8/24 Sheehan refers to terrorists in Iraq as "Freedom Fighters" to a CBS
reporter. Not reported in the news anywhere.
\_ I am sorry, but those fighters in Iraq are freedom fighters.
They are trying to end US occupation and remove puppet
government set up by US. Read UN's charter on self-determination
if you are bored.
\_ I'm sure Iraqis beleive they'll have freedom when the
insurgents have power. Just as I'm sure all the insurgents
are Iraqis. With people like you, who needs enemies?
\_ They freed her son, so what is she bitching about?
\_ Because she couldn't have misspoke. Only Robertson, Rumsfeld,
Cheney, and Bush can do that
\_ You're comparing a housewife with the secretary of defense, the
president, the vice president, and a very prominent religious
leader.
\_ No, the people getting in a flurry over a comment she made
in one of dozens of interviews over the last month are
forcing the comparison.
\_ They can't be freedom fighters. Bush hasn't sold weapons to any
nation sworn to destroy the US in order to fund them yet. But it
is a neat idea.
\_ Freedom fighters don't blow up little children getting candy from
US soldiers.
\_ As opposed to just killing children anonymously via air
strikes like the US? Ooo.. look at the pretty yellow box.
Care package or cluster bomb? Let's find out!
\_ If you don't understand the difference between
intentionally targeting children and collateral damage,
you're a waste of skin.
\_ "Iraqi Body Count" stated that civilian death due to
US Air raid and other military activites is four times
of those who died in suicide bomber. Collateral
damage or not, people hold US for it. If your family
members are accidently killed by foreign occupation
force, you will pick up arm and fight too, regardless
rather the death was intentional or not.
\_ And you're still totally missing the point; if you
went to war to prevent other peoples' families from
being blown up, intentionally or not, you wouldn't
go blow up children intentionally. Dig? -John
\_ sucide bombers don't blow up childrens
intentionally neither. These
bombings are not senseless violence. Targets
was select to serve specific purpose to undermine
US military/political effort. You can blame
resistant for the failure of try to minimize
civilian casuaties, but that is a completely
story than trying to paint them as someone
who is stupid enough to waste precious military
resources on blowing childrens up. Mind you,
that while you see *PLENTY* of dead bodies
due to Iraqi resistance, you don't see *ANY* of
of twenty-thousands plus civilian death on
CNN/BBC.
\_ Ah, intellectually I do, but ask the parent of a dead
child to draw the line and you'll see it is not so fine.
\_ Yet you present a case where you assume that the
children were the target, not the US soldiers.
How does that fit in with your "collateral damage"
POV and as a reflection of your own character?
\_ But the measure of the character of those responsible
isn't whether the death occurred, but whether it was
intentional, negligent, or whether efforts were made
to avoid it.
\_ Yet you present a case where you assume that the
children were the target, not the US soldiers.
How does that fit in with your "collateral damage"
POV and as a reflection of your own character?
\_ The children were all around the soldiers. I
doubt we would bomb a target if it were clear
there were tons of innocents around.
\_ you doubt, but two NGO's finding stated
the contrary. 75% of civilian death
is due to US military activities.
\_ Right, like Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima...
\_ You do realize there's a difference
between tactical and strategic, right?
\_ Your example is flawed in that it is
single incident. One person, one bomb,
dozens of victims. His load is shot.
If the US kills innocents on a less
spetacular level, but more of them,
does that make it more moral? If each
soldier kills only one innocent, is
that better than one man killing many?
that better than one man killing
many?
\_ Well, no -- it's the difference b/t
the commander in chief making the
call, and the guy pulling the
trigger making the call, ie,
strategic vs tactical.
strategic vs tactical. I'm not
making a moral rationalization,
I'm saying the Hiroshima guy is
making an illogical comparison
at least partly based on an
emotional appeal.
That this whole conversation is more at
tactical level...?
\_ So it is better to be a mass murderer
than to kill a few???
\_ No, I'm saying that comparing with
Hiroshima is a red herring in this
context.
context because the decision
making apparatus (I sincerely hope)
was wildly different.
\_ My Lai. Very tactical.
\_ my grind is that most people
involved in My Lai gotten away
with murder. Calley only got
slap on the wrist.
\_ My Lai was a calamity and a crime.
Stop taking the intellectual
coward's route of saying "well they
did it, so it's OK if we do." That
is fucking stupid. Dresden was
probably wrong _in restrospect_.
Idiot. -John
\_ Yah, that's a good point. That
was at least partly the result
of what amounts to strategic
policy in vietnam (free fire
zones, etc). Just as a side note,
I don't condone or see anything
\_ Your example is flawed in that it is
single incident. One person, one bomb,
dozens of victims. His load is shot.
If the US kills innocents on a less
spetacular level, but more of them,
does that make it more moral? If each
soldier kills only one innocent, is
that better than one man killing many?
\_ Well, no -- it's the difference b/t
the commander in chief making the
call, and the guy pulling the
trigger making the call, ie,
strategic vs tactical.
justifiable in the killing of
civilians -- I wasn't a supporter
of GWII. It's abhorrent when
'collateral casualties' become
part of an 'equation' relating
human lives to some politician's
notion of acceptable or cost-
effective or something.
notion of cost-effective.
\_ Do you think they were aiming for the kids or the soldiers?
Is the US aiming for the kids or the terrorists? Whee!
\_ Our freedom fighters flew jetliners into the World Trade
Center.
\_ Yes, it was Iraqi freedom fighters that are to blame for
the September 11th attack. Hmm...Good Kool-aid.
\_ Read it again with your brain turned on. Think
"Afghanistan"
\_ Full quote for those interested
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/24/90434.shtml
I guess it will mean different things to different people.
I mean, if you asked Cindy Sheehan: "What did you mean by
justifiable in the killing of
civilians -- I wasn't a supporter
of GWII. It's abhorrent when
'collateral casualties' become
part of an 'equation' relating
human lives to some politician's
notion of cost-effective.
'freedom fighters entering Iraq'?", that would clarify things a lot.
Currently you have people interpreting her quote to mean that she
approves of suicide bombings in Iraq.
\_ That sounds like she was just instinctively spouting back one too
many government-endorsed euphemisms (in previous eras).
\_ Or intentionally using Reagan's term for the Afghani fighters
we were supporting against the Russians (that later became
the Taliban). -tom
\_ I'd go with "poor choice of words" without any further
explanation from her.
\_ Reagan called the Contras, who targeted civilians, Freedom
Fighters. So she was just using it in tribute to him. |
http://csua.com/feed/