| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
03 Aug 2005 06:00:51 PM |
| Object: |
Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/international/middleeast/03cnd-marines.html?hp&ex=1123128000&en=115db378a5cf6fb0&ei=5094&partner=homepage
14 U.S. Marines Killed in Iraq When Vehicle Hits a Huge Bomb
By DEXTER FILKINS
and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: August 3, 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 3 - Fourteen marines were killed today when their
troop carrier struck a gigantic roadside bomb in the western town of
Haditha, marking one of the single deadliest attacks on American troops
since the invasion here in March 2003. An Iraqi civilian interpreter
working with the marines was also killed in the blast.
Articles by Vincent in National Review Online American officers said
the marines had been riding in an amphibious troop carrier "during
combat operations" on the southern end of the city at dawn today when
it struck the bomb. The explosion flipped the 31-ton troop carrier over
and caused it to burst into flames. It was not immediately clear how
many of the marines had died from the explosion or from the flames.
One marine was seriously wounded; everyone else on board was killed.
The attack offered new evidence to buttress the claims of American
officers here that insurgents in Iraq are building bigger and more
sophisticated bombs, some of which focus their blast in a single
direction.
The troop carrier, an amphibious vehicle, is designed for water-borne
assaults, and carries light armor. Even so, the vehicles are the
Marines' primary means of transporting troops and material in Iraq.
The attack brought the number of dead marines in Haditha to 20 in less
than two days. On Monday, guerrillas ambushed and killed a group of six
marine snipers who were moving through the town on foot. The snipers
had been deployed to hunt down and shoot insurgents trying to plant
roadside bombs like the one that exploded today.
Haditha is one of a string of cities that runs along the Euphrates
River from the Syrian border, and which American commanders believe
forms the network that shuttles insurgents from their sanctuaries
outside the country into Baghdad and other parts of the Iraqi
heartland.
The insurgent group, Ansar Al Sunna, claimed responsibility for the
ambush that killed the American snipers, and said in an Internet
posting today that it had captured one of the marines alive. The group
claimed it had killed eight Americans altogether, and that its fighters
had beheaded some of the Americans who were still alive after the
ambush.
There was no way to verify the claim that the group had taken an
American prisoner, and the posting did not contain any video or
photographs.
In the Internet message, Ansar Al Sunna's "military wing" promised that
a video of their American prisoner was forthcoming.
But later in the day, Ansar Al Sunna posted a video that apparently
depicted the attack on the snipers. The video shows what appears to be
two Humvees moving across the top of a desert ridge, and then, at
different times, six, and small figures walking in the desert off the
road.
"These are the crusaders," a caption on the video says.
Then the video, to the sound of a voice chanting "God is Great!" shows
three masked men shooting shells from atop a dune. Then the video shows
the body of what appears to be a dead American soldier, his shirtless
body burned and mangled.
The video zooms in on the soldier's face. Then a pair of hands reach
down and cut the soldier's dog tag from his neck. The closing frames
show an array of what appears to be captured American military
equipment, including machine guns and M-40 sniper rifles with scopes.
"Pray for us," a caption says at the end.
At a news conference at the Pentagon, Brig. Gen. Carter Ham denied that
any marines were in the custody of insurgents, saying that all of them
had been accounted for. He said there was "no indication" that any of
the marines killed on Monday had been beheaded.
American commanders did acknowledge that one of the marines caught in
Monday's ambush had become separated from the others, and that his body
was not found until later, about a mile away from the scene of the
ambush. That suggested that it was at least possible that one of the
marines had been captured alive by the insurgents and killed later.
General Ham did not rule out that possibility.
"We just don't know what happened," General Ham said.
A note sent out late today by the Marines in Iraq noted the existence
of the video purporting to show the dead American solider. The note
said the Marines were trying to determine whether it was authentic.
We are sorry that the family of the person shown in the video might be
subjected to such images," the unsigned note said. "This disregard for
all human life - Iraqi or American, men, women and even children - is a
trait of the criminals and insurgents we are fighting."
Articles by Vincent in National Review Online In the Internet posting,
Ansar Al Sunna said the insurgents had lain in wait for the Americans
for nine days, stepping up attacks on a nearby base so as to draw the
Americans into an ambush. The American base is near the Haditha Dam on
the Euphrates, a massive structure built during the time of Saddam
Hussein's rule.
The Americans said the marines caught in the ambush were members of
sniper teams going out to look for insurgents.
"The American marines fell into the trap," the Internet posting said.
As soon as the Americans got out of their vehicles, the posting said,
the insurgents surrounded them and ordered them to surrender. The
posting said the Americans started shooting, so the insurgents returned
fire.
That statement, also posted with Ansar Al Sunna, was inconsistent with
what was later shown on the video.
"After the attack the mujahedeen reached the marines, and some of them
were dead and the others were dying, so they beheaded those who were
still alive except for one, because he was not injured in the head,"
the message said. "So they took him a prisoner."
The Internet message said the insurgents were able to take away the
soldier and much of the Americans' equipment before American
helicopters arrived. On Tuesday, The Associated Press quoted witnesses
in Haditha as saying that masked men had come to the town's central
market passing out fliers boasting of the attack and brandishing
American military equipment they said had been taken from the dead
marines.
As for today's attack on the troop carrier, General Ham said it was not
clear whether the explosive was a mine - and thereby triggered on
impact - or whether it was detonated on command.
"We have seen over the past few months a general decline in the number
of improvised explosive device attacks," he said. "In volume they've
decreased, but the lethality has remained very, very high."
There was no immediate claim of responsibility for today's attack.
The attack today in Haditha follows at least half a dozen American
military offensives in Haditha and other parts of Anbar Province to
shut down that network. The previous operations have been met with
little resistance; the guerrillas have seemed to melt away, only to
mount attacks later on.
But an American officer said today that the most recent operation may
have been scoring some success, prompting the insurgents to strike
back. The Americans recently set up a base in Rawah, on the north side
of the Euphrates near the Syrian border, and moved an additional 1,600
troops to the area, substantially hindering the movement of insurgents
on both sides of the river, the American officer said.
Most of the marines killed over the past two days were part of the same
military reserve unit in Cleveland.
Today' attack was among the worst on American troops since the 2003
invasion. Last December, a suicide bomber struck a mess hall at an
American base near Mosul, killing 14 American servicemen and 4 American
contractors. In April 2004, up to 12 marines were killed when they were
attacked in the city of Ramadi.
Another marine was killed Monday in the nearby city of Hit when a
suicide bomber drove his car into a military convoy and blew himself
up. Hit is about 50 miles southeast from Haditha.
Responding to another Web posting claiming that a senior American
commander had been killed in Falluja, General Ham said, "Not to my
knowledge."
Dexter Filkins reported from Baghdad, Iraq, for this article, and Eric
Schmitt from Washington.
.
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
03 Aug 2005 07:59:09 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1123110051.530825.26300
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
The attack offered new evidence to buttress the claims of American
officers here that insurgents in Iraq are building bigger and more
sophisticated bombs, some of which focus their blast in a single
direction.
They have taken out M1A1's. Those were designed to take on Soviet battle
tanks! There is nothing tougher anywhere in the world. These Iraqis are
not stupid. They are focused, driven fanatics, and we seem to be driving
more into their camp.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it
is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other
people's business.
-- Eric Hoffer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
03 Aug 2005 08:37:04 PM |
|
|
On 4 Aug 2005 00:59:09 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
conners_3@hotmail.com wrote in news:1123110051.530825.26300
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
The attack offered new evidence to buttress the claims of American
officers here that insurgents in Iraq are building bigger and more
sophisticated bombs, some of which focus their blast in a single
direction.
They have taken out M1A1's. Those were designed to take on Soviet battle
tanks! There is nothing tougher anywhere in the world. These Iraqis are
not stupid. They are focused, driven fanatics, and we seem to be driving
more into their camp.
And just how many have they 'taken out?'
(We have had more M1A1s destroyed in accidents than by the enemy in
Iraq.)
And can you please explain what moronic impulse caused you to cross
post your comment to a military newsgroup - where the people who
actually know what they are talking about are going to laugh at you?
--
"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
03 Aug 2005 08:51:05 PM |
|
|
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote
in news:c5s2f1t6u74k548gqkj5a6onqd3cf81lr2@4ax.com:
On 4 Aug 2005 00:59:09 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
conners_3@hotmail.com wrote in news:1123110051.530825.26300
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
The attack offered new evidence to buttress the claims of American
officers here that insurgents in Iraq are building bigger and more
sophisticated bombs, some of which focus their blast in a single
direction.
They have taken out M1A1's. Those were designed to take on Soviet
battle tanks! There is nothing tougher anywhere in the world. These
Iraqis are not stupid. They are focused, driven fanatics, and we seem
to be driving more into their camp.
And just how many have they 'taken out?'
One. If one of those can be disabled, no other vehicle is safe. Don't
get me wrong, an Abrams is a magnificent piece of equipment, and and
soldier inside one is about as safe as can be. But very few soldiers are
in them, and many are out of them.
(We have had more M1A1s destroyed in accidents than by the enemy in
Iraq.)
The same could be said of every military vehicle, beginning with the
chariot. (Wait, I think we'd have to except WW1 and WW2 submarines.)
What's your point?
And can you please explain what moronic impulse caused you to cross
post your comment to a military newsgroup - where the people who
actually know what they are talking about are going to laugh at you?
Check the original post. I don't know where it came from.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation
and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger
with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change
them.
-- Abraham Lincoln
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
03 Aug 2005 09:39:22 PM |
|
|
On 4 Aug 2005 01:51:05 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
And just how many have they 'taken out?'
One. If one of those can be disabled, no other vehicle is safe. Don't
get me wrong, an Abrams is a magnificent piece of equipment, and and
soldier inside one is about as safe as can be. But very few soldiers are
in them, and many are out of them.
Anything can be disabled if the enemy gets luck enough. And if you
had bothered to look at casualty _rates_ you would discover that our
casualty rates are incredibly low.
(We have had more M1A1s destroyed in accidents than by the enemy in
Iraq.)
The same could be said of every military vehicle, beginning with the
chariot. (Wait, I think we'd have to except WW1 and WW2 submarines.)
What's your point?
My point is that the enemy has been extremely ineffective at
destroying armored vehicles.
BTW, in the history of armored warfare it is extremely unusual that an
enemy have been able to take out fewer tanks than we are losing to
accidents and normal wear-and-tear.
--
"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
03 Aug 2005 10:15:20 PM |
|
|
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote
in news:0kt2f1l2pi2leuo2tslb1coqg5ea92blhc@4ax.com:
On 4 Aug 2005 01:51:05 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
And just how many have they 'taken out?'
One. If one of those can be disabled, no other vehicle is safe.
Don't get me wrong, an Abrams is a magnificent piece of equipment, and
and soldier inside one is about as safe as can be. But very few
soldiers are in them, and many are out of them.
Anything can be disabled if the enemy gets luck enough. And if you
had bothered to look at casualty _rates_ you would discover that our
casualty rates are incredibly low.
But the dead are all 100% dead, each and every one of them. Don't make
light of their sacrifice.
(We have had more M1A1s destroyed in accidents than by the enemy in
Iraq.)
The same could be said of every military vehicle, beginning with the
chariot. (Wait, I think we'd have to except WW1 and WW2 submarines.)
What's your point?
My point is that the enemy has been extremely ineffective at
destroying armored vehicles.
Yet the dead are still dead. How many men's lives are you willing to
sacrifice? Are you willing to sacrifice your own in this cause? Ever risk
it? The lives and the patriotism of our young men and women is a scarce
and valuable resource. I think it has been poorly used in this fight.
And is Iraq any better off? With a different approach years ago, would
Iraq be better off than it is? I think so.
BTW, in the history of armored warfare it is extremely unusual that an
enemy have been able to take out fewer tanks than we are losing to
accidents and normal wear-and-tear.
Still, if tanks are subject to attack, what is safe?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
When I think of all the harm the Bible has done, I despair of ever writing
anything to equal it.
-- Oscar Wilde
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
03 Aug 2005 10:34:43 PM |
|
|
On 4 Aug 2005 03:15:20 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote
in news:0kt2f1l2pi2leuo2tslb1coqg5ea92blhc@4ax.com:
On 4 Aug 2005 01:51:05 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
And just how many have they 'taken out?'
One. If one of those can be disabled, no other vehicle is safe.
Don't get me wrong, an Abrams is a magnificent piece of equipment, and
and soldier inside one is about as safe as can be. But very few
soldiers are in them, and many are out of them.
Anything can be disabled if the enemy gets luck enough. And if you
had bothered to look at casualty _rates_ you would discover that our
casualty rates are incredibly low.
But the dead are all 100% dead, each and every one of them. Don't make
light of their sacrifice.
You are a real piece of work. I point out that we are doing an
extraordinarily good job in keeping the people whose lives are
entrusted to us alive and you seem to think that I am 'making light'
of the deaths of people we I knew personally.
My point is that the enemy has been extremely ineffective at
destroying armored vehicles.
Yet the dead are still dead. How many men's lives are you willing to
sacrifice? Are you willing to sacrifice your own in this cause? Ever risk
it? The lives and the patriotism of our young men and women is a scarce
and valuable resource. I think it has been poorly used in this fight.
last February I returned from a tour in Iraq. And this was my
_second_ war.
Do you have any more stupid things to say?
--
"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
03 Aug 2005 11:09:16 PM |
|
|
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote
in news:bu23f1titm9hfi7o4fmkerd3pdbfhr6954@4ax.com:
On 4 Aug 2005 03:15:20 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote
in news:0kt2f1l2pi2leuo2tslb1coqg5ea92blhc@4ax.com:
On 4 Aug 2005 01:51:05 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
And just how many have they 'taken out?'
One. If one of those can be disabled, no other vehicle is safe.
Don't get me wrong, an Abrams is a magnificent piece of equipment,
and and soldier inside one is about as safe as can be. But very few
soldiers are in them, and many are out of them.
Anything can be disabled if the enemy gets luck enough. And if you
had bothered to look at casualty _rates_ you would discover that our
casualty rates are incredibly low.
But the dead are all 100% dead, each and every one of them. Don't
make light of their sacrifice.
You are a real piece of work. I point out that we are doing an
extraordinarily good job in keeping the people whose lives are
entrusted to us alive and you seem to think that I am 'making light'
of the deaths of people we I knew personally.
We have over 1800 dead. Each one was a son, daughter, father, mother,
wife, brother, husband, etc. I have seen families learn a father has
died. I would *never* ask a family or a man risk such a loss in any but
the most important causes. I think our current President led us into a
war that did not need to be fought, and certainly did not need to be
fought in this way. When I was young, my father was a Navy corpsman in
Vietnam. He was sent to risk his life in a war that should not have been
fought. He is my hero, a brave man. His bravery was misused.
My point is that the enemy has been extremely ineffective at
destroying armored vehicles.
Yet the dead are still dead. How many men's lives are you willing to
sacrifice? Are you willing to sacrifice your own in this cause? Ever
risk it? The lives and the patriotism of our young men and women is a
scarce and valuable resource. I think it has been poorly used in this
fight.
last February I returned from a tour in Iraq. And this was my
_second_ war.
I applaud you bravery, I honor your service. I respect you. I also
think that *you* are too important to risk in any but vital causes. That
men willing to die for their country are asked to die for anything less
than the vital interests of their country makes me angry.
Do you have any more stupid things to say?
I don't think I've said anything stupid. Is every opinion that differs
from yours 'stupid'? Is there no room for a difference of opinion in the
America you fought for?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
If this is the best God can do, I'm not impressed.
-- George Carlin, Napalm & Silly Putty (2001)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
03 Aug 2005 11:32:42 PM |
|
|
On 4 Aug 2005 04:09:16 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
You are a real piece of work. I point out that we are doing an
extraordinarily good job in keeping the people whose lives are
entrusted to us alive and you seem to think that I am 'making light'
of the deaths of people we I knew personally.
We have over 1800 dead. Each one was a son, daughter, father, mother,
wife, brother, husband, etc. I have seen families learn a father has
died. I would *never* ask a family or a man risk such a loss in any but
the most important causes. I think our current President led us into a
war that did not need to be fought, and certainly did not need to be
fought in this way. When I was young, my father was a Navy corpsman in
Vietnam. He was sent to risk his life in a war that should not have been
fought. He is my hero, a brave man. His bravery was misused.
And your political opinions are not even mildly interesting. I am
here correcting some rather stupid comments about the enemy's
"effectiveness" in attacking us.
last February I returned from a tour in Iraq. And this was my
_second_ war.
I applaud you bravery, I honor your service. I respect you. I also
think that *you* are too important to risk in any but vital causes. That
men willing to die for their country are asked to die for anything less
than the vital interests of their country makes me angry.
Again, I am not interested in your political opinions.
Do you have any more stupid things to say?
I don't think I've said anything stupid.
Then you have a short memory. Here are your own words.
"Yet the dead are still dead. How many men's lives are you willing to
sacrifice? Are you willing to sacrifice your own in this cause? Ever
risk it? "
I have recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. I have has
friends die as a result of their service in both peacetime and in war.
I have personal friends who are currently in Iraq. I have soldiers
whom I am responsible for serving in Iraq.
And you have the gall to ask me the questions quoted above.
--
"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malachias Invictus" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
03 Aug 2005 11:51:58 PM |
|
|
"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:u163f1t696av5i6dunntqkl02ndmpc0gnc@4ax.com...
On 4 Aug 2005 04:09:16 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
You are a real piece of work. I point out that we are doing an
extraordinarily good job in keeping the people whose lives are
entrusted to us alive and you seem to think that I am 'making light'
of the deaths of people we I knew personally.
We have over 1800 dead. Each one was a son, daughter, father, mother,
wife, brother, husband, etc. I have seen families learn a father has
died. I would *never* ask a family or a man risk such a loss in any but
the most important causes. I think our current President led us into a
war that did not need to be fought, and certainly did not need to be
fought in this way. When I was young, my father was a Navy corpsman in
Vietnam. He was sent to risk his life in a war that should not have been
fought. He is my hero, a brave man. His bravery was misused.
And your political opinions are not even mildly interesting. I am
here correcting some rather stupid comments about the enemy's
"effectiveness" in attacking us.
last February I returned from a tour in Iraq. And this was my
_second_ war.
I applaud you bravery, I honor your service. I respect you. I also
think that *you* are too important to risk in any but vital causes. That
men willing to die for their country are asked to die for anything less
than the vital interests of their country makes me angry.
Again, I am not interested in your political opinions.
Do you have any more stupid things to say?
I don't think I've said anything stupid.
Then you have a short memory. Here are your own words.
"Yet the dead are still dead. How many men's lives are you willing to
sacrifice? Are you willing to sacrifice your own in this cause? Ever
risk it? "
I have recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. I have has
friends die as a result of their service in both peacetime and in war.
I have personal friends who are currently in Iraq. I have soldiers
whom I am responsible for serving in Iraq.
And you have the gall to ask me the questions quoted above.
You didn't quote any of his questions, buckwheat.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
04 Aug 2005 01:35:04 AM |
|
|
Malachias Invictus wrote:
"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:u163f1t696av5i6dunntqkl02ndmpc0gnc@4ax.com...
On 4 Aug 2005 04:09:16 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
You are a real piece of work. I point out that we are doing an
extraordinarily good job in keeping the people whose lives are
entrusted to us alive and you seem to think that I am 'making light'
of the deaths of people we I knew personally.
We have over 1800 dead. Each one was a son, daughter, father, mother,
wife, brother, husband, etc. I have seen families learn a father has
died. I would *never* ask a family or a man risk such a loss in any but
the most important causes. I think our current President led us into a
war that did not need to be fought, and certainly did not need to be
fought in this way. When I was young, my father was a Navy corpsman in
Vietnam. He was sent to risk his life in a war that should not have been
fought. He is my hero, a brave man. His bravery was misused.
