The 9/11 Republican

[Solid Fro]

I stumbled upon this op-ed and was amazed how similar I was to the author, Cinnamon Stillwell. I do not believe I was ever as radical as she was, I just never gave much thought about politics. Most of my opinions were devised from whatever Liberal mainstream media dribble I could pick up. After 9/11, everything changed, as described in the article, was very similar to what I experienced. I finally appreciated what it was to be an American and everything it stood for, unfortunately, the Democratic party was not on my side.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2005/02/24/cstillwell.DTL

 

[idleprocess]

I stumbled upon this op-ed and was amazed how similar I was to the author, Cinnamon Stillwell. I do not believe I was ever as radical as she was, I just never gave much thought about politics. Most of my opinions were devised from whatever Liberal mainstream media dribble I could pick up. After 9/11, everything changed, as described in the article, was very similar to what I experienced. I finally appreciated what it was to be an American and everything it stood for, unfortunately, the Democratic party was not on my side.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2005/02/24/cstillwell.DTL

That is a fantastic piece. I went as far to send her an email telling her so. I really enjoyed reading about how her previously beloved political party went so far as to spit on her for her, now conflicting, political beliefs. Talk about tolerance and diversity

idle

 

[accordcoupe2004]

its always nice to read different viewpoints, and this article was no exception. however i disagree with the author. her opinions to me are very narrow and very unaccomodating to the circumstances in which she now stands for.


gahhhh. i was never the greatest at writing how i feel. what i was trying to say in other words, is that her article was a load of bull without trying to sound condescending. i understand everyone is entitled to their opinions, as we are beings of circumstances, and had the situations changed and i grew up in your shoes and you grew up in mine, that we would switch views.

i find it sad that someone can post something so extremely biased, and have people read it and feel like they gained from it.

gar i dunno why this is so hard for me. but basically the message i got from the article was that she used to be very liberal, until the 9/11 attacks in which she became very conservative. and now looking back, that being very liberal was stupid and full of hypocrisy. she also says it like being neoconservative is a good thing.

i'm neither liberal, nor conservative, but it saddens me, when one point of view looks down on the other point of view and thinks they are better or more right than the other. i feel this inter-bickering and name calling between democrats and republicans is whats destroying the unity in our country and weakening the us.


it saddens me that there were millions of people in our country who coulda cared less about international affairs and the well being of other countries, until the 9/11 attacks, when suddenly these people are going "oh my god, i'm so shocked. we must wage war and rid the world of this evil known as terrorism." its the same with people who didn't care and took our country's politics for granted until this issue of gay marriage came up and suddenly everyone is going "oh my god, we can't let this happen."


i feel its when we get so pin-pointed to a certain issue (such as terrorism, gay rights) that we miss the overall picture. the overall picture is that our entire world, not just the US, is filled with humans.

a perfect example is a frontline special i watched that aired on PBS that followed a group of soldiers in iraq. one of their members is killed in duty, and the soldiers have a memorial for him. they showed a room full of sobbing grown ass men, who lost a good friend, and a fellow soldier. it touched my heart. but after that scene they interviewed a fellow soldier of the deceased. the interviewer asked "what's going to be different now?" or something along that line. the soldier responds that he is now going to look for revenge, and that now killing more insurgents will be sweeter and more enjoyable. when i heard that i was so sad, because it was so ugly.

it's so depressing when a room full of grown men are so saddened by the death of a fellow soldier, cannot understand how the men, women, and children of iraq feel when one of theirs is killed by the US military. these guys are crying, genuinely sad over a lost friend, but for some reason aren't able to step into the shoew of the iraqi people and understand the pain they feel. there are iraqi people who've probably lost entire families due to collateral damage during the iraqi invasion. if you were one of these people, wouldn't you hate hte united states? the soldier hated the iraqis for killing his buddy. imagine how a young man would feel when the invasion killed his sisters, uncles, mother, father and wife?

the point of all this is to just say everything can be seen from different angles. there is no 100% "right" and pure evil. one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. one country's serviceman is another country's occupying soldier. so it makes me mad when people such as our president bush, labels countries as "axis of evil" or country's full of "evil-doers" cuz essentially it is our country that is meddling in other country's affairs and creating them. don't forget that bin laden and saddam are both products (trained and put into power), by the united states for our personal reason. it makes me sick when people can judge others yet at the same time avoiding the same judgement upon oneself.

this is a dog eat dog world, and i can't argue the united states right to do what it has to do to maintain its stability. i'm sure if situations were reversed, and iraq was the superpower and we were the weak country full of oil that iraq woulda done the same to us. so i'm not saying the US is bad. but i feel its wrong to lie to ourselves, and make ourselves believe that we are really doing it to "liberate" the iraqis. cuz i guarantee, our country is full of people that would care more about if the price of gas went up by more than a dollar per gallon then the well being of iraq citizens. i am one of them, its just the way the world is. but please lets stop with teh BS about how we are "good", fighting "evil" and we are doing it to make the world a better place. cuz in reality, what i see is the upper class of america doing things to get even richer and to keep things that way.

sorry for going all over the place and writing so much, i got carried away. but look, i'm not saying everyone is stupid and that i'm the only one that's right. i'm certain that if i had lost family in the 9/11 attacks, that i dunno if i could make the same comments that i jsut did. i'm truly sorry if anyone has lost family unjustly, it is something that noone should have the burden of living through. but i feel like i can see things more clearly from the outside looking in. i just want the world to be a better place. to me hate and bias are such stupid things. all u have to do is change ur perspective, and realize what the other persons are thinking, and realize you would do the same if not worse too. once u view the world like that, its only a matter of learning people and ridding the world of ignorance.

