Arse kicking good OP! What you said…
I’m not so sure…
The Peace Institute is the “good guy” who wants to understand the other side:
O’Rourke: “I want to increase dialogue between people in the peace movement and people that are supporting troops because I myself see us as supporting the troops but perhaps in a different way…We’re the Peace Institute. We’re an educational institution and we are really interested in building bridges and building dialogue with people.”
While the anti-antiwar guys are closed-minded:
Erdolf: “We don’t want to be in a dialogue with you… We don’t want to discuss it necessarily with people.”
That sounds much nicer than the usual shooting wars, cold wars, or even trade wars.
Would a trade war over sex toys escalate into a fucking war?
That sounds much nicer than the usual shooting wars, cold wars, or even trade wars.
Would a trade war over sex toys escalate into a fucking war?
Thanks, vibrotraonica, that was the piece I referred to in my thread.
However, I didn’t hear it the way you did. I heard and read it the way King Rat did. The “Support The Troops” gal was pretty much sticking her fingers in her ears and going “lalalalala I can’t hear you”
Yeah. Never mind the SDMB; I wish I could make sense out of what’s happening to my country nowadays. 
With the amount of newcomers here, and the fact that merely posting something utterly devoid of fact and logic is not necessarily grounds for banning, I’m just happy there isn’t more of it.
King Rat and Stoid, I hear what you’re saying. I must admit that when I was driving home and heard that story on the radio, that was my first reaction. The pro-war looney was totally beyond talking to. But the more I turned it over in my mind, I started to think that the woman from the Peace Institute wasn’t without blame. She asks for a “dialouge,” which sounds like activist-speak. That immediately turns off the pro-war woman. She hears nothing and sees only a pinko communist from there on. Maybe if she said “I want to talk to you,” she would have had better luck. But the anti-war woman cannot think or speak outside of her own framework. She doesn’t really want to “engage in a dialouge,” she wants to argue her point. She’s not going to hear anything that the pro-war woman has to say except to think up a comeback.
It was an eye opener for me. Neither the anti- nor the pro-war woman is evil. Both of them think they’re doing the right thing and because of that both of them think the other person is evil. The anti-war woman thinks she’s trying to reach out, and should probably be applauded for that. But for me, the whole thing was a lesson in how not to try and talk to the other side.
Wait a fucking second. All of you people are appalled that dopers are speculating on an issue that the military itself has braught up?
I did not participate in that thread. I did, however read it a bit. I did not see where it was instantly overflown with halfbaked theories and assertions that it was impossible that it was a fuckup.
It is a fucking debate. You want “just the facts ma’am”? The fact is that it was reported that the troops followed SOP that if they didn’t “fuck up”, would have possibly gotten themselves and their buddies killed.
The reports continued to say fucking warning shot was fired at the vehicle after they were signaled to stop. Another shot was fired into the engine possibly in hopes of making them stop. Their orders are to fire at speeding vehicles that *obviously * refuse to stop. That is not a fuck up. That is the reported proper reaction to a fucked up situation.
The reporter on the scene has a different story. One that puts the fuck up more on the troops because of the quote from the CO.
If that doesn’t make it debate worthy, I don’t know what is.
So now the SDMB has the gall to debate things your anti-war mind has already made up despite the known evidence? If this is the way you want your SDMB to run you can fucking have it.
Well said indeed. What is this message board coming to when people whine about the content of debates just because someone doesn’t agree… :rolleyes:
I have been on record here that I personally do not want to debate the niceties of the war and the"fuckups" about the war. I do “live with it”. But this horseshit of what you decide is not debate worthy is beyond pathetic and deserves a rant in reply. 
Well put.
King Rat, the piece is just a transcript of a dialog between two people. The value judgements are yours. Sounds like you’re blaming NPR, or vibrotronica, for your own spin.
A couple things:
-
To the OP, if you are going to open a pit thread about a certain GD thread, you might drop a line in there to let people know you are attacking them, unless you would prefer to hide out here and not deal with them directly. Based on the poor reasoning ability demonstrated in your post, I suppose I should not be surprised to see you have chosen the latter.
-
I don’t know where that Koran comment came from, it was irrelevant to the discussion, and was dismissed as such.
