TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- WorldNetDaily is disgusting

WorldNetDaily is disgusting

It makes me sad that we have human beings like this on the planet.

Pound Fallujah

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 6, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Joseph Farah

� 2004 WorldNetDaily.com


There are 250,000 people living in Fallujah.

My guess is that the population is going to be reduced shortly.

Not all of the Iraqi city's population, or even most of them, bear responsibility for the despicable, cowardly attacks on four U.S. civilians murdered, mutilated, incinerated and hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River.

But the longer that religious leaders and residents protect and shield those who carried out the attacks � and those who are against U.S. troops and Iraqis eager to build a free society � the more responsible the residents of Fallujah collectively become.

The day of reckoning is coming. It will be precise, according to U.S. military officials. And it will be overwhelming.

Fallujah is going to pay a price for the blood it has spilled.

The temptation of Americans is to be too cautious. That approach can only result in more American blood being spilled. The U.S. should give the leaders of Fallujah a chance to turn over all those who participated in the bloodletting, all those who cheered them on, all those who kicked the mutilated and charred bodies of the Americans who were there on a mission of mercy � bringing food to the forsaken city. I have no expectations that Fallujah's elders will make the right call, do the right thing. And when they fail to do so � say, in the next few days � the U.S. should pound Fallujah like it has never been pounded before.

We should not try to gain an international consensus for this action. We should not apologize for it. We should not restrain our Air Force and our artillery batteries from wreaking devastation. We should not expose our ground troops to unnecessary risks.

In other words, we may need to flatten Fallujah. We may need to destroy it. We may need to grind it, pulverize it and salt the soil, as the Romans did with troublesome enemies.

Quite frankly, we need to make an example out of Fallujah.

Here's a chance for justice. Here's an opportunity to show the people of the Middle East it doesn't pay to resort to barbarism and terrorism.

Immediately the U.S. should stop its humanitarian efforts in Fallujah. There should be no more food caravans. Instead, we should isolate the city and cut off its supplies and its power. It should be a city under siege.

Military leaders had hoped that some clerics might issue a fatwa, or religious edict, banning attacks on Americans. But no such calls have been heard. Just a block away from where the American convoy was attacked, some graffiti reads, "It is permitted to steal from Americans; it is permitted to kill Americans for vengeance."

There were many pictures taken of happy Iraqis kicking the burned remains of those four American civilian contractors. I hope the military is keeping files. I hope the military is going to hold each of those individuals responsible for the massacre. I hope the military ensures that all of those people are dead or in custody at the conclusion of the Fallujah campaign.

It's time to take off the velvet gloves.

It's time to stop being Mr. Nice Guy.

It's time to cease worrying about collateral damage.

It's time to show all Iraqis and their brothers and sisters throughout the Middle East that it doesn't pay to mess with Americans. They need to see there is no profit in it. They need to understand we mean business. They need to accept things will never be the same in Iraq. They need to feel the heat. They need to be provided with visible disincentives to further attacks on Americans, free Iraqis and other coalition partners.

Sometimes the most merciful course of action seems like the harshest.

Fallujah needs to feel some pain. If this operation is carried out well � and with finality � it can save many more Iraqis, Americans and others from future pain.

The war in Iraq is not over. It won't be over until Fallujah and the rest of the Sunni triangle is fully pacified.

^ If the author's scheme get's carried out, let him watch all the innocent children die. Or better, let him be in whatever school gets bombed, so he can get blown up himself. If he and Bush were running for president, I'd vote Bush - at least he has some restraint.

WorldNetDaily is what you get when you cross the Taliban with American Christians (i.e. - completely fucking insane religious nutters). I really wouldn't bother reading anything of the site, it isn't worth wasting your time on. Half of the articles are on the Passion of the Christ anyhow - apparently that qualifies as breaking news for the religious right.

As opposed to it making you sad that we have human beings that strap explosives to children and tell them to go blow themselves up amongst innocent civilians on this planet?

Yes, writing an inflammatory article is much worse than raising your children to kill innocent people in suicide bombings.

