Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

[KEEP IT CIVIL] Wikileaks release Video of the murder of Iraqi civilians

Options
1…1517192021

Comments

  • Options
    #482
    Hagar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    The US Constitution Second Amendment wrote:
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    I suppose that right of citizens to bear arms in defence of their country only applies to US citizens. It could reasonably be argued that any armed civilian Iraqi is attempting to do what any US citizen would in the same circumstances. They should not be reffered to as terrorists or insurgants. Militia or resistance fighters is much more accurate.

    What happened to the great democracy that was being brought to the Iraqi people?
    The Pax Americana is not all that peaceful.


  • Options
    #483
    LostinKildare
    Registered Users Posts: 990 ✭✭✭LostinKildare


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    and raise you Tolstoy.
    "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing"

    Ach, poor Leo is turning in his grave at the news that you've (mis-)cited him in support of war. That quote is Edmund Burke, BTW, not Tolstoy.

    Tolstoy was an extreme anarcho-pacifist who vehemently opposed war. He corresponded with and inspired Thoreau and Gandhi, though his philosophy of nonviolence was more radical than either of theirs. Some quotes:

    "The greater the state, the more wrong and cruel its patriotism, and the greater is the sum of suffering upon which its power is founded."

    "In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful."

    "War is so unjust and ugly that all who wage it must try to stifle the voice of conscience within themselves."


  • Options
    #484
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    1st wrote: »
    I bet you think you are good and they are evil? Not everybody agrees.

    The US is seen as an evil empire by a significant number of people/states.
    The so called terrorists are resisting the self-granted US "right" to enforce their brand of democracy on their country and the world.


    Invade N.Korea who really do have nukes and I might have some respect, keep invading more or less helpless oil-rich countries and you will get the derision you deserve.


    Your respect, to be honest won't worry too many people .;)


  • Options
    #485
    Hagar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    My respect and your opinion carry about the same weight so don't get carried away with the cleverness of your own responses, nobody else is.


  • Options
    #486
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Cleverness? I'm not entirely sure that sentence of his makes much sense at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #487
    Sheeps
    Registered Users Posts: 2,762 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    nah it makes perfect sense


  • Options
    #488
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Sheeps wrote: »
    nah it makes perfect sense

    Go on then, enlighten me.


  • Options
    #489
    concussion
    Registered Users Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    1st wrote: »
    I suppose that right of citizens to bear arms in defence of their country only applies to US citizens. It could reasonably be argued that any armed civilian Iraqi is attempting to do what any US citizen would in the same circumstances. They should not be reffered to as terrorists or insurgants. Militia or resistance fighters is much more accurate.

    What happened to the great democracy that was being brought to the Iraqi people?
    The Pax Americana is not all that peaceful.

    There is a big difference between a member of a militia and an insurgent - one fights for the government and the other fights against it. The US militias you are thinking of would fight to defend the US and the Government. If they came onto the streets fighting Government forces they would be insurgents.


  • Options
    #490
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    concussion wrote: »
    There is a big difference between a member of a militia and an insurgent - one fights for the government and the other fights against it. The US militias you are thinking of would fight to defend the US and the Government. If they came onto the streets fighting Government forces they would be insurgents.

    By that definition the French Resistance of WW2 were insurgents.


  • Options
    #491
    Savage Tyrant
    Registered Users Posts: 3,165 ✭✭✭Savage Tyrant


    karma_ wrote: »
    By that definition the French Resistance of WW2 were insurgents.

    As were those disgraceful traitorous insurgent terrorists in the Dublin GPO at Easter 1916! :rolleyes:

    The USA are seen by many as an foreign invading terrorist force in the countries they are occupying. The people of those countries have every right to meet force with force. And should not have to follow a US endorsed puppet government set up either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #492
    Hagar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    concussion wrote: »
    There is a big difference between a member of a militia and an insurgent - one fights for the government and the other fights against it. The US militias you are thinking of would fight to defend the US and the Government. If they came onto the streets fighting Government forces they would be insurgents.
    Invaders claiming governance do not a legitimate government make.

