Just some food for thought.

Obviously, then, if the liberal press uses the phrase "hired guns" and "mercenaries" then those people deserved to be beheaded, dismembered, burned to a crisp and torsos hung from a bridge.

I would consider someone a "mercenary" or "hired gun" who was out to just kill everyone in cold blood, not protect food and cargo. But what do I know? It still doesn't change the fact that the terminology is parroting the jihadist web sites.

Next time I see my local Brinks guys picking up payroll from K-Mart, I'll remember to call them "hired guns."

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you decapitate a US contractor who is trying to rebuild your country, it is troubling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The contractors who were decapitated were mercenaries, hired guns, killers. They were not electricians, plumbers or construction workers. Of any of the invaders, they seem to me the least innocent and the most appropriate target.


No way around it for Daisy. This remark was a pethetically low blow for anyone to make. As well as just flat untrue.

 

rsr, the Zionists are not decapitating people. Jihadists are. They film their atrocities and post them on the Internet. You can view them any time - PM me & I'll send you a link where you can watch as the victims have their heads sawed off for allah. The "invader" tag is just a present day excuse for demonic behavior that has been going on since mohammed.

 

Never! I do realize that most of what I post is overwhelmingly profound and on the cutting edge. No pun intended.

 

Well I think the guy who started this topic has a good overall point.

It's just like the stupidity of the fact that now people are complaining after the London bombings that in New York they are now randomly checking people's backpacks, and liberals are complaining that they will use "racial profiling" and violate some people's rights, etc.

We're going to "rights" ourselves to death (literally). You have to use a little bit of common sense in these unusual situations.

It's like our very lives are less important than the fact that some middle eastern-looking person might have his backpack searched, because it would violate his "rights". After all, they say... it might make people look upon middle eastern people as being more likely to set off a bomb.... which of course, they say, would be a terrible thing.

Well Helloooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

I can hardly believe some of this stupidity and sometimes I think these terrorists must get a good laugh at all of this. Talk about "the most ridiculous item of the day".

Take a look at the pictures of all the guys involved in the 911 episode.

Claudia

 

Sorry, my mistake - as rsr surmised, it was the contractors who were dismembered, not beheaded, who were the mercenaries.

No disrespect was intended to Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Fabrizio Quattrocchi, Eugene Jack Armstrong, Shosei Koda, Jack Hensley, Kim Sun-il, Kenneth Bigley, Paul M. Johnson, Durmus Kumdereli, Georgi Lazov and Ivaylo Kepov. However, they knowingly went into a into an extremely dangerous war zone for money, as support to occupying armies. They knowingly put themselves at risk for a rather nice salary, as opposed to soldiers who go where they are told at comparatively meager wages. So, yes, apart from the folks who made the decision to invade a sovereign nation which posed relatively little threat, people who chose to put themselves at risk are the least sympathetic to me however sweet and charming they were to their friends and loved ones.

It is tragic, of course, to be killed. But is it worse to be singled out as individuals and executed than to be "collateral damage"? Little children, teenagers, babies, women, great-grandfathers have been killed by the tens of thousands for being in the "wrong place", but the wrong place was their home, to be in a war zone was not their choice.

Posters here have cited Berg, Hensley, Armstrong and Johnson (Johnson worked on war machines, Apache attack helicopters) - why leave out Quattrocchi, Bigley, Koda, Sun-il, Kumdereli, Lazov and Kepov? Are the only important lives American?

Here are some links for you, rivers1222:
http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-security.html

http://www.thinkingpeace.com/pages/arts2/arts180.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/11/wirq11.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/11/ixnewstop.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6069.htm

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.07/view.html?pg=4

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12491

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/may2004/merc-m05.shtml

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040408-084035-2722r.htm

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1451137,00.html

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21422/

For those interested in torture during wartimes:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:em9YQIIZARgJ:www.phrusa.org/research/istanbul_protocol/+&hl=en

 

Daisy wrote:

"No disrespect was intended to Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Fabrizio Quattrocchi, Eugene Jack Armstrong, Shosei Koda, Jack Hensley, Kim Sun-il, Kenneth Bigley, Paul M. Johnson, Durmus Kumdereli, Georgi Lazov and Ivaylo Kepov. However, they knowingly went into a into an extremely dangerous war zone for money, as support to occupying armies. They knowingly put themselves at risk for a rather nice salary, as opposed to soldiers who go where they are told at comparatively meager wages. So, yes, apart from the folks who made the decision to invade a sovereign nation which posed relatively little threat, people who chose to put themselves at risk are the least sympathetic to me however sweet and charming they were to their friends and loved ones.

