Topic awaiting preservation: Irony?

Both of these photos were taken off an internet-based newspaper on the same day. One from iraq, another from the U.S.

any thoughts?




[This message has been edited by asptamer (edited 04-26-2003).]

Do you *actually* believe Rumsfeld derives pleasure from civilian casualties?

Perhaps it is worse for the Iraqis now that they don't have this to look forward to anymore. The decision to go in just isn't as simple as you seem to suggest. We go in and some people will die in the process, this is true and it sucks! But if we don't go in, stuff like the article would have continued and far more people would be dying. Why do you champion the decision with more blood? Do you know that Hussein's regime killed more Muslims than anyone else in history? These are things I think about that just boggle my mind when I see a post like this, asptamer.

I assume Asptamer wanted to denounce what the American governement called "The cleanest war of History". If the intention is good, the form is not as good.

_________________
Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken. -- Frank Herbert

Irony?

No...I'd call it your own sickness to equate the two.

And once again, there's no such thing as clean war, but there is no denying this has been a whole lot cleaner than any of the major wars (mainly because this hasn't been a major war...), so I really don't get the point....?

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 04-26-2003).]

Irony? Here are some examples:

Military Intelligence

Political Ethics

Pretty Ugly

Brilliant Moron (i.e.Bush)

Microsoft Works

They are oxymorons whilst GW Bush is just a......

ahhhh the irony

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

"Microsoft Works" , he he, I never realised it but its funny on so many levels.
Does me writing he he, make me evil too. thats just a picture of him smiling.

DL-44 said: "And once again, there's no such thing as clean war, but there is no denying this has been a whole lot cleaner than any of the major wars"
I'd have to agree.

That photo on the top left has obviously been manipulated.

What clues allow you to say that ? The only thing I can notice is a small difference between the foreground and the background, but I think it's mainly dued to a zoom.

_________________
Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken. -- Frank Herbert

the lighting and blur inconsistancies are due to a camera shift, not a photoshop... though i'm curious as to whats on the boys face

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

Irony? That's like woody and bronzy, except it's made out of iron...



Evil in theory, not so much in practice...

[Edit: Made my point, no need to keep making people download images]

Man, he is cold...



[This message has been edited by Wangenstein (edited 04-29-2003).]

lol
I love Wangentein's post... I thought I'd avoide such comments by saying that the pictures I posted were taken the same day.

And as far as equating goes, I just remember that news broadcast which said that they found a tape of osama bin laden rejoicing after the 9/11. Their mission was accomplished too... very clean mission. And perhaps, OBL never took "personal Pleasure" in killing innocent people either.

So is it my sickness to equate the two? maybe... maybe we all are just too biased. I'm to make a post like this, and you're to criticize it as a complete COINCIDENCE.

It has nothing to do with sickness. You choose to equate the two. I am questioning your choice and your reasoning.

I seriously doubt it was Rumsfeld's goal to hurt innocent Iraqis to topple Hussein. It was, however, OBL's deliberate intention to kill as many US citizens he could to achieve his greater goals. Do you see the difference at all between the two? Even just a little?

quote:

---

What clues allow you to say that ?

---

1. Blood is NOT that color.
2. You can clearly tell that someone has poorly attempted to add a flake of skin peelin from the boys face.

My guess is, that photo was originally a photo of a kid covered in a lot of dirt and rubble. Notice there is no blood on either of the people carrying the little boy. Notice that the kid is wiping something out of his eye instead of wencing in pain from bleeding.

It's clearly obvious. I don't know how you can think it's real MS.

What does Osama bin Laden have to do with anything?

I doubt asptamer posted the two photos to show Rumsfield was happy about the child being in pain. I think its to show the various viewpoints of the war. Here Rumsfield is obviously joyous over the success of the war but not everyone feels his joy. While plenty of administration officials benefited from the war, very few of them were put in any harms way, as opposed to the many Iraqi citizens who died.

Jestah

yes I definitely see the difference. and much of a greater difference than what you've said.

and my choice? well, like I said, my choice was very biased. I'm tired of reading how you all think that it was such a great thing that people dont have to be tortured anymore. What about all those people who fought for saddam? they were just fanatics? that's a lot of fanatics.
And of course, all wars have civilian casualties, or should I say Invasions - not just wars. So yes, I understand that Rumsfeild is saying "YES! We got em!" about the regime, oil, etc; and not about little children dying. Duh. That's why I call it "irony" and not "look how bad americans are"

Saddam is gone - that's a good thing perhaps. Dictatorship is an effective way to rule the country, but judging from history, all of them (dictators) have blood on their hands. So does bush (law lets the president act as a dictator in case of war). That is an example of the blood stains on his shirt.

In even other words, the purpose of the post is to contrast the ideals, and perhaps open people's eyes at what ALSO going on, besides liberation, change of torture to democracy (and perhaps a court of law), shitload of free oil, world's awe at our immense military power, and other goodies.

Insider.. .one thing totally revealed the fraud to me... and you missed it

look at the boys arms.. esp the left.... there is no shadow cast.... i think the whole image itself is a PS...

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

Insider, Sanzen: Why the hell should somebody fake a picture of a wounded child? It´s not like there aren´t enough real ones.

and what does osama bin laden have to do with it?

American media (and gov't) used the fact that he rejoiced at our trajedy as the proof of him making it possible.
So any 'good' reporter could've made an article with two pictures, one of with OBL dancing, and the other with people covered in blood running away from the crashing towers, or corpses being dug out of the rubble.

I used the same analogy. it's called BIAS. it's meant to make you brainstorm on the issue, and gives u a headstart as to in which direction you should be thinking : )

When you shoot with flash - there IS NO shadow. And the blood looks decent to me. Stop saying it's photoshop. Even if this particular image is edited, I can give u 10 more (or just go browse some news websites) with other kids dead or covered in blood.

Just a quick question:

How do we know who is responsible for hurting the child in that picture?

:::krets.net:::

you're right krets... the boy could have probabbly come from one of Saddam's torture chambers. Or his father got drunk and beat the living shit out of him. So the locals decided to put all the blame on the war, and United States...
Same thing probably happened to 1000s of other people. In fact, the war was so clean, that all iraqis just surrendered, and noone died... hmmmm

I don't think that was the point at all. I don't think anyone here knows how that particular boy was injured.

