I refer you to this thread, where you fully support the murder and mutilation of the 4 US contractors:
So you sympathize with the US soldier and only applaud the deserved killing of US civilian contractors. My bad.
And given your coy behavior in this thread, “If someone is willing to assert that it is not true then I may look for cites. Then again, I might not.” Sound familiar?
Only an idiot would interpret a post where I say the Iraqis have the right to fight back as “glee at the prospect of US soldiers and civilian contractors (or even “contractors”) dying” That is a total misrepresentation of what I said and anyone who is fair will see it. All I was saying there is that the “contractors” were as fair game as any US soldier. No more and no less. I never said I wished them bad. The argument was not about my wishes but about whether the “contractors” werre fair targets. My wish would be that the USA would pull out tomorrow and that not one more single life was lost on any side. But as long as Americans are occupying Irak I believe the Iraqis have the right to fight them.
Yes.
Yes, it means something like that.
Quite possibly. Bremer’s bodyguards are supplied by Blackwater, although he isn’t an engineer, and it’s arguable whether he’s a topnotch anything.
Yes. If they were in uniform, they’d be legal combatants. If they weren’t, and of course they weren’t, they’d be the same sort of illegal combatant that the US has locked up in Cuba.
Yes and no. WTF were they doing? They weren’t guarding anybody, or doing anything that could be described as legitimate. The initial reports said they were protecting a food convoy, which sounds quite reasonable, except there wasn’t any food convoy. They were out cruising. Either without orders or with secret orders that Rumsfeld hasn’t chosen to share with us.
Well isn’t this fun.
The quote you produced show neither of these things. You then say you might not give any more due to sailor’s statement in another thread. He did produce the cite at the end of it however.
Let me remind you what you said in that thread
So how about you putting up or shutting up. I’m saying sailor never has wished death on Americans, never expressed glee at American deaths and never applauded the deaths of Americans. Now prove me wrong.
Hey, idiot, yes, I catch the news and have seen plenty of death in Iraq, most of it caused by American forces.
Please read the thread because nowhere do I condone the burning of 19 year old japanese girls.
And yes, I rememeber one year ago today US forces staged that silly toppling of Saddam’s statue in front of a couple dozen Iraqis. So what? That does not give the USA the right to kill Iraqis today or to steal their oil or occupy their country.
And now he is getting a taste of what he dealt. I just want him to know how it feels. Or do you have one standard for Sailor and another for me.
[/quote]
OTOH, Sailor says that he does not want another life shed, but he also says that Iraqis should fight American troops, which means that he condones the deaths of Americans at Iraqi hands. And you call me schizoid!
But perhaps Sailor only means that Iraqis should just fight American troops in a completely non-lethal manner.
Just because I draw the wrong conclusion from someone’s post and ask a question for clarification is no cause to accuse me of not reading the thread or to admonish me to read it carefully. Sailor, from right above my post:
It really implied that they had been burned alive. Not only did I “read the thread” in detail, but I tried searching on CNN and BBC to determine if contractors or other hostages in the past had been burned alive. I saw no reports, but didn’t have time to comprehensively scour the net, so I didn’t know if perhaps other sources were reporting it as breaking news. Since the situation over there is somewhat volatile, it’s quite possible current events could move at a faster pace than this thread, too.
I’m not picking on gobear’s post, nor did I assert that people had or had not been burned alive. I merely asked why it seemed people were mentioning potential burning versus burning, and mentioned that the two things seemed inconsistent with each other.
Someone already pointed these things out, I think Ale, but I’m not quite sure, but the underlined things, TeaElle, need some explanation:
I don’t buy for one minute you’re only adressing insurgent kidnappers. And using the word tribal as an insult? Nice. Very nice.
I condemn what these specific insurgents did, what they’re threatening to do and what, let’s face it, they’re probably going to do. It is vile and will do nothing to further their cause. I have nothing but heartfelt sympathy for the families of the Japanese hostages. I do take issue, however, with referring to our declaring war on and subsequently attacking Iraq as bringing ‘moderization and democracy to’ their ‘ungrateful nation’. I’m sure the families of the Iraqis who were killed during our first attacks slept a little better knowing they had your support.