And your political opinions are not even mildly interesting. I am
here correcting some rather stupid comments about the enemy's
"effectiveness" in attacking us.
last February I returned from a tour in Iraq. And this was my
_second_ war.
I applaud you bravery, I honor your service. I respect you. I also
think that *you* are too important to risk in any but vital causes. That
men willing to die for their country are asked to die for anything less
than the vital interests of their country makes me angry.
Again, I am not interested in your political opinions.
Do you have any more stupid things to say?
I don't think I've said anything stupid.
Then you have a short memory. Here are your own words.
"Yet the dead are still dead. How many men's lives are you willing to
sacrifice? Are you willing to sacrifice your own in this cause? Ever
risk it? "
I have recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. I have has
friends die as a result of their service in both peacetime and in war.
I have personal friends who are currently in Iraq. I have soldiers
whom I am responsible for serving in Iraq.
And you have the gall to ask me the questions quoted above.
You didn't quote any of his questions, buckwheat.
That's a pure lie on your part. As much as I don't like Campbell, he
did quote the guy accurately:
http://tinyurl.com/bpt7q
Pay attention, fuckwit. You dropped the ball last thread when you
bought Mikey's trolling bluster and goalpost moving.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malachias Invictus" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
04 Aug 2005 10:08:05 AM |
|
|
"Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123137304.148790.277680@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Malachias Invictus wrote:
You didn't quote any of his questions, buckwheat.
That's a pure lie on your part.
No, it was a *mistake* on my part, not that you have the wit to tell the
difference.
Pay attention, fuckwit. You dropped the ball last thread when you
bought Mikey's trolling bluster and goalpost moving.
I did not buy anything of the kind, kook. Now go back to your semicoherent
ramblings.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
04 Aug 2005 11:43:26 AM |
|
|
Malachias Invictus wrote:
"Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123137304.148790.277680@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Malachias Invictus wrote:
You didn't quote any of his questions, buckwheat.
That's a pure lie on your part.
No, it was a *mistake* on my part, not that you have the wit to tell the
difference.
It's a flamewar. Deal with it.
Pay attention, fuckwit. You dropped the ball last thread when you
bought Mikey's trolling bluster and goalpost moving.
I did not buy anything of the kind, kook.
Yes, you did.
Now go back to your semicoherent
ramblings.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Scott Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
04 Aug 2005 12:25:48 PM |
|
|
"Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123173806.470606.96670@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It's a flamewar. Deal with it.
For it to be a flamewar, you would have to be flaming people.
Thus far, this has been little other than the public humiliation of one
Chrissie Hayes, the poodle of Usenet.
-Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
04 Aug 2005 03:11:49 PM |
|
|
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
"Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123173806.470606.96670@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It's a flamewar. Deal with it.
For it to be a flamewar, you would have to be flaming people.
Thus far, this has been little other than the public humiliation of one
Chrissie Hayes, the poodle of Usenet.
Mikey, Mikey. It's an honor to be one of your targets.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Scott Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
04 Aug 2005 04:24:49 PM |
|
|
"Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123186308.966507.204710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
For it to be a flamewar, you would have to be flaming people.
Thus far, this has been little other than the public humiliation of
one
Chrissie Hayes, the poodle of Usenet.
Mikey, Mikey. It's an honor to be one of your targets.
Target? *I* don't need to do any shooting, given your remarkable
facilities for self-injury.
-Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
04 Aug 2005 06:07:41 PM |
|
|
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
"Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123186308.966507.204710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
For it to be a flamewar, you would have to be flaming people.
Thus far, this has been little other than the public humiliation of
one
Chrissie Hayes, the poodle of Usenet.
Mikey, Mikey. It's an honor to be one of your targets.
Target? *I* don't need to do any shooting, given your remarkable
facilities for self-injury.
Ho hum........
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Scott Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
04 Aug 2005 06:55:19 PM |
|
|
"Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123196860.960830.155100@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
Mikey, Mikey. It's an honor to be one of your targets.
Target? *I* don't need to do any shooting, given your remarkable
facilities for self-injury.
Ho hum........
..though given your Pee Wee Herman fetish, perhaps the appropriate term
is self-abuse.
-Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
04 Aug 2005 07:18:48 PM |
|
|
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
"Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123196860.960830.155100@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
Mikey, Mikey. It's an honor to be one of your targets.
Target? *I* don't need to do any shooting, given your remarkable
facilities for self-injury.
Ho hum........
..though given your Pee Wee Herman fetish, perhaps the appropriate term
is self-abuse.
Quack, Quack, Quack..........
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
04 Aug 2005 12:14:20 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 21:51:58 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
<capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Yet the dead are still dead. How many men's lives are you willing to
sacrifice? Are you willing to sacrifice your own in this cause? Ever
risk it? "
I have recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. I have has
friends die as a result of their service in both peacetime and in war.
I have personal friends who are currently in Iraq. I have soldiers
whom I am responsible for serving in Iraq.
And you have the gall to ask me the questions quoted above.
You didn't quote any of his questions, buckwheat.