 

[Minnesota01R6]

You are liberal even if you haven't admitted it to yourself. Your embrace of cultural and moral relativism shows this more than a "Vote Nader" bumper sticker ever could. That article was not about Iraq. The fact that you read it and all you could think about was Iraq or the price of oil is yet another reason why you are a liberal. Funny nobody makes an argument about Afghanistan, yet we've encountered and killed more terrorists in Iraq than Afghanistan.

Yes, the whole world is filled with humans, but some of those humans want to kill us or force us to take on their religion. As long as they want to kill us, we need to kill them first. I could go on and on about WHY we need to kill them, but in a nutshell our other option would be to build prison fencing at out borders and not let anyone (or anything) in. We will not change their minds, buy them off, or close our eyes and make them go away.

War is a bad thing. But we aren't the ones that started it. We will, however, finish it. Was Iraq truly necessary? In hindsight it wasn't (unless you count the human rights violations, use of chemical and biological weapons in the past, and refusal by the U.N. to enforce resolutions and monitor sanctions). There were no WMDs. On the other hand, what would you have us do now? Pull out immediately and let radical islamists take over like Iran? Terrorism is like a cancer. It will spread unless killed. The only way we have of "treating" terrorism is with something much like chemotherapy - its called war. We do kill innocent, good people, but the fact is that we kill a lot more bad people, and we're fighting them in Iraq, not in America.

Finally, something you seem to forget is that we would have been out of Iraq by now if it weren't for the terrorists. We crushed Saddam's army within days. At that point, the killing could have stopped, and a limited number of soldiers could have stayed on as a police force until suitable local forces were trained. Unfortunately PEOPLE STILL WANT TO KILL AMERICANS and they don't care where they do it. Do you think the 9/11 terrorists put themselves in the 3,000+ shoes of their victims before they attacked?

 

[Solid Fro]

accordcoupe2004, you said that the people who lost family members on 9/11 were for an unjust reason, yet you said that the terrorists who committed the act were just, "freedom fighters", and on the side of good. Can you not see the hypocrisy?

Thanks for proving why I'm not a Liberal.

idleprocess is right. You would think the Democratic party would love to free 50 million oppressed people from evil tyrants and be the human rights savior-of-the-day. Something has changed in the Democratic party. Whether it may be the leadership or the constant obstruction of anything Bush says or does, something has morphed the party for the worse.

 

[Sphinx]

accordcoupe2004, you said that the people who lost family members on 9/11 were for an unjust reason, yet you said that the terrorists who committed the act were just, "freedom fighters", and on the side of good. Can you not see the hypocrisy?

Thanks for proving why I'm not a Liberal.

I think accordcoupe2004 said "there is no 100% "right" and pure evil. one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" to quote him correctly.

By changing your political view all you have done is withdraw yourself deeper into an area that doesn’t allow you to question anymore, your way is the right way from now on (“You’re either with us or against us”) and that means you have now become more isolated and ignorant of the world around you than ever before instead of the opposite effect that the rest of the world was hoping for after 9/11.
The DefendtheDefender link in your sig is a good example, how dare anyone question the actions of your soldiers, surely they are above reproach. I ask, what about DefendtheVictim or would that be asking too many questions?

An example of ignorance is also shown in your sig ” Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier.”, What a load of bull, what makes a life of an American soldier stand out above the millions of other soldiers from around the world who gave their lives ”for the freedom and liberty of total strangers”. Not only does this show your unwillingness to see beyond your own shores anymore but it also shows an ignorant belittlement to so many who have also laid down their lives ”for the freedom and liberty of total strangers” throughout the world.

 

[Solid Fro]

I think accordcoupe2004 said "there is no 100% "right" and pure evil. one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" to quote him correctly.

By changing your political view all you have done is withdraw yourself deeper into an area that doesn’t allow you to question anymore, your way is the right way from now on (“You’re either with us or against us”) and that means you have now become more isolated and ignorant of the world around you than ever before instead of the opposite effect that the rest of the world was hoping for after 9/11.

That is what is great with America, I can change my political view anytime I want, without having my head cut off or strung up in a public square and have rocks thrown at me.

It seems that the Democrats think that way. If you disagree with anything, the Democrats will label you as a "right-wing warmonger" and will have nothing to do with you. Howard Dean (the leader of the Democratic National Party) doesn't help much by calling Republicans "evil".