Of course, by the same reasoning, since you support America in this fight, you are an immoral, blodthirsty and murderous person who wishes death on Iraqi people. Or perhaps you mean Americans should just fight Iraqis in a completely non-lethal manner? I would have much more respect for the American government of they did that. If supporting one side means wishing death on the other then you and I are equally guilty. But I do not accept that premise.
BTW, in the other thread my point was that gobear was asking for cites while refusing to contradict me. My point was that I wanted him to take a stand and he wouldn’t. As soon as he did I produced a cite. I can be accused of many things but not making clear where I stand and supporting my POV is not one of them.
The error that Sailor and I are both committing is letting moral outrage overwhelm our better judgement. Mind, this is the forum for it, but it’s not conducive to a sensible evaluation of our options in Iraq.
The trouble is that we don’t have any good options left. We can’t just cut and run oput of Iraq becaue that would leave a Somalia-like failred state that would become the very breeding ground for terrorists that we were trying to erase. The window for winning over the hearts and mind of the Iraqi center has closed. We have to pacify the country, but using excessive force will produce ghastly consequences.
The Bush regime’s fantasy of turning Iraq into a little America has been popped like the evanescent bubble it was. Now, perhaps, the Neo-Cons will stop thinking on what they want to give to Iraq and concentrate on what the Iraqis need to get.
I’d like to see the US and the Iraqis both lay down their arms and cooperate in rebuilding that nation. I want no more suffering or death on either side. I’d also like a pony and a house made of ice cream.
Sadly that is all very true.
You’re right 
When did “thinking” become a synonym for “wanking”?
Nice attempt at changing the subject but I do not forget that you said
and your only proof is that you can’t believe the Iraqis have the right to fight without implicitly wishing harm on Americans. So what is it? Do you wish harm on Iraqis? If you don’t then how does it follow that I wish harm on Americans. Let us be consistent.
And as far as options go, all options are bad but what the USA is doing is the worst. How about some humility and ask the rest of the world to help? How about some humility and transfer authority to the UN? How about some truth and give up the military bases and the oil which are the real reason to be there? The fact is the US government does not care one whit about the Iraqis, and proof of that is that it is killing them in large numbers. The US government wants bases in Iraq and wants to control the Iraqi economy and it will get that even if it means killing plenty of Iraqis and Americans.
Put it this way, if an Iraqi and an American are aiming at each other, then I want the American to live. Regardless of my disgust with Bush and the Neo-con cabal, I will always be on the side of Americans in a fight.
gobear, what you seem to not get, or are unwilling to acknowledge, is that it is possible to wish for everyone to stop fighting and still understand that people have a right to defend themselves. If some guy starts pummelling you, then I fully expect you to fight back. That does not make me gleeful that the other guy is getting beaten. It simply means that you have a right to defend yourself. Nothing more.
It ain’t rocket surgery!
Honestly, I’m surprised at you. Your comments are the sort of drivel I’d expect from Brutus, not from you. I expected more from you.
OTOH, your post about the fine mess we’ve gotten ourselves into was spot on.
But your comment about living in an ice cream house? Yeah, right. Come summer you’re going to be all like “Wah wah wah, my house melted.”
OK, just speaking as an observer, here, it appears gobear misread sailor’s statements concerning the armed contractors who were killed last week as being wishing for the deaths of US soldiers. That was a wrong interpretation, I think, but it looks like he’s apologized for it, and from my view his overall views on the conflict are not that much different from sailor’s. Can we move on, or would you guys like to wave 2 x 4’s at each other a little while longer?
Now, what I’d really appreciate hearing a bit more about would be this…
…specifically that last bit, as this suggests that Chilean-style kidnapping and/or death squad operations are being mounted in Iraq by US personnel, and I’ve heard nothing of such outrages in the press so far. In other words, cite?
you continue to avoid the issue. You said about me
Do you reiterate that or do you withdraw it? If you reiterate, then please explain how you do not wish harm to Iraqis.
Why is it right for you to side with Americans just because they are Americans and wrong for me to side who those I believe are right against those who I believe are wrong? Please do not avoid the issue. Why is my position wrong and yours is right?