NJH wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


NJH wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


NJH wrote:

Please cite anything Bush ever said that characterized the Iraqi

medical

staff as all "terrorists" and "thugs" and "evil-doers."


Oh, my bad--apparently the dumb bitch was captured by the Iraqi medical
staff.


No, but obviously she wasn't captured by terrorists either.


Does not compute. Every act the "insurgents" commit is referred to as a
terrorist act by the right-leaning media. When did they go from being
soldiers who aren't terrorists to committing "acts of terror"?


I think you have your timeline and/or terminology a little mixed up. Let me
help you he

U.S. forces went to war against Iraqi forces when Saddam Hussein was Iraq's
political leader.

At that time there was what we call an "Iraqi army."

An army comprises large numbers of fighting men called "soldiers."

Civilians who carry out acts of terror are called "terrorists."


So you're saying at some point the "Iraqi army" became civilians. Can
you give me the Greenwich Mean Time on this, please?


Terrorists are not soldiers.


Even though we can "wage war" on them. Michael Moore had a funny thing
to say in his most recent book: "How do you wage war on a noun?"


Soldiers are not terrorists.


What about "death squad" members? What about pointed sticks?


Iraqi soldiers (not terrorists) captured Jessica Lynch and others after
ambushing their convoy.

Iraqi soldiers (not terrorists) then brought Pvt. Lynch, who was severely
wounded, in for medical treatment.

Terrorists were not involved in that.

Now that Iraqi army no longer exists.

People attacking U.S. servicemen now are not soldiers.


Proof?


They are terrorists.

See?


Yes, I see a mountain of bull****. The lack of WMDs has transmogrified
into a battle against horribly heinous insurgent terrorists.


At some
point you'll be forced to acknowledge the mountains of bull**** the
administration and the media has used to describe every situation that
occurs in Iraq.


If she had been,

I don't think there would be any more Jessica Lynch.


Now that's rich. Were Saddam's "death squads" busy that day?


I don't think "Saddam's 'death squads'" were normally employed as regular
soldiers.


Which means they weren't "terrorizing" people, by your definition.


When did she become "the dumb bitch," by the way?


It was a sarcastic way of referring to the fact that she wasn't killed
by "death squads" or "terrorists" and dumped in an unmarked grave, but
rather was found in an Iraqi hospital receiving proper medical treatment.


If that's your idea of sarcasm it's hard to follow.


Agreed, if you have a penchant for spouting mountains of bull**** I can
see why it would be hard to follow.


She wasn't driving, isn't

the one who took a wrong turn, wasn't responsible for getting ambushed,

and

hasn't done anything else that I know of that would justify such
characterization.


Again, the comment didn't refer to her intelligence or anything she did,
but rather sarcastically referred to your refusal to acknowledge that
her being put in a hospital didn't quite make the Iraqis as monstrous as
your propaganda makes them out to be.


My propaganda?

Can you provide an example? I can't remember ever saying that Iraqis per se
are monstrous. It certainly is not my belief.


It's guilt by association, dude. Even if you aren't an asshole like
****zwerg, I haven't seen you put him in his place when he refers to
people as "towelheads", or hypocritically asks for "cites" when he isn't
capable of providing any of his own. As the Alan Parsons' song goes,
you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.


I wonder how many "insurgents" are battling the U.S.
right now just because the U.S. killed one of their family members as
"collateral damage."


Very few, if any.


Excellent use of the Ouija board.


Thanks, but I didn't even have to use supernatural means. Any other
instances in which you are driven to "wonder" about questions with

pretty

obvious answers, I'll be glad to help you with.


Bull****. Let's see some proof that "very few, if any" of the
insurgents are out for revenge for family members killed as "collateral
damage."


You're asking me to prove a negative.


No, I'm asking for some statistics that are even vaguely credible.


I will freely commit to the statement that "very few, if any" of Santa
Claus's elves actually exist, or have ever existed. Can I give "some proof"
of that? No.


That tells me what I need to know--even in your own mind your statement
was as credible as a search for Santa's elves.


Let's see some accurate collateral damage figures while you're
at it. And then tell us where those WMDs are.


I don't know.


Good reason to bomb the **** out a country. Good reason to impeach Bush
is more like.


Saddam loyalists were so for many years before the U.S.


killed anyone there.


I see. So if "Saddam loyalists" exist, that supersedes anybody with a
simple revenge motif. Or is revenge only available to white people?


What, this is a racial issue now?


Of course it is.



Saddam and his followers were and are white people. What did you think

they

were?


Semites.


Semites are white people.


In today's society, "racism" is used interchangeably with bigotry. On
Usenet, people like yourself use it to wriggle out of untenable positions.


Or is your submission to political correctness so complete that you just
have to throw in some snide remark about white people from time to time,
whether relevant or not?


You're skirting the issue. You can call it a religious issue if it
makes you feel better. Whatever way you slice it, they aren't given the
same latitude that the Bush administration gives themselves. I can't
believe you even argue this point. You should be apologizing an
infinite amount of times for the lack of WMDs and the lies about the
purchase of "nucular" material, none of which has anything to do with
terrorism in the first ****ing place. Then, you can finish it off with
more apologies for the Taliban being alive and well in Afghanistan, and
also give an honorable mention to the fact that Pakistan is most
probably as stronghold for terrorists too, with nothing happening there,
and then finish off your apologies with an explanation for why, if the
vast majority of terrorists committing the acts on 9/11 were Saudi,
nothing is being done in/to Saudi Arabia.


You'd better bring something to read while you are waiting for all those
apologies.


No doubt. And you'd better stick with "Letoured" because you really
don't belong in the same arena with me.