On an outside debate board, I recently encountered a fellow teenager who asserts that the roughly 100,000 Kurdish civilians killed in Saddam’s Operation Anfal were justified because there was a “Kurdish threat” to the Iraqi nation.
Fuck you!
Go to hell, you festering waste of biomass!
Genocide is never justifiable. Ever. Systematically destroying an entire ethnic group by destroying more than 2,000 villages, making 900,000 homeless, and murdering more than 100,000 is not a rational solution to the possibility of a largely isolated rebellion in the heat of other warfare! You are one of the lowest of humans, and perhaps aren’t worth the cultures of bacteria that congregate on your filthy self.
[I feel a bit better now. A bit pacified. But inhuman fuckwads who attempt to justify genocide are barely justifiable in their own existence.]
Teenagers are wont to have stupid opinions and a lax understanding of The World. It’s their job.
That doesn’t excuse it, of course. But I find I can tolerate such absurd stupidity in those younger than me far more easily than I can in those older than me.
I assume you were attempting sarcasm, and I also assume that by “us” you mean the US and/or its allies in the former or potential future military offensive against Iraq.
If those assumptions are correct, I’m guessing you’re the dude from Daoloth’s OP.
Bother who much? The only people I can think of who that doesn’t seem to bother are Saddam Hussein and his cronies.
I guess I can say I appreciate you being so forthcoming as such. How is he to work for anyway? Maybe you should start a thread titled “Ask Saddam Hussein’s yes-man”. :rolleyes:
Wow, Diogenes. That was one fucking idiotic statement. Or rather, the assumption was idiotic. We don’t target civilians. Or are you saying that since civilians will get killed accidentally, it’s the same as if we targeted them intentionally?
Are you really that blinkered and naive?
You know, I’ll be the first to admit that it may not be wise to act against Iraq unilaterally, but people, it IS time to do something. I’d rather see a UN military body carry out the operation, but you can bet your ass I’m not going to be mourning Saddam’s passing, however it’s accomplished. Filthy, genocidal, tyrannical bastard
Perhaps, in the midst of sipping cappucino in the Coffeehouse Of Omniscience, whilst trying to type out a haiku in iambic pentameter on his oh-so-sleek PowerMac (not to disparage PowerMac’s, of course) and reading Dianetics, Diogenes accidently slipped into an alternate reality where Dubya is a Democrat, black turtlenecks and berets are still stylish (oh, doesn’t he wish), and his trendy, goatee’d, “Oh, look at me, I’m so fabulously cynical” bullshit was actually accurate.
Forgive him. It’s just a quantum flux in subspace.
I’m sorry FUCKWADS! Attacking Iraq WILL kill civilians. Have any of you cocksmokers ever BEEN in a fucking war zone? Well I have. have you ever seen a four year old with her arms blown off? Well I have. Have you ever seen kids digging through rubble looking for their parents? I have.
I’m sorry you’re a bunch of fucking morons who mindlessly swallow the Bush propaganda about Iraq. Americans basically get off on killing people, especially brown people, and they can’t stand to have the EVIL of war pointed out to them. So excuse me if I don’t want to participate.
And yes, Ogre, If civilians get killed “accidentally” it’s the same as if we did it on purpose. That “collateral damage,” bullshit is fucking Timothy McVey psychopathic rationalization. I don’t think Americans would look kindly on their own citizens being killed “accidentally” during a military attack either.
BTW I’m not defending any attacks on the Kurds. I’m not defending saddam. I’m attacking your precious president for trying to stampede us into an unprovoked attack on innocent people for reasons which are purely self-serving and political. Iraq has done NOTHING to us! NOTHING! Bush’s own CIA has said that they CAN’T do anything to us. You people probably also support Israel’s “collective punishment” of Palestinian civilians for the actions of a few.
No, it obviously is not. This is not propaganda, it’s basic English. The terms “accidentally” and “on purpose” are mutually-exclusive. They are, in fact antonyms. Perhaps you meant that they result in the same thing – dead people – though that too is obviously incorrect in that one gets significantly more civilian dead people when one kills them on purpose than one does when one kills them by true accident.
I don’t believe anyone said attacking Iraq will NOT result in at least some dead civilians – which deaths would be, so long as they are accidental, collateral damage. (By the by, the comparison with McVeigh does not wash, because if your intent – see above re the difference between “accidental” and “intentional” – is to kill civilians, then killing them is not “collateral” – it is your chief object.) But then, the above clarification may be above your head, relying as it does the assumption that you have a functioning brain stem which, let’s be frank, it appears you do not.
Now you’ll have to excuse me, I haven’t killed a brown person all day and I fear I’m behind on my quota.
Do you seriously think it’s that simple? Ah, my little kumquat, if only it were.
I do note, however, that in keeping with the old saw that the best defense is a good offense, you have leapt past the difficult task of attempting to defend your moronic statement that the United States targets civilians, with an unfortunately heavy-handed (and therefore transparent) attack on those of us who took issue with that characterization as “fucking morons who mindlessly swallow the Bush propaganda.” I’m afraid that won’t wash, however. Your statement remains idiotic and indefensible, and pointing that out does not automatically make any of us into supporters of Bush. So if you’re giving out the crown for fucking moron of the day, the head to set it on remains your own.
Fact: Saddam Hussein has stonewalled the UN for 11 years, refusing to live up to the terms he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.
How does the UN expect to be taken seriously as a world power if it can’t enforce its own resolutions, which, I believe, to the signatories of the UN Charter (Iraq, Dec. 21, 1945,) have treaty status?
Bush has talked, pleaded, and cajoled the UN for months on the necessity of dealing with Hussein’s Iraq. “Enforce the resolution. Enforce all 16 of them that Hussein has ignored,” he said. “The UN is a paper tiger and might as well be disbanded if there are no weight to the resolutions,” he said.
He was right. Does that sound like a stampede to you? No, Diogenes, if it were a “stampede,” Iraq would already be occupied by US forces, Hussein would be a memory, and there’d not be a goddamned thing anyone could do about it.
It hasn’t operated that way. Bush has sought international support, political referenda, new UN resolutions at every turn. Hell, he’s done everything BUT stampede.
Do you seriously think it’s that simple? Ah, my little kumquat, if only it were.
I do note, however, that in keeping with the old saw that the best defense is a good offense, you have leapt past the difficult task of attempting to defend your moronic statement that the United States targets civilians, with an unfortunately heavy-handed (and therefore transparent) attack on those of us who took issue with that characterization as “fucking morons who mindlessly swallow the Bush propaganda.” I’m afraid that won’t wash, however. Your statement remains idiotic and indefensible, and pointing that out does not automatically make any of us into supporters of Bush. So if you’re giving out the crown for fucking moron of the day, the head to set it on remains your own.
Yeah, I DO think it’s that simple, Jodi. The US would be violating international law and the Geneva convention by invading Iraq without just cause and/or trying to assassinate another head of state. Any attack on Iraq would target civilians ANY attack. If you launch an attack which you KNOW will kill innocent people, then you are targeting civilians. I don’t give a fuck what you think your reason is. Is there any circumstance in which you would be willing to kill your OWN children in order to further some hypothetical higher good. If the answer is no, then you don’t have the right to sanction the murder of someone else’s children.
Even if Saddam HAS defied the UN resolution, that does not give Smirky George the right to unilaterally enforce his own miltary retribution.
The White House has consistently failed to show ANY compelling evidence of an Iraqi threat to the US, despite their shrill rhetoric.
Would anybody here feel even a LITTLE bit bad for the children who will lose their parents, their limbs or their lives as retribution for reasons they have nothing to do with?
The
Diogenes, I realize this is already the Pit, but given the long nature of my reply and the fact that all your posts in this thread have had little or nothing to do with the OP, I’ve started a special lil’ thread just for you here.
IF?! If Saddam has defied the UN resolutions?! Does anybody really doubt at this point?
I don’t see any unilateral action being taken. I see talk of unilateral action. I see threats of unilateral action. I see speculation of unilateral action. George is perfectly within his rights to bluster, threaten, cajole, and otherwise try to make the UN see that it’s rapidly turning useless.
You going to turn all vaporish when Saddam gasses the Kurds again? When he invades a neighbor? When he commits genocide? You’re concerned with the well-being of Iraqi citizens? Fine. They’d be better off without Saddam, your windy ideological objections notwithstanding.
You’re caught on the horns of a dilemma, eh? UN forces (or US forces) invade, civilians die. Iraq stands as is, civilians die en masse as Hussein funnels off foreign aid to research NBC weapons, letting his people starve, and turning around and using those same weapons on citizens of his own nation…citizens whose best interest he is by social contract responsible for.