• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Marines Urinate On Dead Bodies In Afghanistan

ThePlayDrive said:
Okay, but my question wasn't directed at the soldiers. It was directed AT YOU. What is meaningful criticism TO YOU? What does criticism have to have in order to have value for YOU? To me, meaningful criticism is criticism that is based in knowledge or understanding of the topic at hand. To you, it seems the meaningful criticism is based in direct experience with the topic at hand. I am correct?
Click to expand...

I fail to see the significance of your criticism to me since i didnt pee on dead terrorist bodies, but I would say that what you said about it being based on knowledge and understanding of the topic is accurate, but i dont see how you can achieve an understanding of certain things without the experience...

For criticism that is directed towards me to have MEANING to me, it would need to have the things i just stated. If someone is criticizing me simply because they are mad or disagree with what i have done, that would mean nothing to me.

I think this has lost its application to the topic of the thread though.
 
TheNextEra said:
You lie. Nuff said about YOUR character.
Click to expand...

before you make these sort of accusations you should demonstrate where the lie took place. I based my claim on this.

I love your generalizations. I am part of the left as are many on this board and only a HANDFUL have used it. I love how you try to lump us in with enemies of democracy. Your comments are pathetic and easily dismissed as foaming at the mouth, head up ass rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Where did i lie?
 
Grant said:
before you make these sort of accusations you should demonstrate where the lie took place. I based my claim on this.



Where did i lie?
Click to expand...

You claimed:

The left and the enemies of democracy will be using this against the American people to justify further acts of terrorism.
Click to expand...

I am part of the left and I have not used this against the American people as a justification for further acts of terrorism. You lied.
 
TheNextEra said:
You claimed:

I am part of the left and I have not used this against the American people as a justification for further acts of terrorism. You lied.
Click to expand...

You are part of the left but not THE left.

The left does claim that situations as in this thread, Abu Ghraib, etc. does promote terrorism, and that terrorism is America's fault. There are too many examples to count. Even the Presidents preacher said that 9/11 was the ''chickens coming home to roost''

If you are going to identify with leftists then of course you are going to get tarred with the same brush. Perhaps you should consider a move to the middle.
 
Grant said:
You are part of the left but not THE left.

The left does claim that situations as in this thread, Abu Ghraib, etc. does promote terrorism, and that terrorism is America's fault. There are too many examples to count. Even the Presidents preacher said that 9/11 was the ''chickens coming home to roost''

If you are going to identify with leftists then of course you are going to get tarred with the same brush. Perhaps you should consider a move to the middle.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you're claim is at best that the MAJORITY of the left does this then, so prove that 51% of all the people on the left do this. Otherwise, who is THE left?

That would be like me saying THE right claims Obama is a Muslim.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
I'm sorry you're claim is at best that the MAJORITY of the left does this then, so prove that 51% of all the people on the left do this. Otherwise, who is THE left?

That would be like me saying THE right claims Obama is a Muslim.
Click to expand...

The person who began this thread calls himself DemSocialist.

That should give you a clue.
 
Grant said:
The person who began this thread calls himself DemSocialist.

That should give you a clue.
Click to expand...

That has NOTHING to do with backing up your claims at all. Why don't you just admit your comment was partisan hackery and be done with it? Man up
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
I'm sorry eco...but is it just me or do other people see the irony in this statement?
Click to expand...

Oh yes, it's SO ironic because fighting terrorists is not justified. Right? But the terrorists ARE just, right?

Look, I've never claimed that pissing on dead bodies is justified, but many in this thread have claimed that it justifies terrorism.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Oh yes, it's SO ironic because fighting terrorists is not justified. Right? But the terrorists ARE just, right?

Look, I've never claimed that pissing on dead bodies is justified, but many in this thread have claimed that it justifies terrorism.
Click to expand...

It is unimportant if some in this thread think it will, and more important if the terrorists think it does.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
You see, TNAR and Higgins are all about the "but we caused it!". They are blaming the US for the actions of the Taliban. Yet, when the Marines do something uncooth... do we hear the same?
Click to expand...