What ever happened to the party that includes everyone? Have the democrats forgotten how big their tent is or do they just want to oppose Bush on everything that comes out of his mouth? Freeing people from oppression is good, as long as it's not a Republican president.

Chalk up another reason why the Democrats lost, again.

The DefendtheDefender link in your sig is a good example, how dare anyone question the actions of your soldiers, surely they are above reproach. I ask, what about DefendtheVictim or would that be asking too many questions?

Defend the Victim would be idiotic. The terrorists (insurgents or "freedom fighters" by people not living in reality) over ran a military check point and were killed when they failed to stop after the Marine in question screamed "stop" in Arabic.

A life or death situation, to kill or be killed. I'm putting my chips with the Marine.

An example of ignorance is also shown in your sig ” Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier.”, What a load of bull, what makes a life of an American soldier stand out above the millions of other soldiers from around the world who gave their lives ”for the freedom and liberty of total strangers”. Not only does this show your unwillingness to see beyond your own shores anymore but it also shows an ignorant belittlement to so many who have also laid down their lives ”for the freedom and liberty of total strangers” throughout the world.

Unfortunately for you, it is true. America has sacrificed more, beyond what was needed.

Did France send troops to stop a tyrant in Iraq or to even give aid to the suffering people under that reign? Did Germany eradicate the Taliban from Afghanistan and allow their people to vote in a free election? Did Russia send a carrier strike force to provide $900 million dollars worth of aid to Tsunami victims?

All this is just from a few years, I can go back further. For example, how America defended Europe from being overran in days by the communist Soviet Union, in the same fashion as Nazi Germany did it 30 years before.



I do recommend reading this op-ed as well. Eurospeak by Victor David Hanson. Here is a little excerpt that explains a lot:

If Europe sounds conflicted, that’s because it is. One symptom of such a troubled patient is its blustering rhetoric — as if words can mask reality, as if idealistic vocabulary and shots at America can substitute for faith in Western values, sacrifice, and risk-taking. One reason that Europe understands so well the braggadocio and sense of inferiority of the impotent Muslim world is that it suffers precisely from some of these same maladies in its own problematic relationship with the United States. A Muslim in Europe who puts a picture of bin Laden on his wall is the equivalent of a European chanting that Bush is Hitler: The Arab does not really wish to destroy the opulent European network that he counts on, nor does the European in jeans with a cell phone truly wish the U.S. would stop protecting his lifestyle. Yet each feels terrible about his own hypocrisy and accompanying appetites for what he professedly hates, and so looks to express angst on the cheap.

 

[Sphinx]

That is what is great with America, I can change my political view anytime I want, without having my head cut off or strung up in a public square and have rocks thrown at me.

Welcome to the club but how can anyone expect to be taken seriously if they keep changing their political view such as you have. What would you think of a politician who changes from Democrat to Republican and then back to Democrat, would you consider him/her a hypocrite and someone who doesn’t really know what they value, and therefore cannot be considered a person of integrity, or would you see that person as someone you could vote for because they have the freedom to swap and change on a whim??

It seems that the Democrats think that way. If you disagree with anything, the Democrats will label you as a "right-wing warmonger" and will have nothing to do with you. Howard Dean (the leader of the Democratic National Party) doesn't help much by calling Republicans "evil".

I confess that I’m not greatly knowledgeable in US politics but from what I have read it’s not that different when the name calling is reversed, or do you disagree with that?

What ever happened to the party that includes everyone? Have the democrats forgotten how big their tent is or do they just want to oppose Bush on everything that comes out of his mouth? Freeing people from oppression is good, as long as it's not a Republican president.

If a political party could cater for everyone then there would be no need for an opposition. The opposition is there to oppose, it’s what they do in a democracy. If you can’t accept this then perhaps you are looking for a dictatorship. I think we have just got back to ‘how dare they question what we do’ and the “You’re either with us or against us” part of the discussion.

Chalk up another reason why the Democrats lost, again.

Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t?

Defend the Victim would be idiotic. The terrorists (insurgents or "freedom fighters" by people not living in reality) over ran a military check point and were killed when they failed to stop after the Marine in question screamed "stop" in Arabic.

Why would it be idiotic, does the victim not qualify for a defence?? How about a victim’s family, do they not qualify for a defence to see some form of justice served? They are victims also you know.

A life or death situation, to kill or be killed. I'm putting my chips with the Marine

A life or death situation as the car travels away from the check point??? Of course your chips will be on the Marine, he has the gun, and they have a steering wheel and a gear stick. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the guy is guilty or anything but I am saying that questions need to be asked to find the truth, and if a case is there to be answered within a court of law to establish innocence or guilt then so be it. Do you not agree?

Anyway, have you read the news lately?

Italian journalist gets kidnapped.
She fears for her life every minute during her captivity.
You can image her horror when she is released when the car that is sent to take her to safety is fired upon by American soldiers, injuring her and killing the senior Italian intelligence officer who was sent to rescue her. Lets defend the defender and forget about the victim shall we.

Unfortunately for you, it is true. America has sacrificed more, beyond what was needed.