Now here's the tricky part:

Instead of making baseless ad-hominem attacks against the author of the article in a blatant double standard, why not prove him wrong?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter As opposed to it making you sad that we have human beings that strap explosives to children and tell them to go blow themselves up amongst innocent civilians on this planet? Yes, writing an inflammatory article is much worse than raising your children to kill innocent people in suicide bombings. Now here's the tricky part: Instead of making baseless ad-hominem attacks against the author of the article in a blatant double standard, why not prove him wrong?

Do you honestly agree with what he wrote? I certainly wouldn't think so. I take issue the most with this statement:

quote:

It's time to cease worrying about collateral damage.

By lowering our standards to the level of terrorists, and by showing a similar blatant disregard toward the innocent (which is one of the groups we try to protect, the other being ourselves, of course), do we not become terrorists ourselves?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 By lowering our standards to the level of terrorists, and by showing a similar blatant disregard toward the innocent (which is one of the groups we try to protect, the other being ourselves, of course), do we not become terrorists ourselves?

But if the alternative is an extremly high body count for GIs that would cause the US citizens a panic to pull the troops out of Iraq, and the US does, do you see that as a world you'd like to live in?


If the US count gets even remotely close to Vietnam, the nation today has no tolerance for those numbers and will pull out in a heart beat.

The losers will be the US citizens living in large cities.

Its simple, someone has to win, and someone has to lose, how bad do you want to win?

They want it VERY badly.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus But if the alternative is an extremly high body count for GIs that would cause the US citizens a panic to pull the troops out of Iraq, and the US does, do you see that as a world you'd like to live in? If the US count gets even remotely close to Vietnam, the nation today has no tolerance for those numbers and will pull out in a heart beat. The losers will be the US citizens living in large cities. Its simple, someone has to win, and someone has to lose, how bad do you want to win? They want it VERY badly.

IF this were our only alternatives, then yes, I would agree with you and would unfortunately support mindless collateral damage. However, I tend to have a little more faith in our present day military, and believe we have a little more accuracy to avoid as much collateral damage as possible. I could be wrong. I could be very wrong. But we are there not to just protect ourselves, but to protect the innocent. The innocent needed our protection from Saddam's regime, remember? So our protection to them is to blow their kid's heads off so we can get at our enemy?

Somehow, I don't think we would be very good liberators then.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 IF this were our only alternatives, then yes, I would agree with you and would unfortunately support mindless collateral damage. However, I tend to have a little more faith in our present day military, and believe we have a little more accuracy to avoid as much collateral damage as possible. I could be wrong. I could be very wrong.

Yes. All "accuracy" and efficiency is at the end of the day at the expense of collateral damage.

The most accuracy and efficient method is a sniper, but then you have to insert him, extract him, and give him a percise target.

Next you have a team of special forces to raid an area.

Next you have a team of regular forces raiding an area.

Than you have armored cars or helicopters

Next you have tanks

Then you get artillery/F-16s

and now your fresh out of options unless you want to use some nukes.


So if the USA is using the first options, say a sniper, by all means they should be using a helicopter to reduce their casualties in the right circumstances (i.e. Fulluja) and not be sending in regular forces to raid the area.

A helicopter attack is much more inaccurate than a guy on the ground -and will most likely take innocents out in a densly populated area.

Its all a degree of scale. Do I think that the US should close the city and bomb it all houses are leveled like the author of the article has said? No. Do I think they should not be afraid to use their tanks, apaches, F-16s, and exessive force more freely when warrented to say lives? Yes.

Afterall, lets say they would have sent in Apaches yesterday to kill the enemies - lets say even you get collatoral damage. I see it very unlikely you would achieve the same body count on the Iraqi side (66+ because of the raid) and surely not the same count amoungst the Americans.

quote:

So our protection to them is to blow their kid's heads off so we can get at our enemy?

Your wrong, they don't want the US protection and I don't see a US duty in protecting these people. The US duty is to protect the people of Iraq, not fullujah.

quote:

Somehow, I don't think we would be very good liberators then.

Read your history books rape in pilage is the best way to liberate a people. You'd be suprise how grateful they are to you afterwords.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Yes. All "accuracy" and efficiency is at the end of the day at the expense of collateral damage. The most accuracy and efficient method is a sniper, but then you have to insert him, extract him, and give him a percise target. Next you have a team of special forces to raid an area. Next you have a team of regular forces raiding an area. Than you have armored cars or helicopters Next you have tanks Then you get artillery/F-16s and now your fresh out of options unless you want to use some nukes. So if the USA is using the first options, say a sniper, by all means they should be using a helicopter to reduce their casualties in the right circumstances (i.e. Fulluja) and not be sending in regular forces to raid the area. A helicopter attack is much more inaccurate than a guy on the ground -and will most likely take innocents out in a densly populated area. Its all a degree of scale. Do I think that the US should close the city and bomb it all houses are leveled like the author of the article has said? No. Do I think they should not be afraid to use their tanks, apaches, F-16s, and exessive force more freely when warrented to say lives? Yes. Afterall, lets say they would have sent in Apaches yesterday to kill the enemies - lets say even you get collatoral damage. I see it very unlikely you would achieve the same body count on the Iraqi side (66+ because of the raid) and surely not the same count amoungst the Americans.

I think in general, we probably see eye to eye here.

quote:

Your wrong, they don't want the US protection and I don't see a US duty in protecting these people. The US duty is to protect the people of Iraq, not fullujah.

You're treating Fullujah separately from Iraq. Why? Are we not there to protect the innocent in all cities in Iraq? And the innocent does not necessarily have to like us or even agree with us. That does not make them less innocent, however. Barring them picking up a rifle, grenade, or knife to attack us, we still have an obligation to protect them as best as possible. That is our policy.

quote:

Read your history books rape in pilage is the best way to liberate a people. You'd be suprise how grateful they are to you afterwords.

You needn't remind me of this unfortunate fact. The Old Testament is a "testament" to this for sure.

so let me get this straight...we go to iraq to find WMD's..turns out to be bullshit...next we say oh no we went to free the people so they can live a nice peaceful life,free of dictatorship and a promising future..but instead we blow up the whole country???

quote:

Originally posted by tranceaholic so let me get this straight...we go to iraq to find WMD's..turns out to be bullshit...next we say oh no we went to free the people so they can live a nice peaceful life,free of dictatorship and a promising future..but instead we blow up the whole country???

Exactly. You're straight now, right?

Right?

Well I sure am.

I think.....

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Exactly. You're straight now, right? Right? Well I sure am. I think.....

hmm i dont get ur question..haha

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 You needn't remind me of this unfortunate fact. The Old Testament is a "testament" to this for sure.

Actually if I remember the old book any good, the Jews only did that to the Philistines

quote:

It makes me sad that we have human beings like this on the planet. Pound Fallujah -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: April 6, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Joseph Farah � 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Honestly, anytime I see ANYTHING written by Joseph Farah, Fouad Ajami or Brigitte Gabriel, I AUTOMATICALLY disregard it. They try wayyyyyyy too hard to be accepted as "True Patriotic Americans" and tend to take the positions of the extremely extreme right in matters regarding the arabic world to help compensate for their arabic background. Very sad indeed

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Do you honestly agree with what he wrote? I certainly wouldn't think so. I take issue the most with this statement:

Not every word of it, but much of it.

quote:

By lowering our standards to the level of terrorists, and by showing a similar blatant disregard toward the innocent (which is one of the groups we try to protect, the other being ourselves, of course), do we not become terrorists ourselves?

No, it's not really comparable. Terrorists don't show disregard at all toward the innocent - they make an active effort to harm the innocent. If carrying out a policy which will inadvertantly harm the innocent will save more innocents, as Mr. Farah claims here:

quote:

If this operation is carried out well � and with finality � it can save many more Iraqis, Americans and others from future pain.

then it is the greatest good, and I certainly do support it. I am rather dubious this is the case in Fallujah - although given the events of the day it seems there will be significant conflict which will likely cost the lives of some innocent people. However, a similar policy might be appropriate under other circumstances.

quote:

Originally posted by tranceaholic so let me get this straight...we go to iraq to find WMD's..turns out to be bullshit...next we say oh no we went to free the people so they can live a nice peaceful life,free of dictatorship and a promising future..but instead we blow up the whole country???

SHOCK AND AWE!

quote:

Originally posted by rizen SHOCK AND AWE!

(sorry for the repost )

C'mon Fuzzy... just say it.. you wrote that article with an alias name!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.