Foreign Policy's Body Count: Food for Thought?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Foreign Policy's Body Count: Food for Thought?

    Nothing on Bosnia? Or doesn't it count when we defend Muslims and try to save them?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Foreign Policy's Body Count: Food for Thought?

    You take good care of Ahmed and remember we'll be watching.

    That's kind of hilarious.

    I'd like to call BS on the "sanctions killed Iraqis" meme in the original post but I've got a bunch of bloody perl to write and I don't have the energy to do both. Some other day...


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Foreign Policy's Body Count: Food for Thought?

    It is, to some degree an issue, of "blowback", the unintended consequences for actions that result in mistrust and ultimately violence.  Its not just a muslim thing either.  Look at any population that has been subjugated by an outside force in the name of justice and you will see human nature take hold as the natives perceive the outsiders intentions to be harmful and they in turn rebel and pushback.  That there are individuals who will take advantage of that sentiment (like Osama) is something we have seen in history time and time again.   
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from APerfectCircle. Show APerfectCircle's posts

    Re: Foreign Policy's Body Count: Food for Thought?

    In Response to Re: Foreign Policy's Body Count: Food for Thought?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Foreign Policy's Body Count: Food for Thought? : Apparently not. But it would be rather hard to estimate "muslims saved"....    I mean, jobs saved is hard enough, right? Anyway, here's something those who reacted negatively to the article might enjoy. Going around email circles. Probably entirely B.S., but quite funny, imo. _______________________________________________________________ A Canadian female libertarian wrote a lot of letters to the Canadian government, complaining about the treatment of captive insurgents (terrorists) being held in Afghanistan National Correctional System facilities.  She demanded a response to her letter correspondence. She received back the following reply:        National Defense Headquarters        M Gen George R. Pearkes Bldg., 15 NT        101 Colonel By Drive        Ottawa , ON K1A 0K2        Canada Dear Concerned Citizen, Thank you for your recent letter expressing your profound concern of treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists captured by Canadian Forces who were subsequently transferred to the Afghanistan Government and are currently being held by Afghan officials in Afghanistan National Correctional System facilities. Our administration takes these matters seriously and your opinions were heard loud and clear here in Ottawa. You will be pleased to learn, thanks to the concerns of citizens like yourself, we are creating a new department here at the Department of National Defense, to be called 'Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers' program, or L.A.R.K. for short. In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to divert one terrorist and place him in your personal care. Your personal detainee has been selected and is scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence in Toronto next Monday. Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of complaint! It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant caretakers. We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommended in your letter. Although Ahmed is a sociopath and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his 'attitudinal problem' will help him overcome these character flaws. Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences.   We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home schooling.  Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers.  We advise that you do not ask him to demonstrate these skills at your next yoga group.  Please advise any Jewish friends, neighbors or relatives about your house guest, as he might get agitated or even violent, but we are sure you can reason with him.  He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.   Ahmed will not wish to interact with you or your daughters (except sexually) since he views females as a subhuman form of property thereby having no rights, including refusal of his sexual demands.  This is a particularly sensitive subject for him and he has been known to show violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the new dress code that he will "recommend" as more appropriate attire. I'm sure you will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the burka over time.  Just remember that it is all part of 'respecting his culture and religious beliefs' as described in your letter. Thanks again for your concern. We truly appreciate it when folks like you keep us informed of the proper way to do our job and care for our fellow man. You take good care of Ahmed and remember we'll be watching. Good luck and God bless you. Cordially, Gordon O'Connor Minister of National Defense
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    Now THAT'S funny!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Foreign Policy's Body Count: Food for Thought?

    In Response to Re: Foreign Policy's Body Count: Food for Thought?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Foreign Policy's Body Count: Food for Thought? : Right. I don't think the article is ridiculous like some posters suggested. The bottom line is when you talk about why "muslims" are angry, you have to consider that an awful lot of innocent civilians did die as a result of our responses to the bad ones. I'm not saying sit back, don't do anything, and leave Al Queda alone after 9/11. That's suicidal, as a matter of foreign policy. The cold hard world unfortunately demands cold hard actions. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong (or "liberal") about recognizing the fact that if you kill a bunch of civilians while punishing the bad guys' actions, civilians become increasingly likely to hate you and choose to become bad guys themselves.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]
    My issue is when the civilians are used as human shields while Muslims are shooting out of Mosques and kill a NATO soldier then the soldiers friends have the audacity to shoot back and kill one of them. OR when they vote for a terrorist organization that shoots rockets into a sovereign neighbor and are outraged when said neighbor shoots back!
    We all can get worked up over things done in the past. Their issue isn't the past it is that Israel exists today.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Foreign Policy's Body Count: Food for Thought?

    The muslims hated us before 911, they hated us during 911, and they will hate us after 911.

    The muslim world needs little help in identifying the U.S. as the great satan. they hear it every day from their imams and politicians. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share