PDA

View Full Version : FREEDOM'S ON THE MARCH!!!



Beefy
02-08-2008, 08:19 PM
YAY FOR WAR AND DEATH!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/08/iraq.women/index.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The images in the Basra police file are nauseating: Page after page of women killed in brutal fashion -- some strangled to death, their faces disfigured; others beheaded. All bear signs of torture.

More at link...

WRL
02-08-2008, 08:45 PM
Now I find this very insulting.

Beefy
02-08-2008, 08:51 PM
Now I find this very insulting.

Sorry Larry. Rereading it, it was over the line. I apologize. I will now edit it.

FUCK THE POLICE
02-08-2008, 08:51 PM
Shame.

FUCK THE POLICE
02-08-2008, 09:14 PM
I don't really think Beefy's words are enough. We should probably put him in jail - tell a federal DA.

uscitizen
02-08-2008, 09:53 PM
hmm not the same remarks from some on here as when Desh mentioned this......

Beefy
02-09-2008, 02:06 AM
hmm not the same remarks from some on here as when Desh mentioned this......

Hmmm........ Maybe I should be on here 24/7 to know this.

uscitizen
02-09-2008, 02:09 AM
Was on a different thread this afternoon.

Cancel 2016.2
02-09-2008, 12:11 PM
Was on a different thread this afternoon.

well gee, you think it might have to do with different people being on at different times? Or perhaps those that commented on it before just didn't see this thread?

But yes, I am sure you would rather believe that it was because of who posted this and not because of the above reasons.

Bottom line, while tragic that these women were murdered, the same questions still remain unanswered from the previous thread.

1) How many women were brutally murdered in this fashion each year prior to the war?

No one will answer this because they can't. They just continue to give vague "it was better under Saddam" type responses. Or act as though there weren't murders in Iraq under Saddam. They would prefer to pretend that this happened because of the war.

2) WHY don't we have statistics from Iraq in terms of violent crimes in the years of the sancitons? yet we do now?

Could it be that it is because the Iraqi press is FREE to report on the violent crimes now?

3) To put in perspective, again... NOT saying these murders are acceptable in any way.... just putting in perspective.... There would need to be over 100,000 violent crime victims in Iraq each year to be as violent as the U.S.

Yet, we continue to act as though this violence is simply because of the war. The pretenders like to think that Iraqis were flying kites and sipping tea because Michael Moore said so.

BRUTALITOPS
02-09-2008, 02:05 PM
well gee, you think it might have to do with different people being on at different times? Or perhaps those that commented on it before just didn't see this thread?

1) How many women were brutally murdered in this fashion each year prior to the war?

No one will answer this because they can't. They just continue to give vague "it was better under Saddam" type responses. Or act as though there weren't murders in Iraq under Saddam. They would prefer to pretend that this happened because of the war.


Im off to go kill and rape some people tonight. If anyone wants to question my morality just remember we've had rapings and killings before tonight as well.

Cancel 2016.2
02-09-2008, 04:28 PM
Im off to go kill and rape some people tonight. If anyone wants to question my morality just remember we've had rapings and killings before tonight as well.

How typical. Try actually reading and comprehending what was written. I was not excusing the murders. I am simply questioning WHY it is that people want to act like it is the WAR that caused these murders to happen.

In other words, quit acting like nothing bad happened in Iraq prior to the war and thus blaming everything on the war itself. Because in blaming the war you are trying to excuse the true reasons for their actions.

charver
02-09-2008, 07:03 PM
How typical. Try actually reading and comprehending what was written. I was not excusing the murders. I am simply questioning WHY it is that people want to act like it is the WAR that caused these murders to happen.

In other words, quit acting like nothing bad happened in Iraq prior to the war and thus blaming everything on the war itself. Because in blaming the war you are trying to excuse the true reasons for their actions.

Well, i suppose some people may suggest that "the war" ended in the dismantling of any resemblance of law and order.

Generally, it is taken as red that when a nation, or coalition of nations, invade and occupy a sovereign state, they have some idea of what comes next. In the case of Iraq this seems to have been overlooked, probably one of those things that you just mean to get round to but the mother-in-law calls, the kids are eating soil and the fit lass from next door is sunbathing topless and she's turning over..ooh,yes, where was i?.

Er...dismantle the security services...yes sounds good.

Hang on...won't that create some kind of chaos?

Thinking back to the times in America where there was a total lack of law and order, i'm confident that the Iraqi people will stay in their homes singing "America the Beautiful" rather than take to the streets doing as they please for the next five years.

Is it worse than Saddam? I don't know? Some of them seem to think so, the deluded fools.

uscitizen
02-09-2008, 10:32 PM
:clink:

FUCK THE POLICE
02-09-2008, 10:52 PM
SF sounds like the libertarians who tell us that everything is just peechy in somolia.

Cancel 2016.2
02-09-2008, 11:08 PM
SF sounds like the libertarians who tell us that everything is just peechy in somolia.


What a twit. I never suggested that things are are perfectly sweet in Iraq right now. I am suggesting that those who seem to think that Iraq was without murder/rape/torture etc... prior to the war to come back to reality.

FUCK THE POLICE
02-09-2008, 11:10 PM
What a twit. I never suggested that things are are perfectly sweet in Iraq right now. I am suggesting that those who seem to think that Iraq was without murder/rape/torture etc... prior to the war to come back to reality.

Well, all people who specifically stated "Iraq was without murder/rape/torture under Saddam", feel shame! Since no one did, I don't think we have to worry.

Cancel 2016.2
02-09-2008, 11:28 PM
Well, all people who specifically stated "Iraq was without murder/rape/torture under Saddam", feel shame! Since no one did, I don't think we have to worry.


When you have people pretend that these murders were a result of the war, then yes, that implies the murders would not have occured had the war not happened you ignorant little twit.

FUCK THE POLICE
02-09-2008, 11:33 PM
When you have people pretend that these murders were a result of the war, then yes, that implies the murders would not have occured had the war not happened you ignorant little twit.

Yes, about 1/10th of the murders that have happened since the war would've happened anyway under Saddam, true. You, errr, "ignorant little twit".

Cancel 2016.2
02-09-2008, 11:38 PM
Yes, about 1/10th of the murders that have happened since the war would've happened anyway under Saddam, true. You, errr, "ignorant little twit".

Again, another idiotic comment. Did you even bother to notice the part where I stated that murder rates weren't published by Saddam? So just how could you possibly know what the murder rates were prior to the war? You see it is ignorant comments like yours that make me continue to ask the same question over and over again, yet not one of you has been able to answer it.

You also continue to ignore the fact that per capita MORE people are murdered in the US, more are raped, more are victims of assault. It would take a total of over 100k in Iraq per year to even come close to the rate in the US.

AGAIN, this is not to suggest that it is ok to murder people.... but for the love of god put this shit into perspective and quit acting as though it is "1/10 the rate it would have been". You are just pulling ignorant shit like that out of your ass.

Waterbaby
02-09-2008, 11:46 PM
Again, another idiotic comment. Did you even bother to notice the part where I stated that murder rates weren't published by Saddam? So just how could you possibly know what the murder rates were prior to the war? You see it is ignorant comments like yours that make me continue to ask the same question over and over again, yet not one of you has been able to answer it.

You also continue to ignore the fact that per capita MORE people are murdered in the US, more are raped, more are victims of assault. It would take a total of over 100k in Iraq per year to even come close to the rate in the US.

AGAIN, this is not to suggest that it is ok to murder people.... but for the love of god put this shit into perspective and quit acting as though it is "1/10 the rate it would have been". You are just pulling ignorant shit like that out of your ass.

It would be rather amazing for 100,000 extra people being murdered in Iraq on a per capita basis to not exceed the US per capita murder rate, being that 100,000 people are not murdered per a year in the United States.

Cancel 2016.2
02-09-2008, 11:48 PM
It would be rather amazing for 100,000 extra people being murdered in Iraq on a per capita basis to not exceed the US per capita murder rate, being that 100,000 people are not murdered per a year in the United States.