See the " thingies at the beginning and end of the top paragraph?
Those are called 'quote marks' and used to indicate that I was
repeating somebody else's words.
Anything else to say - "buckwheat?'" (Note the use of quote marks -
now do you know what they are for?)
--
"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malachias Invictus" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
04 Aug 2005 10:05:47 AM |
|
|
"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:6q83f196rspn7c7b6h6iadb0m3o91egbjq@4ax.com...
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 21:51:58 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
<capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Yet the dead are still dead. How many men's lives are you willing to
sacrifice? Are you willing to sacrifice your own in this cause? Ever
risk it? "
I have recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. I have has
friends die as a result of their service in both peacetime and in war.
I have personal friends who are currently in Iraq. I have soldiers
whom I am responsible for serving in Iraq.
And you have the gall to ask me the questions quoted above.
You didn't quote any of his questions, buckwheat.
My mistake. Apologies.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
04 Aug 2005 12:02:30 AM |
|
|
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote
in news:u163f1t696av5i6dunntqkl02ndmpc0gnc@4ax.com:
On 4 Aug 2005 04:09:16 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
You are a real piece of work. I point out that we are doing an
extraordinarily good job in keeping the people whose lives are
entrusted to us alive and you seem to think that I am 'making light'
of the deaths of people we I knew personally.
We have over 1800 dead. Each one was a son, daughter, father, mother,
wife, brother, husband, etc. I have seen families learn a father has
died. I would *never* ask a family or a man risk such a loss in any
but the most important causes. I think our current President led us
into a war that did not need to be fought, and certainly did not need
to be fought in this way. When I was young, my father was a Navy
corpsman in Vietnam. He was sent to risk his life in a war that
should not have been fought. He is my hero, a brave man. His bravery
was misused.
And your political opinions are not even mildly interesting. I am
here correcting some rather stupid comments about the enemy's
"effectiveness" in attacking us.
Good men die over politics. Perhaps it should matter to you.
last February I returned from a tour in Iraq. And this was my
_second_ war.
I applaud you bravery, I honor your service. I respect you. I also
think that *you* are too important to risk in any but vital causes.
That men willing to die for their country are asked to die for
anything less than the vital interests of their country makes me
angry.
Again, I am not interested in your political opinions.
Good men die over politics. Perhaps it should matter to you.
Do you have any more stupid things to say?
I don't think I've said anything stupid.
Then you have a short memory. Here are your own words.
"Yet the dead are still dead. How many men's lives are you willing to
sacrifice? Are you willing to sacrifice your own in this cause? Ever
risk it? "
I asked. You had a very good answer.
I have recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. I have has
friends die as a result of their service in both peacetime and in war.
I have personal friends who are currently in Iraq. I have soldiers
whom I am responsible for serving in Iraq.
And you have the gall to ask me the questions quoted above.
I asked. You had a very good answer. But how many is too many? Is
1,822? 18,220? 182,200? Is there no number that would make you
question the wisdom of this path? When a friend dies, don't you wonder,
even for a moment, if his death was necessary? When you are a soldier,
you follow orders. But you are a citizen too, responsible for directing
the civil government through your vote, through your support of one
political view among many competing views. Do you never wonder if there
is a better way? A cheaper way? A less deadly way? It sure doesn't
seem like it from your writings, but perhaps I misjudge you. You seem so
certain, more certain than I ever feel about my own opinions. Were I
President, every death, every wounded soldier would make me question the
wisdom of my policy. Perhaps I might come away convinced that the cost
was justified. Our current President shows no sign of introspection.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying
and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the
popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for
removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.
--Isaac Asimov, "On Religiosity," Free Inquiry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
04 Aug 2005 12:41:18 AM |
|
|
On 4 Aug 2005 05:02:30 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
And your political opinions are not even mildly interesting. I am
here correcting some rather stupid comments about the enemy's
"effectiveness" in attacking us.
Good men die over politics. Perhaps it should matter to you.
Only when it affects how I perform my duties. Otherwise people's
political opinions are just more horse manure.
Again, I am not interested in your political opinions.
Good men die over politics. Perhaps it should matter to you.
The good men part - yes. But why should I be interested in people's
lame political opinions?
And you have the gall to ask me the questions quoted above.
I asked. You had a very good answer. But how many is too many? Is
1,822? 18,220? 182,200?
To put it quite bluntly - whatever it takes to get the job done.
Fortunately we are doing it and still being miserly with the lives of
our soldiers.
Is there no number that would make you
question the wisdom of this path?
No - because if I started asking that question I might look at you and
wonder if you are 'worth it.'
When a friend dies, don't you wonder,
even for a moment, if his death was necessary? When you are a soldier,
you follow orders.
It is not a matter of 'necessary.' The question I ask is: "What can
we do differently next time to avoid that risk and still accomplish
the mission?"
But you are a citizen too, responsible for directing
the civil government through your vote, through your support of one
political view among many competing views.
And I do this - in the privacy of a voting booth. Otherwise I am a
professional whose service is completely separate from his politics.
Do you never wonder if there
is a better way? A cheaper way? A less deadly way? It sure doesn't
seem like it from your writings, but perhaps I misjudge you.
Define 'better.' Does 'better' involve not forcing the enemy to fight
us on our own terms? Does your 'better' identify the 'center of
gravity' that drives Conservative Islamic Terrorism?
Or are your strategic analysis as insightful and accurate as your
inane comments about the enemy's ability to destroy our tanks?
You seem so
certain, more certain than I ever feel about my own opinions. Were I
President, every death, every wounded soldier would make me question the
wisdom of my policy. Perhaps I might come away convinced that the cost
was justified. Our current President shows no sign of introspection.
Then if you were President - we would lose. There is no easy answer
to the war on terror. Once the first soldier crosses the Line Of
Departure - you are either committed - or you are defeated and you
have just wasted everything those soldiers have done. And even worse
- you have just ensured that those soldiers died for nothing.
Do you think that I would ever feel comfortable risking my life and
the lives of my troops knowing that if any of them died you would
'question the wisdom of your policy' and thus ensure that their
sacrifice was for nothing?
The American soldier can and will win in Iraq - but only if people
like you let us.
--
"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Scott Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
04 Aug 2005 03:27:22 AM |
|
|
"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:j193f15ggruf2c271n59oqlvfefhl03jhm@4ax.com...
Do you think that I would ever feel comfortable risking my life and
the lives of my troops knowing that if any of them died you would
'question the wisdom of your policy' and thus ensure that their
sacrifice was for nothing?
The logical fallacy in this argument is *staggering*.
Please don't be with the blatantly absurdist propaganda in public.
Oh no! We can't question ourselves! We must always do *only* what we
decided to do in the first place! Regardless of the outcome and regardless
of new information! Stay the course, or we will weaken and fail!
Do you have any idea how gods-damnned idiotic that sounds?
There is a difference between enlightened self-scrutiny and *cowardice*,
you fool!
Yes, I'm being harsh with you - because your public idiocy deserves it.
*Think*. A mission is initiated, 100 men die at the first stage. After
regrouping and contemplating the greater difficulty of the project, it is
determined that perhaps this mission isn't worth the cost it will wind up
incurring (say, 10,000 men). You would prefer to spend those 9,900 lives in
order to ensure that the first 100 to fall don't have their FEELINGS HURT?
What about the wives, sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers of those other
9900 soldiers???? I'm sure they'll be very relieved to know that their
loved ones died in droves so that none of them could be said to have died
"for nothing".
That is a case of *utterly* misplaced priorities.
The sacrifices of those first 100 could be described as having *saved*
9900 lives. That is hardly "nothing", sir.
-Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
04 Aug 2005 08:14:29 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 08:27:22 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:j193f15ggruf2c271n59oqlvfefhl03jhm@4ax.com...
Do you think that I would ever feel comfortable risking my life and
the lives of my troops knowing that if any of them died you would
'question the wisdom of your policy' and thus ensure that their
sacrifice was for nothing?
The logical fallacy in this argument is *staggering*.
Please don't be with the blatantly absurdist propaganda in public.
Is it? Are you saying that I am supposed to feel comfortable risking
the lives of my soldiers for a policy that can be dropped because the
person running it does not have the guts to see it through?
Oh no! We can't question ourselves! We must always do *only* what we
decided to do in the first place! Regardless of the outcome and regardless
of new information! Stay the course, or we will weaken and fail!
Once we are committed we either succeed or fail. If you lack
commitment then you have no business committing troops in the first
place.
--
"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Scott Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
04 Aug 2005 12:23:34 PM |
|
|
"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 08:27:22 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
The logical fallacy in this argument is *staggering*.
Please don't be with the blatantly absurdist propaganda in public.
Is it? Are you saying that I am supposed to feel comfortable risking
the lives of my soldiers for a policy that can be dropped because the
person running it does not have the guts to see it through?
The number of things about military service that defy the concept of
"comfort" are fairly staggering. Privation, killing, dying, post traumatic
stress... I don't see you having much of a leg to stand on with this
argument about "comfort". The *job* is to implement the will of the United
States of America - whatever it might be at the time. If each patriot does
that to the best of his ability, and lives every day to protect his
comrades, then his life is *never* "for nothing".
I notice you erased the part about having to kill 9,900 more soldiers so
that you could be more "comfortable".
You don't have anything to say about that?
Retreat and readjustment is part of war. This does not make the lives
lost before the change in course a wasted effort.
Oh no! We can't question ourselves! We must always do *only* what we
decided to do in the first place! Regardless of the outcome and
regardless
of new information! Stay the course, or we will weaken and fail!
Once we are committed we either succeed or fail. If you lack
commitment then you have no business committing troops in the first
place.
Responding to new circumstances is not necessarily about lack of
commitment - though one who lacks commitment will of course respond
fecklessly. Your assertion that the two are one and the same is *flawed
thinking*.
I'd really prefer to imagine the boys at the tip of my spears had a
brain in their heads. Can you please improve your wisdom?
-Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
04 Aug 2005 09:33:26 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:23:34 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
The number of things about military service that defy the concept of
"comfort" are fairly staggering. Privation, killing, dying, post traumatic
stress... I don't see you having much of a leg to stand on with this
argument about "comfort". The *job* is to implement the will of the United
States of America - whatever it might be at the time. If each patriot does
that to the best of his ability, and lives every day to protect his
comrades, then his life is *never* "for nothing".
If you do not see this - then that is your problem, not mine.
I notice you erased the part about having to kill 9,900 more soldiers so
that you could be more "comfortable".
You don't have anything to say about that?
It was stupid so I ignored it.
Retreat and readjustment is part of war. This does not make the lives
lost before the change in course a wasted effort.
But it is wasted if your 'realignment' discards the work they have
done.
We can and are winning this war. Only you can lose it.
Once we are committed we either succeed or fail. If you lack
commitment then you have no business committing troops in the first
place.
Responding to new circumstances is not necessarily about lack of
commitment - though one who lacks commitment will of course respond
fecklessly. Your assertion that the two are one and the same is *flawed
thinking*.
Only if you are making that change as part of an AAR process. Only if
you are keeping the long term goal in sight.
Aborting a job half-done because you took counsel of your fears is a
waste.
I'd really prefer to imagine the boys at the tip of my spears had a
brain in their heads. Can you please improve your wisdom?
"your spears"?
-Michael
--
"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Scott Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
05 Aug 2005 02:42:28 AM |
|
|
"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:8hj5f1t06fasjhasobq2hfvq0sgu8olr9r@4ax.com...
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:23:34 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
The number of things about military service that defy the concept of
"comfort" are fairly staggering. Privation, killing, dying, post
traumatic
stress... I don't see you having much of a leg to stand on with this
argument about "comfort". The *job* is to implement the will of the
United
States of America - whatever it might be at the time. If each patriot
does
that to the best of his ability, and lives every day to protect his
comrades, then his life is *never* "for nothing".
If you do not see this - then that is your problem, not mine.
Please. Your agument implies that retreat has no value in war. You know
that's horseshit. The decision to insist that a decision to retreat somehow
dishonors the fallen is a choice *you* make, not one demanded by reason or
logic, and it's a gods-damnned stupid one. Condemnn leaders for being
negligent with lives, not for being responsible with them!
I notice you erased the part about having to kill 9,900 more soldiers
so
that you could be more "comfortable".
You don't have anything to say about that?
It was stupid so I ignored it.
*****. It spanked your argument like a red headed stepchild.
We can and are winning this war. Only you can lose it.
Quit being a fucking moron in public. I'm criticizing your *thinking*,
not the state of the war. Have I taken a position? Hmm? Thankyou.
Aborting a job half-done because you took counsel of your fears is a
waste.
Sometimes fears are well founded, sir. You are absolutely right that a
goal worth achieving should not be abandonded because of "some" losses in
its pursuit - but it is often the case that we wildly underestimate the
costs, and priorities can change when those costs are re-evaluated. Or did
you fail to realize that losing 9900 additional soldiers is 9900 soldiers
you can't do *anything else* with any more?
I'd really prefer to imagine the boys at the tip of my spears had a
brain in their heads. Can you please improve your wisdom?
"your spears"?
I manufacture policy and weapons. My spears.
-Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
05 Aug 2005 07:51:17 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 07:42:28 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
If you do not see this - then that is your problem, not mine.
Please. Your agument implies that retreat has no value in war. You know
that's horseshit. The decision to insist that a decision to retreat somehow
dishonors the fallen is a choice *you* make, not one demanded by reason or
logic, and it's a gods-damnned stupid one. Condemnn leaders for being
negligent with lives, not for being responsible with them!
My comment never implied that.
That is something you erroneously (or maybe deliberately) read into
it.
--
"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
04 Aug 2005 08:18:49 AM |
|
|
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
news:lv44f159rtpta4js6hc59ic6gdtmg24cmn@4ax.com:
The logical fallacy in this argument is *staggering*.
Please don't be with the blatantly absurdist propaganda in public.
Is it? Are you saying that I am supposed to feel comfortable risking
the lives of my soldiers for a policy that can be dropped because the
person running it does not have the guts to see it through?
Fucking moron! You're never supposed "supposed to feel comfortable risking
the lives of ... soldiers".
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
I don't go to mythical places with strange men.
-Douglas Adams, The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul (1988)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq |
04 Aug 2005 08:43:05 AM |
|
|
On 4 Aug 2005 13:18:49 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
news:lv44f159rtpta4js6hc59ic6gdtmg24cmn@4ax.com:
The logical fallacy in this argument is *staggering*.
Please don't be with the blatantly absurdist propaganda in public.
Is it? Are you saying that I am supposed to feel comfortable risking
the lives of my soldiers for a policy that can be dropped because the
person running it does not have the guts to see it through?
Fucking moron! You're never supposed "supposed to feel comfortable risking
the lives of ... soldiers".
In that case - I would not be able to do my job and return home sane.
Leave soldier leadership to people who know what they are talking
about.
And - BTW - you knew what I meant. Are you such a pathetic person
that you have to misrepresent my words?
--
"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
