Have Our Troops Taken Needless Casualties To Appease Mulsims?

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Haroki:
Nice editing there Res.....

I'm sure that if resinate chooses to edit a post, he doesn't appreciate your coming along and re-posting the same material he just edited out. Does that make sense to you, man? Is that something you can understand? It may be hard for you - if so, maybe ask resinate about it.

You had to PM him and tell on me, huh? Just like you did the last time. Poor baby...

by the way...maybe you could also ask resinate how to quote another post. I see you haven't been able to figure it out yet. Your technique sucks. 3 years isn't very long, though. It's not too late.

 

[riserburn]

Quote from Haroki:

How do YOU spell repression ??
Was I talking to you ???

When you post here, it's for the entire world to see and all members to comment on. That's why it's called a F-O-R-U-M. DUH?

 

[Haroki]

Quote from riserburn:

When you post here, it's for the entire world to see and all members to comment on. That's why it's called a F-O-R-U-M. DUH?

Ok, when I responded to Nik, you jumped in and asked how does this counter your claim.

Then I asked you about repression, inferring that the brutal killings repressed his country to the point that they didn’t dare cause any turmoil, or else their family would be in jeopardy – as evidenced by the mass graves, torture cells, etc..

And then you asked why that was significant. Well, to me, the brutal repression was the reason that the citizen perpetrated violence was so insignificant – in other words, state sponsored violence kept them in check. Or, perhaps the state kept those incidents under ‘wraps’…..

Sorry if I’m a little obtuse at times, sometimes I do it in an effort to get others to think for themselves. I’ll be a little more direct for you in the future….

Quote from traderNik:
It is difficult to explain to people why, now that Hussein is in jail, there is more murder and mayhem than ever before.


Uhhh, maybe because he was a BRUTAL MF'er that killed off a few people that he believed to be his enemy ?

In other words , he terrorized his own country so he could stay in power.
Riserburn-
??????? How does this counter the position that violence is worse with Saddam out of power?

Haroki

How do YOU spell repression ??

Nik

What the hell is the significance of this?? How does this relate to the post you quoted? How does your last reply to me relate to the post you quoted? Did you post this in the wrong forum?

 

[riserburn]

Quote from Haroki:

Ok, when I responded to Nik, you jumped in and asked how does this counter your claim.

Then I asked you about repression, inferring that the brutal killings repressed his country to the point that they didn’t dare cause any turmoil, or else their family would be in jeopardy – as evidenced by the mass graves, torture cells, etc..

And then you asked why that was significant. Well, to me, the brutal repression was the reason that the citizen perpetrated violence was so insignificant – in other words, state sponsored violence kept them in check. Or, perhaps the state kept those incidents under ‘wraps’…..

Sorry if I’m a little obtuse at times, sometimes I do it in an effort to get others to think for themselves. I’ll be a little more direct for you in the future….

I don't see this as an issue of thinking for oneself. It all comes down to a choice of words, or lack of words, that leads to confusion about one's point of view or the point one is trying to make. To me, the use of the word repression is less fitting in it's definition as it pertains to this discussion as compared to suppression, or perhaps more fitting, oppression.

Indeed, there is little need to be obtuse; or antagonistic for that matter.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Haroki:
Ok, when I responded to Nik, you jumped in and asked how does this counter your claim.

Then I asked you about repression, inferring that the brutal killings repressed his country to the point that they didn’t dare cause any turmoil, or else their family would be in jeopardy – as evidenced by the mass graves, torture cells, etc..

And then you asked why that was significant. Well, to me, the brutal repression was the reason that the citizen perpetrated violence was so insignificant – in other words, state sponsored violence kept them in check. Or, perhaps the state kept those incidents under ‘wraps’…..

The question still remains - how did you formulate this as a response to the material you quoted? It's like posting that world cheese production is down as a counter-argument to the news that solar activity was high last month. There is no way to connect the post you quoted to what you wrote. I stated that it is difficult to explain the increased violence to non-Iraqis who are trying to assess the continued US military presence in Iraq, now that the murderous MF'er Saddam is out. You responded by saying 'maybe it's because Saddam is a murderous MF'er'.

???

