Guantanamo hunger strikers

[Stereotype V.001]

Originally posted by Tesseract@Dec 23 2005, 02:49 PM

Haha, al jazeera. Not at all, i'm european but i'm also in a country that has always been extremely tense with Turkey so i know alot about them and their military. Noone argues that the US army is powerfull but if you think that its so powerfull that it doesnt need assistance, you're just being silly, NATO was created exactly for that reason. In any way you have to realise that the current status only applies for a decade and half. While USSR was still in effect all these manouvres would be a huge pain in the ass for the US. Thats a fact that its inavoidable to change, its just history.

 

Furthermore. You're talking about PC because you live in the states. I know and you know that no war can be fought in a PC way and this one is exactly the same. History has its way of uncovering everything and again all the major attrocities will be revealed when nobody involved gives a fuck but it will still stigmatize america more. What is PC in the states could be outrageous someplace else so you're just talking on one countries internal way of sugarcoating the pill, nothing more than that.

Quoted post

 

How many foreign troops are in Iraq right now? Maybe 3 percent? Keep in mind we are at about 1/5th of the troop level that we had in Gulf War part 1. Also, look at any peace keeping mission or any operation with the UN or NATO. We are always the main force, if not the only force. So I think its pretty safe to say that recently, the only purpose 'assistance' has had is political.

 

And yes, fighting a war and political correctness don't exactly go hand in hand but we still try to use it. Fallujah is a good example - instead of dropping a few daisy cutters on the city we sent GIs to their deaths in order to lessen civilian casualties, even though the majority evacuated. Other examples would be allowing insurgents to launch attacks from Mosques without being able to respond. Or a massive IED buried in the road that obviously took several hours to set up, yet the people who live right in front of it "didn't see anything." A shotgun in someone's mouth would change that, but wouldn't be permitted. People watch Al Jazeera over there, they know what we can and can't do and generally aren't too scared of us. Everyone saw the American reaction of the Abu Ghraib fiasco and realize its not likely to happen again (for low level guys atleast). Air conditioning, showers, electricity, plumbing, regular meals, not getting blown up while buying groceries... sounds pretty fucking good to someone living in the third world squalor of a war zone.

[Stereotype V.001]

Originally posted by shape1369@Dec 23 2005, 03:10 PM

Back when the Ottoman Empire still ran things, it was considered one of the more tolerant cultures in the middle east. Long has it been the prototype for what we would call a modern or progressive islamic state.

 

Quoted post

 

Terrible example....when the Turkish ran the Ottoman empire (the 'young turks') it turned into one of, if not THE most oppressive and sadistic regimes ever. Unless you were Turkish, in which case it was pretty sweet.

 

"as for toasting afghanistan, big deal. when does the US not

pick on weak states, and furthermore, why would they? "

Yea, totally. They had some bogus excuse like "blah blah blah, they facilitated, funded, and harbored an organization that just killed a couple thousand Americans, blah blah..." Imperialistic fascist pigs.

[BURLAP]

and he misses the point again!

[Stereotype V.001]

What exactly was your point? Not to start more needless bullshit, but I would appreciate it if you could illustrate exactly what your point was and how I missed it. The post would lead one to believe you regarded the invasion of Afghanistan as the big bad United States "picking on a weaker state." I was under the impression Afghanistan(Taliban) allowed AQ to set up shop there, funded, and in other ways facilitated their abilities to attack our country resulting in large amounts of civilian casualties. Because of this, I think it would be considered more "self defense/retaliation" than "picking on weaker states."

[!@#$%]

have we not been picking on afghanistan from the beginning of our forgein policy adventures though?

 

they became extremely important strategically when it was time to fight communism, then we left them high and dry

maybe i wouldn't call it picking on them

but it is manipulation of a nation in the worst way..

we used them for our own military and political ends...and gave them nothing in return but a reason to hate and the training to act upon it.

 

i also am not so sure of the turkish ottoman empire being one of THE MOST oppressive and sadistic, sure, they ran things their way or the highway, but there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of an empire favoring one ethnic group and basically fucking another

the turks also set up an army by incorporating other ethnicities as slaves. but once they were in the army as adult males, things weren't so terrible. kinda like they bought their freedom by entering the army (albeit forcibly)..this was part of the reason for the demise of the empire, no?

or so i thought

i'm in the middle of reading a middle east history book so maybe i'm a little off, but they didn't exaclty build a crazy rep like nazis or even khans

[Stereotype V.001]

We have certainly fucked over Afghanistan in the past. We (the CIA) gave some tribesmen stingers and .50 sniper rifles, and after the last russian T-72 left we ended all assistance with the Mujahideen and let their country go to shit. People in Washington wanted payback for Vietnam, and after they got it they didn't see a point in continued assistance. We even had a somewhat friendly relationship with the Taliban recently before 9-11, in keeping with Clinton and Bush Sr.'s policy of ignoring all problems. So we definitely manipulated the country, and we also had every right to respond to their support of Al Queda(something that should have happened long before 9-11.)