It is tragic, of course, to be killed. But is it worse to be singled out as individuals and executed than to be "collateral damage"? Little children, teenagers, babies, women, great-grandfathers have been killed by the tens of thousands for being in the "wrong place", but the wrong place was their home, to be in a war zone was not their choice."


Every civilian works for pay and the more dangerous the job, generally the higher the pay. I guess that somehow makes it OK to saw their heads off with a knife while they scream. Their crime: Being an "infidel" and working in the reconstruction effort in Iraq.

I guess you could always say a persons death is tragic. Some seem to be more tragic to you than others. A person laboring for a living who is decapitated for harming no one is less tragic to you than the death of a civilian when there was no intent to harm them and every effort was made to spare the lives of the innocent.

If I looked at the deaths of innocent civilians as you look at innocent workers, I would have to say something like " Well they shouldn't have been there in the first place." or "their parents should have took better care of them" of "if they had removed their despotic leader themselves, we wouldn't be there at all." Something like that that makes equally as little sense or was equally as callous as what you said.

But I won't. I'll leave that kind of rationalization to you.

 

Still can't figure out how to do the quote thingy, eh? I suppose your embarrassment about that explains quite a bit of your bitterness. Tant pis.

No, carpro, it is not "OK" to dismember or behead any one. But apparently you consider it to be OK to shoot, kill and maim men, women and children who happen to live in the wrong country.

Working for the invaders, the killers of their sons, brothers, fathers, mothers, sisters, aunts, neighbors, etc, etc. surely does constitute a crime to them, same as we claim that anyone who worked for Saddam or al Qaeda has committed a crime.

I haven't seen you so much as mention anyone not an American or British. Evidently, some deaths are not even worth your mentioning, much less mourning.

Every effort? That's a joke. What effort was made to spare Rikad Nayef, his son, Azhad, Rutbah Sabah, Yasser Shawkat Abdullah, Hussein al-Ali, Hamza Shihab, Sumaya Shihab, Siham Shihab, Alglel Aoda or Adnan Abd Alhsen Mser?

What effort to spare Slema Abed Mosa Aljbore, Mustafa Saadoon Abed or Raad Hamid Faris? How about one year-old Reath Gbar Sbke?

And yes, it is less tragic when a person knowing the danger chooses to go into a war zone for better pay dies than a civilian who has no choice. Yes, I do find it less tragic.

The "innocent workers" chose to go into a war zone, knowing the danger, while the "innocent civilians" were home.

You would have to say that they shouldn't have been in their own country? Huh. That is, um, an interesting take...

So to you, traveling thousands of miles away from your home into a war zone for more money is equivalent to staying home while your country is invaded by foreigners who don't like your government but do like your oil. To me, there is no equivalence.

How do you defend your child again cluster bombs, tanks, attack helicopters and other agents of war?

I can't even get rid of Bush - how were they supposed to get rid of Saddam? Furthermore, what makes you think that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al would not have come up with still another excuse to invade?

This despotic leader was installed with the aid of the US and supported up until 1990. Link to Flash Movie History

Yeah, right - telling grieving parents that they should have taken better care of their kids and not let the tanks, bombs, mines, etc kill them is just the same as telling a grown man not to deliberately put himself in a war zone in a foreign country.[/sarcasm]

Ha! And you call me dishonest! You do have gall; I'll give you that.

Done and done. I stand by what I said.

 

I never had any doubt that you would.

 

I never had any doubt that you would. </font>[/QUOTE]Then why did you call me a liar?

 

Daisy,

You should be ashamed of yourself, period.
As a Christian first, and then as an American!

NNE - deserved to be treated the ways those men were treated. NO FAMILY deserved to watch their relatives die the way those men died, and NO AMERICAN should sit around implying "They asked for it."

That "soverign nation" you seem to love more than your own made war with THREE different neighboring nations, invaded one of the three, used babies for bean-bag-tosses and then - when allowed to continue as a "soveriegn" nation after LOSING A WAR - refused to comply with the terms of the treaty of that lost war.

As to the contractors.
They were there to help the civillians of IRAQ rebuild a nation that had been devastated by war.

Why should that earn them the kind of hate speak that you spew?

 

I concur. Why must everyone Daisy disagrees with be assigned the worst of motives?

 

and unless you've been there and have seen american soldiers doing this en masse then you are just spreading hearsay (as most of what is being seen on american TV in not true). the UCMJ (in all total fills the walls of most JAG offices) has provisions for "unlawful" acts by soldiers. and as seen by the recent ABU GRAIB trials works....every soldier will get what they deserve.

and my neighbor (across the street) just got back from there, he was a contractor bringing fresh water to areas that NEVER HAD RUNNNING WATER. and despite the fact he was saving their lives, they tried to kill him, and killed the other 6 in the convoy, lickily for him the marines showed up while they were checking the trucks and executing the drivers (two of who were Kuwaiti (spelling)). he left shortly after that, not because of fear, but because he would LOSE all the money he had contracted for if he were to defend himself with a gun, and indeed they would not let him carry a gun (though i understand this may have changed since feb).

bad things happen during war, and soldiers can get carried away.

the military is a dictatorship protecting a republic.

MANCHU

thankyou and God Bless


kill the enemy and win the war

 

TexasSky over the top..Daisy has made her case
and linked...I see no hate whatsoever from
Daisy perhaps a different take and a different
angle ..you are attacking a messenger who may
be actually shining a light into dark places
while you frustrated and gnashing your teeth
lash out at her.

On the Richter scale you are off the chart when
this is only a tremor that can be dealt with
by debate and discussion.

The bottom line for Christians should be a
setting apart..yes even from country when it
comes to death and dieing and consider those
who have died on both sides...just because we
reach out and try to understand why innocents
died does not mean we do not care about those
mercenaries who also perished.

 

Oh, shame on your own self. Shame on all of us.

Well, duh!

And how does my saying their DEATHS WERE TRAGIC imply that "They asked for it"? Do you dispute that they knew there was an ongoing war in Iraq when they went there or that they could simply have declined to go? Acknowleging that they knew of the danger and CHOSE to go there anyway, does not imply "asking for it".

Do you believe that the Iraqi families who have watched their loved ones blown to bits "asked for it"?

Iran, which we TOTALLY SUPPORTED AND ENCOURAGED, Kuwait (we sucker-punched them on that one) and Israel (during and, perhaps, because of Desert Storm).

How many nations have we made war with? Of course, it's good when we do it...

Kuwait?

What? The whole sovereign nation did that? Well, not really, but boy! does that make good propaganda!

Oh.

[sarcasm] Well, in that case, then it's GOOD TO KILL its citizens. [/sarcasm]

Please clarify which terms were violated how and when? And I thought this invasion was about not letting the inspectors in...no, wait - they were allowed in...WMDs and imminent danger of mushroom clouds...yeah, that's the ticket....no, wait...liberty, yeah, liberty! and the right to vote....yeah, that's why we're there, to spread democracy and the freedom to institute shari'ia!

They were there to make a considerable amount of money in a nation STILL AT WAR...and to help the remaining civilians...and to help the American and multi-national corporations make a ton of money.

What hate? That I consider their death is LESS tragic (since they could have avoided putting themselves in danger) than that of men, women and chidren killed in their own home (who could not avoid it) means that I find their death was STILL tragic.

Hmm, are you saying that because I find certain non-American deaths to be MORE TRAGIC than any and all American deaths that I should be ashamed? How jingoistic! And that all Christian deaths must by definition by considered MORE TRAGIC than any non-Christian death? I would have to argue that it's less tragic on that point simply because Christians might make it to the Good Place while non-Christians, sadly, tragically, won't.

You think my Tragedy Scale is inappropriate? Well, I think yours is.

 

Petrel, to whom have I assigned the worst of motives?

For that matter, what is the worst motive? Seriously, what do you consider the worst motive and who have I assigned it to?

"Everyone" is a tad bit o'exaggeration, don't you think?

 

Daisy once again you spew your poison and give us a clearer picture of who you are and what you represent.

Is it attention you seek or are you really this disturbed? Seriously?