You say that "repression" was the reason that average Iraqis did not act violently in response to Saddam's mistreatment (and by the way, I think the word you are searching for is 'oppression', or is this another example of your trying to get us to think?). Ok, now that Saddam is gone, why are they acting more violently? By your logic, they should be dancing in the streets and throwing flowers at each other, not blowing each other up.

Your post still makes no sense as a response to the material you quoted. If your intention was to assert your position, why did you quote my post?

Let's examine the post you made. I'll fix your cut and paste since you don't seem to know how to do it yourself.

Quote from Haroki:

Quote from traderNik:
It is difficult to explain to people why, now that Hussein is in jail, there is more murder and mayhem than ever before.

Uhhh, maybe because he was a BRUTAL MF'er that killed off a few people that he believed to be his enemy? In other words , he terrorized his own country so he could stay in power.

Ummm.. help me out here. Where did I say that Saddam is not a brutal MF'er? You now seem to be trying to say something like this

"The reason that there is more murder and mayhem now is that Saddam was a brutal dictator that [sic] killed off a his enemies and now that he is gone..." well, I still don't get it. Now that he is gone they are getting all that murderous energy out on their fellow Iraqis just to blow off steam?? The reasons there is so much sectarian violence in Iraq, as well as so many attacks on US personnel, are various and complicated. You haven't even come close to providing an analysis.

Quote from Haroki:
Sorry if I’m a little obtuse at times, sometimes I do it in an effort to get others to think for themselves. I’ll be a little more direct for you in the future….

Obtuse isn't the right word for what you are. Next time try relating the material you are posting with the previous post you are quoting. As for the suggestion that your confused posts are an attempt to get other ET members to think: please man, try to restrain yourself from posting garbage like this.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from riserburn:
Indeed, there is little need to be obtuse; or antagonistic for that matter.

You're right and it is my failing that I allow my contempt for these sophists to taint my posts. This isn't the first time that this particular member has posted garbage at me, thus the vitriol in my responses. I'll make that my last response to him in this thread.

 

[Haroki]

Hooray for me....

 

[Haroki]

Quote from riserburn:

I don't see this as an issue of thinking for oneself. It all comes down to a choice of words, or lack of words, that leads to confusion about one's point of view or the point one is trying to make. To me, the use of the word repression is less fitting in it's definition as it pertains to this discussion as compared to suppression, or perhaps more fitting, oppression.

Indeed, there is little need to be obtuse; or antagonistic for that matter.

Agree on both your points..

 

[Haroki]

Quote from traderNik:

Ok, now that Saddam is gone, why are they acting more violently? By your logic, they should be dancing in the streets and throwing flowers at each other, not blowing each other up.


"The reason that there is more murder and mayhem now is that Saddam was a brutal dictator that [sic] killed off a his enemies and now that he is gone..." well, I still don't get it. Now that he is gone they are getting all that murderous energy out on their fellow Iraqis just to blow off steam?? The reasons there is so much sectarian violence in Iraq, as well as so many attacks on US personnel, are various and complicated. You haven't even come close to providing an analysis.

What I'm saying, is that the violence and hatred that the different religious sects feel for each other was always there. It's just that Saddam's brutality stopped them from doing anything about it.

Where is your analysis ? All I see are assertions....

 

[Sam123]

Quote from Haroki:

What I'm saying, is that the violence and hatred that the different religious sects feel for each other was always there. It's just that Saddam's brutality stopped them from doing anything about it.

Saddam succeeded by constantly killing people. We could do this also. We try not to because we hope the Iraqi’s will “listen to their better natures” (quoting Lincoln).

If they refuse to do so, then we can fuck them all into a civil war in a hurry by cutting and running. The tide is turning regarding our dependency on Muslim oil anyway. Securing Iraqi oil fields to America’s advantage is a plus. But if the Iraqi people want to act like Islamists, then the hell with them because it's not worth it. We would rather get our energy from friendly Western territories. And guess what? We can.

Islamists in Nigeria want to control its oil fields and made their statements in recent news. Perhaps we should all bow down to them and say, “yes, you are right, we infidels ought to pay 10 times as much for your oil.” LOL. They can all kiss my proud infidel Western ass.