Possibly so, but I still don’t get your comment. Is it a joke? A subtle political or philosophical point?
Go on, fight my ignorance, and I’ll try and work on my Estuary English.
Well, okay. Let’s break it down…
Mr. Dribble says: [I think that the insurgents are better than the *ahem* coalition forces] Because they are the people fighting against an overwhelmingly superior invading force.
I say: Oh, yeah. Those burqa-clad women and nose-picking toddlers are one hell of a force to reckon with. Thank goodness someone is taking them on.
What we will look for in our examination are the rhetorical devices of irony and sarcasm. Now that you know they are there, see whether you can find them for yourself before continuing. If you’re still stumped, then read on.
Okay. Now, the irony is in the antecedant — the “overwhelmingly superior invading force” is identified as “burqa-clad women and nose-picking toddlers”. You see, if the terrorists were actually engaging an invading force, then they would indeed be fighting against an invading force. But since they are committing indiscriminate violence, the force they are fighting against is innocent people, metaphorically represented by women and children. In other words, it’s ironic that they fancy themselves fighting big bad men when they are in fact fighting defenseless innocent bystanders.
If you still haven’t found the sarcasm, then try to do so now before continuing. If you give up, then proceed. And remember, there are no wrong answers. You’re a winner just for showing up.
To round out the analysis, there is also sarcasm in the last sentence. At first glance, it seems that “Thank goodness someone is taking them on,” refers to the women and children. But now, knowing what you do from examination of the antecedant, it is in fact refering to the absurdity of the claim that the terrorists are actually challenging superior forces.
Then you are an absolute jackass. I, OTOH, value all lives equally. I value human life as human life. Even your life.
No, what they’re fighting against is their own people. These are not noble warriors fighting an heroic struggle to liberate their country from foreign oppressors. These are thugs and sociopaths who want their power back.
Refusing to understand that makes you an asshole.
I read a great deal and have excellent reading comprehension. And your post was quite clearly another example of a turdbrain lefty trying very hard to create as much confusion as possible over semantics and moral issues.
Thanks Liberal.
It would have made more sense if MrDibble had been talking about the terrorist factions that are attacking Iraqi civilians, rather than the insurgents who are attacking US Forces.
Nobody here has said that the terrorists are as unified as, say, the Viet Cong. That’s a straw man. Second, the only reason any of the factions are figting to “end foreign occupation” is to put themselves in power against the will of the overwhelming majority of Iragis. Sure, each faction imagines they’ll be the ones who’ll seize power after the Americans are gone. But the fact remains that not a single one of the factions has honorable or even sane motives.
Jesus bleeding Christ. I’ve never before seen so much vicious dishonesty in three short paragraphs. If Coalition troops were even one tenth as brutal as the terrorists they’re fighting, you’d never accept an excuse as lame and pathetic as the one you’ve giving above, and you fucking well know it. It isn’t simpy that the terrorists “aren’t heroes.” They are monsters. You’re refusal to see that puts you on the same moral and intellectual level as a Holocaust denier.
If the terrorists are morally justified in not fighting by Queensbury rules, so is the Coalition.
Are you just naturally a lying asshole, or did you have to take lessons?
It isn’t possible to reason with someone who isn’t interested in the truth to begin with, and clearly you’re not. Buh-bye.
From my reading of various news cites and message boards. The main critisism that most Iraqis seem to have with the Coalition is their inability to establish security, not that they are some kind of occupying force.
I don’t really understand the point about the various factions just fighting to secure their own power bases. How does this invalidate them? (Not to say that other issues might).
A similar call could be made about the factions in the Greek resistance during WW2. Does their in-fighting and political scheming mean that there struggle against occupancy was meaningless?
OK, then, let’s complete the sentences from some of the varied points of view expressed in this thread.
Rapists are horrible, vile people. AND I support them in their noble struggle for liberation. They are numerically outnumbered by the police, so their tactics are justifiable.
Jeffrey Dahmer was a disgusting human being. AND * I don’t really concern myself as long as it is just a case of those disgusting queers killing each other. What’s important is that the situation is stable.*
pedophilia is a an unforgivable crime. AND pedophiles are not a monolithic group. We have to understand that they are struggling against the imposed morality of a big bully!
domestic abuse is one of the scourges of our time. AND *abusers are just trying to establish an independent relationship. If the police broke into your house and interfered with your relationship with your girlfriend, wouldn’t you fight back? In a struggle between the police and abusers, I always root for the abusers. And the Rodney King case proves I am right. The LAPD should just withdraw from South Central LA, and apologize for being there. *
slavery is an abominable institution. AND a few lynchings do not affect the noble cause of State’s Rights that the KKK is fighting for. It’s those troublemakers from Up North who are causing all the problems. Before they came, the nigras didn’t give us no trouble at all.
I know this is the Pit, but I’d love a firm citation. If the majority of Iraqis didn’t resent the invasion and occupation, and only the subsequent chaos, that’d be quite a big blow for my viewpoint.
(Note: just to be upfront, I wouldn’t call anything produced by the blogosphere, Fox News or the US govt. a believable cite. The BBC maybe, the UN or a reliable NGO like the Red Cross even better.)
And they’d say quite the same thing about US forces.
Ok, let’s get this out of the way first.
Fuck you Mr. Dribble with a razor encrusted pitchfork you slimy little ill-informed elitist douche bag.
Oh and some background about myself. Wrote long eloqent essays about why we should not go to war, distributed them, never voted for George Bush jr.
Now that that’s out of the way we can procede.
So what do they do that you do approve of? The beheadings? The Mosque bombings? The slaughter of folks who happen to be standing too close to a police station?
Ok, fine.
Have you really thought through what happens if the coalition suddenly pulls out? Full fledge civil war is what will happen. The amount of Iraqi deaths so far will make what follows seem like a minor inconvience. It will boil down to Sunni verses Shia. If the Iraqis are lucky, the Kurds will stay on the side of the Shia, but there is no guarantee that it won’t fall into a three way fun fest.
Once there are no coalition forces, no one will be around to see that supplies can get into the country, not that anyone will be sending supplies in. Iraq is not currently self-sufficent. Most Iraqi doctors have fled the country. There’s no steady supply of fuel, food, medical supplies, electricity, or plumbing. What there is is kept patched up with funds from and under the security protection of the coalition. They go away, all of that goes away too.
The US’s fault? Sure, let’s put all the blame on the US. I’m certainly willing to give the US administration a big whopping share of it. But that doesn’t change the fact that a sudden coalition pull out means starvation, disease, and death for a whole lot of Iraqis.
You claim to value their lives more, but you seem willing to let untold numbers of them die, not just to the insurgents you root for, but to famines, sickness and civil war.
This leads me to conclude you don’t really give a flying fuck about Iraqis at all. You just like seeing the US have a hard time but your brain needs some means of providing moral authority for cheering on the chaos that is getting a lot of folks killed.
In your liberation, did outsiders come to fight on your behalf by blowing up your fellow countrymen with suicide bombs? If the US are invaders because they come from outside the country, why do the jihadists who come from outside Iraq get to be defenders? Your definitions of who gets to be the “good guys” seems rather unfair.
You arrogant stupid ignorant pig headed one eyed prick. “I’m right, everyone else is not just wrong but insane.” No fucking wonder 9/11 happened.
[quote]
If Coalition troops were even one tenth as brutal as the terrorists they’re fighting…
[quote]
there’d be a lot fewer Iraqi civilian dead.
Princhester why do you hate America? 
Blackclaw: It occurs to me that MrDribble doesn’t really care if any Iraqis die. He only cares if they die while there is even one American in Iraq upon whom he will then pin the blame for the deaths. Now, once the Americans leave, of course he’ll also blame America for the ensuing deaths because the Americans left the country.
Now a question for the jackass…er, MrDribble: You are aware that coalition means that it’s not only American forces there, are you not?
Are you actually seriously suggesting that this is all the insurgents have done? Where precisely is your fucking head? The only answer to that question is: “up your ass or under six feet of wet cement” because I read stories of insurgent attacks on US and Iraq soldiers every day.
That you must actually know this but have chosen to ignore it in favour of swallowing spin, hook line and sinker tells me everything I need to know about the value of your opinions, dumbass.
Well, that’s certainly … inventive.
Well, military and structure attacks, really. So not beheading journalists, or Mosque bombings, or collateral damage from otherwise legitimate attacks, no.
Although I consider the staff of oil companies and their mercenary bodyguards fair game too.
Please - there’s a full-fledged civil war on the go right now. Hundredss of people dying every month. So what - there are civil wars on the go right now throughout Africa, I don’t see any bleeding hearts for them. I say let the Iraqis sort it out for themselves, without any US interference, because we’ve all seen how that always makes things better, haven’t we?
I just happen to think that more will die if the US stays than if the US goes, that’s all. I think the US prescence acts as a catalyst to violence rather than an inhibitor. That’s my opinion, but so far I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary.
Everyone thinks the Iraqis are so bestial they’ll just rip themselves to shreds if they didn’t have their Uncle Sam to look after them. That’s pretty condescending, don’t you think?
Maybe, if left alone, after 5 years of turmoil you’ll land up with Kurdistan, Shiastan and Sunnistan. SFW? Maybe partitioning will do them good, but for pity’s sake let them sort it out for themselves…
Tell me, if America pulled out tomorrow, how the fuck will that be America having a hard time? There’ll be a lot more of your young men and women with lives and limbs intact, the only thing still hurting will be Chimp-incharge’s ego. I don’t cheer on the chaos, but I do think it’d end a lot sooner if the US just stayed at home where it belongs.
While not using the suicide bomb tactic, many outsiders did take part in our liberation struggle - fellow Africans and Cubans most prominently.
I think foreign Jihadists are religious nutcases, myself, but they get to be on the defense side, if not “the good guys”, because they have the support and assistance of some Iraqis. I have yet to get a cite for the Americans having the sort of groundswell of support that can hide someone from determined searches, as the foreign elements must have.
“mercenary bodyguards”? You continue to prove that a) you don’t know what you’re talking about, and b) you’re just a jerk.
:rolleyes: Yes. That’s why I’ve alternated with “Americans” and “coalition” in my posts.
Are you suggesting that if the US pulled out, the Brits the Italians, and who else is left?( Aussies, I think) - are you suggesting they’d stay? Or in other words, what was the point?