And I don't think anyone here is saying that our bombs and weapons didn't kill innocent civilians. Only a complete fool could think that so it is hardly worth mentioning. War *always* kills innocents, that is a given.

The point is that I don't think we should be drawing a moral equivalence between what the US has done and what OBL did on 9/11. The only way you could do that is if you can see no moral difference between the Islamist agenda and the US agenda. I'm sure plenty don't see any difference but it is hard for me to understand how one can believe that.

U.S. agenda??? What do you know a bout U.S. agenda?

Keep one thing in mind: What kind of cause do people need to hijack planes and smash em into buildings of the biggest city in the country? Do you honestly not understand that their message was "OPEN YOUR EYES" ???
So do you think U.S. agenda is so much different from OBL's in it's cruelty if OBL picked THIS KIND of revenge? Or wait, I'm not sure everyone understand that that was a revenge, NOT AN ATTACK. IT's a bloody revenge, but very effective. Got everyone's attention. Too bad not many people know what U.S. did to get this kind of hostility. Is it just the israel? I dont know. I just know that the cause was great. Just like ours.

So is it much different? Only in the way that OBL used "terrorism" and U.S. used it's army.

You don't know why OBL attacked? Why don't you take him at his word? I actually believe he did it for the reasons he has stated.

...which were?
I must've overlooked that

I knew you were going to ask me what his words were. He has written several letters since this all began. Here is the text from just one of them: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30999

This excerpt, especially the bold face, really is the crux of his agenda.

quote:

---

We also stress to honest Muslims that they should move, incite, and mobilize the [Islamic] nation, amid such grave events and hot atmosphere so as to liberate themselves from those unjust and renegade ruling regimes, which are enslaved by the United States.

They should also do so to establish the rule of God on earth.

The most qualified regions for liberation are Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, the land of the two holy mosques [Saudi Arabia], and Yemen.

---

How much history of that region have you read? How familiar are you with Islam? Let me know so I don't have to waste time covering stuff we both already know.

MW, its call propaganda/media...

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

~looks up these new words in a dictionary~... aah, hmm, I see...

AGAIN: There are lots and lots and lots of authentic pictures of Iraqi children injured in this war. And if there were not, one could use a picture of an Iraqi child hurt in an accident years ago. Or of a child that isn´t Iraqi at all.
So WHY would someone make the effort to actually manipulate a photo to show things that can be seen on lots of real photos? Makes about as much sense to me as faking a picture of bush standing in front of a crowd of rednecks waving US flags. Sure I could fake it, but why not just go to the Republican homepage and download it? Dig?

quote:

---

We are following up with great interest and extreme concern the crusaders' preparations for war to occupy a former capital of Islam, loot Muslims' wealth, and install an agent government, which would be a satellite for its masters in Washington and Tel Aviv, just like all the other treasonous and agent Arab governments.

This would be in preparation for establishing the Greater Israel.

Allah is sufficient for us and He is the best disposer of affairs.

---

... ok, so he (OBL) is a religious fanatic, like many others.
But the bottom line is, not all arabs want U.S. to intervene. That's understandable.

Is it possible to completely eliminate terrorism by destroying the current govermnent in Middle East? I doubt it... I think it will just bring more bloodshed. I hope I'm wrong - and once the u.s. is done invading - arabs will become a truly peaceful nation.

asptamer:

You know, I was against this whole war thing from the very beginning and I'm not one of Rumsfeld's biggest fans, but I have to say your post has me a bit worried....
**************************************************************************************
".... if this particular image is edited, I can give u 10 more (or just go browse some news websites) with other kids dead or covered in blood. "
**************************************************************************************
Are you trying to tell us that you have a collection of these type of pictures? If so, please do us all a favor and try not to post all of them. Thanks.

One more question. Do you have any photos of what you were doing that day?

MW can you honestly look at that photo and say that it is authentic. there are many reasons why someone might PS an image when you can get something similar somewhere else...

maybe they did it for fun
maybe for practice

but that image just doesn't look right

{edit - wow, i'm like ... dyslexic today}

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

[This message has been edited by Sanzen (edited 04-27-2003).]

I'm still really confused as to what point you might possibly have asp...

Yep, I can find you all kinds of tragic photos.

I can find all kinds of pictures of joy and celebration.

I'm absolutely *positive* I can find them from the same news source on the same day.

Will they mean anything? No. And neither do your set...I'm at a complete loss as to how this says anything one way or the other about anything whatsoever.

Yep, war is messy, people get hurt. Even innocent ones. Funny thing about bombs and bullets and flying debris - they can't tell the difference.
Is that terrible? Yes. Is Rumsfeld an evil bastard? Yes. so........????????

ok... so I'm sick, biased, ignorant bastard who makes pointless posts... that's the impression I'm getting from some of the opinions...

But am I the only one who actually sees the irony in that pair? Or acknowledges that they are indeed related, as in not completely random? That's too bad.

related? no. besides the fact that they're in the same newspaper in the same day... and an internet paper at that. any person could go through a paper and copy 2 pictures from any random place in the paper and make the SAME correlation you made.. and it will still make no sense.

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

ok... last reply. Here's the correlation:

1) Pictures taken on the same day
2) United States was bombing Iraq at that time (April 11, 2003)
3) Iraqis receive heavy civilian casualties
4) U.S. Secretery Of Defence rejoices at the progress the United States troops have made so far.
5) The left picture depicts that progress.
6) Mind you, that by april 11 it was far from over.

I guess for some of you that is still "no relation whatsoever." I cannot argue that, and dont want to. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, or perspective when presented with something controvercial (?)

So Bugs you sound so certain about the Bin Laden letters.. I wonder.. did you see him write them?

quote:

"I don't think anyone here knows how that particular boy was injured."

you dismiss that scenario but all yours are facts and reliable truth ... tell me please how do you differentiate?


...xpi...

"nuff said"

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-27-2003).]

Seeing as how Bin Laden's letters seem to come through the Arab press, I tend to think they are genuine. If he is dead, then I would think it's the remnants of Al Qaeda putting them together.

