Officer refuses to serve in Iraq

Is that a threat or a promise.

 

It's a promise. Wasn't talking to you when I said it, but it's a promise.

I realize It's no big deal whether I talk to someone or not. I'm not special. But I couldn't let that comment go without saying something. To call our US military terrorists, that takes a lot of something. It's insane.

 

Does that quote from CBS (source) Seem to fit the definition of "terrorize"?

If you don't want to talk to me anymore, then fine.
But I am not taking it back until you prove the statement wrong, not just because you threaten me.

BTW, cyberterror isn't very frightening

 

CBS now there is a credible source.:thumbs:

 

LOL. True, it is hard to believe ANYTHING CBS says!

 

Quote:
terrorize verb
"terrorized by racist thugs"
persecute, victimize, torment, harass, tyrannize, intimidate, menace, threaten, bully, browbeat; scare, frighten, terrify, petrify.

Quote:
"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.

"The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before," the official said.

The battle plan is based on a concept developed at the National Defense University. It's called "Shock and Awe" and it focuses on the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight rather than the physical destruction of his military forces.

No it doesn't. Any rational human being knows the difference between terrorism and conventional combat.

You also have either intentionally or ignorantly presented a definition that doesn't relate to the politically motivated practice called "terrorism".

Here is the proper definition and distinction for "terrorism"... which you could have easily found for yourself at dictionary.com... or perhaps you did find a similar definition and it just wasn't beneficial to your argument:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

 

BTW, your definition would apply to every form of police force regardless of whether it was justified or not. A parallel to your reasoning would be that it is terrorism for the police to pursue and capture a rapist or murderer.... and of course that is pretty much the people we are chasing in the Middle East.

Before you even start, yes there have been abuses but not due to policy. Those abuses are being treated as crimes and are therefore NOT acts of terrorism since the authorities over the perpetrators oppose the behavior, didn't order it, and punish it when discovered.

 

Don't let it get to you Blammo.

There are a few "blame America first" types that participate on these boards. They believe "supporting the troops" includes calling them terrorists and cold blooded killers, etc.

 

Yes, I haven't been on BB long, but I have noticed that.

 

Those whackos that were standing in the middle of town mourning Zarqawi do that regularly. The greeted the last Navy ship that came to town with signs declaring them to be murderers, terrorists, etc. We hired busses to go get them and to treat them to a fish fry and to apologize for those sorry people.

 

It never ceases to amaze me. Who do these people think they owe their freedom to anyway? Do they really think that without the military, we would just be a wonderfully happy, free nation?

Why do they think they know so much about world politics? Do they think they have a handle on all of the threats facing our country?

My guess is they just don't think about these things. In fact, they probably don't think at all!

 

There are also a few "America can do no wrong" types who refuse to accept responsibility for our actions, some deny them completely, and instead point fingers at everyone else.

 

Not everyone else. Just the "Blame America first" folks.:laugh: no pms

 

I think that "few" is far less representative of the "right" than "blame America first" is for the left.

You know what? Sometimes those fingers are pointed because rational people recognize that the other side can be at fault too.

Show me the equivalent of our reaction to the Abu Ghraib "abuses" then you can talk about how we don't have a better perspective on justice both for ourselves and our enemies.

 

I don't know as I think there are far more positions, and more nuanced, than simple "right" and "left". Some people can only think in the simplistic terms of black and white, left and right.

Well, duh. But all too often, that final "too" is denied completely and the other side is totally and completely held at fault without even questioning our contribution.

Are you kidding? The ACDNW deny that any torture took place, that it was no worst that a fraternity hazing (panties on the head arguement), that torture is necessary to save American lives, that anyone who was tortured deserved it.

Then there is the greyer area, that it was the work of a few rogue soldiers (largely true) and that the civillian command did not sanction or condone it (doubtful).

Since you seem to be self-indentifying with the "few" ACDNW then I will tell you that you do not have a better persceptive for justice, particularly for your perceived enemies than the BAF folk. When you believe that America can do no wrong, your perspective is automatically skewed; at least the BAF leave some room for blaming others second.

BTW, I put myself in the Accept Responsibility for America's Actions (ARAA) group.

 

Well put Daisy! Same here!

 

Let me illustrate something.

This man likely had his entire education paid for by taxpayers, and seeing as how he was commissioned three years ago, logic tells one that he had some impression that we were at war.

He volunteered to join the Army and accepted a commission.

He went to Korea and was happy as a clam there, he toted a weapon (in all likelihood) and had no issues.

Now they want him to go to Iraq.

Now he wants us to believe that orders are merely suggestions.

This isnt a travel club.

It is one thing to claim CO status. It is quite another to make a mockery out of your education by speaking out like he has (and whomever said that he knows not the first thing of the constitution was right). Oh we are never ordered to kill women and children. Might want to let go of the Hollywood version of being in the military.

I dunno, maybe he wants to get into rap music or something and he figures this is how to get his big break. Who knows. Just go away. We dont need you. I dont need to know any more about him than I already do. Its not judging - its more like not caring about what he says.

 

Many people seem to be missing the much greater issue that this war is unBIBLICAL.
It is also unCONTSTITUTIONAL.

GWB has no business terrorizing the world and being the policeman for the middle east!

Wake up and realize we have been sold out by a treasonous President!

 

And when is a war biblical ? when are wars ever biblical for that matter ?

As for its constitutionality vs unconstitutionality, why not file a suit against the government and let the courts decide that issue.

Last time I looked we were the ones being terrorized. Remember the US Embassy bombings ? the USS Cole ? the twin towers ? the pentagon ?
Oh, I suppose those were innocent civilians just hitting back because we hit them first, right ?

Your words about the president of your country are, mildly put, seditious, sir.

 

Kind of overly dramatic dont you think?

When has war EVER been just and fair? Name one battle, a skirmish even.

I havent been sold out by anyone, but if I were you, Id stop watching television and read a little more. Books not newspapers.