Let me make a few salient points for you so there is no misunderstanding of "who" caused what.

The U.S. established a military presence in Saudi Arabia. Some people considered this blasphemous and detonated bombs at said base. Who caused what? Doesn't matter. This is a cause and effect.

Some terrorists allegedly destroyed the Twin Towers. The U.S. retaliated on the suspected originating parties. Who caused what? Doesn't matter. This is cause and effect.

There is a cause (or multiple causes) for each and every effect. The question you need to ask is why would someone want to attack the U.S.? OBL has said very clearly for his entire campaign what his reasons were and it certainly had nothing to do with our way of life. As I said earlier, this has absolutely nothing to do with justification and simply identifies cause and effect. It would do you well to take an impartial look at these events as undue emotion clouds your clarity.
 
Catawba said:
It is unimportant if some in this thread think it will, and more important if the terrorists think it does.
Click to expand...

Why do you fee its important what terrorists think?

Isn't it more important what the western democracies think?
 
TNAR said:
Let me make a few salient points for you so there is no misunderstanding of "who" caused what...

Who caused what? Doesn't matter...

Some terrorists allegedly destroyed the Twin Towers. The U.S. retaliated on the suspected originating parties...

Who caused what? Doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Those are your salient points? Holy crap.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Those are your salient points? Holy crap.
Click to expand...

Yeah... they were salient in my head until I got side-tracked and had to go do other things. Let's call them quasi-intelligible gibberish.

The point is that cause and effect have nothing to do with justification unless you are attempting to make an appeal to pity.
 
Don't feel too bad. Catawba liked the post.
 
Grant said:
Why do you fee its important what terrorists think?

Isn't it more important what the western democracies think?
Click to expand...

You would have understand what creates terrorists to understand why pissing on the dead, hurts rather than helps, the efforts to end terrorism.

This report (commissioned by the Pentagon) is a good place to start in your understanding:

"The Rand Corporation, a conservative think-tank originally started by the U.S. Air Force, has produced a new report entitled, "How Terrorist Groups End - Lessons for Countering al Qaida." This study is important, for it reaches conclusions which may be surprising to the Bush Administration and to both presidential candidates. To wit, the study concludes that the "war on terrorism" has been a failure, and that the efforts against terrorism should not be characterized as a "war" at all. Rather, Rand suggests that the U.S. efforts at battling terrorism be considered, "counterterrorism" instead.

And, why is this so? Because, Rand concludes, after studying 648 terrorist groups between 1968 and 2006, that military operations against such groups are among the least effective means of success, achieving the desired effect in only 7% of the cases. As Rand explains, "[a]gainst most terrorist groups . . . military force is usually too blunt an instrument." Moreover, "[t]he use of substantial U.S. military power against terror groups also runs a significant risk of turning the local population against the government by killing civilians.

In terms of this latter observation, there is no better case-in-point right now than Afghanistan - the war that both candidates for President seem to embrace as a "the right war" contrary to all evidence. In Afghanistan, the U.S. military forces should properly be known as, "The Wedding Crashers," with the U.S. successfully bombing its fourth (4th) wedding party just this month, killing 47 civilians. According to the UN, 700 civilians have died in the Afghan conflict just this year. Human Rights Watch reports that 1,633 Afghan civilians were killed in 2007 and 929 in 2006. And, those killed in U.S. bomb attacks are accounting for a greater and greater proportion of the civilian deaths as that war goes on. As the Rand Corporation predicts in such circumstances, this has only led to an increase in popular support for those resisting the U.S. military onslaught. In short, the war is counterproductive."

Dan Kovalik: Rand Corp -- War On Terrorism Is A Failure
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
You would have understand what creates terrorists to understand why pissing on the dead, hurts rather than helps, the efforts to end terrorism.

This report (commissioned by the Pentagon) is a good place to start in your understanding:

"The Rand Corporation, a conservative think-tank originally started by the U.S. Air Force, has produced a new report entitled, "How Terrorist Groups End - Lessons for Countering al Qaida." This study is important, for it reaches conclusions which may be surprising to the Bush Administration and to both presidential candidates. To wit, the study concludes that the "war on terrorism" has been a failure, and that the efforts against terrorism should not be characterized as a "war" at all. Rather, Rand suggests that the U.S. efforts at battling terrorism be considered, "counterterrorism" instead.

And, why is this so? Because, Rand concludes, after studying 648 terrorist groups between 1968 and 2006, that military operations against such groups are among the least effective means of success, achieving the desired effect in only 7% of the cases. As Rand explains, "[a]gainst most terrorist groups . . . military force is usually too blunt an instrument." Moreover, "[t]he use of substantial U.S. military power against terror groups also runs a significant risk of turning the local population against the government by killing civilians.

In terms of this latter observation, there is no better case-in-point right now than Afghanistan - the war that both candidates for President seem to embrace as a "the right war" contrary to all evidence. In Afghanistan, the U.S. military forces should properly be known as, "The Wedding Crashers," with the U.S. successfully bombing its fourth (4th) wedding party just this month, killing 47 civilians. According to the UN, 700 civilians have died in the Afghan conflict just this year. Human Rights Watch reports that 1,633 Afghan civilians were killed in 2007 and 929 in 2006. And, those killed in U.S. bomb attacks are accounting for a greater and greater proportion of the civilian deaths as that war goes on. As the Rand Corporation predicts in such circumstances, this has only led to an increase in popular support for those resisting the U.S. military onslaught. In short, the war is counterproductive."

Dan Kovalik: Rand Corp -- War On Terrorism Is A Failure
Click to expand...

Excellent post. Unfortunately, the video arcade mentality of too many Americans is that all problems can be solved with a gun or the US Marines. We want to shoot first and ask the Rand Corporation the questions later, and then ignore those answers if the interfere with our wanting to shoot again....
 
TNAR said:
Let me make a few salient points for you so there is no misunderstanding of "who" caused what.

The U.S. established a military presence in Saudi Arabia. Some people considered this blasphemous and detonated bombs at said base. Who caused what? Doesn't matter. This is a cause and effect.

Some terrorists allegedly destroyed the Twin Towers. The U.S. retaliated on the suspected originating parties. Who caused what? Doesn't matter. This is cause and effect.

There is a cause (or multiple causes) for each and every effect. The question you need to ask is why would someone want to attack the U.S.? OBL has said very clearly for his entire campaign what his reasons were and it certainly had nothing to do with our way of life. As I said earlier, this has absolutely nothing to do with justification and simply identifies cause and effect. It would do you well to take an impartial look at these events as undue emotion clouds your clarity.
Click to expand...

Yes, cause and effect. Pretty heady stuff.

The US and it's Allies bombed the crap out of Iraq and Afghanistan cause some Islamic terrorists attacked the twin towers (among other previous atrocities). The next time these bastards try something similar then the button should be pressed. More cause and effect.
 
Catawba said:
You would have understand what creates terrorists to understand why pissing on the dead, hurts rather than helps, the efforts to end terrorism.

This report (commissioned by the Pentagon) is a good place to start in your understanding:

"The Rand Corporation, a conservative think-tank originally started by the U.S. Air Force, has produced a new report entitled, "How Terrorist Groups End - Lessons for Countering al Qaida." This study is important, for it reaches conclusions which may be surprising to the Bush Administration and to both presidential candidates. To wit, the study concludes that the "war on terrorism" has been a failure, and that the efforts against terrorism should not be characterized as a "war" at all. Rather, Rand suggests that the U.S. efforts at battling terrorism be considered, "counterterrorism" instead.