But tell me, what do you think OBL's agenda is?

I think it has to be all about context and relevance - if the picture was of the notoriuosly constipated Rumsfeld finally clearing the blockage in a White Houe toilet, for example......

The only time it would be relevant if he had actually been saying "and the official figures for civilian dead have now topped 2,000" if the context had been "Hurrah the war is drawing to a close without catastrophic loss of life amongst US soldiers and/or Iraqi civilians" it would be a different thing.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

"finally clearing the blockage"... Thanks, that just made my day

Bugs: It might be British toilet humour poking through into a serious subject but it is what I though when I first saw that picture - he is celebrating but he is also hurting at the same time

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Yes, Emps, but what about a situation like World War 2? We celebrated when we dropped a bomb on Hirshima and Nagasaki. Do you think that politicians in the US were celebrating then? How about when we blanketed Vietnam with napalm? Do you think that a general went: "YES!" after killing a bunch of NVA's, yet killed 5 or 6 civilians in the process?

I mean, the fact is that in any war there will be casualities, and not just military but civilian as well. I'm sure that you could find a picture of the Department of Agricultures Secretaries celebrating after they created a new plan to cover all new eggplant crops with a pesticide that will, along with saving 1,000,000 people that eat eggplant, incite an allergic reaction with 100 that will kill them. I'm sure that, asp, you could find the irony in that. Couldn't you?


[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 04-27-2003).]

If all major countries in the world showed vast amounts of protesters against that pesticide, and U.N. almost split because some countries wanted the pesticide and others didnt, then yes, perhaps I would find irony in that.
but simply throwing numbers at me (300 out of 1000000) won't do it. I'm not THAT sensitive

"There's strong evidence and no question about the fact there are weapons of mass destruction," Powell said....

What the heck is Powell smoking ? Cause he needs to stop smoking it... There is no evidence of weapons of mass destruction... you mean the fucking pictures they showed us on CNN with some trucks moving around before the war ? So where did those go ? Did anyone ask? or are they too busy rejoicing and celebrating Iraq's "liberation"

By DL-44 "mainly because this hasn't been a major war"

I agree, this has not been a war at all, where are the 400,000 army that Iraqis have ? Did they just disappear or got bombed ? I think this has been the best war of all and Sadam won. 1. He won't be found because he isnt dead just like OBL can't be found and the only link to OBL beeing alive is the fact that he releases video footage... 2. Sadam won because if he had weapons of mass destruction he destroyed them, send his army home and let US take over. He just used a few guys to get some time so he could get his plastic surgery and destroy everything he had. Or lets say Sadam died in the first strike ? Well... then his sons decided to play America and they figured out their own way to make America look bad, I say its quite clever.... This way the world won't trust America for the next 50 years and America will look like buncha dumb asses everyone thinks we are... ever heard of an expression "stupid american" ? Well from now on... if no weapons of mass destruction are found thats how people will look at Americans and Americans won't be able to perform any more strategical genocides against another country unless they have hardcore evidence...

by Bugimus "I seriously doubt it was Rumsfeld's goal to hurt innocent Iraqis to topple Hussein"

You know its kind of risible how most Americans think that this war was about toppling Hussein, do you watch too much TV or what ? I thought it was about weapons of mass destruction and not about toppling Hussein. And where does it say in the international community that monkeys with the biggest stick are allowed to topple ANY government. We all know US violated the international law for the reasons of toppling Hussein in order to get rid of Iraqi's weapons of mass destruction.... Now... weapons weren't found and toppling Hussein has become a primary concern fed to you by the media... Why do you think they show you all the prison cells now ? Don't you get one thing that if you are a thief or killer inside that prison cell you will plea non-guilty and keep singing the song called "I am a political prisoner" and tell Americans how much they tortured you and how much bad of a guy Sadam was cause you want freedom !!! and this is your ticket out of here... And Americans will give you that ticket if only you tell them how much of an asshole Sadam was. I have read Russian news and man... the difference between the truth is day and night... to sum it up... Iraqis shot people for murder and any major violations. They tortured men like we do here... put them into small rooms without any light for a few days or hanged them on meat hooks by their hands and with their hands tighted up together... not by sticking the meat hooks inside of them. You can take this information and exadurate up your ass and develop such great bias that it will drive your country men insane thinking of these horrific notions carried out by Iraqi state... and all the sudden everyone forgets of the torture camps organized by USA in other countries. SO when has this become legal for us to send guys into other countries with a list of questions ? Its inexpensive (400 dollar ticket and another 400 for the "interview") , its affective and its legal ! WOW, lets do it...

I have read that link with OBL and quite frankly I agree with him on a few statements:


"Third, ... they mainly depend on psychological warfare. "

"This is in light of the huge media machine they have. "

"They also depend on massive air strikes so as to conceal their most prominent point of weakness, which is the fear, cowardliness, and the absence of combat spirit among U.S. soldiers."

"Those soldiers are completely convinced of the injustice and lying of their government."

"They only fight for capitalists, usury takers, and the merchants of arms and oil, including the gang of crime at the White House."

and then I saw a writing By Bugimus: "They should also do so to establish the rule of God on earth." pointing out that these men are religious fanatics... now... thats pretty FUCKING FUNNY.... Bugimus proboably has no idea that Right Winged wackos are bunch of Christians not following first amendment and imposing christianity onto government ... this is seeing through Abortion, through Gay rights and through restricting of government budgets for art programs and schools... Conservative wackos are full of ideas coming from a religious stance... which in facts puts you into question... if these men openly tell us that they believe in God like a religious wacko would then why in the fuck are these same men waging wars and killing other men when bible promotes something otherwise. This is why I look at these men as hipocrats, they can't get their shit together when it comes to their own personal believes (which they do impose upon our laws). These men are wacked to me, they have unstable personalities and very unstable belief system. This is what OBL sees and points out, the fact that I agree with him on a few agendas doesnt make me agree with him on using death to promote your ideas i.e. 9/11 and other terrorist attacks.

