Anindya Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Saya, she has a long history of reporting anti-American "news" to her paper, which is called "Il Manifesto" for crying out loud. Gimme a little[/i'] credit. (grin) Hello bargeing in on this one no matter what the lady did. They freaking shot at her. You must also remember that the 'Righteous Americans' went in to destroy the thousands of weapon s of mass destruction that the Iraqis were hiding in their homes.. Also the few thousands of fanatics (women and children) killed by them were just asking for it... I wonder if you consider the Italian lady's personal beliefs and political motivations to be enough reason to kill her.... I guess you voted for Bush... Hey then I want to take a shot at you!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 They freaking shot at her.The question is why. Not sure what righteous americans destroying WMD has anything to do with the topic at hand. I wonder if you consider the Italian lady's personal beliefs and political motivations to be enough reason to kill her....I guess you voted for Bush... Hey then I want to take a shot at you!! Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 16, 2005 Author Share Posted March 16, 2005 They shot her because Americans are evil, Blike. Don't you get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tetrahedrite Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 They shot her because Americans are evil, Blike. Don't you get it? Correction. Conservative, right wing Americans are evil. Some of your/their views make me sick to the stomach. *decides to put on bullet proof vest* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 17, 2005 Author Share Posted March 17, 2005 They shot her because conservatives are evil, Blike. Don't you get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Hello bargeing in on this one no matter what the lady did. They freaking shot at her.You must also remember that the 'Righteous Americans' went in to destroy the thousands of weapon s of mass destruction that the Iraqis were hiding in their homes.. Also the few thousands of fanatics (women and children) killed by them were just asking for it... I wonder if you consider the Italian lady's personal beliefs and political motivations to be enough reason to kill her.... I guess you voted for Bush... Hey then I want to take a shot at you!! You made Pangloss's point: Since you apparently hate Americans, you assume that since he is American, he must support Bush and think the woman deserved to be shot because she is liberal - thus your reaction. His point was that since the lady is Anti-American occupation, her recounting of the events are biased. Just as you reaction to his post. This seems to be a habit of yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I guess you voted for Bush... Hey then I want to take a shot at you!!Wrong guess! Congratulations, you just shot a Kerry supporter! How are you going to justify your mistake? It's always amazing to me that war makes so many things justifiable in our eyes. Just because she may have been a suicide bomber is no reason to forgive her being shot at. It was wrong, an intelligence officer died, there are no excuses. When a US Marine shoots to kill, you better believe it's intentional. I'm sure the US military had reasons for doing the wrong thing, but nothing excuses it, imo. Justifying unnecessary death simply because procedure wasn't followed insures that the next atrocity will be even worse. And it will be that much easier to justify. From the soon-to-be Ministry of Keeping the Horror within Sensible Limits. Heil Aardvark! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Jesus H. Zombie. What the flid has Bush's reign of evil got to do with whether or not civilians can be shot at without consequences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 What the flid has Bush's reign of evil got to do with whether or not civilians can be shot at without consequences?It's part of the syndrome, imo. Like it's OK for Bush to make rash, juvenile decisions against the better judgements of his advisors because he sometimes talks like a rash juvenile. He rushes in with no idea of how to get out and people just think, "Ah, impetuous George! He shouldn't have done that, but well, that's George!" I hear people every day defending Halliburton for war profiteering, They don't make the connection that when KBR charges $45 for a case of soda, or buys another $80,000 truck because the old one needed simple repairs that there isn't enough money left to put armor-plating on troop vehicles. I'm angry that it's even mentioned that this reporter's affiliation with a Communist newspaper is supposed to make her an acceptable bullseye for target practice, or even that it undermines her credibility as a victim. Being inundated with accounts and actual footage of death and destruction is making us numb to it, allowing us to pass stupid judgements, and if we don't acknowledge that it's affecting our humanity we're fooling ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anindya Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 The question is why. Not sure what righteous americans destroying WMD has anything to do with the topic at hand. Heh. Again if you believe that one's beliefs are enough to take potshots at them then you must totally understand the 9/11 attacks and sympathise with Bin Ladens "Holy War" And I mentioned the whole WMD thing just to point out that at the moment the US foreign policy sucks!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anindya Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 You made Pangloss's point: Since you apparently hate Americans' date=' you assume that since he is American, he must support Bush and think the woman deserved to be shot because she is liberal - thus your reaction. His point was that since the lady is Anti-American occupation, her recounting of the events are biased. Just as you reaction to his post. This seems to be a habit of yours.[/quote'] I am not Anti - American.... But would just like to say that evey one has a right to their opinion and that you don't shoot at someone just because you don't agree with them.(This is considering that we both agree that the lady WAS shot at). And also considering the fact that the lady was Italian and hence an ally??.