Did France send troops to stop a tyrant in Iraq or to even give aid to the suffering people under that reign? Did Germany eradicate the Taliban from Afghanistan and allow their people to vote in a free election? Did Russia send a carrier strike force to provide $900 million dollars worth of aid to Tsunami victims?

All this is just from a few years, I can go back further. For example, how America defended Europe from being overran in days by the communist Soviet Union, in the same fashion as Nazi Germany did it 30 years before.

We could swap history lessons with each other till the cows come. For example, we could discuss the genocide of thousands of victims that the US refuses to officially recognise out of pure self-interest, who also turns out to be one of the very ethnic groups the US claim to care so much about in Iraq? This is where the hypocrisy lay.

We could discuss how the British stole land from the sovereign state of Iraq and created a place called Kuwait and was then condemned by the US for doing so and in turn refused to recognise Kuwait but ended up defending it against the very nation that owned it (Iraq) This is where the hypocrisy lay

Or we could talk about how the US harbour terrorists on US soil to this very day and yet at the same time claim to hunt down all terrorists? How about the US start the hunt for terrorists on US soil to get their own house in order before preaching to others? This is where the hypocrisy lay.

See what I mean about ‘till the cows come home’

In any case you missed my point about your ‘total strangers’ line in your sig
It states ”in the history of the world”, not today, not a few years ago, not even several or 50 years ago but in the history of the world.

Let’s look at some people in the history of the world you belittle by your statement.

My G Grandfather. According to you, his death when going over the top in Belgium in WW1 was nothing compared to an American sacrifice.

My G Grandfather’s youngest brother. According to you his death in WWII was nothing compared to an American sacrifice

My G Uncle on my mother’s side. According to you his death after the sinking of HMS Exeter in WWII was nothing compared to an American sacrifice.

My Grandfather. According to you his capture along with his brother in WWII and the years spent on the Burma railway and who watched in horror when his brother collapsed with malnutrition and was then thrown on a fire whilst still alive was nothing compared to an American sacrifice.

My Grandfather’s other brother. According to you his death when the troop ship he was travelling in was blown apart by a mine on D-Day was nothing compared to an American sacrifice

I could go on, but to be honest I’m sick of trying to show how offensive that sort of ignorant statement is for thousands of families like ours.

Thanks for the link. Here is one for you which I know will be right up your street.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

 

[RacyBacy]

Defend the Victim would be idiotic.

This has to be the craziest statement EVER.

 

[ledhed]

In my lifetime its not been myself that has changed so much as the partys that are supposed to represent me have failed to stay with thier so called core beliefs. I consider myself a left of center conservative. That should make me a perfect candidate for both partys in theory. The only problem is that the democratic party has drifted way too far to the left and has given people such as myself to the Republicans by default . IMO as long as they continue in this way the Democrats will never win .
Sphinx your Iraqi history is faulty. Iraq was created from British mandated territory , from part of kurdistan , Mesopotamia and Asyria including the three large citys of Mosul ( Kurdistan ) Bhagdad ( mesopotamia ) and Basra ( Asyria ) Kuwaitt was part of the province of Basra during some times in history..but Iraq as we know it until after WW I did not exist.
At any rate I see no hypocrosy what so ever in defending a sovergn state ( kuwaitt ) from an unprovoked invasion and rape by Iraq . Both countrys were created at the same time were they not ? By the same mandate ? Both recognized by the United Nations ? Or do you feel that Kuwaitt and the Kuwaittis should have been left to thier fate ?
Who are these victims of genocide that the US fails to recognise ? also if you want a history lesson look no further than the History of Great Britain to find the country that wrote the book on Imperialism and colonialism . Look to the Europeans to find the roots of genocide . Who better to wipe 100 millions of North and South americans natives off the face of the earth for no other reason than that they were not christian and lived on land that they desired. And lets discuss slavery . The Europeans decided that certain african and south american peoples were nothing more than animals to be traded as property to be disposed of as they wished . Other cultures had slaves and practiced slavery but they recognised thier slaves as human beings . Lets discuss the opium trade in China and the concentration camps of the Boer war. Lets discuss the subjugation of India . The US has not been around long enough to even begin to catch up on the evil that came before and during its short existance. The bottom line is NO country is or has a perfect record on human rights . Including the country that was created by European castoffs and idealist .
war will exist as long as men inhabit the Earth and are allowed to get away with it. War will end when it becomes to expensive in resourses and lives to wage it. give thanks to all the men and women who put thier lives on the line to protect us from those who would take our freedom no matter what country they are from.

 

[Minnesota01R6]

In any case you missed my point about your ‘total strangers’ line in your sig
It states ”in the history of the world”, not today, not a few years ago, not even several or 50 years ago but in the history of the world.