By counterfeitbacon "saving 1,000,000 people that eat eggplant, incite an allergic reaction with 100 that will kill them"
Counterfeitbacon if you believe that killing 100 people is ok to save one million then you are highly mistaking for you are accepting human sacrifice, what makes you better than Sadam or OBL ? They believe in killing a few folk in order to promote and drive their ideas into action... isn't it the same ideal this war and every other war ? Saving millions by sacrificing a few thousand ? This goes back to Conservative wackos believing in God and his first 10 commandments and performing religious sacrifices to save a few. Do they think Jesus would allow it? Everytime I ask people who believe in war and who believe in God all at the same time this same question... "dont you think that you are going against your believes? " They just shut up and say nothing or try to inspire me to think that its ok to do so when the time is right... This point I would like to emphasize and let it be carried over onto all other points of this own religious-political movement of United States (right winged), these men are hypocrats, they say, see and believe in what is comfortable to them at the point in time...and what is a man without following his own belief system ? its a Flake ! Buncha little fopish men got together because they had one great ideal unifying them... ANTI-COMMUNISM and when Russia falls and there is no longer communism these same men decide to pick another enemy. So whats going to happen when they are done with the world and when they turn every country to democracy ? Hmm... I dont know They will go after abortion... and whats going to happen when they restrict abortion ? Hmm well I dont know really... thats a great question to ask them cause I see no more agendas for their party.

RawBot69

Rawbot...I was pretty much saying that in any situation with a good outcome, you usually have a "bad" outcome as well. Take penicilin, you've got a drug that has cured/helped a countless number of people, yet has inderectly helped in the creation of super-strains of virus's. is that Ironic, is that bad?

Why does my thinking (which is: That the situation isn't all that ironic) make me comparable to Osama or Saddam. Saddam wasn't trying to "save" anyone when he did any of his terrorist attacks, nor has Saddam ever tried to save anyone (in the large scale).

But, on the other hand, if I layed down a that theoretical pesticide, and saved 1,000,000 people, then accidently incited that allergic reaction, would that be ironic? No.

[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 04-28-2003).]

rawbot69:
As far as your agreement with OBL on "...cowardliness, and the absence of combat spirit among U.S. soldiers"
I can only suggest that you may test your own measure of those qualities by repeating that statement to a US Soldier or perhaps a US Marine.

I also suggest that you remember not to drop your left, and to practice repeating to yourself "what the hell, they were just teeth anyhow".

It is one thing to be against a war, and quite another to insult and belittle those who have to fight it. I will reserve my insults for those who have planned this for their own profit and gain.

quote:

---

Bugimus proboably has no idea...

---

...just how much some people are willing to assume before casting judgement.

Bacons right on this one, but I think a more accurate comparison would be that the 100 people who were allergic to the pesticide died because they ate non-treated food, that happened to be contaminated with whatever it is that pesticide removed, because they couldn?t have the treated eggplant.

Agenda's or not, just the act of removing Saddam is noble in itself, regardless of the motives something good was done. (That in no way justifies the actions, but it's ignorant to pretend that lives lost somehow negate the good done here, because these humans were just as likely as any other to be the next who die solely because Saddam was left in power)

rawbot, asides from virtually guaranteeing to offend a number of different people (most of whom much less short-sighted, and likely smarter than you), you've completely managed to dodge the real issues. If you think the defense secretary, the president, the attorney general, and every other right wing religious wacko are all lying to you, that's fine. But to assume, that because since *you* believe they are lying, that somehow another theory is more likely to be true is... stupid. If you don't believe them, fine, but then where are you getting your information from? Who tells you how it "really" is? Why would you believe them any more than a person who's job is to give accurate information on the current situation? Believe it or not, there?s only one source of accurate information coming from Iraq, and regardless whether you want to believe it, it's from the Iraqi people, and the people of other nationalities who are currently in Iraq, Including soldiers and other diplomats. Amazingly, they all seem to be giving about the same description as the president, his advisors, and the media. I don't believe everything I'm told either, but just because they aren?t giving all the answers doesn't mean I can make them up myself.

I am not a supporter of a US led war. Not because what they were accomplishing wasn't good, but because I don't believe their motives for doing it. However I hate seeing people jumping on the bandwagon of short-sighted liberalism, pretending that it somehow makes them compassionate. It doesn't matter if you understand that the people of Iraq are better off now. What matters is that they do, and luckily for them, they do.

Furthermore, if the UN had sanctioned this war (which it likely would have had no nations threatened veto ? considering that the countries considered 'hold-outs' joined in support of the US after the war began) would you still be against it? If you could be sure that the US was not gaining from oil profits? If you could be sure this wasn't a way to give Israel more security and power in the Middle East? If you could see that this wasn't "Bush's war"? Why do the people most against this war only seem to care when people get hurt, when it furthers their own political views?

Dan...whoah...you're making a pretty hasty conclusion, by saying the Iraqis are better off...we'll have to wait on that one, don't you think? At this point, it is impossible to say, one way or the other, how things in Iraq will turn out...

Now, I hope that the removal of Saddam was good for the Iraqi people...I truly do. I also hope that we (as a country) do everything to assist this.

However, our track record in this area is not exactly...well, I just wouldn't put it as a foregone conclusion.

As for Mr. Rumsfeld...I have my own personal bone to chew with him...he got men and women in uniform killed, needlessly...and some got captured, as well...just glad we got most of them back. To see his cackling maw...well, that just sickens me...apparently, it doesn't seem to bother him all that much...he seems to be incapable of remorse. His hands run red with American blood...apparently, not many Americans are seeing this...

I do...and I shall not forget.

quote:

---

Amazingly, they all seem to be giving about the same description as the president, his advisors, and the media.

---

Really, DAN? ??? and you hear that "about the same description" from the iraqi people, or from the fucking media?

by norm : "It is one thing to be against a war, and quite another to insult and belittle those who have to fight it. I will reserve my insults for those who have planned this for their own profit and gain."

I look at it this way... if you joined the army you are a traitor for you believe in everything these men tell you. you made your choices... if you joined the army just to go to college and wanted no war.... then you are a traitor, it doesn't justify your beliefs and you are beeing fallacious to inner self. As they say... "Sell Out" . I will not cheer for the men who fight the war, they insult me by going to war but I will hope they will loose no lives and kill none. and I will and have prayed for both sides in this conflict.

by Bugimus : ...just how much some people are willing to assume before casting judgement...

Bugimus must I do this? probably :

adv 1: with considerable certainty; without much doubt; "He is probably out of the country"; "in all likelihood we are headed for war" [syn: likely, in all likelihood, in all probability, belike] 2: easy to believe on the basis of available evidence; "he talked plausibly before the committee"; "he will probably win the election" [syn: credibly, believably, plausibly] [ant: incredibly]

When I say probably I mean it as... most likely but not 100%

By Dan :

"other right wing religious wacko are all lying to you, that's fine."

Did I ever say they are lying to me ? Oh wait... did they report Lynch beeing stabbed and shot ? and the "dangerous operation" that underwent in order to save her ? 2 divisions, one went into hospital while another was fighting off Iraqis ? Oh wait... and then later I read how 2-3 guys went inside hospital, asked doctor where she was, got her out and drove away in a jeep. and then her father told reporters that she wasnt stabbed or shot in arms and legs.... is this not a lie to you ? made for "shock and awe" the public and boost up their patriotism... and how many of simular lies underwent ? They anounced findings of chemical weapons, it was on front pages and then they dismissed that in pages inside the newspaper... so now you have the public thinking weapons are found, and the only ones to find the truth are the ones who pay attention to all articles.... again... a good number of people will believe the front pages for quite a while before they find out the truth... and thats how it works ....

"Believe it or not, there?s only one source of accurate information coming from Iraq, and regardless whether you want to believe it, it's from the Iraqi people, and the people of other nationalities who are currently in Iraq, Including soldiers and other diplomats. "

This is crock of shit. You need to read some books on how REPORTERS MAKE NEWS, news flash !!! news are MADE... read some books written by news reporters of either left or right sectors. they all agree on that ! You have been watching too much FOX because you seem to think that there was never a hotel infested with international media that got shot in with US tank. And Russian media getting shot in more than once by M-16s US soldiers... I need not say more, you are so programmed... wake up ! These were signals to news media... because ALL media have their little soldiers running around with them, reports are filtered through American soldiers. and the ones that arent get shot at with American arms...

"short-sighted liberalism" Really? Hmm... I used to be conservative... ill tell u one thing.... right winged wackos dont need glasses, they need walking sticks...

" would you still be against it?"
Fuck ya I would be against it, war is not an answer to anything. Wars are made to perform simple tasks such as natural selection and I don't mean it as Darwin's idea only... I take it further... Its a natural selection of the mind. Those that agree with it won't make to the state of nirvana / heaven / god whichever spirituality you are from... because they go against their own belif system, its like killing yourself... but mentaly...

"If you could be sure that US was not gaining from oil profits?"
But it is ! they are pumping the fuck out of Iraq now why do you think they got that port ? to bring food ? Thats funny... i thought they had planes that could drop tons and tons of food easily...

"If you could be sure this wasn't a way to give Israel more security and power in the Middle East?"
But it is ! It sure as hell will give israel more power in the middle east... no doubt about that

" If you could see that this wasn't "Bush's war"? "
But it is ! Bush didnt WIN popular vote... wtf kinda democracy is this ?

" Why do the people most against this war only seem to care when people get hurt "
So you dont care if people get hurt ? Umm what a great view on the world you have.... i am jalous... right...

" when it furthers their own political views? " Just cause my political views are all about not hurting people and following the law ... does that make me un-intelligent or un-American lol... it must in your eyes... cause your political views are about hurting people and beeing smart which proboably comes from personal insecurities...

By WebShaman: His hands run red with American blood...apparently, not many Americans are seeing this... "
Aye...

Thank You, rawbot.

There are many heads in the government the president is not the dictator. That being said there lies the posibility for many agendas with each individual beliveing that it is for their reason which this war be done. The justification for the war is whatever the media gets carried away with. Some would say weapons of mass destruction, others liberation. Yes even those who see profit. truely it is a combo of all of these. Though you may disagree with a few of them as long as one exist which you are all for then be all for it. For economic reasons to me sounds absurd. the international comunity would be outraged with us if we imposed war reparations and raided their oil supply. This would increase terrorism like crazy The US would undeniably be an imperialistic country! And imperial we are not. We are capitalist that is how we keep a step above the rest in relavance of power. Did you know that Texaco is the fith largest world power the top four (in no particular order) are the US, Germany, Japan, and Great Britan. asimulation of such impoverished lands would destory us. The only reason we dont pump our own oil is because it would cost us more than to buy it off of them because of the environmental cautions and controlls. We have tons and tons of oil! there is tons in Texas, off of the coast of Virginia, and in Alaska. These Middle east dudes got nothin on us! WE ARE NOT IN THERE FOR ANY OTHER REASON THAN NATIONAL SECURITY. If it wasnt then who cares who gives us oil or how they get it if its cheap. of course Im leaving out the humanitarian aspect, but if you are a humanitarian (like myself) you would agree to the war and are current pushe for democracy.

do u think if there was no oil in the middle east, the U.S. would have to worry about the national security? so then u think it's all because of Israel? well guess what... it's not because of just that, it's because of a combination of many many things, including economical gain and national security. and does invading iraq really destroys terrorism? or is it just the first step towards an attempt of genocyde? You're not being detailed.

I always find it so funny how willing people can be to be so pig-headedly against something while living under the protection that those same actions grant to them...

like standing behind the bouncer in a bar who is stopping you from being beaten to a pulp and screaming at the bouncer how wrong he is for being in his line of work...

lol DL - good point. But u're forgetting something. It's not Bush administration or Rumsfeld who are protecting you/granting ur freedoms, it's the constitution, the work of just men who lived before. If someone else comes to power and pretends to be Mr.America - it doesnt mean u have to blindly follow him. I mean wtf, that's what we vote for ! Not to have dumbasses run the country. When 2 dumbasses run for president, it's kinda hard to choose.

I'm not talking bush/rumsfeld.

I'm talking military...

Well ok...

Firstable I pay the bouncer money to go and protect me and that is his job. The bouncer is supported by ME and he is protecting me because I SUPPORT him. And if the bouncer doesn't do what I want him to do he better be ready to hear my screams....

military? rumsfeld and bush are the military. commander-in-cheif = military. Noone (well, except rawbot) said anything about the grunts. it's not their fault they had to go to iraq and shoot civilians (or bomb them). All decisions are made by the administration. And in general, too many things nowadays are done around the constitution, not according to it. that's pretty sad. They raise the flag, they say patriotic speeches, and all for what? personal gain most of the time. I mean, why doesnt sweeden or danmark have to worry about national security like u.s. does??? can u answer that? I doubt it.

TO vomithorder about his humanitarian believes :

adj 1: marked by humanistic values and devotion to human welfare; "a humane physician"; "released the prisoner for humanitarian reasons"; "respect and humanistic regard for all members of our species" [syn: human-centered, humanist, humanistic] 2: of or relating to or characteristic of humanitarianism; "humanitarian aid" n : someone devoted to the promotion of human welfare and to social reforms

ONE WHO BELIEVES IN War IS NO WAY A HUMANITARIAN. You nuckle head.

Humanitarinism is not contradictory to fighting a war in many circumstances. That statement is extremely closed minded and incorrect, quite frankly rawbot.

.


Well, there seem to be a large variety of topics going on here, and many of them are just far too broad to be of any significance.

There is a *huge* difference between being against the current administration and their little coop in Iraq, and saying that there is never a justification for war, and that force is never needed.

The first is a legitimate position. One that I hold as well.
The second has proven to be absurd.

No species has ever had any significant length of time in during which there has not been strife, and when they did not have to fight for their resources and to protect their young, or to keep the piece of land they have claimed for their own.

No species ever will.

Ant colonies are at war constantly. Wasps fight all the time. Chimpanzees invade monkey colonies and decimate them - men, women, and children.

Humans are not immune to these same instincts, and when one group rises up to threaten the lives of others you ahve two choices - do nothing and be annihilated, or fight back.

You act as if the nature of our species is to be peaceful, and war somehow breaches that natural state.

That is very incorrect.

We are not a highly evoloved civil society simply because we have great technology, nor because some of us have gotten so accustomed to living under the protection that our military afford us that we have no concept of what it is like to live under fear of invasion constantly...and have become soft and lazy.
Our basic mindset has not changed since the days when we were fighting off neanderthals for the better hunting grounds.





[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 05-09-2003).]

Amen, DL. Very well said.

quote:

---

Our basic mindset has not changed since the days when we were fighting off neanderthals for the better hunting grounds.

---

well... speak for yourself there, buddy.

and as far as "all species killing each other" goes, here is a speices that dont even have a mouth. (that was just so you know. has nothing to do with bush or rumsfeld)

But yes, I do recognize that humans in their nature are violent. But does that justify invasion to gain access to resources which are simly cheaper for us to buy than to get from our own land? Natural selection? Fine with me as long as I'm on the surviving side. But that's a bit selfish, DONT YOU THINK?

quote:

---

well... speak for yourself there, buddy.

---

I'm not speaking on a personal level asp - I'm speaking scientifically and psychologically. We may have grown accustomed to different things, but our thought patterns and basic primal instincts have *not* changed. Period.

{edit - and as I have said many times, I am also opposed to our actions in Iraq. But it's also not as black and white as you want to make it.

Most of my comments above have been in response to rawbot's blanket anti-war statements.}



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 05-10-2003).]

okay... perhaps... maybe... we could get into this whole other argument about instincts, and what's innate in us and what is not, etc, but is that really what we are talking about here? I dont think so.

When our ancestors were fighting off neanderthals for the hunting grounds, we had a choice. Kill them or die of starvation. Today, we need neither oil nor iraqi deserts nor democracy overseas nor the entire earth under the U.S. rule to surive. We could just get along, develop (I'm not even talking about inventing them theyre THERE) the technologies which are cheaper, cleaner, more efficient, and better overall; and try to live. But something is preventing the people in power from passing the right resolutions, and doing things that are trully beter for the humanity, not just their bank account or their own descendants, or their narrow circle of friends.

See, DL, I think that it is because people like you (and there are so many of them) believe that we are lowlives by nature, and cannot better ourselves as species, that we are still where we are - fighting for oil, territory, power. I dont mean to offend you or to condescend upon you, but I think you should look deeper into things, and question the answers you find to the questions. Like, your neanderthal analogy. There was a reason why we fought, or took a dump where we slept. Now we dont have to do that. We've built sewage system. Things CAN be better, and do not stick up for the greedy 1% who hold 50% of the planet's wealth. You are not one of them - that means they are not with you. And if you are one of them, then you are not with me, and we really have nothing to talk about.

So you want me to look deeper, and hold a higher regard, and in the same breath you tell me it's "us against them"? You're either "with us or against us"?

If that's not the contradiction of the century, I don't know what is. It is exactly *that* mentality that leads us to a warful attitude.

Now agian, as *I* said, there are many topics going around here, and my comments about war were *not* specific to the current situation - which I have also told you many times I am against.

Now, point two: I *never* said that we cannot better oursleves as a species. I said we *haven't* changed our basic instincts.

There's a huge difference.

As to my neanderthal analogy - there were reasons? We had vast expanses of un-inhabited land to roam...we didn't need to fight over a patch of scrub. What are the "reasons" we fought for then? It was *ours*. We *wanted* it.

Those are the same reasons we fight now.

You tell me to look deeper, but you have not looked nearly as deep as I have.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 05-11-2003).]

quote:

---

So you want me to look deeper, and hold a higher regard, and in the same breath you tell me it's "us against them"? You're either "with us or against us"?

If that's not the contradiction of the century, I don't know what is. It is exactly *that* mentality that leads us to a warful attitude.

---

... you dont know what is...


I never said AGAINST. I said NOT WITH US. Huge difference. They're not against you alright... You're their flock. You give them power. You provide for them. You fight their wars. You take their trash out and cover their mess. They need You. They're nothing without you. But there's this huge gap between Them and You. That is what "not with you" means. No contradiction.

quote:

---

As to my neanderthal analogy - there were reasons? We had vast expanses of un-inhabited land to roam...we didn't need to fight over a patch of scrub. What are the "reasons" we fought for then? It was *ours*. We *wanted* it.

---

Okay. Perhaps I was wrong when I said "or die of starvation." It should've been "leave that patch of land of OURS." If it was as u say it was ("vast expanses of un-inhabited land to roam") all we had to do is to go to a more "un-inhabited" (?! maybe that's the contradiction of the century you were talking about... un-inhabited with neanderthals : ) patch of land where there were no neanderthals and go on hunting whatever we wanted to eat for dinner. But something tells me it wasnt like that. Doesnt matter, it's a silly analogy because all the facts we're operating with are a few bones and humans being the surviving species.

quote:

---

Those are the same reasons we fight now.

---

What reasons? This patch is ours? well, SHIT... did u see arabs come to america and claim the land? Or better yet, compete with us for the resources? I didnt!!!

DL-44, I know that no matter what I write you will find something to quote me on and redicule it just like I did with your text. And you can also tell me just like I am now telling you, "Get your logic straight, read things twice if you have to, and THEN reply." Only I believe my logic IS straight. At least to me : ) But I might be insane.

Your obviously insane. In case you didn't notice, you are in an asylum...


.quotes.

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 05-11-2003).]

yes. and that is my excuse. that doesnt mean you shouldnt take me seriously though : )

quote:

---

You're their flock. You give them power. You provide for them. You fight their wars

---

I'm truly at a loss here.

Becasue I'm not a retarded hippy who is blatantly closed minded and outright anti-war, and becasue i'm seperarting the act of war from the current politics to try to give a little insight into how it works beneath the surface, I'm some sort of corporate sheep?

War exists all over the world, and is often *not* a result of corporate-politcal agenda, but rather as a means to sruvive, or in an attepmt to improve ones life, or get revenge for injustices (real or perceived.

You have your logic straight? No...you have a preset notion and you are going to spit out the same preset responses every time so as not to have to really *think* about what I am saying.

You feel better summing me up as one of your prefab categories of brainwashed corporate sheep (which is very much incorrect in everyway) then trying to see the relevence of my posts. You refute to reinforce your preexisting notions.

You've done the same in several threads, and it serves no purpose.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 05-11-2003).]

quote:

---

becasue i'm seperarting the act of war from the current politics to try to give a little insight into how it works beneath the surface,

---

quote:

---

War exists all over the world, and is often *not* a result of corporate-politcal agenda, but rather as a means to sruvive, or in an attepmt to improve ones life, or get revenge for injustices (real or perceived.

---

is that how it works beneath the surface in your humble opinion, or that's just to give me a general idea of why the wars are fought? hmm, well so which of those do u think called for iraq war? "improving our lives" or "perceived injustices" ???

Just think into the phrase "PERCEIVED INJUSTICES" for a minute. Isn't injustice something that is not just? And dont you think it's unjust to levy war on another nation for a PERCEIVED threat? hmmm.

Well, you say I'm so wrong calling you a corporate sheep... I beg your forgiveness, but please, do enlighten me as to what you are if not a sheep of this nation? You have friends in NSA? Bush is your uncle? Your the big boss of your family? Or is it Classified, and all I can do is try to refute to reinforce my preexisting notions? Well dohhh.. of course!!! because you seem to be looking straight through my notions touching them very superficially on the points that catch your attention. Beeing a sheep this time... Should I take it that you agree with the rest of what I wrote?

Oh and by the way... I'm not a hippy, and I do try to find a justification for bombing civilians and all I can see is a vicious circle of reasons for hostility from both nations towards each other. But when I try to look deeper, I lose the trail, because what the media says about it is complete bullshit, or it says nothing for it knows not.

I'm truly surprised to see you so Confident in your ideas, as if you know or understand something I dont... That's very possible. Dont get me wrong, I do understand that wars in general are declared not by just snapping fingers. But the past war got me thinking... It wasnt like we attacked them in order to survive, or to revenge something (unless there's a link between 9/11 and iraq, which some experts say doesnt exist), or even to visibly improve our way of life... except maybe for cheaper oil, better trade options, and increased security in the middle east now that our tanks are in the dead middle of it. Sounds cool... But is it what it sounds like? I understand you believe it is... and accuse me of not thinking deeper. Well, lets think a bit deeper. Did they find the WMD? no. Did they find Saddam? no. Did they find Osama? no. Did they decrease terrorist threat? maybe, but I doubt it (I dont see proof). Did they get shitload of free oil? YES. Did they become capable of enfocring their economic policy in M.E. ? YES.

So tell me now, how wars are fought to survive, rather than for personal benefit of those on top. IT's really funny to me, how you think that the politicians are there for you... I say your BLIND. but I know you'll say the same... like u always do... like I always do... we could be able to argue about this forever, and its hard to grasp one's real beliefs through 1-2 messages/day forum. It'd be cool if u contacted me through some real-time messaging device if u use any. Contact me if you want. Or keep being a blind sheep if you dont : )

Some are the sheep, others are shepherds, and there are wolves that run around not listening to shephereds and eat the sheep. There is no other as far as I can see after thinking about it for 30 seconds.

how many times have I told you that my comments are not in regard to the current situation in Iraq?

How many times have I told you that I do not support bush or his actions, especially those in Iraq?

How many times have I pointed out that my comments were in response to rawbot's generic anti-war commentary?


And yet you keep trying to apply my comments as if I were speaking directly about Iraq

And then you proceed to tell me what my feelings about politicians are, and how blind I am to have these feelings that you created for me...??? Wow, man, you have quite the imaginary world set up for yourself when you can create other people's opinions for them.

When you're willing to come back to the real world for a moment, wher my thoughts are mine and yours are yours, and when you're willing to address the things that I've said in the context in which I've said them, then I'll be happy to talk.

Barring that, I don't need the silly shit you're weaving here...

well, if your comments cannot be applied to current situation, what good are they? imaginary world? ah.. the one different from yours, where political situations and beliefs regarding them are PURELY HYPOTHETICAL huh?

and I'm not talking about rawbot. why do u keep going back to his beliefs? I write something, and you reply to rawbot?
ummm ok.


[edit] Damn. after all, this thread was started not about generic anti-war or reason for war understandings, but CURRENT SITUATION IN IRAQ.

argh.


[This message has been edited by asptamer (edited 05-12-2003).]