You really have a reading comprehension issue. I said murder/rape/assault... you know... victims of violent crimes. It is a combination of the three waterbaby.... not just murder.

Waterbaby
02-09-2008, 11:53 PM
You really have a reading comprehension issue. I said murder/rape/assault... you know... victims of violent crimes. It is a combination of the three waterbaby.... not just murder.

That's ridiculous. There was a report going out a while back that said that DC's homicide rate was higher than Badhdad's, however, that's not the whole goddamned US. The murder rate of the US is like several times lower than DC's.

Beefy
02-09-2008, 11:59 PM
Again, another idiotic comment. Did you even bother to notice the part where I stated that murder rates weren't published by Saddam? So just how could you possibly know what the murder rates were prior to the war? You see it is ignorant comments like yours that make me continue to ask the same question over and over again, yet not one of you has been able to answer it.

You also continue to ignore the fact that per capita MORE people are murdered in the US, more are raped, more are victims of assault. It would take a total of over 100k in Iraq per year to even come close to the rate in the US.

AGAIN, this is not to suggest that it is ok to murder people.... but for the love of god put this shit into perspective and quit acting as though it is "1/10 the rate it would have been". You are just pulling ignorant shit like that out of your ass.

I knew you were a war apologist. This shit has got to stop. The people being killed in the article are women who did not wear their head scarves.

That shit did NOT HAPPEN under Hussein's directives.. It IS happening now because there is a power vacuum that is caused by our overthrowing, conquering, and hanging of their leader.

This shit was not happening before the war. Other shit was, but this was not. Jesus man, get a hold of yourself.

Cancel 2016.2
02-10-2008, 12:01 AM
That's ridiculous. There was a report going out a while back that said that DC's homicide rate was higher than Badhdad's, however, that's not the whole goddamned US. The murder rate of the US is like several times lower than DC's.

Wow. How the hell did you spin that into being something about DC. Again water... I said violent crime rates for the US as a whole would mean that violent crimes in Iraq would have to equal over 100k.

Cancel 2016.2
02-10-2008, 12:10 AM
I knew you were a war apologist. This shit has got to stop. The people being killed in the article are women who did not wear their head scarves.

That shit did NOT HAPPEN under Hussein's directives.. It IS happening now because there is a power vacuum that is caused by our overthrowing, conquering, and hanging of their leader.

This shit was not happening before the war. Other shit was, but this was not. Jesus man, get a hold of yourself.

Unbelievable.... AGAIN... show me an instance where any murders were disclosed by Iraq prior to the war. You are making this shit up. do you really expect us to believe you that no women were killed for not following the rules under Saddam? or his boys? Give me a break.

Yes, these women may not have been killed for the same reason that others were killed under Saddam. Do you really think it matters to the women? That they were killed because they didn't follow certain rules set forth by religious nuts vs. being killed because Saddam or his cronies felt like it?

Funny how you and others continue to equate this to apologizing for the war. I am doing no such thing.

This has more to do with your incessant need to blame everything bad that happens on the war.

Beefy
02-10-2008, 12:16 AM
No, it does not come from a "need" to blame everything bad on the war anymore than you claim that the war hasn't caused any harm.

There's some simple facts. When you invade a country and remove its power structure, chaos ensues. When a country is wartorn, violence escalates. When a country's infrastructure is damaged to a significant degree, people resort to violence. When there is no more clear law and order, this shit happens.

I will say that I believe, by the fact that there are over 2 million refugees, well over a hundred thousand dead, and that we've used more artillery than we did in all of WWII, that Iraq is a bigger pigfuck than it was before we went in.

Keep cheerleading.

Cancel 2016.2
02-10-2008, 12:24 AM
No, it does not come from a "need" to blame everything bad on the war anymore than you claim that the war hasn't caused any harm.

There's some simple facts. When you invade a country and remove its power structure, chaos ensues. When a country is wartorn, violence escalates. When a country's infrastructure is damaged to a significant degree, people resort to violence. When there is no more clear law and order, this shit happens.

I will say that I believe, by the fact that there are over 2 million refugees, well over a hundred thousand dead, and that we've used more artillery than we did in all of WWII, that Iraq is a bigger pigfuck than it was before we went in.

Keep cheerleading.


Where did I state that the war hasn't caused any harm? To the contrary... you started this thread with "YAY FOR WAR AND DEATH!!!" associating murders to the war. As if murders wouldn't happen without the war.

And I would also say to you, that is exactly why we shouldn't be trying to pull our troops out. AS your article stated, it was after the British troops left that the violence escalated.

No question the removal of the Iraqi army was a critical mistake in the war. But let me guess, when you discuss the numbers of refugees and victims now as opposed to prior to the war, we are going to ignore the refugees that fled Saddam, we are going to ignore the millions that were starving to death prior to the war, we are going to ignore the hundreds of thousands Saddam had killed. yeah, because it would be too damn inconvenient to discuss those. We shall thus just focus on those that we actually get reporting on now... right. Prior to the war we didn't have to worry about the victims, because Saddam didn't really care to much to have any media covering the victims. Now of course the press is free to cover such stories. But lets just ignore that little fact as well.

Yes, there is a lot that is still wrong in Iraq that needs to be fixed. A lot that is broken during the war. But again, lets stop acting as though a lot of bad fucking shit wasn't going down prior to the war as well.

Beefy
02-10-2008, 12:30 AM
Where did I state that the war hasn't caused any harm? To the contrary... you started this thread with "YAY FOR WAR AND DEATH!!!" associating murders to the war. As if murders wouldn't happen without the war.

And I would also say to you, that is exactly why we shouldn't be trying to pull our troops out. AS your article stated, it was after the British troops left that the violence escalated.

No question the removal of the Iraqi army was a critical mistake in the war. But let me guess, when you discuss the numbers of refugees and victims now as opposed to prior to the war, we are going to ignore the refugees that fled Saddam, we are going to ignore the millions that were starving to death prior to the war, we are going to ignore the hundreds of thousands Saddam had killed. yeah, because it would be too damn inconvenient to discuss those. We shall thus just focus on those that we actually get reporting on now... right. Prior to the war we didn't have to worry about the victims, because Saddam didn't really care to much to have any media covering the victims. Now of course the press is free to cover such stories. But lets just ignore that little fact as well.

Yes, there is a lot that is still wrong in Iraq that needs to be fixed. A lot that is broken during the war. But again, lets stop acting as though a lot of bad fucking shit wasn't going down prior to the war as well.

This has been a monumental foreign policy blunder for many years.

I suppose you won't recognize the fact that sanctions imposed on Iraq by foreign nations was the main reasons for the starvation and death, the necessity to move from ones home in Iraq?

Hussein was a dictator with no heart, and his eyes only on power, and guess what? Our sanctions only hurt the innocent, and our war finally got him, but at an even greater cost than sanctions.

Let me ask you this. You have said before that the war in Iraq was "inevitable" and "Justifiable". Do you think that Iraq would have caused 4000 American dead, 30,000+ Amercian wounded, and the complete chaos of the middle east if we HADN'T taken out Hussein?

Cancel 2016.2
02-10-2008, 12:57 AM
This has been a monumental foreign policy blunder for many years.

I suppose you won't recognize the fact that sanctions imposed on Iraq by foreign nations was the main reasons for the starvation and death, the necessity to move from ones home in Iraq?

Hussein was a dictator with no heart, and his eyes only on power, and guess what? Our sanctions only hurt the innocent, and our war finally got him, but at an even greater cost than sanctions.

Let me ask you this. You have said before that the war in Iraq was "inevitable" and "Justifiable". Do you think that Iraq would have caused 4000 American dead, 30,000+ Amercian wounded, and the complete chaos of the middle east if we HADN'T taken out Hussein?

yes, Bush has blundered through this for many years. not arguing his ineptitude.

Yes, the sanctions were hurting the Iraqi people. I have stated that many times in the past. The sanctions helped Saddam and hurt the Iraqi people. Why? Because the ineptitude of the UN for 12 years to either get Saddam to comply or to at the very least monitor the oil for food program to make sure the food was, I don't know, actually getting to the Iraqi people????

without question... No. The American dead and wounded would probably be under 100 or so.... mainly through training accidents and the like. As for the chaos... that has been there since the west arbitrarily broke up the Ottoman empire. I would say that our media (meaning the west) has certainly paid more attention to it since the wars began. But the decade long battles in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan in the 80's. The constant tension between Palestine/Israel, India/Pakistan, Iran/Iraq has been there for decades.

Waterbaby
02-10-2008, 01:03 AM
I'm on SF's side now just to spite you Beefy. Go not have sex.

Beefy
02-10-2008, 01:13 AM
yes, Bush has blundered through this for many years. not arguing his ineptitude.

Yes, the sanctions were hurting the Iraqi people. I have stated that many times in the past. The sanctions helped Saddam and hurt the Iraqi people. Why? Because the ineptitude of the UN for 12 years to either get Saddam to comply or to at the very least monitor the oil for food program to make sure the food was, I don't know, actually getting to the Iraqi people????

without question... No. The American dead and wounded would probably be under 100 or so.... mainly through training accidents and the like. As for the chaos... that has been there since the west arbitrarily broke up the Ottoman empire. I would say that our media (meaning the west) has certainly paid more attention to it since the wars began. But the decade long battles in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan in the 80's. The constant tension between Palestine/Israel, India/Pakistan, Iran/Iraq has been there for decades.


The sanctions didn't fail because Saddam refused to abide by them, they failed because they were faulty by design. There was no way that these sanctions were going to be a historical first and work.

Starving out a population, then bombing them, creates problems. Even if it is "inevitable" and "justifiable".

Minister of Truth
02-10-2008, 02:30 AM
My precinct and I voted 6-4-2 for Ron Paul today in the WA GOP legislative caucuses. I also bought a shirt off of a kid from Texas who was campaigning for Dr. Paul, and I parked next to 5 cars that all have Paul bumperstickers (I figured I was in the right area...). I also voted for him in the primary.

The WA GOP will split its delegates nearly in half for the primary and caucus winners. A lot of douchebag Romney supporters went and caucused for Obama...

Damocles
02-10-2008, 09:05 AM
My precinct and I voted 6-4-2 for Ron Paul today in the WA GOP legislative caucuses. I also bought a shirt off of a kid from Texas who was campaigning for Dr. Paul, and I parked next to 5 cars that all have Paul bumperstickers (I figured I was in the right area...). I also voted for him in the primary.

The WA GOP will split its delegates nearly in half for the primary and caucus winners. A lot of douchebag Romney supporters went and caucused for Obama...
LOL. Yeah, I heard the Romney guys were going to do that in many places.

Waterbaby
02-10-2008, 10:27 AM
Why is someone a douchebag for doing what's in their best political interest?

Hermes Thoth
02-10-2008, 12:23 PM
SF, being as bad as Saddam is not the place to hang your argument. Seriously.

Damocles
02-10-2008, 01:02 PM
SF, being as bad as Saddam is not the place to hang your argument. Seriously.
The only way we would be "as bad as Saddam" in his argument is if we were the ones that took his place perpetrating the deeds.

Cancel 2016.2
02-10-2008, 03:51 PM
I'm on SF's side now just to spite you Beefy. Go not have sex.

great. I just lost.

Cancel 2016.2
02-10-2008, 03:52 PM
The sanctions didn't fail because Saddam refused to abide by them, they failed because they were faulty by design. There was no way that these sanctions were going to be a historical first and work.

Starving out a population, then bombing them, creates problems. Even if it is "inevitable" and "justifiable".

The sanctions failed because of two reasons.... Saddam did not abide by them and the UN did not do its job enforcing them.

Minister of Truth
02-10-2008, 03:59 PM
Why is someone a douchebag for doing what's in their best political interest?

1) Obama is to the left of Hillary (the douchebags are supposed to be on the right).
2) Obama will be harder to beat in November.

Conclusion: They are douchebags.