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 But would just like to say that evey one has a right to their opinion and that you don't shoot at someone just because you don't agree with them. It is highly unlikely that the soldiers shot at the journalist because of her opinions. Unless you would like to present some evidence no one else has seen? And also considering the fact that the lady was Italian and hence an ally??.. What point are you trying to make here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 17, 2005 Author Share Posted March 17, 2005 But would just like to say that evey one has a right to their opinion and that you don't shoot at someone just because you don't agree with them. How interesting, given your first post: I wonder if you consider the Italian lady's personal beliefs and political motivations to be enough reason to kill her....I guess you voted for Bush... Hey then I want to take a shot at you!! I didn't bother to respond to that because it was so infantile and attack-oriented. I guess outright hypocrisy crosses a line for me, and I have to say something. (chuckle) There's really nothing quite as amusing as a liberal screaming about free speech and how anyone who doesn't believe in it should be silenced. Anyway, as Phi pointed out above, you missed the mark. I was a Kerry supporter. But unlike you, I actually take the time to look at both sides of an issue, and I don't leap to conclusions about someone's motivations or overall ideology based on one or two specific opinions. You might want to give that some thought before posting again. "The strong are different from the weak, in that they think before they speak." -Mozart, "The Magic Flute" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 But would just like to say that evey one has a right to their opinion and that you don't shoot at someone just because you don't agree with them.(This is considering that we both agree that the lady WAS shot at).And also considering the fact that the lady was Italian and hence an ally??.. Just because she was shot at doesn't mean she was shot at because of her beliefs. It's highly unlikely the soldiers knew who was in the car. or even that it undermines her credibility as a victim.But you must admit that her position will undoubtedly influence her recollection of the event (whether consciously or unconsciously). I'm going to pose a question. This is probably stepping in a bee-hive, but I want your opinions. Area 51 is offlimits to most everybody in the country. They have signs that warn that any unauthorized persons on the premises will be shot with intent to kill, no questions asked. Let's assume John Doe is taking a walk through the desert. He doesn't see the sign, wanders onto the premises, and is shot dead. Who is at fault? The guard that shot him? The guy who was ignorant of the sign? For all the guard knew, the wandering man was an enemy spy. For all the man knew, he was taking a walk through the desert. Both of their ignorances resulted in the man's death. Why should we place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the guard? Conservative, right wing Americans are evil. Some of your/their views make me sick to the stomach.At least we're consistent. But seriously, I'm conservative, and I don't think any of my beliefs are evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syntax252 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Is there any evidence that the soldiers who fired on this car, knew who was inside the car before fireing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Area 51 is offlimits to most everybody in the country. They have signs that warn that any unauthorized persons on the premises will be shot with intent to kill' date=' no questions asked. Let's assume John Doe is taking a walk through the desert. He doesn't see the sign, wanders onto the premises, and is shot dead. Who is at fault? The guard that shot him? The guy who was ignorant of the sign? For all the guard knew, the wandering man was an enemy spy. For all the man knew, he was taking a walk through the desert. Both of their ignorances resulted in the man's death. Why should we place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the guard? [/quote'] Huh. I'd probably draw an example of British solders in Northern Ireland, as it has the advantage of having actually occurred and involves an occupying force facing an insurgent minority, who are willing to use carbombs, and the roadblocks are the same. In actual fact, the principle of the roadblocks to control the insurgents was something the British Army proposed to the Americans based on the use in northern Island. I'll get some links in a bit, but the BBC's down at the moment. I do remember the same questions being asked, so linkage could save some effort here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Area 51 is offlimits to most everybody in the country. They have signs that warn that any unauthorized persons on the premises will be shot with intent to kill, no questions asked. Let's assume John Doe is taking a walk through the desert. He doesn't see the sign, wanders onto the premises, and is shot dead. Who is at fault?A guard who lethally shoots a man who hadn't seen any signs on his route, "wandering" openly in Area 51, deserves to be tried for murder IMO. Context is everything here. If the man was darting from bush to tumbleweed in an effort not to be seen, this puts a different light on the subject.At least we're consistent. But seriously, I'm conservative, and I don't think any of my beliefs are evil.If that's true, then stop putting your pinky next to your mouth every time you type "evil". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 17, 2005 Author Share Posted March 17, 2005 If Gloria Steinem and Al Franken had donned disguises and driven a vehicle right at the Clinton White House and refused to stop, is there any question they would have been shot at too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 17, 2005 Author Share Posted March 17, 2005 If that's true, then stop putting your pinky next to your mouth every time you type "evil". ROFL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anindya Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Infantile attack you say and go on to mention that you look at both sides of the story.. Well I thought about it and well the whole Iraq thing sickens me and any misfortune resulting from it just strengthens that feeling..... I don't believe that any country in TODAY'S world has the right to determine the fate of a population other than it's own for economic gains or personal ego problem.....That's why the UN was put in place I believe..I do not sympathise with Saddam or his reign but then the US did not go in with noble thoughts in mind and that is clear now..... Hence the overtly anti - american, anti - Bush remarks. I cannot be diplomatic about anything that is a direct result of this...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 17, 2005 Author Share Posted March 17, 2005 Well that's a very reasonable position (or so it seems to me), and if you'd started with something more along those lines you might have gotten a more satisfying response from the folks here. My mother used to say, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything." Words I often wish I remembered at heated moments instead of just at calm, lucid ones. ;-) At any rate, since your last post was more reasonable and you now sound more open to discussion (rather than predisposed to judgement), I will respond to your post. (Yeah, that's a hint.) Well I thought about it and well the whole Iraq thing sickens me and any misfortune resulting from it just strengthens that feeling..... I feel the same way about our reasons for being there. But I feel differently about the current situation. I think it's a horrendously bad idea to make two wrongs a right, for example. I also feel that just because we're there for the wrong reasons doesn't mean something can't be salvaged out of this mess. After all, isn't that exactly what we would be doing if John Kerry were our preseident right now? Remember: He said he would NOT pull out our troops -- he'd send MORE. (At one point he talked about leaving after six months, but he withdrew that remark, and it hasn't been six months yet anyway.) So even if you and I had won this election, we'd still be in Iraq. And it's hard to imagine that Kerry would be doing things much differently from the way they're currently being done. You could even argue Bush's handling of Iraq has improved since the election. I don't believe that any country in TODAY'S world has the right to determine the fate of a population other than it's own for economic gains or personal ego problem..... I agree. (Who wouldn't?) But whether or not that's what happened with Iraq is the subject of debate and opinion. I opposed the war in Iraq, but not because I thought it was an ego trip or an economic move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 A guard who lethally shoots a man who hadn't seen any signs on his route' date=' "wandering" openly in Area 51, deserves to be tried for murder IMO. Context is everything here. If the man was darting from bush to tumbleweed in an effort not to be seen, this puts a different light on the subject.If that's true, then stop putting your pinky next to your mouth every time you type "evil".[/quote']Assume the base has a history of attempted break-ins which have resulted in the loss of numerous lives. In order to make the analogy more accurate, also assume the wanderer was making suspicious movements. Why, then, should the guard be held soley responsible? It was the ignorance of both which resulted in death. I just realized that my analogy has become so close to the actual situation that I don't know if it's serving a purpose anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 If Gloria Steinem and Al Franken had donned disguises and driven a vehicle right at the Clinton White House and refused to stop, is there any question they would have been shot at too?Undoubtedly, but Clinton would have been held to a higher accountability because he was a Rhodes scholar. Clinton faced impeachment for lying about sex, but they forgive W not reading PDB memos on terrorism and lying about reasons for war because he's not a great reader and misunderstands his intelligence briefings. Ignorance is bliss, they say.Assume the base has a history of attempted break-ins which have resulted in the loss of numerous lives.If the base has lost numerous lives to break-ins by lone wanderers exhibiting sneaky behavior, they should have taken steps to insure that the guards would not be put in a situation where shooting to kill was the only option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 17, 2005 Author Share Posted March 17, 2005 Clinton faced impeachment for lying about sex, but they forgive W not reading PDB memos on terrorism and lying about reasons for war because he's not a great reader and misunderstands his intelligence briefings. And the right-wingers say "Clinton got a pass on Monica but Bush faces constant abuse over PDB memos". SSDDYAWN. But I know you agree that the inquiry to find out what happened here should be based on facts, not ideologies. (That appears to be the difference between your position and Anindya's.) If the base has lost numerous lives to break-ins by lone wanderers exhibiting sneaky behavior, they should have taken steps to insure that the guards would not be put in a situation where shooting to kill was the only option. We don't know that they were shooting to kill, that's an assumption on your part. We also have input from both Americans and Italians that tells us that shooting was not the first or the only effort made to stop the car. But I know that's not as much fun to contemplate. What was that about ignorance and bliss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anindya Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 I agree. (Who wouldn't?) But whether or not that's what happened with Iraq is the subject of debate and opinion. I opposed the war in Iraq, but not because I thought it was an ego trip or an economic move. Well you must ask yourself why the AMerican troops are still there.... Many theories are floating around and you to must agree that the reasons given for the incursion were'nt true...... Let me put a few more factors into the US stand on Iraq as the "War on Terrorism' Pakistani Scientist A.Khan was caught red handed selling nuclear technology to the Koreans an Libiyans as part of a hoverment Deal.. Yet Pakistans is a frontline ally in the War on terrorism.. N.Korea goes nuclear and US agrees to negotiate with China as a third party mediator... Then why attack Iraq... Maybe you have a few thoughtson that???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now