You overlooked the most important part of the quote in his sig: FOR TOTAL STRANGERS. Which, I would assume, means NOT FOR THEIR COUNTRY. You get in trouble when you take things too literally, and I think this is one of those times. The quote essentially means that the United States has sacrificed more men for the sake of other people in other countries than any other. I can't think of another country that has sacrificed more men in any peacekeeping or other non-conquest/non-self-defence mission. If other governments didn't support terrorism or commit genocide, we wouldn't have to go over there, kick their butts, and set up new (responsible) governments.

 

[a6m5]

Yes, the whole world is filled with humans, but some of those humans want to kill us or force us to take on their religion. As long as they want to kill us, we need to kill them first.

Aren't those "humans" trying to kills us, because we are interfering with their affairs? They don't want our(western) influence or presence there IMO. I'm fully aware of the terrible state that Middle East is in, but this statement makes it sound like that the terrorists are trying to kill the Americans because we worship Jesus and listen to Rock music. I think it's really important to think about, why they are trying to kill us.

War is a bad thing. But we aren't the ones that started it.

I got a question on this one. Are you reffering to the war in Iraq? Because if you were, the war was started by the United States, and Iraq was not behind the 9/11 attack either.

The only problem is that the democratic party has drifted way too far to the left and has given people such as myself to the Republicans by default . IMO as long as they continue in this way the Democrats will never win .

I agree 100%. I fear the day the democrats gain the control of this nation.

Let’s look at some people in the history of the world you belittle by your statement.

My G Grandfather. According to you, his death when going over the top in Belgium in WW1 was nothing compared to an American sacrifice.

My G Grandfather’s youngest brother. According to you his death in WWII was nothing compared to an American sacrifice

My G Uncle on my mother’s side. According to you his death after the sinking of HMS Exeter in WWII was nothing compared to an American sacrifice.

My Grandfather. According to you his capture along with his brother in WWII and the years spent on the Burma railway and who watched in horror when his brother collapsed with malnutrition and was then thrown on a fire whilst still alive was nothing compared to an American sacrifice.

My Grandfather’s other brother. According to you his death when the troop ship he was travelling in was blown apart by a mine on D-Day was nothing compared to an American sacrifice

I could go on, but to be honest I’m sick of trying to show how offensive that sort of ignorant statement is for thousands of families like ours.

Thanks for the link. Here is one for you which I know will be right up your street.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

I agree with Viper that the United States has sacrificed more than any other nations, but it doesn't mean that sacrifices of other nations counts for any less.

 

[Solid Fro]

Anyway, have you read the news lately?

Italian journalist gets kidnapped.
She fears for her life every minute during her captivity.
You can image her horror when she is released when the car that is sent to take her to safety is fired upon by American soldiers, injuring her and killing the senior Italian intelligence officer who was sent to rescue her. Lets defend the defender and forget about the victim shall we.

Once again, the driver refuses to stop at a military checkpoint at night and speeds through it while the soldiers fire warning shots, give hand signals, and flash lights at the speeding car. As a last resort, the soldiers fire at the engine block, disabling the car, killing the driver, and injuring the Anti-American journalist who was captured by those she defends (terrorists) in Fallujah.

You cannot defend ignorance.

From speeding car bombs to the death faker in the mosque, I'm going to blow you into next Tuesday, every time.

This has to be the craziest statement EVER.

Defend the victims? As in defend the terrorists who cut of heads, blow up school busses, and drive car bombs through military checkpoints?

Now that's crazy.

I agree with Viper that the United States has sacrificed more than any other nations, but it doesn't mean that sacrifices of other nations counts for any less.

Right, not for gain, not for greed, but for freedom.

 

[RacyBacy]

Defend the victims? As in defend the terrorists who ...

No, defend the victim as in defend the V-I-C-T-I-M. There I spelled it out for you.

That seems to be your problem Viper, you see all victims as terrorists.

As a last resort, the soldiers fire at the engine block, disabling the car, killing the driver, and injuring the Anti-American journalist who was captured by those she defends (terrorists) in Fallujah.

I don't call a volley of 300 to 400 shots a last resort.

Giuliana Sgrena, the Italian journalist freed on Friday only lived because her Italian agent Nicola Calipari threw himself over her body to protect her and took a bullet in the head.

It's quite a moving story regardless of whether she was a pro or anti-American journalist. Or maybe the soldiers who were 600m from the plane the liberators were about to take off on thought along the lines of you and decided to blow her car in to next Tuesday.

Bush has already apologised to Berlusconi and has promised a full investigation. I wish you showed the same sympathy in your post as your President did in a phonecall to the Italian P.M.

 

[ledhed]

300 to 400 bullets is not excessive if your trying to stop a car YOU THINK IS FULL OF BOMBS...in a case like that were if you dont stop it and it just gets CLOSE you and the people you are trying to protect are meat vapor. She's lucky to be alive she practices her vocation in an area that has killed better people than herself . Its just as arrogant to asume you can speed through a military check point as it is to think a western journalist can work free of beheading or kidnapping in Iraq. They should have had a missle .

 

[Anderton Prime]

Lord knows I'll never go to Iraq in my lifetime. I guess they can cross "tourism" off their list of assets. But she's a REPORTER. Their job is to report and cover the war and you can't really do that unless you're in the middle of it. I'm not saying she is smart - quite the opposite, in fact - but for a journalist to try to cover a war from a safe distance is a mark of cowardice.