    Savage Tyrant wrote: »
    As were those disgraceful traitorous insurgent terrorists in the Dublin GPO at Easter 1916! :rolleyes:

    The USA are seen by many as an foreign invading terrorist force in the countries they are occupying. The people of those countries have every right to meet force with force. And should not have to follow a US endorsed puppet government set up either.

    Nail on Head.


  • Options
    #493
    Sheeps
    Registered Users Posts: 2,762 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    karma_ wrote: »
    By that definition the French Resistance of WW2 were insurgents.

    yes, they were, as were the polish insurgents during the uprising in warsaw


  • Options
    #494
    Sheeps
    Registered Users Posts: 2,762 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    this idea that insurgent means the bad guys is a product of american media propaganda


  • Options
    #495
    Hagar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    Sheeps wrote: »
    this idea that insurgent means the bad guys is a product of american media propaganda
    QFT.


  • Options
    #496
    concussion
    Registered Users Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    1st wrote: »
    Invaders claiming governance do not a legitimate government make.

    They don't claim governance. The forces in Iraq are there under a UN mandate at the request of the Iraqi government.


  • Options
    #497
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,267 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    That quote is Edmund Burke, BTW, not Tolstoy.

    One of those (in)famous misattributions, it seems.

    But upon research, I am also guilty of error.

    The Edmund Burke quote is ""When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

    "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" is found in Sergei Bondarchuk's adaptation of War and Peace.
    The people of those countries have every right to meet force with force. And should not have to follow a US endorsed puppet government set up either.

    I would agree with you back in 2003. (But the counterpoint to that is that the rules of warfare would still apply: Using force will result in the use of force against). By 2007, however, there had been a couple of elections, the argument becomes a little less solid.
    Invaders claiming governance do not a legitimate government make.

    Actually, the laws of land warfare do support the idea. An occupying power is responsible for the governance of the occupied state until a domestic government can be set up. Otherwise, you'd just have a disaster with no provisions for services or security.

    NTM


  • Options
    #498
    Hagar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Otherwise, you'd just have a disaster with no provisions for services or security.

    NTM
    Not if you stopped invading countries and causing artificial vacuums of government.


  • Options
    #499
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,016 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    1st wrote: »
    Not if you stopped invading countries and causing atificial vacuums of government.
    And they were doing so well with their mass graves before we showed up..


  • Options
    #500
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Overheal wrote: »
    And they were doing so well with their mass graves before we showed up..

    Where were you for Rwanda or DR Congo?


  • Options
    #501
    Hagar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    Overheal wrote: »
    And they were doing so well with their mass graves before we showed up..
    Who put Saddam in power in the first place and supplied him with all the military matieriel that he asked for?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #502
    Sheeps
    Registered Users Posts: 2,762 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    the soviets


  • Options
    #503
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    Overheal wrote: »
    And they were doing so well with their mass graves before we showed up..

    before you point out the speck in yer neighbours eye etc etc


  • Options
    #504
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    Sheeps wrote: »
    the soviets

    no the americians


  • Options
    #505
    Sheeps
    Registered Users Posts: 2,762 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    Tigger wrote: »
    no the americians
    no it was the israelites


  • Options
    #506
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    sadact was instated with a coup sponsered by the us to despose of the group who were sympathetic to the ussr

    here

    http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html


  • Options
    #507
    Sheeps
    Registered Users Posts: 2,762 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    wow that just shows how much you eat in to american propaganda


  • Options
    #508
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    i don't think they're proud of it?


  • Options
    #509
    Sheeps
    Registered Users Posts: 2,762 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    hartford-hwp.com is a notorious pro american propaganda website, way to pick your sources


  • Options
    #510
    RedDragonJack
    Registered Users Posts: 203 ✭✭RedDragonJack


    So you can watch people getting murdered on youtube now?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #511
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    Sheeps wrote: »
    hartford-hwp.com is a notorious pro american propaganda website, way to pick your sources

    you talk in circles

    are you saying that you don't believe the installation of sadact was americian influenced


Advertisement