hindsight, and everyone can be an armchair general blaming US Imperialism for every terrible thing that happens in a foreign nation.
That report was BS, everyone knows it, and we did not invade Iraq for oil.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Look, Iraq was a mistake, and I think it is reasonable to begin withdrawing, but acting like how it is now is worse than it was under Saddam is moronic to the highest degree.
Wrong. You go in an unmarked van and help insurgents, and the Apache has every reason in assuming that those guys are insurgents too. You want to charge in a battlefield and help the wounded, get a Red Crescent tag, or heck even a white flag. Otherwise, we will shoot, and have no regrets.