 

[RacyBacy]

They should have had a missle .

You certainly have a diplomatic tone to your post. Is this the GTA effect?

 

[Solid Fro]

No, defend the victim as in defend the V-I-C-T-I-M. There I spelled it out for you.

That seems to be your problem Viper, you see all victims as terrorists.

The real victims are the ones who have their heads cut off and strung up for everyone to see.

It's quite a moving story regardless of whether she was a pro or anti-American journalist. Or maybe the soldiers who were 600m from the plane the liberators were about to take off on thought along the lines of you and decided to blow her car in to next Tuesday.

A moving story? No, not really. Chalk up another idiot who runs a military check point. You would think they would flee to American troops who can protect them and get them out of Iraq. Oh... wait. This "journalist" thinks that the American soldiers are the infidels of the evil American Empire...

They might be nominees for the Darwin Award.

Bush has already apologised to Berlusconi and has promised a full investigation. I wish you showed the same sympathy in your post as your President did in a phonecall to the Italian P.M.

President Bush might want to ask Berlusconi why there are reports of the Italian government paying a ransom to the terrorists?

But she's a REPORTER. Their job is to report and cover the war and you can't really do that unless you're in the middle of it. I'm not saying she is smart - quite the opposite, in fact - but for a journalist to try to cover a war from a safe distance is a mark of cowardice.

She was in Fallujah trying to dig up dirt whether or not civilians were caught in the crossfire during the invasion of the city to destroy the terrorist strong holds. It was until then she was caught and taken prisoner by a terrorist group.

Unfortunately for her, all civilians were cleared of the city days before the invasion.

So much for her reporting skillz.

Its just as arrogant to asume you can speed through a military check point as it is to think a western journalist can work free of beheading or kidnapping in Iraq. They should have had a missle .

The main 120mm cannon from a M1A2 would have been better.

 

[a6m5]

Its just as arrogant to asume you can speed through a military check point as it is to think a western journalist can work free of beheading or kidnapping in Iraq. They should have had a missle .

The main 120mm cannon from a M1A2 would have been better.

That is horrible. One of your (very few)ally's officer was shot and killed, covering the freed hostage from the U.S. fire, and you guys wish the Army had killed all other passengers in the vehicle as well?

I have an question. How clearly was this checkpoint marked? Couple of reports I've read said that the troops signaled the vehicle with hands, arms and lights. Until the U.S. investigation shows that it was an clearly marked checkpoint, and adequate warnings were given before firing, I'm not sure who's at fault here. I must say, I have very hard time believing an Italian Intelligence officers, after recognizing an U.S. Army checkpoint, decides to speed thru it, ignoring signals and warning shots from the troops.

I'm not claiming to know what happened, but either the Italian Intelligence are completely retarded or the troops at the checkpoint are lying IMO.

 

[Minnesota01R6]

A6M5: I believe listening to rock music and worshiping Jesus is enough for the terrorists to want to kill us. I also remember somewhere in my post mentioning "governments that support terrorism" and clearly Iraq falls into that category. We didn't start the GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM, but we will finish it. That war was started long before 9/11 - I can think of several attacks that were not provoked waaay before 9/11 - the USS Cole, the marine barracks in Lebanon, the 2 embassies in Africa, the 1st WTC bombing...They want to kill us because a literal reading of the Koran says it's good to kill people who don't convert to Islam, just like it says in the bible that women should be stoned to death if they don't go out of town and wash themselves after their monthly cycle is done. Anyone can use the words in a religious text as a way to support just about anything (including taking land from the indians here in the US). All I am trying to say is that ANY government that allows this to go on has been warned that we will remove them from power. "You're either with us, or you're against us" - President G. W. Bush

 

[a6m5]

A6M5: I believe listening to rock music and worshiping Jesus is enough for the terrorists to want to kill us. I also remember somewhere in my post mentioning "governments that support terrorism" and clearly Iraq falls into that category. We didn't start the GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM, but we will finish it. That war was started long before 9/11 - I can think of several attacks that were not provoked waaay before 9/11 - the USS Cole, the marine barracks in Lebanon, the 2 embassies in Africa, the 1st WTC bombing...They want to kill us because a literal reading of the Koran says it's good to kill people who don't convert to Islam, just like it says in the bible that women should be stoned to death if they don't go out of town and wash themselves after their monthly cycle is done. Anyone can use the words in a religious text as a way to support just about anything (including taking land from the indians here in the US).

Yes, I'm sure there will be some crazy terrorists who will try to kill Westerners for their religion and lifestyle, but I still believe majority of terrorist attacks, including the ones that you've listed are in response to the policies in the Middle East, by the U.S. and its' allies

All I am trying to say is that ANY government that allows this to go on has been warned that we will remove them from power. "You're either with us, or you're against us" - President G. W. Bush

That's like the most of Middle East. I understand your frustration, but do you really think taking out majority of Middle East is going to stop terrorism? If the U.S. take out anymore governments in the Middle East, Bush Administration better get another color for the terror alert level IMO.

My personal opinion on how to stop terrorism would be:

1. Lower dependency on oil.
2. Do as little business as possible in the Middle East. Israel, Saudi Arabia are exceptions. Also, unfortunately, U.S. cannot pull out of Iraq.
3. Strengthen ties with current allies, creat alliance with more countries.

By during less business in Middle East, you can reduce the U.S. Government involvement in the Middle East. They don't want us there? We'll just take our business elsewhere. Lower dependency on oil will give U.S. that option.

By creating huge alliance with many international allies, "we"(not just U.S.) will pressure Middle East to play nice. If they still don't come around, well, we don't care, because we don't have that much going on in that region anymore.

 

[Minnesota01R6]

You do realize that the reason bin-laden is pissed at us is because we were in Saudi Arabia, right? (gulf war 1)

If terrorists are ticked at us because we are in the middle east the only way we could pacify them is to completely pull out. This is not an option, because showing weakness would only make them think they could accomplish their goals through violence. I agree that lower dependance on oil is a good thing, as is strengthening ties with allies, but if your allies go behind your back and help your enemies to evade sanctions aimed at taking them out of power (France, Germany, Russia) then why would you want to strengthen ties with them?

 

[Anderton Prime]

ViperZero, I know this may be hard for you, as it involves being objective and turning your patriot-tap off for a moment (you can turn it back on again after, I promise). Imagine you had been held captive by terrorist insurgents known to have a penchant for cutting the heads off their hostages. Imagine you were released. Imagine you were speeding along with an officer from your country, desperately trying to get as far away from Iraq as possible. Imagine you'd heard stories of how others had been captured, at supposed "MILITARY CHECKPOINTS," where they were stopped and caught by the aforementioned terrorist insurgents.

Now imagine you see just such a checkpoint up ahead. Even if the "soldiers" were dressed in what appears to be American uniforms, would you stop? NO, YOU WOULD TELL YOUR DRIVER TO SPEED THE **** UP AND GO THROUGH IT, PROVIDED HE HADN'T ALREADY HAD THE SAME IDEA HIMSELF.

You are so bloated by your patriotism that it has completely sucked any last iota of common sense, objectiveness, or decency towards human beings right out of you. You are blind, and the thought of you holding a gun and wearing a U.S. Army uniform is a metaphor for everything that is wrong in the world.

 

[a6m5]

You do realize that the reason bin-laden is pissed at us is because we were in Saudi Arabia, right? (gulf war 1)

I don't believe that is the main reason he is leading an attack against the U.S., but either way, I don't see his power growing any larger. Bush will hopefully take out Bin-Laden for what he did to the victims of 9/11 soon and when that happens, we won't have to worry about what he thinks. Also, the leaders and people of Saudi Arabia(except for those "black sheeps") has been friendly to the U.S., so we should definitely stay in touch with Saudi Arabia IMO.

If terrorists are ticked at us because we are in the middle east the only way we could pacify them is to completely pull out. This is not an option, because showing weakness would only make them think they could accomplish their goals through violence.

I do agree that showing weakness to the terrorists is an bad idea, however, I don't see cutting back business and influence in Middle East, as showing a weakness. Should the U.S. intelligence detect any plans of attack to the U.S. and its' allies, U.S. military should still strike them hard. Make sure the terrorists understand, as long as they mind their own business, U.S. will leave them alone, but once they start something, they'll wish they hadn't.

I agree that lower dependance on oil is a good thing, as is strengthening ties with allies, but if your allies go behind your back and help your enemies to evade sanctions aimed at taking them out of power (France, Germany, Russia) then why would you want to strengthen ties with them?

I'm going to sound like I'm defending them here, but I think those allies going behind your back, shows us how the alliance were weakening. Personally, I don't like how French government's been acting lately, but the U.S. and French needs to work together. If countries like France start working with the U.S., it will make it a lot tougher for the bad guys(including China, huge bonus).

 

[Solid Fro]

Italian government keeps US in the dark
ROME — Italian agents likely withheld information from U.S. counterparts about a cash-for-freedom deal with gunmen holding an Italian hostage for fear that Americans might block the trade, Italian news reports said yesterday.

The decision by operatives of Italy’s SISMI military intelligence service to keep the CIA in the dark about the deal for the release of reporter Giuliana Sgrena, might have “short-circuited” communications with U.S. forces controlling the road from Baghdad to the city’s airport, the newspaper La Stampa said.

That would help explain why American troops opened fire on a car whisking the released hostage to a waiting airplane, wounding Miss Sgrena and killing the Italian intelligence operative who had just negotiated her release.

Questions to be Answered

We’ll begin with the crucial one, which is this: is it true, as the self-styled “Communist Daily” headline puts it, that the death of Nicola Calipari was a “preemptive” and therefore premeditated, homicide? Is it true, as Rossana Rossanda writes, that the Americans were shooting “to kill,” and that Calipari’s death was “an assassination?” Can we really subscribe to the picture painted by Ms Rossanda of arrogant Yankee roughnecks, beardless and/or whisky-soused, complying with the “American maxim, ‘shoot first, ask questions later?,’ and obeying without objection the order ‘when those Italians arrive, eliminate them’?” Must we really trust Giuliana Sgrena’s feelings when she tells us that her abductors were very probably right when they told her, “the Americans don’t want you to go back,” adding her own comment that they - the Americans again - “don’t want our work to show what Iraq has become with the war, despite the so-called elections.” (As if the U.S. media publishes whatever the Pentagon says or, if that’s how things stand, as if all American journalists were also in mortal danger; as for the Iraqi elections that shouldn’t be called elections, what does Ms Sgrena think they should be called?).

Highway of Dread

It was on this road that U.S. soldiers opened fire Friday night on the car carrying Italian journalist Guiliana Sgrena, wounding her and killing the Italian intelligence agent who had negotiated her release from Sunni Muslim insurgents.

Having reported from Iraq for much of the last two years, I was dismayed to hear that a fellow journalist who had survived the unimaginable stress and fear of being a hostage was then the victim of an American military shooting. But when I learned the incident occurred on the airport road, it became, at one level, understandable.

Italian Hostage Claim 'Absurd'
Responding to Sgrena's statement that the car may have been deliberately targeted, McClellan said. "It's absurd to make any such suggestion, that our men and women in uniform would deliberately target innocent civilians.

"That's just absurd," McClellan repeated.

He said the airport road "has been a place where suicide car bombers have launched attacks. It's been a place where regime elements have fired upon coalition forces. It is a dangerous road and it is a combat zone that our coalition forces are in. Oftentimes, they have to make split second decisions to protect their own security."

"And we regret this incident," McClellan added. "We are going to fully investigate what exactly occurred."

 

[RacyBacy]

You are so bloated by your patriotism that it has completely sucked any last iota of common sense, objectiveness, or decency towards human beings right out of you. You are blind, and the thought of you holding a gun and wearing a U.S. Army uniform is a metaphor for everything that is wrong in the world.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Solid Fro]

I thought Anderton turned over a new leaf and decided not resort to personal attacks? Wasn't all that part of your comeback tour?

 

[Minnesota01R6]

I thought Anderton turned over a new leaf and decided not resort to personal attacks? Wasn't all that part of your comeback tour?

personal attacks = what you do when you don't have a good argument.

Imagine this: you never went to the country to give anti-american reporting, and therefore weren't captured by terrorists who behead people. You never ran a checkpoint manned by US marines, so you were never shot.

If you take the risk, you are the one responsible for what happens to you, not someone doing exactly what they were supposed to do.

 

[a6m5]

I still have hard time believing that Italian officers would force their way through an U.S. Army checkpoint. If that is indeed what happened, I must say, the driver was not very bright. Hopefully, the investigation will explain what happened exactly.

Has the surviving Italian officers told their side of story at all? Some of the things Rossana Rossanda, the reporter is claiming sounds little crazy and I'm not sure if she's being truthful.

 

[Solid Fro]

personal attacks = what you do when you don't have a good argument.

Imagine this: you never went to the country to give anti-american reporting, and therefore weren't captured by terrorists who behead people. You never ran a checkpoint manned by US marines, so you were never shot.

If you take the risk, you are the one responsible for what happens to you, not someone doing exactly what they were supposed to do.

Right, it blows my mind that they didn't even bother to tell anyone. Maybe a white flag? How about waving down an American military convoy along the Baghdad airport road instead of running a checkpoint? I guess they wanted to do it like James Bond and under the noses of the American Imperial Troops. Naner naner naner!

Italy Didn't Plan Safe Escape for Sgrena

Maj. Gen. William G. Webster Jr., who heads the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, yesterday completed the “commander’s preliminary inquiry.” He has decided to conduct a more extensive inquiry, called a 15-6 for the regulation that authorizes it. Gen. Webster will name one officer to head the probe.

A U.S. official said that of all the cars that passed through the checkpoint that night, the reporter’s vehicle was the only one fired upon. “Something that car did caused the soldiers to fire,” said the official, who asked not to be named.

The shooting occurred at night at a checkpoint on a notoriously dangerous road that links Baghdad to the international airport.

I still have hard time believing that Italian officers would force their way through an U.S. Army checkpoint. If that is indeed what happened, I must say, the driver was not very bright. Hopefully, the investigation will explain what happened exactly.

Has the surviving Italian officers told their side of story at all? Some of the things Rossana Rossanda, the reporter is claiming sounds little crazy and I'm not sure if she's being truthful.

Anyone who is in Baghdad and didn't know about the airport road being riddled with military checkpoints is an idiot.

I haven't heard what the other officers had to say. Either the Liberal Media is ignoring it and focusing on the 'atrocities of the American military' or the Italian government is hushing them up.

Italian communist Sgrena's car

Where is the 400 bullets, Racybacy? I count one bullet hole. Care to explain the other 399?