-
I wasn’t aware that GD was an exclusively fact based forum, I suppose that all future debates on religion, philosophy etc. should be removed to the IMHO forum since often times they are based more on opinion than fact. Perhaps we should do away with GD all together, since clearly every question will either have a factual answer (GQ) or is going to involve some speculation and opinion. (IMHO)
-
The inquiry in that thread, as I explained multiple times, was a perfectly valid one, and completely divorced from the war in general. No one in the thread ever said that mistakes don’t happen, or that innocent civilians don’t get killed. No one ever said the coalition was flawless; I challenge you to provide a quote that even comes close to that assertion. The scope of the inquiry was limited simply to this: Is it possible that the van incident was deliberately staged in order to make the coalition forces look bad? Several posters were willing to agree that, especially in light of the tactics which have been reported in other parts of the country, it was possible, some even said likely, that the answer was yes. Other posters disagreed, and a polite discussion was had. That is, in fact, the purpose of the GD forum. Eventually the crusading anti-war idiots descended, like the vultures they are, from their lofty towers and began to throw their “evil imperialist” clichés in to the mix, for example we had KhaosGod who offered this contribution:
as proof that the coalition wants to “Kill 'em all.” Later, RedFurry left whatever piece of carrion he was gnawing on, and offered us this insight:
Clearly, what is on ole Red’s mind is debate.
Of course, the thread was full of speculation, from both sides. I recognized this when I said:
But for you to post this:
just boggles the mind. Have you completely missed the content of the “hawks’” posts in the other thread? Do the “doves” deny that Saddam has used civilians as human shields? Do the doves deny that Saddam’s troops have used schools and hospitals as military bases? Do the doves deny that Saddam’s troops have staged fake surrenders? Do the doves deny that suicide bombers have attached checkpoints? I wouldn’t accuse the doves of being so stupid, so why must it be that if I am a Hawk, (which I really am not) that I believe that mistakes don’t happen? What possibly makes you think that I can’t “handle” the idea that civilians would be killed?
In short, pull your inflated head out of your ass and try to read the words in front of you before you go off on what I can, or can’t, handle. Asshole.
I totally agree with the OP. When I read just the title of the thread the OP mentioned, I was disgusted. It seemed to me like some people just couldn’t seem to believe that accidents can happen. No, it has to be our dastardly enemy which made us kill those Iraqis. It didn’t seem to be a legitimate question, it seemed to be a knee-jerk response. When I read the content, it amazed me that so many people could ignore Occam’s Razor, and go ahead with their little theories based on very uninformed speculation.
It was a low moment for the SMDB.
to Rhum Runner
First of all, it wasn’t valid, it was mindless speculation based on no facts and flawed reasons. Not only that it seemed very inconsiderate to jump to such conclusions about a carload of women and children who died.
They don’t have to say it, they assumed it. Otherwise they never would have thought up these rationalizations.
Yes it was a very polite discussion. That’s part of what upset me. No one said in the first few posts, “hey wait a sec, you are way out of line”.
You know, you’re right. I mean, four days earlier there was a suicide bombing at a checkpoint, and we have found tanks being housed in hospitals, and munitions in schools. We know that Iraq has put their SAMS and radar cites in civilian areas, we know they have stored land mines in their Mosques. We know they have fired their mortars on civilians in Basra, and we know they have gassed civilians in the past. It is simply impossible to believe that they would orchestrate an attempt to get civilians killed. Impossible.
Iraq has done some anti-civilian things, sure, but they haven’t actually sent civilians out to get gunned down by Americans. It’s possible that this could be some sort of Iraqi plot, but clearly much less likely than the straightforward explanation. So it’s totally in bad taste to try and say, essentially, “I wonder if we can blame this tragedy on the Iraqis?”
For anyone still reading this, here is a cite. to a report on the possibility that the people that rushed the checkpoint were forced to do so.
You all can take issue with the validity of the cite, but surely we have seen many positions defended and debated based on far less evidence than what has been shown in that thread.
Spiny Norman, can I expect a response from you? Or are you going to go slither off like the piece of phlegm you are and start another thread in some dark corner where you can cry about “your message board” rather than address the issue, and the posters, directly?
Well, gee, Rhum Runner, does it perhaps seem plausible that the esteemed mr Norman is currently otherwise occupied, and has not yet found the time to respond? Does the mere fact that it takes him a while to respond make him a “piece of phlegm”, as you so eloquently put it?
I think the war has just made everybody cranky.
Well, IMHO he’s a piece of phlegm for starting this thread and not posting a link in the other, so when I wondered whether or not a response would be forthcoming, it was more a comment on that than on the timeliness of his posting. I am happy to wait.
Anyway, for those of you who care, there was another suicide attack this morning, this one involving a pregnant woman.
Anyone want to retract their poor taste comments yet?
**
Agreed.
This “moral outrage” I see here seems to have far to do with the fear that people might be somehow justifying the actions of those soldiers, and that that somehow devalues the lives of those who died. Well guess what, I call bullshit. I already believe the soldiers were justified regardless of whether the people in the van were under duress or confused. Sure many things could have been done to prevent the van from even having the opportunity to rush the checkpoint but it doesn’t change the reality of war that gave them no choice at that point in time.
Seriously, get over yourselves.