 

The Ottoman empire was extremely barbaric to everyone in the middle east, except their fellow Turks. The army your thinking of is the "Janissaries." If anything they kept the empire in business by enforcing it's rule, until the empire's demise from WWI.

[Guest imported_Tesseract]

Yeah, the ottoman empire sucked major balls actually. Reading todays international amnesty torture data sheets on turkey gives you a hint on how these guys like to operate.

 

Midnight express anyone?

[!@#$%]

yeah, the janissaries.

 

it's funny guys, because i conintued reading my book last night

and found out i was right at least in part.

'the ottoman empire in the 15th and 16th centuries was notable for it's tolerance

...compared with other regimes of the time!

 

in some places in turkey, christians and jewish refugees found a home and were able to go on and establish a culture their, one that actually lasted (the same cannot be said of muslims in spain, for example)

 

john luther preached about turkish tolerance and suggested europe could learn from the model.

 

i've looked into it on the net as well, and i can see that their are plenty of cases that agree with your negative assesment of the ottoman empire.

 

that all being said, when history is concerned, it can really depend on who you ask.

and as far as barbaric.

give me a break. lots of things are barbaric. including the u.s.

i have been listening to people gripe about lousy governments my entire life.

for every shitty example you can think of, someone somewhere knows of one that is worse.

we only have to look to modern day africa for that i would think.

 

hindsight is 20/20

considering that clinton got us into bosnia and aslo did bomb afghanistan during his presidency, i am not so sure that is 'ignoring all problems'

 

 

see, this is why i don;t come in here anymore

 

i know no one cares what i'm saying or will even be affected in the slightest by what i just typed..

probably it was a waste of a few minutes.

[Guest imported_El Mamerro]

Why do you always say that, symbols? I don't think that's the case at all. It might be next to impossible to change people's minds entirely about a subject, but discussion is always good food for thought nonetheless.

[!@#$%]

i honestly don't feel like i even contribute to a discussion

i don't remember a single instance on this board in 5 going on 6 years (not saying it hasn't happened, i just don't remember)

where someone has been influenced by something i said. (on a political level)

 

i took some time putting together a coherent post for the gunzgunzguns thread, and i am not sure that anyone but hoboknife even read it.

those dudes will probably check out that shit i said about the ottoman empire under the turks and think 'that bitch has no idea what she's talking about'

 

see, i'm a self-deprecating pessimist with low self esteem

haha.

[Guest imported_El Mamerro]

Well, if it's of any comfort, you've definitely influenced me.

[!@#$%]

aww

e-huggin in the hunger strike thread.

 

that's money. i just need to relax.

[Stereotype V.001]

The Ottoman empire was considered one of the more tolerant cultures before the young turks, who were predominantly young military officers, staged a coup and took power. But I suppose it is a mixed bag as far as being the most barbaric regime. Probably alot of their injustices have been forgotten, since whoever wins the war(they usually did) gets to tell their version of history in the age before 24 hour cable news. The definition of "barbaric" is subjective too...some people would consider dumping water on terror suspects, making them listen to Christina Aguilera for 48 hours straight, and get lap dances from female interrogators in bikinis to be barabaric. Some people would also consider tying your various limbs to horses and sending them in opposite directions because you offended your Turkish leaders to also be barbaric. You say tomatoe, I say tomatoh.

 

Clinton AND Bush Sr. did NOTHING to stop Al Queda because of political bullshit. I see you defend Clinton because he is the god of all democrats, but he had his head up his ass when it came to protecting our country as much as anyone else..even if you liked everything else he did. After the Sudanese embassy bombing, he lobbed a few cruise missiles into an empty veterinary medical plant and called it a day. They both ignored CIA briefings, including the "declaration of jihad upon the United States". Clinton wouldn't give the green light for hitting Bin Laden once we had his location confirmed because he didn't want to ruffle feathers with his oil rich friends the UAE. The USS Cole bombing might as well have never happened. Clinton had to be black mailed into just talking to the Saudis about the 1996 barracks bombings. There are countless examples of inaction, and Clinton publicly blowing up some useless shit on CNN is not going to change my mind.

[!@#$%]

the god of all democrats

yep, that's exactly how i feel.

 

i am so fucking done with this pompous ass group of 12ozers

you all are so right

[Stereotype V.001]

Well, the interwebz probably isn't the best place to 'influence people politically.' I'm sorry I disagree? Wasn't trying to be pretentious with the "god of all democrats" line, I was pointing out you did not try to defend his republican counterpart Bush I when the same argument could be said for him. My point was, Clinton is widely admired because of his domestic policy and that tends to cause people to think that he is incapable of doing any wrong. Perfect in a divine sense. That smooth southern drawl, utopian view of universal health care, and outstretched thumb projects the image of godliness.

[!@#$%]

*deletably off topic*

 

 

yeah, i was overreacting.

i can blame it on hormones or something.

 

i don't really admire clinton ..he is just the best of the worst in modern history i guess. in my humble opinion. and i did directly benefit form some of his policies. i can't say that for some other administrations.

 

but, i am a registered independent.

i am not so keen on democrats right now, i think both they and republicans are travesties of what their parties once stood for.

 

all that being said, i didn't defend bush cuz i really don't know that much about his foreign policy forays, aside form gulf1, which i think he flubbed drmatically.

 

and i won't blame human stubborness on the interweb.

i'll just get over it.

[BURLAP]

stereotype..i was referring to the US "toppled and occupied Afghanistan, with less personell than there are police in Manhattan". the context of your statement in conjunction with mine should be fairly easy to understand. but just in case, afghanistan was hardly a challenge, at least in conventional terms. as for the action itself, yea, i think it was fucked up. alot of innocent people died on top of the US casualties on 9/11. that doesn't mean i have a better solution, but let's look at it for what it was, including all the other nasty stuff like how little afghan kids were blown up etcetera.

as for my weak states comment, there's nothing particularly hard to grasp about it either, but i appreciate your attempts to pigeonhole me for something i didn't say.

[Stereotype V.001]

Ahhh, I see now. My post in question took your post "as for toasting afghanistan, big deal. when does the US not pick on weak states, and furthermore, why would they? " literally, but when you said "and he misses the point again" I assumed there was some sort of cryptic double hidden message I didn't pick up on. But I see you did mean the post literally, and responded that I had missed the point because you couldn't respond to my claim that the Afghanistan war was about retaliation more than "picking on weak states." And I didn't put words in your mouth, your exact quote was "when does the US not pick on weak states" in reference to Afghanistan. I'm glad we can be so civil about this.

 

I think dropping a few guys (the ground force was a few hundred at the most) in a foreign hostile country to ride donkeys around the mountains, organize a small resistance force, and defeat a much larger force of fanatics wishing to martyr themselves is a "challenge." Not in conventional terms, because Afghanistan was fought in an unconventional way. Maybe reading up on the topic would be a good idea before forming opinions. And yes, war usually has its share of civilian casualties. I just had a crazy thought!! Maybe you should look up the amount of civilians killed by the Taliban, and the number killed by the US. Man that would be far out.

 

^missing the point again!

[BURLAP]

i gonna give you an 'f' on that first paragraph g.i. joe. better luck next time, but good for you for typing that up all by yourself.

i'm so chutzed you need to say things like 'and i didn't put words in your mouth' when i never

said you said that...par for the course and back to that whole reading comprehension thing again eh?

also, i'm sorry, but i can't hold your hand every single time i drop a sentence, what with all my 'cryptic double hidden messages' and big, complicated words.

the reference to 'weak states' is, if you took the time to read and comprehend, pluralized.

i know, it's a big word.

as for how many people the taliban killed, your exercise fits perfectly with exactly what i said about looking at the invasion for what it was, warts and all. i just had a crazy thought too! please enlighten us all with your insider factoids and statistics. i'd like to see those figures, appended with sources please and thanks. also, could you please grace us all in great knowledgable depth, how this logic means anything in lieu of the fact the US still bombed the fuck out of the place and killed many civilians? thanks missing the point v.001!

[Guest imported_El Mamerro]

I'm gonna be honest and admit that I'm a little bit lost here, and I'm not sure what the point that is being missed is either.

[Stereotype V.001]

Well, seems I've struck a nerve here. No need to get so angry big guy, it's only the internet. And as fun as personal attacks are, do you mind trying to stay on topic for the sake of everyone else on this forum? If you really need to grade my posts, make clever parodies of my user name, and explain big words with the help of angry emoticons in order to get your point across, you can always PM me. Day or night, I'm there for you babe.

 

In your previous post, you said "but I appreciate your attempts to pigeonhole me for something i didn't say." 'Putting words in your mouth' is a phrase that means the same thing. So no, I did not mean that to be an exact quote, or I would have used "quotations." They signify exact quotes, and unless used its best to assume you are not being exactly quoted.

 

I understand your post was meant literally and not as a cryptic double message. When you wrote that I "missed the point" instead of responding to any of my post's substance that directly proved you wrong, much like you are doing now, I jokingly noted your post must have had secret meanings. Although I do appreciate you holding my hand.

 

As far as "insider factoids and statistics" are concerned, I am not privy to any such information. I was referring to statistics that are publicly available, such as the large number of civilian casualties and human rights abuses as a result of the Taliban regime from roughly 94 to 01, compared to the small, almost non existent number as a result of the American led invasion and American/UN occupation. I invite you to look it up on google. Also, the use of explosives and "bombing the fuck out of the country" was minimal because of the nature of the invasion (although it was used to a certain extent on remote mountainous and rural areas, usually not a large civilian population there). This ties back to my earlier suggestion to actually find out the facts of the subject you're talking about before forming your opinions and letting everyone else know them.

 

I apologize for misunderstanding your phrase "when does the US not pick on weak states." I actually noticed the pluralization of "weak states", but since the post was on the topic of Afghanistan I had no way to know that you were (conveniently) talking about the Philippines, or El Salvador perhaps. I will try harder to read your mind and ignore the bulk of your post and common sense in the future.

 

Have a fantastic day.

[Stereotype V.001]

Mainly because I don't want to get banned, that is my last post on the topic. Burlap can continue to stroke his ego and explain big words by his lonesome.

 

This has gotten ridiculously off topic, so feel free to delete anything.

[Dawood]

Man, I'm glad I stay out of threads like this...too much politricks for me. I can't stand politics and politicians.

[Guest imported_Tesseract]

Thats an excuse now?

 

Only way to get banned is to start the SF1 kinda dialogue

 

-You're kabar

-You're a herb

blahm blahm blahm

 

as you were gents

[BURLAP]

oh i'm not mad. i'm just fucking around emulating a wang. so you don't

need to write big replies and stuff about how you say i'm saying things or

how i'm saying you say things or whatever it is you say i'm saying you say

that i've said. and you're correct, i probably do have a big ego, maybe as

big as yours. if 80% of my posts were coming to crossfire to clown sf1, i'd

certainly be the ego king of crossfire. i will have a fantastic day, thank you.

[BURLAP]

also...

 

I'M SO MAD!

[KaBar2]

Originally posted by BURLAP@Jan 2 2006, 03:37 AM

also...

 

I'M SO MAD!

Quoted post

 

 

Well, I'm not mad. I'm getting wrecked on Carlo Rossi red, and stumbling through 12 oz. like a drunken wretch. We spend far too much time and effort arguing this kind of bullshit, and the reason we do is that the youngsters on board have tons of commendable idealism and far too little experience, and the oldsters on board have far too much regretable cynicism and far too much painful experience.

 

Bad shit happens to good people. Sometimes evil fucking assholes escape unscathed. I have given up trying to make sense of all the shit. I intend to survive as long as I can, and be as good a person as possible, and protect my family from all the shitheels of the world if I can. If that means I have to kill the shit out of some stupid motherfuckers, so be it. Let them take heed, mind their own business, and stand clear of me and mine. Otherwise, let them expect a dirt nap. That is all.

[Future Droid]

i just jumped in here to page 3, dont know whats going on but how you worded that, kabar, even though i dont agree with your politics a lot, was really good.

 

"commendable idealism and far too little experience"

 

"regretable cynicism and far too much painful experience"

[Dawood]

Yeah, man kabars on point with that one. I didn't keep up with this thread either, but, I'll second that, If some freaknik basehead comes through my window with my 4 kids sleeping in their rooms he's going to wish he went next door. I don't go running around the neighborhood with my guns, but I do go to the shooting range often to tighten up my shot. My fully loaded clip is laying next to my head where I sleep and my 9 mil. is not far away from that. (gotta keep em seperate because of the kids) But , I still have to ready, there's too many whacked out fools in this world who have simply lost their minds enough to think they can take what doesn't belong to them, or worse, hurt innocent people, I'd be eager to pop a clip into a joker who would have the audacity to think he can break into my house. In my opinion, anybody who thinks otherwise is most likely a self centered single bikeboy messenger type who will smarten up once he is responsible for other people.

[Stereotype V.001]

Originally posted by Tesseract@Jan 1 2006, 10:55 PM

Thats an excuse now?

 

Only way to get banned is to start the SF1 kinda dialogue

 

-You're kabar

-You're a herb

blahm blahm blahm

 

as you were gents

Quoted post

 

Interesting, I assumed I was on the verge of getting banned because of the thread on the top of the page.

 

Burlap- So being a pretentious douchebag whos posts are confusing even

to him, views are regurgitated from left wing internet "news" sources, posts

are typed by some poor soul with tourettes who keeps hitting the enter key(like this),

and

needs to resort to childish personal attacks whenever someone disagrees

was all a clever veneer? How convenient! You had me fooled professor.