~shakes head~

ok, I know I shouldn't bother, but let me try this one more time:
rawbot made comments. I responded to them. those comments were in regard to war in general, and not specific to Iraq. Yes - it went away from your topic - deal with it. then you repsonded to my comments. given that my comments were not in regard to iraq, my defense of those comments could obviously not be about iraq either

It's *really* not a difficult concept here....

Ok asp...this is getting pretty tiresome, so I thought that I might help you out here...so take a look. Here is DL's original post, that somehow got you 'ticked off'...I'm going to be breaking it down into sections, you follow?

quote:

---

Humanitarinism is not contradictory to fighting a war in many circumstances. That statement is extremely closed minded and incorrect, quite frankly rawbot.

---

As you can see, this was directed at...yes, as DL has been saying in the last, oh, 10+ posts, rawbot. I think that is more than clear...

quote:

---

Well, there seem to be a large variety of topics going on here, and many of them are just far too broad to be of any significance.

There is a *huge* difference between being against the current administration and their little coop in Iraq, and saying that there is never a justification for war, and that force is never needed.

The first is a legitimate position. One that I hold as well.
The second has proven to be absurd.

---

Ok, this is the main 'meat' of DL's post...note that he specifically says 'The first is a ligitimate position. One that I hold as well.' This is in response to 'There is a *huge* difference between being against the current administration and their little coop in Iraq,...' I don't think he could make that any clearer...and as far as I know, DL has been against the conflict from the start...just as I and Emps have been (sorry if I cut other people out...). You should be pointing your statements at Bugs...or others who have supported the conflict.

quote:

---

No species has ever had any significant length of time in during which there has not been strife, and when they did not have to fight for their resources and to protect their young, or to keep the piece of land they have claimed for their own.

No species ever will.

Ant colonies are at war constantly. Wasps fight all the time. Chimpanzees invade monkey colonies and decimate them - men, women, and children.

Humans are not immune to these same instincts, and when one group rises up to threaten the lives of others you ahve two choices - do nothing and be annihilated, or fight back.

You act as if the nature of our species is to be peaceful, and war somehow breaches that natural state.

That is very incorrect.

We are not a highly evoloved civil society simply because we have great technology, nor because some of us have gotten so accustomed to living under the protection that our military afford us that we have no concept of what it is like to live under fear of invasion constantly...and have become soft and lazy.
Our basic mindset has not changed since the days when we were fighting off neanderthals for the better hunting grounds.

---

This has absolutely nothing to do directly with Iraq, insofar as a justification, or whatever. This is more a general statement on what moves species to violence, and war. If you agree (or disagree), that's fine...but Iraq was not really specifically meant here (though it is a conflict)...thus, your last 10+ posts are really...hell, I'm not sure just exactly what they are aimed at...somehow, you are arguing a point, that DL doesn't really support anyway, specifically, Iraq...and the whole time, he's been trying to tell you just that.

So, I hope that cleared that up...maybe a small apology might be in order, asp...

quote:

---

thus, your last 10+ posts are really...hell, I'm not sure just exactly what they are aimed at...

---

sorry, I am a fool.

... But I still see the irony to which all of you are blind.

Yeah me too. I am a fool too... oh i just read 1 post after mine. someone talking about other species and comparing us to them... what a dumb shit ! Are you insane ? comparing us with species that have no intelligence...WE can make choices... and to compare us to evolution... is sorta stupid... to say that we should do what bacteria does... great...

~laughs sadly~

rawbot - you are obviously a complete and utter moron, so I won't bother attempting to explain the things in my post that are beyond your grasp.

Asp - what you fail to see in your bloodlust is that people like you, who so midlessly and effortlessly react to such things are the ones who feed the corporate-political war machine.

Do you think Bush wants you supporting him? Of course not! You do him a bigger favor by your reactionism. You are a pawn in a game that you don't even see. And you play your part well, reacting without true thought at each provocation.

You fail to see that while you denounce one side of the coin, you are simply the other side. Never realizing that there's more to it than that.

Ah well. I gave it a go. You can wallow in it...I'll be elsewhere.




[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 05-13-2003).]

Yup. I'm outta here, as well...enjoy, you two...

~laughs hysterically~

DL stop emailing me and calling me names... here is his email :

rawbot - you are obviously a complete and udder moron, so I won't bother
attempting to explain the things in my post that are beyond your grasp.
~DL-44

I got 2 things:

1. Learn to spell udder, its utter... udder means "One of the breasts of a woman" lol. Maybe you are trying to say that i am a moron with tities ?

Beyond your grasp ? Maybe... actually most likely... you are absolutely right I won't understand you if I wanted to... I have been where you are now. I had the same ideas, strangely enough I have evolved... I am simply a mutant of your imagination... literally

Otherwise I love you and wish you best in your thought process. As it seems you are on the right step, at least you take time to think and compare... good work. One day you might mutate and see things my way... good luck in everything.

Everyone,
If there was a right way to see things, there would be no opinions. I think all your ideas are correct to some extent, of course depending on your individual perspective on life.

And asptamer,
I didn't mean to make it seem like I was making fun of you with that last post, I just thought what webshaman said was funny....

{edit - and one more thing......}

quote:

---

asptamer - What about all those people who fought for saddam? they were just fanatics? that's a lot of fanatics.

---

Saddam forced people to fight for him by threatening their families, and putting row of soldiers behind all the main soldiers that would shoot any one who would ran away. A good friend of mine was born in Iraq and later moved here, he said almost everyone hated Saddam. He said one time Saddam and a bunch of his troops came into his town and just started killing people and shooting their buildings with tanks. He escaped into the mountains with his family and later they came to America. Someone else might of already mentioned this, but I just thought I would let you know. Also, here is a good link you may like to read about ---> link


.quotes.

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 05-13-2003).]

Well, I think this thread has run it's course...

I reopened this as rawbot69 made some claims about DL emailing him that he felt it worth dismissing (not that I think this thread still has any life in it).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Yep, I made a typo. Oops....

However, making shit up like someone sending you attacking emails is very uncool. Wanna talk smack?

No problem. Hell, I even played along.

But don't make shit up.

OK super the record is straight so I'll shut this down again (and stop DL from having the last word too ).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor