Bush Again Confuses IDs of Two Terrorists

Siji · Post by **Siji** » September 23, 2004, 1:23 pm

Now it makes sense how we got from Bin Laden to Hussein.. he simply mixed them up when he told the military where to go! No harm, no foul!

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/ ... 69080.html

WASHINGTON - President Bush might have been able to say it was simply a slip of the tongue when he confused two terrorists in a campaign speech Monday in New Hampshire. Trouble is, he's made the same misstatement at least 10 times before.

During remarks in Derry, N.H., Bush said the late terrorist Abu Nidal killed Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old Jewish American who died after being tossed - along with his wheelchair - off a hijacked cruise liner named Achille Lauro in 1985.

"Do you remember Abu Nidal?" Bush asked the crowd. "He's the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer. Leon Klinghoffer was murdered because of his religion. Abu Nidal was in Baghdad, as was his organization."

He repeated the mistake Monday evening at a campaign event in New York City: "Abu Nidal was a cold-blooded terrorist killer who killed Leon Klinghoffer."

Actually, it was Abul Abbas, the leader of a violent Palestinian group, who killed Klinghoffer.

The White House had no immediate comment on the mix-up.

Abbas, who was captured in Baghdad last year, was the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking. His faction of the Palestinian Liberation Front operated out of Tunisia until the cruise ship attack, then relocated to Iraq. U.S. officials say Abbas died of heart disease on March 10 while in U.S. custody in Iraq.

Abu Nidal, a Palestinian renegade, died in Baghdad in 2002. His terrorist organization had been blamed for scores of atrocities, including the 1985 attacks on Rome and Vienna airports in which 20 people were killed and the 1986 attack on a synagogue in Istanbul in which 22 Jewish worshippers were massacred.

Bush's mistake, overlooked for weeks, is buried in his stump speech - in the section where he makes a case that Saddam Hussein had links to terrorist groups. Indeed, Abu Nidal is believed to have had connections to the former Iraqi leader. But he didn't kill Klinghoffer.

"Remember Abu Nidal?" Bush asked Aug. 28 in Lima, Ohio. "He's the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer because he was Jewish? He found safe haven in Iraq. In other words, terrorist groups were in this guy's country."

"We knew Saddam Hussein's record of aggression and his support for terror," he told another crowd Sept. 13 in Battle Creek, Mich. "Abu Nidal, the guy who killed Leon Klinghoffer, he and his organization were in Baghdad."

"He had terrorist ties," Bush told an audience Sept. 16 in Blaine, Minn. "Remember Abu Nidal? He was the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer. He was in Baghdad, and so was his organization."

Post by **Sylvus** » September 23, 2004, 1:28 pm

And it was pretty funny in Rumsfeld's speech last week where he kept referring to Osama bin Laden as Saddam Hussein. Did I say funny? I meant scary. There is no difference in his mind.

Reuters wrote:"The leader of the opposition Northern Alliance, Masood, lay dead, his murder ordered by Saddam Hussein, by Osama bin Laden, Taliban's co-conspirator," Rumsfeld said.

Later in responding to a question, Rumsfeld again confused Saddam and bin Laden in a discourse about how U.S. and coalition actions had made it more difficult for terrorists to operate.

"It's harder for them to travel between countries, it's harder for them to communicate with each other, it's harder for them to raise money, it's harder for them to transfer money, it's harder for them to buy weapons, it's harder for them to do everything," Rumsfeld said.

"Saddam Hussein, if he's alive, is spending a whale of a lot of time trying to not get caught. And we've not seen him on a video since 2001," Rumsfeld said.

"Now, he's got to be busy. Why is he busy? It's because of the pressure that's being put on him," he added.

The moderator later asked Rumsfeld if he had meant bin Laden, and the defense secretary replied: "I did. I meant we haven't seen Osama bin Laden."

Hoarmurath · Post by **Hoarmurath** » September 23, 2004, 1:32 pm

It's not like Dubya has any clue, anyway. He just reads what the smart people put in front of him.

Although this does seem to be beating a dead horse, since both of the terrorists mentioned were, in fact, in Iraq.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 23, 2004, 1:41 pm

Do you suppose Abu Nidal or Abul Abbas stopped to make sure he knew which Klinghoffer he was killing?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » September 23, 2004, 1:45 pm

It's dubious to say they're "harboured" unless they're being very public about things, which seems doubtful..

There's probably plenty of terrorists in every western country in the world too, but we're not harbouring them either.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » September 23, 2004, 1:59 pm

Different names, same chosen profession/scourge that we are trying to eliminate.

Does it really matter if someone mixes up a name when both of them did the same thing: murder innocent people?

The point is that Iraq was harboring terrorists.

It's pretty sad that you focus on someone mixing up names instead of relating to the fact that Abu Nidal and Abul Abbas both deliberatley and intentionally murdered innocent people and were being harbored in Iraq.

Rumsfeld even admitted to his slip, so what is the problem? Honest mistake.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 23, 2004, 2:11 pm

heh and you KNOW if that had been a democrat you would have all been all over it like leeches. When you say something like "Remember XXX?" you end up looking like a fool when you mess it up. When you do it repeatedly you end up looking like a complete fool.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » September 23, 2004, 2:11 pm

Reuters wrote:"Saddam Hussein, if he's alive, is spending a whale of a lot of time trying to not get caught. And we've not seen him on a video since 2001," Rumsfeld said.

Wow.

This explains so much.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 23, 2004, 2:15 pm

OMG! A name screwup!!11!1

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 23, 2004, 2:18 pm

Down Willow!

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » September 23, 2004, 3:05 pm

Kelshara wrote:heh and you KNOW if that had been a democrat you would have all been all over it like leeches.

Not me. I understand slips like that.

Deliberate actions like what Kerry did after he left the military... that's a different story.

Nor did I agree with some of the things that Bush did while he was in the National Guard.

Again, events that happened long ago, but comparing a missed physical and delayed transfers to units to what Kerry did to disparage Vietnam Veterans... people need a reality check.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 23, 2004, 3:45 pm

So both terrorists who have been wanted for years were found in the capital city of a country that had no ties to terrorism....and you are pointing fingers at Bush for mixing up their names instead of thinking that maybe he was right about terrorist ties to Iraq?

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » September 23, 2004, 4:04 pm

Yes cause apparently if Bush manages to kill two evil men that have a direct impact on the world terrorism circiut therefore making the world safe for democracy for a short time once again - he can still do nothing right and is responsible for all the woes the world is suffering. This is why Kerry is the ideal canindate, cause cutting the military and defense budget and pulling troops out of places like South Korea are good, we want an unstable world balance so that the brink of war thats just not instigated by us is ok.

for those of you who are slow - that's sarcasm!

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 23, 2004, 4:24 pm

But HE CONFUSED THEIR NAMES Sylvus! Doesn't that make Bush evil?

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » September 23, 2004, 4:32 pm

Post by **Sylvus** » September 23, 2004, 4:52 pm

What?

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 23, 2004, 5:01 pm

Aruman wrote:
Kelshara wrote:heh and you KNOW if that had been a democrat you would have all been all over it like leeches.
Not me. I understand slips like that.

Deliberate actions like what Kerry did after he left the military... that's a different story.

Nor did I agree with some of the things that Bush did while he was in the National Guard.

Again, events that happened long ago, but comparing a missed physical and delayed transfers to units to what Kerry did to disparage Vietnam Veterans... people need a reality check.

Your mad at the fact that Kerry was protesting the vietnam war?
or are you just mad because you dont believe the US had ANY war criminals that participated in raping, killing innocent people, burning villages etc etc, we commited TONS of war crimes in vietnam, a lot of it due to just simple insanity and distorted perception after soldiers spent over a year in that hellhole,
while your glorious crusader was too much of a fucking coward to voice any opinion. if he didnt serve and was against the war,or even used his advantages to get into the guard and was also publicly against the war, then i would have respected him in his actions.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 23, 2004, 5:06 pm

Xzion wrote:
Aruman wrote:
Kelshara wrote:heh and you KNOW if that had been a democrat you would have all been all over it like leeches.
Not me. I understand slips like that.

Deliberate actions like what Kerry did after he left the military... that's a different story.

Nor did I agree with some of the things that Bush did while he was in the National Guard.

Again, events that happened long ago, but comparing a missed physical and delayed transfers to units to what Kerry did to disparage Vietnam Veterans... people need a reality check.
Your mad at the fact that Kerry was protesting the vietnam war?
or are you just mad because you dont believe the US had ANY war criminals that participated in raping, killing innocent people, burning villages etc etc, we commited TONS of war crimes in vietnam, a lot of it due to just simple insanity and distorted perception after soldiers spent over a year in that hellhole, while your glorious crusader was too much of a fucking coward to voice any opinion. if he didnt serve and was against the war,or even used his advantages to get into the guard and was also publicly against the war, then i would have respected him in his actions.

Some of which Kerry did and he didnt even have to put in a year, 3 Months baby 3 months.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » September 23, 2004, 5:27 pm

Xzion wrote:
Aruman wrote:
Kelshara wrote:heh and you KNOW if that had been a democrat you would have all been all over it like leeches.
Not me. I understand slips like that.

Deliberate actions like what Kerry did after he left the military... that's a different story.

Nor did I agree with some of the things that Bush did while he was in the National Guard.

Again, events that happened long ago, but comparing a missed physical and delayed transfers to units to what Kerry did to disparage Vietnam Veterans... people need a reality check.
Your mad at the fact that Kerry was protesting the vietnam war?
or are you just mad because you dont believe the US had ANY war criminals that participated in raping, killing innocent people, burning villages etc etc, we commited TONS of war crimes in vietnam, a lot of it due to just simple insanity and distorted perception after soldiers spent over a year in that hellhole,
while your glorious crusader was too much of a fucking coward to voice any opinion. if he didnt serve and was against the war,or even used his advantages to get into the guard and was also publicly against the war, then i would have respected him in his actions.

I'm mad cause you lack the cerebral constitution to use something as simple as a dictionary or spellcheck. I mean really are you that much of a fuck up in life that you can't take two seconds to run a spell check or at least get your facts right? If you can't then by all means continue on your campaign of ignorance and stupidity, carry on Lord Xzion of the Grammatically Challanged.

P.S. Stragi thinks you are a fag.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » September 23, 2004, 5:38 pm

But you could understand what he said. Who gives a real fuck if he has some wrong spellings. You can disagree with what he says easy,or back him.

When you cant take what someone says, its always a clear bet to make fun of their spelling. WTG what a faggot post you made Sylvos. I say that in the best way I can!

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » September 23, 2004, 5:45 pm

Raistin misses those long nights we spent sipping wine in our bamboo supported hammock as we watched the hurricane force winds blow in from the coast. Raistin couldn't spell either but we loved him regardless.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 23, 2004, 5:45 pm

Raistin wrote:But you could understand what he said. Who gives a real fuck if he has some wrong spellings. You can disagree with what he says easy,or back him.

When you cant take what someone says, its always a clear bet to make fun of their spelling. WTG what a faggot post you made Sylvos. I say that in the best way I can!

Bigot!!

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » September 23, 2004, 5:47 pm

Xzion wrote:
Aruman wrote:
Kelshara wrote:heh and you KNOW if that had been a democrat you would have all been all over it like leeches.
Not me. I understand slips like that.

Deliberate actions like what Kerry did after he left the military... that's a different story.

Nor did I agree with some of the things that Bush did while he was in the National Guard.

Again, events that happened long ago, but comparing a missed physical and delayed transfers to units to what Kerry did to disparage Vietnam Veterans... people need a reality check.
Your mad at the fact that Kerry was protesting the vietnam war?
or are you just mad because you dont believe the US had ANY war criminals that participated in raping, killing innocent people, burning villages etc etc, we commited TONS of war crimes in vietnam, a lot of it due to just simple insanity and distorted perception after soldiers spent over a year in that hellhole,
while your glorious crusader was too much of a fucking coward to voice any opinion. if he didnt serve and was against the war,or even used his advantages to get into the guard and was also publicly against the war, then i would have respected him in his actions.

Protesting the war in Vietnam is one thing. That's the government that should be protested. Leave the soldier out of it.

Applying blanket statements about US troops who are serving honorably in Vietnam without doing any of what you so elegantly referred to, yes I do have a problem with that.

Just like the Prison in Iraq. You can't apply the actions of those few to every single soldier in the military.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » September 23, 2004, 5:48 pm

Its all in love Cat man

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 23, 2004, 5:49 pm

Although I agree to some extent, the percentage of soldiers being involved with things they should not was FAR higher in Vietnam than in Iraq.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » September 23, 2004, 5:49 pm

wtf cat man

Hoarmurath · Post by **Hoarmurath** » September 23, 2004, 5:55 pm

Sylvos wrote:pulling troops out of places like South Korea

We are already doing this.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 23, 2004, 5:58 pm

Sylvos wrote:
Xzion wrote:
Aruman wrote:
Kelshara wrote:heh and you KNOW if that had been a democrat you would have all been all over it like leeches.
Not me. I understand slips like that.

Deliberate actions like what Kerry did after he left the military... that's a different story.

Nor did I agree with some of the things that Bush did while he was in the National Guard.

Again, events that happened long ago, but comparing a missed physical and delayed transfers to units to what Kerry did to disparage Vietnam Veterans... people need a reality check.
Your mad at the fact that Kerry was protesting the vietnam war?
or are you just mad because you dont believe the US had ANY war criminals that participated in raping, killing innocent people, burning villages etc etc, we commited TONS of war crimes in vietnam, a lot of it due to just simple insanity and distorted perception after soldiers spent over a year in that hellhole,
while your glorious crusader was too much of a fucking coward to voice any opinion. if he didnt serve and was against the war,or even used his advantages to get into the guard and was also publicly against the war, then i would have respected him in his actions.

I'm mad cause you lack the cerebral constitution to use something as simple as a dictionary or spellcheck. I mean really are you that much of a fuck up in life that you can't take two seconds to run a spell check or at least get your facts right? If you can't then by all means continue on your campaign of ignorance and stupidity, carry on Lord Xzion of the Grammatically Challanged.

P.S. Stragi thinks you are a fag.

Damn man, you got me...
I am a total fuck up in every aspect of life, I dont use a spell check on a message board so of course i must be an idiot and a flat out loser

Nice job responding to what i said, though

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 23, 2004, 6:02 pm

Xzion wrote:
Sylvos wrote:
Xzion wrote:
Aruman wrote:
Kelshara wrote:heh and you KNOW if that had been a democrat you would have all been all over it like leeches.
Not me. I understand slips like that.

Deliberate actions like what Kerry did after he left the military... that's a different story.

Nor did I agree with some of the things that Bush did while he was in the National Guard.

Again, events that happened long ago, but comparing a missed physical and delayed transfers to units to what Kerry did to disparage Vietnam Veterans... people need a reality check.
Your mad at the fact that Kerry was protesting the vietnam war?
or are you just mad because you dont believe the US had ANY war criminals that participated in raping, killing innocent people, burning villages etc etc, we commited TONS of war crimes in vietnam, a lot of it due to just simple insanity and distorted perception after soldiers spent over a year in that hellhole,
while your glorious crusader was too much of a fucking coward to voice any opinion. if he didnt serve and was against the war,or even used his advantages to get into the guard and was also publicly against the war, then i would have respected him in his actions.

I'm mad cause you lack the cerebral constitution to use something as simple as a dictionary or spellcheck. I mean really are you that much of a fuck up in life that you can't take two seconds to run a spell check or at least get your facts right? If you can't then by all means continue on your campaign of ignorance and stupidity, carry on Lord Xzion of the Grammatically Challanged.

P.S. Stragi thinks you are a fag.
Damn man, you got me...
I am a total fuck up in every aspect of life, I dont use a spell check on a message board so of course i must be an idiot and a flat out loser

Nice job responding to what i said, though

He would of if he could understand it.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 23, 2004, 6:07 pm

Now Cartalas talking about other people being hard to understand is amusing. You could use a spell check yourself, Sir!

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » September 23, 2004, 6:08 pm

Xzion wrote:
Sylvos wrote:
Xzion wrote:
Aruman wrote:
Kelshara wrote:heh and you KNOW if that had been a democrat you would have all been all over it like leeches.
Not me. I understand slips like that.

Deliberate actions like what Kerry did after he left the military... that's a different story.

Nor did I agree with some of the things that Bush did while he was in the National Guard.

Again, events that happened long ago, but comparing a missed physical and delayed transfers to units to what Kerry did to disparage Vietnam Veterans... people need a reality check.
Your mad at the fact that Kerry was protesting the vietnam war?
or are you just mad because you dont believe the US had ANY war criminals that participated in raping, killing innocent people, burning villages etc etc, we commited TONS of war crimes in vietnam, a lot of it due to just simple insanity and distorted perception after soldiers spent over a year in that hellhole,
while your glorious crusader was too much of a fucking coward to voice any opinion. if he didnt serve and was against the war,or even used his advantages to get into the guard and was also publicly against the war, then i would have respected him in his actions.

I'm mad cause you lack the cerebral constitution to use something as simple as a dictionary or spellcheck. I mean really are you that much of a fuck up in life that you can't take two seconds to run a spell check or at least get your facts right? If you can't then by all means continue on your campaign of ignorance and stupidity, carry on Lord Xzion of the Grammatically Challanged.

P.S. Stragi thinks you are a fag.
Damn man, you got me...
I am a total fuck up in every aspect of life, I dont use a spell check on a message board so of course i must be an idiot and a flat out loser

Nice job responding to what i said, though

SHUTUP LIBERAL CARTALAS

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 23, 2004, 7:03 pm

his lack of awareness of who he's even talking to is just more evidence that he is just paying lip service to his "war on terror" while in reality he could less of a shit beyond his desire to invade unrelated countries and steal their natural resources.

it's okay to screw up names once in awhile but he's been doing it on a consistant basis. why? because he has no vested interest in them and is just using them as a prop to justify your country's current killing spree.

Asheran Mojomaster · September 23, 2004, 9:59 pm

So interesting and so perceptive that I think we will now fight with knives.

What is this from? I have wondered for a while but I cant figure it out.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » September 23, 2004, 10:39 pm

I'll let masteen field that one.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 23, 2004, 11:10 pm

Aruman wrote:
The point is that Iraq was harboring terrorists..

BINGO!!!!!!

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » September 23, 2004, 11:29 pm

Shouldn't you be worried about the terrorists being harbored in the US right now as I type this?

I CAN TYPE HUGE TOO.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 23, 2004, 11:30 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Aruman wrote:
The point is that Iraq was harboring terrorists..

BINGO!!!!!!

SO IS SAUDI ARABIA, NORTH KOREA,IRAN, THE U.S.,JERRY FALWELLS LAW SCHOOL
Big text for shock effect in an attempt to discredit the other side rules!

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » September 23, 2004, 11:50 pm

I didn't make the text big.

Someone edited what I posted.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 23, 2004, 11:56 pm

Aruman wrote:I didn't make the text big.

Someone edited what I posted.

Yes, I did it so people would see the importance. But, as usual the mentality of this crowd to bash and discredit instead of converse.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 23, 2004, 11:59 pm

Xzion wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Aruman wrote:
The point is that Iraq was harboring terrorists..

BINGO!!!!!!
SO IS SAUDI ARABIA, NORTH KOREA,IRAN, THE U.S.,JERRY FALWELLS LAW SCHOOL
Big text for shock effect in an attempt to discredit the other side rules!

Yes, you are very right. I think once we are done in Iraq we should continue our war against terror on other countries such as the ones you mentioned. Very good point. I'm glkad you are now on board with the fact that Iraq was harboring terrorists, therefore justifying a war as per Bush's state of the union address after 9/11 when he said any country harboring terrorists will be dealt with. Now maybe we can move on from thsi bullshit political propaganda about Bush lying to go to war and how the Iraq war was unjust, blah blah blah.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 24, 2004, 9:04 am

I like how the U.S. was listed as "harboring" terrorists by an uniformed imbecile. There is a HUGE difference in allowing terrorists to roam freely in your country and offering them protection against extradition and having them being hidden and hunted for by the government of said country.

If you can't see this subtle difference, then you should never post here again.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 24, 2004, 11:08 am

Curious, is there any proof that the government of Iraq tried to hide them etc? I mean, the US has plenty of terrorists roaming around freely and Americans were the major sponsors of another terrorist group...

Deal with the USA! Invade them! Change their government!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » September 24, 2004, 11:25 am

we are harboring Cat Stevens right now in Maine!

I think it was 18 months ago where i told people who were "pro-War" that they should be intellectually honest with themselves about the reason for this war. Its good to see that people are still avoiding this at every turn of justifications for the conflict.

The war in Iraq is part of the "War on Terror". But it is a tactic in that war that is certainly questionable as to whether or not it will achieve its goals, and certainly in the manner in which the war has been prosecuted by the Defense Dept. Basically, we invaded Iraq not because there was any real threat of WMDs, any real ties to Al Qaeda (which is why we didnt kill Al Zarqawi when we had the chance - to keep him alive for propaganda purposes....hope those people dont mind being headless...thanks Bush), or any immediate threat to the region. Containment was working for micromanaging Iraq, no doubt about it.

That being said, Iraq had the infrastructure and natural resources (oil) to support a Western economy, and their military was depleted and there wasn't a particularly strong Islamist pressence (so we thought). So the idea is to set up a model state that will make the true enemies of the United States: Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. destabilize and fall like Eastern European nations did.

That is why we went to war. The problem is that it is hardly a sure thing that this tactic will work, and it quite honestly seems like most of the experts in the counter-terrorism field didn't think that it would work.

It is apparent that the Bush administration had designs on an Iraq operation independent of 9/11, and I don't even necessarily have a problem with that. If their tactic proves to be the lynch pin that stems the tide of Islamist fanaticism in that region, then I am all for it.

However, to this point, we have made some huge missteps and absolutely given Al Qaeda and similar groups solid evidence for the propaganda that they use in recruiting. how hard is it to convince somebody that Americans are a decadent society when a picture of Lindsey Graham is show giving a thumbs up to naked Iraqis simulating homosexual acts. in a million years Al Qaeda couldnt have come up with a better recruiting tool. That goes to the lack of consideration for Geneva conventions clearly displayed by Bush and Rumsfeld. They looked for ways to circumvent them instead of looking to make sure that the interests of our soldiers were served. It is well known in the military that torture does not achieve valuable results, and more dangerously will guarantee that your troops will not be treated well when captured.

If you guys think we should invade a country because there were a couple guys living in the capital who were involved in Anti-Israeli terrorism, i want to see you at the Army recruiting office tomorrow, because it is going to take about 500,000 more troops to cover all those countries, and I'm sure you guys would be willing to serve in such a righteous cause. Obviously, I'm not addressing this to persons who have served before.

Kilmoll the Sexy · September 24, 2004, 11:39 am

Voronwë wrote: It is well known in the military that torture does not achieve valuable results, and more dangerously will guarantee that your troops will not be treated well when captured.

One question. Requires only a yes or no and no explanation to be give:

Would you rather be beheaded than to be photographed in a simulated homosexual act?

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » September 24, 2004, 11:57 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Voronwë wrote: It is well known in the military that torture does not achieve valuable results, and more dangerously will guarantee that your troops will not be treated well when captured.

One question. Requires only a yes or no and no explanation to be give:

Would you rather be beheaded than to be photographed in a simulated homosexual act?

Exemplary moral absolutist thinking...this is a great example of the fundamental error moralists make in dealing with other cultures...asking yourself that question is meaningless...ask a fundamentalist moslem the question...

Kilmoll the Sexy · September 24, 2004, 12:01 pm

Find me a fundamentalist muslim that posts on this board and I will pose the same question.

On another note, they are beheading anyone they can catch that is not an Iraqi. Mostly they are beheading civilians.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » September 24, 2004, 12:15 pm

if someone invades my country and you're profiteering from the war or running supplies, then I'll kill you just as fast as someone with camo PJ's

I don't even consider foreigners (especially at this stage when they *clearly* know the risks) as civilians.

The people in the trade centre, civilians. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, civilians. Not these guys.

Ok, so I wouldn't behead people w/ a combat knife; it's completely inhumane.. but yeah, I'd join the resistance against your illegal occupation of my country and do whatever I thought might expidite your exit, within my own moral boundaries. And here's the funny thing... so would you.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » September 24, 2004, 12:20 pm

On another note, they are beheading anyone they can catch that is not an Iraqi. Mostly they are beheading civilians.

Does the fact they are doing this make it morally acceptable to force prisoners to simulate sexual acts with each other while taking photos of said acts for one's own amusement?

Kilmoll the Sexy · September 24, 2004, 12:24 pm

Zaelath wrote:if someone invades my country and you're profiteering from the war or running supplies, then I'll kill you just as fast as someone with camo PJ's

I don't even consider foreigners (especially at this stage when they *clearly* know the risks) as civilians.

The people in the trade centre, civilians. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, civilians. Not these guys.

Ok, so I wouldn't behead people w/ a combat knife; it's completely inhumane.. but yeah, I'd join the resistance against your illegal occupation of my country and do whatever I thought might expidite your exit, within my own moral boundaries. And here's the funny thing... so would you.

Yes I would defend my country. Unfortunately, the people doing the beheadings are not even from Iraq.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » September 24, 2004, 12:49 pm

exactly. which is one of many reasons your question about beheading being worse than sexual humiliation is irrelevant.

Your "logic" suggests that it is OK for US soldiers to do anything and everything shy of beheading people to stay "less evil" than our opponents.

What is our objective in Iraq Kilmoll?

the decapitations are actually performing the desired function that the terrorists want. Media exposure and spreading uncertainty and making countries reluctant to help the US. no i'm not suggesting that it is "OK" to perform these barbaric acts. My point is to further differentiate the two.

The sexual humiliation performed by Military Intelligence has hurt our ability to achieve our goals.