And, why is this so? Because, Rand concludes, after studying 648 terrorist groups between 1968 and 2006, that military operations against such groups are among the least effective means of success, achieving the desired effect in only 7% of the cases. As Rand explains, "[a]gainst most terrorist groups . . . military force is usually too blunt an instrument." Moreover, "[t]he use of substantial U.S. military power against terror groups also runs a significant risk of turning the local population against the government by killing civilians.

In terms of this latter observation, there is no better case-in-point right now than Afghanistan - the war that both candidates for President seem to embrace as a "the right war" contrary to all evidence. In Afghanistan, the U.S. military forces should properly be known as, "The Wedding Crashers," with the U.S. successfully bombing its fourth (4th) wedding party just this month, killing 47 civilians. According to the UN, 700 civilians have died in the Afghan conflict just this year. Human Rights Watch reports that 1,633 Afghan civilians were killed in 2007 and 929 in 2006. And, those killed in U.S. bomb attacks are accounting for a greater and greater proportion of the civilian deaths as that war goes on. As the Rand Corporation predicts in such circumstances, this has only led to an increase in popular support for those resisting the U.S. military onslaught. In short, the war is counterproductive."

Dan Kovalik: Rand Corp -- War On Terrorism Is A Failure
Click to expand...

So you do care what the West thinks, or at least what one think tank thinks.

The problem with Afghanistan is that Allies stayed there too long, working on the 'hearts and minds' of these primitives rather than their balls. Tell them to give up Obama and if they don't then you get heavy on them.

That should hold true for any country which harbours terrorists. You start worrying about what terrorists think and you'll lose, which is just what's happening. OBL knew who the weak horse was.
 
Grant said:
So you do care what the West thinks, or at least what one think tank thinks.
Click to expand...

Do I care what the experts think that the Pentagon hired to assess the effectiveness of the war on terror? Of course, do you hire experts than ignore their findings?

The problem with Afghanistan is that Allies stayed there too long, working on the 'hearts and minds' of these primitives rather than their balls. Tell them to give up Obama and if they don't then you get heavy on them.

That should hold true for any country which harbours terrorists. You start worrying about what terrorists think and you'll lose, which is just what's happening. OBL knew who the weak horse was.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your unsubstantiated opinion there anonymous internet guy. I think I will go by the experts commissioned by the Pentagon.
 
Catawba said:
Do I care what the experts think that the Pentagon hired to assess the effectiveness of the war on terror? Of course, do you hire experts than ignore their findings? Thanks for your unsubstantiated opinion there anonymous internet guy. I think I will go by the experts commissioned by the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

This is why they are not to be taken seriously.

To wit, the study concludes that the "war on terrorism" has been a failure, and that the efforts against terrorism should not be characterized as a "war" at all. Rather, Rand suggests that the U.S. efforts at battling terrorism be considered, "counterterrorism" instead.
Click to expand...

When they bicker about whether it should be called the "War on Terror" or "Counter-terrorsim", then you know these are not serious people.

I'd be interested to know who their friends they have in Washington and what their fees might be.
 
Grant said:
This is why they are not to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Don't trust experts, eh?

Who do you go to for your medical care?
 
Grant said:
You go to Rand Corporation for your medical care?

I should have guessed.
Click to expand...

"a·nal·o·gy
   /əˈnælədʒi/ Show Spelled[uh-nal-uh-jee] Show IPA
noun, plural -gies.

1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.

2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.

Analogy | What is the Definition of Analogy? | Dictionary.com


The military goes to the experts, the Rand Corp, for the same reason you go to an expert when you are sick.
 
Catawba said:
You would have understand what creates terrorists to understand why pissing on the dead, hurts rather than helps, the efforts to end terrorism.
Click to expand...

You dont seem to understand a terrorists motivation either... They arent lobbying for political change. They arent unionizing so they can get better treatment. They are on a religious crusade to kill everyone on the earth who will not embrace Islam. They make no effort to hide their intentions, so i see no reason why we should be scared of offending them. When we start changing our behavior based on a fear of their response, they win. Thats why they are called TERROR-ists! They rule through terror.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom