Another possible use for Zarqawi’s body

[Mycroft]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060630/ts_nm/security_qaeda_binladen_dc


Osama says:

"...Bin Laden called on U.S. forces to release the body of Jordanian-born Zarqawi, adding : "What scares you about Zarqawi after his death is that (his funeral) will be huge and will show the degree of sympathy Muslims have for the mujahideen."...

Wow, what an amazing inspiration this brings to me.* If OBL is right and huge numbers of people whould show up at his funeral, that solves the military problem of how to tell the jihadists and their supporters from the non-militant citizens!

Think our military has a few of those 1000 lb packages of STFU to spare?**





* Inspiration courtesy of Little Green Footballs (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/)

** Credit to Luke T. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1692513#post1692513)

[CFLarsen]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060630/ts_nm/security_qaeda_binladen_dc


Osama says:

"...Bin Laden called on U.S. forces to release the body of Jordanian-born Zarqawi, adding : "What scares you about Zarqawi after his death is that (his funeral) will be huge and will show the degree of sympathy Muslims have for the mujahideen."...

Wow, what an amazing inspiration this brings to me.* If OBL is right and huge numbers of people whould show up at his funeral, that solves the military problem of how to tell the jihadists and their supporters from the non-militant citizens!

Think our military has a few of those 1000 lb packages of STFU to spare?**





* Inspiration courtesy of Little Green Footballs (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/)

** Credit to Luke T. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1692513#post1692513)

Do you think it is possible that not all people there would be "jihadists"?

[Grammatron]

I think OBL has a point, we should release the body to him. He is welcome to come and pick it up.

[Upchurch]

We could put a tracking device on the body. I think I know where to stick it.

[bob_kark]

Can we still stuff his body cavity with pork?

[Mycroft]

Do you think it is possible that not all people there would be "jihadists"?

I think the occasional reporter who travels with the enemy understands there is an inherent risk he might have a very bad day as a result.

[Dcdrac]

worm food, oh sorry he was a worm that would be cannibalism

[CFLarsen]

I think the occasional reporter who travels with the enemy understands there is an inherent risk he might have a very bad day as a result.
Yeah. But it wouldn't be a risk, would it?

After all, that's the whole idea, right?

[fishbob]

Can we still stuff his body cavity with pork?
What is this 'we' business?

[Phrost]

Bacon Body Bag!

[bob_kark]

What is this 'we' business?
Fine! Can Fishbob still stuff his body cavity with pork?

He always gets to have all the fun.

[fishbob]

Fine! Can Fishbob still stuff his body cavity with pork?

He always gets to have all the fun.
NO, thats OK. You go right ahead. I'm goin' fishing.



PS: Got the first salmon of the year in the boat yesterday.

[Mycroft]

Yeah. But it wouldn't be a risk, would it?

After all, that's the whole idea, right?

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Why wouldn't it be a risk if a reporter (or some other hypothetical innocent) were hanging out with potential targets?

[fuelair]

Fine! Can Fishbob still stuff his body cavity with pork?

He always gets to have all the fun.

Stuff his body with pork fat and entrails - save the good stuff for an after funeral party for the survivors!!

[gumboot]

Maybe we should offer the same honour and respect that they offered to many westerners (who weren't fighters, incidently, unlike Zarqawi). Cut off his head and drop him in a ditch somewhere.

The hypocrisy of these terrorists never ceases to amaze me.

-Andrew

[kalen]

What? Is bombing weddings losing its appeal? Now the US should bomb funerals?
What kind of sick and twisted... wait, is Fred Phelps going to be there?

[Huntster]

...PS: Got the first salmon of the year in the boat yesterday.

Was it a king?

[Huntster]

What? Is bombing weddings losing its appeal?

Yup. Never had much appeal.

Now the US should bomb funerals?

That one?

Yup. I think it's a damned good idea.

We could talk about it all week, turn the body over for the funeral, strike it, and then it would be an even better idea.

What kind of sick and twisted... wait, is Fred Phelps going to be there?

Who is Fred Phelps?

Is he a terrorist?

[CFLarsen]

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Why wouldn't it be a risk if a reporter (or some other hypothetical innocent) were hanging out with potential targets?
What you are suggesting is to lay a trap for "jihadists" so you can bomb them. But you don't warn the innocent people whom you know will also be there. Is that really worth it to you?

[fishbob]

Who is Fred Phelps?

Is he a terrorist?

Yeah, I think so.

PS: Shiny bright chums or really early silvers, I can't tell. Cooked up real good though with Cajun blacken seasoning.

[UserGoogol]

I see no problem with the idea of letting Zarqawi's body have a proper funeral-- except that there is a slight amount of discomfort involved in doing what Osama Bin Laden asks us to do. Let people go to the funeral. Even if it is composed mostly of "Jihadists," jihadists are people too. Therefore, a funeral would make people happy without really much of a price (what else are we going to do with the body, toss it in the garbage?) therefore it is a "good thing."

Bombing the funeral is of course an idiotic idea. For one, there is a difference between being a terrorist and being pro-terrorist, and for two, it would be an insanely bad PR move to bomb a goddamn funeral, therefore quite possibly creating a net increase in terrorists.

[Huntster]

...PS: Shiny bright chums or really early silvers, I can't tell. Cooked up real good though with Cajun blacken seasoning.

Must be salt water........Seward?

I did a Cajun blaken on fresh halibut the other day. It was great!

[Huntster]

...Bombing the funeral is of course an idiotic idea. For one, there is a difference between being a terrorist and being pro-terrorist....

And that difference, tactically, strategically, and ideologically, is..............what?

....and for two, it would be an insanely bad PR move to bomb a goddamn funeral, therefore quite possibly creating a net increase in terrorists.

PR.

Public Relations.

You're talking "Public Relations" when we're risking our economy and international relations (with people like you) as we deal with terrorists?

To Hell with "PR".

[UserGoogol]

And that difference, tactically, strategically, and ideologically, is..............what?

Some regular Iraqi guy who has sympathies for the insurgency isn't really much of a threat to peace. Killing people like that seems unneccesary. I suspect (with no real evidence, mind you, just my gut) that a lot of the people who would show up to a funeral like that would be in that catagory, and therefore bombing a funeral for Zarqawi would be killing a whole lot of people without getting a whole lot of results, and that's bad.

You're talking "Public Relations" when we're risking our economy and international relations (with people like you) as we deal with terrorists?

To be pedantic I'm American, but public relations is extremely relevant to fighting terrorism. Disliking America is a prerequisite to wanting to destroy America. Doing something as offensive as bombing a funeral (people tend to get pretty sentimental about funerals) while making only minor progress against terrorism would therefore be counterproductive.

[clarsct]

Shove his head on a pike on the White House lawn. Put an empty one next to it labelled 'Bin Laden'. Send a message.

As for the mourners, infect the (rest) of the body and send it back to them. Blame poor water conditions, and then improve them. We're still heroes all the way.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by huntster :
And that difference, tactically, strategically, and ideologically, is..............what?

Some regular Iraqi guy who has sympathies for the insurgency isn't really much of a threat to peace....

I disagree.

Killing people like that seems unneccesary....

Maybe. I wonder how many people who would attend his funeral are "some regular Iraqi guys who have sympathies for the insurgency", and how many are guys who need to get dead.

I suspect (with no real evidence, mind you, just my gut) that a lot of the people who would show up to a funeral like that would be in that catagory.....

You mean, just "average, good standing Iraqi citizens"? Those tired of the warS?

Really?

....and therefore bombing a funeral for Zarqawi would be killing a whole lot of people without getting a whole lot of results, and that's bad.

Frankly, I'm not sure. You're right in that it could send a horrible, "terroristic" message.

However, that's the message that some of them sent us. And a whole bunch of "us" still (obviously) haven't even gotten that message.

You're talking "Public Relations" when we're risking our economy and international relations (with people like you) as we deal with terrorists?

To be pedantic I'm American, but public relations is extremely relevant to fighting terrorism.

Agreed.

Disliking America is a prerequisite to wanting to destroy America. Doing something as offensive as bombing a funeral (people tend to get pretty sentimental about funerals) while making only minor progress against terrorism would therefore be counterproductive.

Okay. I can agree.

Would you be consistent with that if "they" tried the same here?

Do you know if "they" haven't?

If they did do something at that level, are we justified to do the same?

Are we now justified to destroy the two largest buildings in the Islamic world?

Without warning?

Where are the limits?

[CFLarsen]

Shove his head on a pike on the White House lawn. Put an empty one next to it labelled 'Bin Laden'. Send a message.

That we are even more uncivilized than them, yes.

Do you remember the time in Mogadishu, where the body of a killed American was dragged through the streets?

Did that horrify Americans? Yes.

Did it stop Americans? No.

Did it strengthen Americans' resolve to continue? You bet.

As for the mourners, infect the (rest) of the body and send it back to them. Blame poor water conditions, and then improve them. We're still heroes all the way.

I really hope you are jesting.

[CFLarsen]

However, that's the message that some of them sent us. And a whole bunch of "us" still (obviously) haven't even gotten that message.

Who?

[clarsct]

Partially. My Machivallian side is coming out to play today.

Dark thoughts.

I think it is important that we got him. Who shall we return him to? And why shouldn't we be following them to the rest of the insurgents?

We are in a WAR, people. 2000+ Americans killed. Why the F*** should we play nice? To prove how 'civilized' we are? That and a buck gets you a cup of coffee.

I'm sick of seeing our people die. I'm gaddamned sick of hearing about the oil prices on a steady increase. If we could wipe out most of the planners of the insurgency tomorrow, how much would that be worth?

Harry Truman dropped a nuclear device on a civilian population. Not once, but twice. He saved the lives of countless American servicemen. Would that we had men of that kind of mettle in office today.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by clarsct :
Shove his head on a pike on the White House lawn. Put an empty one next to it labelled 'Bin Laden'. Send a message.

That we are even more uncivilized than them, yes.

Do you remember the time in Mogadishu, where the body of a killed American was dragged through the streets?

Did that horrify Americans? Yes.

Did it stop Americans? No.

Did it strengthen Americans' resolve to continue? You bet.

Did it result in Mogadishu getting squared away?

No.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
However, that's the message that some of them sent us. And a whole bunch of "us" still (obviously) haven't even gotten that message.

Who?

Those who haven't figured out that the war of terror (waged against the civilized world) is total war by a group who are not represented as a state.

They're terrorists. Criminals.

You ask, but of course, you knew that, didn't you?

[Dcdrac]

i remember a war against terrorism stretching back to the 70's when i was fresh out of nappies. I also recall a terrorist outfit in Nicuagra called the Contras suppported by a country in North America, i also recall the SAS training the Khmer Rouge in the 1980s.

[gumboot]

That we are even more uncivilized than them, yes.

Do you remember the time in Mogadishu, where the body of a killed American was dragged through the streets?
Did that horrify Americans? Yes.
Did it stop Americans? No.
Did it strengthen Americans' resolve to continue? You bet.


I think you have your rose-hued history goggles on there...

Killing 18 Americans and dragging some of their bodies naked through the streets was quite plenty enough to send the US packing with its tail between its legs - and whats more, it was enough to convince the US to pretty much stay out of any international happenings around the world after that...(with the exception of a bit of bomb-dropping here and there from nice safe altitudes)

Until 9/11 came along and there was really no choice...

Mogadishu sent a very very bad message to people like OBL - kill a few of our guys and we will run away. Now the US is having to re-educate terrorists on western resolve (assuming the west still has any resolve...). I think you'll find most terrorists are convinced that the US is going to run away from Iraq any day now. That's EXACTLY what they're hoping for.

-Andrew

EDT. Not that I think bombing a funeral is a good idea... but anyone who thinks his funeral would be full of sentimental mourners who would be grateful that the US returned the body has obviously never seen one of their funerals before...expect anti-American screaming, flag burning, firing of AK-47s, and much terrorist recruitment. Such is their way.

[CFLarsen]

Partially. My Machivallian side is coming out to play today.

Dark thoughts.

I think it is important that we got him. Who shall we return him to? And why shouldn't we be following them to the rest of the insurgents?

We are in a WAR, people. 2000+ Americans killed. Why the F*** should we play nice? To prove how 'civilized' we are? That and a buck gets you a cup of coffee.

I'm sick of seeing our people die. I'm gaddamned sick of hearing about the oil prices on a steady increase. If we could wipe out most of the planners of the insurgency tomorrow, how much would that be worth?

Harry Truman dropped a nuclear device on a civilian population. Not once, but twice. He saved the lives of countless American servicemen. Would that we had men of that kind of mettle in office today.

There are two problems with your solution.

One, why shouldn't we play nice? Why should we stoop to their level? Should we start gassing Nazis because they gassed Jews?

Two, if you don't want to play nice, who are you going to do it to? How will you find those - and only those - whom you are not going to play nice to? If you are indiscriminate, you will only end up creating more and more enemies.

Did it result in Mogadishu getting squared away?

No.

What does "getting squared away" mean?

Those who haven't figured out that the war of terror (waged against the civilized world) is total war by a group who are not represented as a state.

They're terrorists. Criminals.

You ask, but of course, you knew that, didn't you?

That merely repeats the claim. It doesn't answer the question who these people are. Who are they? Names?

[CFLarsen]

I think you have your rose-hued history goggles on there...

Killing 18 Americans and dragging some of their bodies naked through the streets was quite plenty enough to send the US packing with its tail between its legs - and whats more, it was enough to convince the US to pretty much stay out of any international happenings around the world after that...(with the exception of a bit of bomb-dropping here and there from nice safe altitudes)

Until 9/11 came along and there was really no choice...

Mogadishu sent a very very bad message to people like OBL - kill a few of our guys and we will run away.

I don't think the reason why the US left Mogadishu was because of this. It was a no-win situation, especially when the US Military didn't take it seriously enough to send in enough troops.

Now the US is having to re-educate terrorists on western resolve (assuming the west still has any resolve...). I think you'll find most terrorists are convinced that the US is going to run away from Iraq any day now. That's EXACTLY what they're hoping for.

Yet, I don't see the US do that. Perhaps we all realized that terrorism can't work?

EDT. Not that I think bombing a funeral is a good idea... but anyone who thinks his funeral would be full of sentimental mourners who would be grateful that the US returned the body has obviously never seen one of their funerals before...expect anti-American screaming, flag burning, firing of AK-47s, and much terrorist recruitment. Such is their way.

I remember when Khomeini was buried. Total mayhem. His body fell out of the coffin in the riot. It emphasized, also to Muslims, how dangerous frantic, out-of-control religious fervor can be.

[Dcdrac]

Harry Truman dropped a nuclear device on a civilian population. Not once, but twice. He saved the lives of countless American servicemen. Would that we had men of that kind of mettle in office today.

This is still far from settled and is is being debated even now.

[gumboot]

I don't think the reason why the US left Mogadishu was because of this. It was a no-win situation, especially when the US Military didn't take it seriously enough to send in enough troops.

I think you'll find that's exactly why the US left (bear in mind Task Force Ranger was making progress - it was just slow progress).

It was certainly taken seriously by the military, and after Mogadishu they expected escalation. The 10th Mountain Division were sitting in boats off the coast of Mogadishu with armour and heavy weapons, when "Black Hawk Down" happened. The US had previously put 20,000 marines in there, and the UN had countless men. But after 3/4 October everyone just decided it was too hard.

Somalia *could* have been dealt with. Since Mogadishu the US has refused to ever work directly with UN troops (for good reason, if you ask me) and between Mogadishu and Afghanistan the US didn't commit significant land forces to a single operation around the world. The lack of response to Rwanada and the Congo were a direct result of what happened in Somalia.

OSB himself has mentioned Somalia over and over again. Why? Because as far as he's concerned it is proof that he can beat the west.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

I remember when Khomeini was buried. Total mayhem. His body fell out of the coffin in the riot. It emphasized, also to Muslims, how dangerous frantic, out-of-control religious fervor can be.


My Dad had a work make who was a UN Observer in Palestine for a while... he said when Palestinians civilians were accidently killed by Israelis Hamas and other terrorist groups would steal the bodies off the families and stage their own huge funerals for the sake of PR.

When you see those huge funerals in Palestine on the news there's good odds that not a single person present at the funeral knows or is related to the victim.

So much for respecting the dead.

I say again, their hypocrisy astounds me.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

Harry Truman dropped a nuclear device on a civilian population. Not once, but twice. He saved the lives of countless American servicemen. Would that we had men of that kind of mettle in office today.

This is still far from settled and is is being debated even now.



Not just American... he saved a lot of Japanese, Australians, British and New Zealanders as well.

Not to mentioned saved Post-war Japan from facing the same Soviet/American division that Germany had to suffer.

(Psst... I don't think the Russians would have been very nice to Japan)

Not that I'm suggesting you guys nuke Zarqawi's funeral or anything!

-Andrew

[CFLarsen]

Somalia *could* have been dealt with.

Yeah, yeah.... as Vietnam *could* have been dealt with. All conflicts that the US lost, *could* have been won...

My Dad had a work make who was a UN Observer in Palestine for a while... he said when Palestinians civilians were accidently killed by Israelis Hamas and other terrorist groups would steal the bodies off the families and stage their own huge funerals for the sake of PR.

When you see those huge funerals in Palestine on the news there's good odds that not a single person present at the funeral knows or is related to the victim.

So much for respecting the dead.

I say again, their hypocrisy astounds me.

All the more reason to let them make a disgrace out of themselves, by making a spectacle out of the burial of Zarqawi.

[gumboot]

Yeah, yeah.... as Vietnam *could* have been dealt with. All conflicts that the US lost, *could* have been won...


Except Somalia wasn't a conflict the US lost, it was a humanitarian operation the world gave up on...

-Andrew

[CFLarsen]

Except Somalia wasn't a conflict the US lost, it was a humanitarian operation the world gave up on...

-Andrew
Ah, of course.

Has the US ever lost a conflict that *could* have been won?

[Mephisto]

Can we still stuff his body cavity with pork?

And dress him up as a transvestite? ;)

[bob_kark]

And dress him up as a transvestite? ;)

Actually, according to a Newsweek article I read, he has dressed up like a woman on a few occations to elude capture. Though I think some 9 inch plastic F[Rule 8]-me pumps and a pink frilly boa could really kick it up a notch. However, I think we should go with a real classic and drag his dead body behind a Hummer to Afghanistan and drop him off to old OBL. Achilles would be proud.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Did it result in Mogadishu getting squared away?

No.

What does "getting squared away" mean?

Back to the semantic games?

It means, in the case of Somalia/Mogadishu/1993:

Peace and prosperity.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Those who haven't figured out that the war of terror (waged against the civilized world) is total war by a group who are not represented as a state.

They're terrorists. Criminals.

You ask, but of course, you knew that, didn't you?


That merely repeats the claim. It doesn't answer the question who these people are. Who are they? Names?

Bin Laden. Zarqawi. Zawahiri. Al Qaeda.

You ask, but of course, you knew that, didn't you?

[CFLarsen]

Back to the semantic games?

It means, in the case of Somalia/Mogadishu/1993:

Peace and prosperity.

No, I am not playing semantic games. I don't understand the expression, that's all. In fact, I still don't understand the expression. Would you please explain what it means?

Bin Laden. Zarqawi. Zawahiri. Al Qaeda.

I don't understand what you are saying. You referred to "us" who still hadn't gotten the message.

You consider Al Qaeda "us"?

[Mycroft]

What you are suggesting is to lay a trap for "jihadists" so you can bomb them.

Yes.


But you don't warn the innocent people whom you know will also be there.


Who all do you think would be there that is innocent?


Is that really worth it to you?

Compared to what?

[Mycroft]

Bombing the funeral is of course an idiotic idea. For one, there is a difference between being a terrorist and being pro-terrorist, and for two, it would be an insanely bad PR move to bomb a goddamn funeral, therefore quite possibly creating a net increase in terrorists.

I object to this idea that terrorists are created by efforts to resist terrorism rather than the spread of the ideology that being a terrorist is a great thing and good way to enact political change.

[Mycroft]

That we are even more uncivilized than them, yes.

Wow, now you're claiming we're only one head on a pike from being more uncivilized than them? I guess bombing services at the local mosque, blowing up police officers and cutting heads of living people don't carry much weight with you.

Do you remember the time in Mogadishu, where the body of a killed American was dragged through the streets?

Did that horrify Americans? Yes.

Did it stop Americans? No.

Did it strengthen Americans' resolve to continue? You bet.


Did it?

In a national security policy review session held in the White House on October 6, 1993, President Clinton directed the acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral David E. Jeremiah, to stop all actions by U.S. forces against Aidid except those required in self-defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu#Consequences_of_the_operation

[CFLarsen]

Yes.

Who all do you think would be there that is innocent?

Anyone could show up! Heck, if he was buried in your neighborhood, wouldn't you?

How can you possibly assume that all those attending such a funeral automatically are guilty of terrorism, and therefore sentenced to a gruesome death? What about those who are merely showing sympathy? Or merely curious?

Compared to what?

Bombing funerals, Mycroft? Is there no limit to what you will do?

[Mycroft]

I remember when Khomeini was buried. Total mayhem. His body fell out of the coffin in the riot. It emphasized, also to Muslims, how dangerous frantic, out-of-control religious fervor can be.

Oh yes, and we can see how well that lesson has been taken to heart. :oldroll:


One, why shouldn't we play nice? Why should we stoop to their level? Should we start gassing Nazis because they gassed Jews?

Fallacy of the excluded middle. If we were to consider tactics that were “not nice” doesn’t necessarily mean we would “stoop to their level” or start gassing Nazis; even if we could find some Nazis to gas.


Two, if you don't want to play nice, who are you going to do it to? How will you find those - and only those - whom you are not going to play nice to?

Well, one way is discussed in the OP, though I do admit there is a chance some reporter might get caught in the mix.


If you are indiscriminate, you will only end up creating more and more enemies.


Do you have evidence of that?

Are terrorists creating more and more enemies when they are indiscriminate?

[CFLarsen]

Oh yes, and we can see how well that lesson has been taken to heart. :oldroll:

Not by all, sure. But you can't expect that, and then be justified in bombing funerals.

Fallacy of the excluded middle. If we were to consider tactics that were “not nice” doesn’t necessarily mean we would “stoop to their level” or start gassing Nazis; even if we could find some Nazis to gas.

But that's exactly what you are doing, Mycroft. Or, rather, you are trying to surpass them in atrocity.

Well, one way is discussed in the OP, though I do admit there is a chance some reporter might get caught in the mix.

Not just reporters, but also innocent people, merely curious. Surely, you are not going to argue that only terrorists will walk into your trap?

Do you have evidence of that?

Are terrorists creating more and more enemies when they are indiscriminate?

Yes, they are. In your quest to kill terrorists, you will end up making enemies of the innocents you also kill.

[fuelair]

Anyone could show up! Heck, if he was buried in your neighborhood, wouldn't you?

How can you possibly assume that all those attending such a funeral automatically are guilty of terrorism, and therefore sentenced to a gruesome death? What about those who are merely showing sympathy? Or merely curious?



Bombing funerals, Mycroft? Is there no limit to what you will do?
I like it too, Mycroft. And as for the Mogadishu thing, besides wanting to hang as traitors the people who sent our troops in in thin-skin armor, I would love to have seen some heavy strafing/bombing of emplacements in the town - and an immediate strike on the area our soldiers had been killed/dragged in. None of this self-defense crap - tell them the rules, enforce the rules - force them into this century or help them die in theirs'. (One of my favorite stories comes from the Haiti invasion when some rectums in a police station opened up on a U.S. squad and the police station was turned into junk - by the squad. ) We have the capability, we need to use it to train the primitives to either become civilized (part of which may include dying to defend country but preferably is making others die defending whatever they are defending) or to remain primitive -while following some simple rules: Forget your "honor"- there is none in murdering/mutilating others dues to some ignorant belief; You may worship as you choose -except no rule may be enforced on anyone but yourself; You may not attack anyone to gain sympathy for your plight; You are free not to make/play/watch/listen to any type of entertainment - but not to stop it or by any activity attempt to stop it for others; You are in charge only of yourself - leave the rest of us alone. If you follow this, you and your kind will be able to die out peacefully; if not, we will help you to die out not so peacefully. Your choice.

[CFLarsen]

I like it too, Mycroft. And as for the Mogadishu thing, besides wanting to hang as traitors the people who sent our troops in in thin-skin armor, I would love to have seen some heavy strafing/bombing of emplacements in the town - and an immediate strike on the area our soldiers had been killed/dragged in. None of this self-defense crap - tell them the rules, enforce the rules - force them into this century or help them die in theirs'. (One of my favorite stories comes from the Haiti invasion when some rectums in a police station opened up on a U.S. squad and the police station was turned into junk - by the squad. ) We have the capability, we need to use it to train the primitives to either become civilized (part of which may include dying to defend country but preferably is making others die defending whatever they are defending) or to remain primitive -while following some simple rules: Forget your "honor"- there is none in murdering/mutilating others dues to some ignorant belief; You may worship as you choose -except no rule may be enforced on anyone but yourself; You may not attack anyone to gain sympathy for your plight; You are free not to make/play/watch/listen to any type of entertainment - but not to stop it or by any activity attempt to stop it for others; You are in charge only of yourself - leave the rest of us alone. If you follow this, you and your kind will be able to die out peacefully; if not, we will help you to die out not so peacefully. Your choice.

In other words: "Might makes right"?

[Earthborn]

Are terrorists creating more and more enemies when they are indiscriminate?If only we had a poll where Americans are asked whether they favoured invading Afghanistan and killing Osama Bin Laden a week before September 11, 2001 and a week after September 11, 2001.

I don't have such a survey, but I'm still going to claim that the second poll would have shown a higher support for such a thing than the first. If I am right it means that the terrorists have indeed created more enemies by being indiscriminate.

You may now try to prove me wrong by presenting results of real polls.

[fuelair]

In other words: "Might makes right"?

Actually, no - Hitler was excellent proof of that. Right makes right - might lets you enforce it (i.e. there are others who know the primitives are wrong, but don't have the ability to enforce that knowledge).

[CFLarsen]

Actually, no - Hitler was excellent proof of that. Right makes right - might lets you enforce it (i.e. there are others who know the primitives are wrong, but don't have the ability to enforce that knowledge).
OK.

So, why are you right to bomb innocent people?

[clarsct]

Innocent?

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Anyway.


It's real simple, Larsen. If you want to wipe out an organization that hides in the shadows, you must strike them where they meet.

You can't have a nice war. War is brutal and carnal. It may, indeed, be the worst aspect of humanity. But if you're going to go over there, why the f'kin hell would you settle for half measures? If you're going to fight, you fight to win, not to be honorable. Being honorable in a streetfight will get your f'kin head split open. Why should war be any different? If you're not there to win, then why the hell did you suit up? Just stay home.

Hit them hard and hit them fast. And keep hitting them. Above all else, keep hitting them. Winning is the object. Killing OBL is the object. We're not there to give them a rubdown and a manicure.

[fuelair]

OK.

So, why are you right to bomb innocent people?

clarsct said it but I will also. US troops do not hide themselves among the innocent to avoid being killed, etc. - at least not the majority and none I would want to claim. That's why when terrorist cowards shoot/bomb US bases pretty much only US soldiers are killed/maimed. The terrorists, knowing about this character defect (that is sarcasm) in us use it against us and those we work with/train by hiding and even fighting from civilian loaded places - including mosques and hospitals. Unfortunately, that is going to cause us to lose the "War on Terror" if we don't get over it and kill them where they are - and if you had any idea how I feel about children and harming them you would have some idea about how much it took me to get to this position (Among other things, I was drafted into VietNam, liked the people - but when off base carried M-14 (preferred for accuracy over M-16 and don't like full auto except in crowd situations) ready to use if anyone approached with wrong shape in their hand - including kids. Thank whatever that I never had to use it and just was able to smile and wave to them - but I learned what it is like when cowards hide among the regular people, who just want a real, normal life, and pressure/propagandise some into becoming murderers. I still have speed in draw and fire from that - and I came to realise there are times when you have to kill the innocent to get to the cowardly slime so far more innocents won't wind up dead. And you just have to live with that.

[Mycroft]

If only we had a poll where Americans are asked whether they favoured invading Afghanistan and killing Osama Bin Laden a week before September 11, 2001 and a week after September 11, 2001.

I don't have such a survey, but I'm still going to claim that the second poll would have shown a higher support for such a thing than the first. If I am right it means that the terrorists have indeed created more enemies by being indiscriminate.

You may now try to prove me wrong by presenting results of real polls.

You make a valid point. Certainly OBL did make a powerful enemy, but at the same time, it also seems to have increased his popularity in certain circles.

[Mycroft]

Not by all, sure. But you can't expect that, and then be justified in bombing funerals.

It seems to me you are conflating different issues with this comment. The topic was how Muslims realize how dangerous frantic, out-of-control religious fervor can be. I don’t see how that relates one way or another to any justification for bombing funerals.


But that's exactly what you are doing, Mycroft. Or, rather, you are trying to surpass them in atrocity.

No. The way you describe it the purpose is to surpass them in atrocities. Rather the purpose is to kill a lot of militants and their supporters in one pop.


Not just reporters, but also innocent people, merely curious. Surely, you are not going to argue that only terrorists will walk into your trap?

If you want to set a net for tuna, sometimes you will snag a dolphin.

When we dropped the bomb on Zarqawi there were other people in that house, weren’t there? Wasn’t there a child? When Uday and Qusay Hussein were killed, were there not innocent people in that restaurant?

I’m all for minimizing the loss of innocent life, but dare we allow that stop us entirely? Sometimes an innocent person will get caught in the crossfire, but at the same time, innocent people shouldn’t be hanging around these people.


Yes, they are. In your quest to kill terrorists, you will end up making enemies of the innocents you also kill.

Did you forget to bring your evidence?

[BPSCG]

Getting back to the topic at hand, anybody know where Zarqawi is these days?

[Earthborn]

Certainly OBL did make a powerful enemy, but at the same time, it also seems to have increased his popularity in certain circles.No doubt. I read somewhere that people have more stable relationships when they have similar dislikes than when they have similar likes. Nothing unites people more than a common enemy, it seems.

If the US military starts indiscriminate killings, desecration of bodies and that sort of thing, I am sure that together with a whole bunch of new enemies, it will also get a lot of new friends. But perhaps not all friends are the sort of people you would want to be associated with. Perhaps it is better for the peace if you have good collegueas who you can pleasantly work with, but don't consider you the best in the world, then it is to have a certain group of people wanting to be your friend.

America needs more Frances and Germanies.

The topic was how Muslims realize how dangerous frantic, out-of-control religious fervor can be.I'm fairly late in the topic... Does your plan include displaying dangerous frantic out-of-control religious fervor?

If you want to set a net for tuna, sometimes you will snag a dolphin.Not if you are doing it right.

I’m all for minimizing the loss of innocent life, but dare we allow that stop us entirely?Perhaps it should dare you to try harder, instead of throwing up your hands in the air saying "Oh, well. There will always be innocent lives lost. We might as well stop caring how many!" and coming up with one hare-brained scheme after another that is never in a million years is going to accomplish what you want it to accomplish, but is going to cost a whole lot of innocent lives.

Did you forget to bring your evidence?He doesn't have to bring any evidence. The ghosts of those innocents you kill are going to haunt you forever. Everybody knows that.

[CFLarsen]

Innocent?

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Anyway.


It's real simple, Larsen. If you want to wipe out an organization that hides in the shadows, you must strike them where they meet.

You can't have a nice war. War is brutal and carnal. It may, indeed, be the worst aspect of humanity. But if you're going to go over there, why the f'kin hell would you settle for half measures? If you're going to fight, you fight to win, not to be honorable. Being honorable in a streetfight will get your f'kin head split open. Why should war be any different? If you're not there to win, then why the hell did you suit up? Just stay home.

Hit them hard and hit them fast. And keep hitting them. Above all else, keep hitting them. Winning is the object. Killing OBL is the object. We're not there to give them a rubdown and a manicure.

No problem there. What I object to is setting up a trap that will lure a lot of innocent people to come, too, only to drop bombs on them.


clarsct said it but I will also. US troops do not hide themselves among the innocent to avoid being killed, etc. - at least not the majority and none I would want to claim. That's why when terrorist cowards shoot/bomb US bases pretty much only US soldiers are killed/maimed. The terrorists, knowing about this character defect (that is sarcasm) in us use it against us and those we work with/train by hiding and even fighting from civilian loaded places - including mosques and hospitals.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here. Why would anyone expect US civilians to get killed/harmed, if the target is a US military base?


It seems to me you are conflating different issues with this comment. The topic was how Muslims realize how dangerous frantic, out-of-control religious fervor can be. I don’t see how that relates one way or another to any justification for bombing funerals.

I'm not conflating anything. You are talking about luring innocent people people who hasn't done anything to harm you, and then bomb them to smithereens.

No. The way you describe it the purpose is to surpass them in atrocities. Rather the purpose is to kill a lot of militants and their supporters in one pop.

You are quite right: I am describing the purpose of your approach: You will counter atrocities with even bigger atrocities.


If you want to set a net for tuna, sometimes you will snag a dolphin.

But you don't set up a trap that are designed to lure both tuna and dolphins.

When we dropped the bomb on Zarqawi there were other people in that house, weren’t there? Wasn’t there a child? When Uday and Qusay Hussein were killed, were there not innocent people in that restaurant?

Were those people lured to the houses that were bombed?

I’m all for minimizing the loss of innocent life, but dare we allow that stop us entirely? Sometimes an innocent person will get caught in the crossfire, but at the same time, innocent people shouldn’t be hanging around these people.

It's not a question of stopping because innocents will get killed. There's no way that can be avoided. But setting up a trap that you know will lure a lot of innocent people to come, and then bomb them, is a very bad move.

Did you forget to bring your evidence?

You're the evidence, Mycroft. You don't like Al Qaeda very much, do you? Is it because they have cornered the market on turbans, or because they have killed innocent people?

[Mycroft]

Getting back to the topic at hand, anybody know where Zarqawi is these days?

That depends on your belief system, doesn't it?

[Mycroft]

I'm not conflating anything. You are talking about luring innocent people people who hasn't done anything to harm you, and then bomb them to smithereens.

Innocent? I’m going off the authority of Osama Bin Laden himself, who believes the turn out at this funeral would “…show the degree of sympathy Muslims have for the mujahideen.”


You are quite right: I am describing the purpose of your approach: You will counter atrocities with even bigger atrocities.

The purpose of my approach is to gather as many of the mujahideen and their sympathizers as can be done in one place.


But you don't set up a trap that are designed to lure both tuna and dolphins.

I don’t believe my trap would catch many dolphins.


Were those people lured to the houses that were bombed?

Do you think it makes a substantial difference? Innocents die either way.


It's not a question of stopping because innocents will get killed. There's no way that can be avoided. But setting up a trap that you know will lure a lot of innocent people to come, and then bomb them, is a very bad move.

Then that’s the heart of our disagreement; you believe there would be a lot of innocent people there, I don’t.


You're the evidence, Mycroft. You don't like Al Qaeda very much, do you? Is it because they have cornered the market on turbans, or because they have killed innocent people?

Killing many innocent people is what made me aware of them. Their ideology and goals are more than enough to make them unlikable.

[Elind]

Do you think it is possible that not all people there would be "jihadists"?

A few could be reporters I suppose.

[CFLarsen]

Innocent? I’m going off the authority of Osama Bin Laden himself, who believes the turn out at this funeral would “…show the degree of sympathy Muslims have for the mujahideen.”

This is a bad time to try to wipe your responsibility off on the man you claim to fight. You are responsible for your own actions, not Osama.

The purpose of my approach is to gather as many of the mujahideen and their sympathizers as can be done in one place.

And in the same process, kill innocent people lured to the funeral.

I don’t believe my trap would catch many dolphins.

Why on Earth wouldn't innocent people flock to this event? Regardless of they supported Zarqawi or not, this is Big News.

Do you think it makes a substantial difference? Innocents die either way.

Yes, it makes a very substantial difference. When you lure innocent into your trap, you are transgressing any rules of engagement: You become a terrorist yourself.

Then that’s the heart of our disagreement; you believe there would be a lot of innocent people there, I don’t.

Again, why not? What would hold innocents back? Fear of trouble?

Killing many innocent people is what made me aware of them. Their ideology and goals are more than enough to make them unlikable.

And yet, you will lure innocents into your trap. Just where do you draw the line, Mycroft? Exactly how many innocents are you willing to kill?

A few could be reporters I suppose.

But no locals? How can you be so sure?

[Mycroft]

This is a bad time to try to wipe your responsibility off on the man you claim to fight. You are responsible for your own actions, not Osama.

I’m not wiping responsibility of anything. I am merely recognizing that OBL might be correct on this one issue.


And in the same process, kill innocent people lured to the funeral.

I disagree that innocent people would be attracted to the funeral.


Why on Earth wouldn't innocent people flock to this event? Regardless of they supported Zarqawi or not, this is Big News.

I can think of many reasons. They wouldn’t want to be identified as supporters of Al Qaeda or Zarqawi, for starters.


Yes, it makes a very substantial difference. When you lure innocent into your trap, you are transgressing any rules of engagement: You become a terrorist yourself.

I disagree that innocents are being lured to this event.


Again, why not? What would hold innocents back? Fear of trouble?

Yes, among other things.


And yet, you will lure innocents into your trap. Just where do you draw the line, Mycroft? Exactly how many innocents are you willing to kill?

I disagree that innocents are being lured into a trap.


But no locals? How can you be so sure?

The issue is not if they are locals or not, but if they are innocents.

[CFLarsen]

I’m not wiping responsibility of anything. I am merely recognizing that OBL might be correct on this one issue.

But that doesn't address the issue of innocents attending the funeral.

I disagree that innocent people would be attracted to the funeral.

...

I can think of many reasons. They wouldn’t want to be identified as supporters of Al Qaeda or Zarqawi, for starters.

What if they are just curious? They see it as a form of entertainment? A diversion? Surely, you acknowledge that people show up at events, even if they don't agree with the purpose of the event?

I disagree that innocents are being lured to this event.

But you need to explain why.

Yes, among other things.

Then, why would the mujahideen show up if trouble is to be expected?

I disagree that innocents are being lured into a trap.

But you need to explain why.

The issue is not if they are locals or not, but if they are innocents.

How do you determine that?

[Mycroft]

But that doesn't address the issue of innocents attending the funeral.



What if they are just curious? They see it as a form of entertainment? A diversion? Surely, you acknowledge that people show up at events, even if they don't agree with the purpose of the event?

A funeral is not an ordinary event. Attending is recognized as an act of showing respect for the deceased.


But you need to explain why.

I do believe that innocents showing up is your assertion.


Then, why would the mujahideen show up if trouble is to be expected?


If they were adverse to trouble, they wouldn’t be mujahideen.


How do you determine that?

By attendance.

[CFLarsen]

A funeral is not an ordinary event. Attending is recognized as an act of showing respect for the deceased.

For some, yeah. And those, you want to bomb. Real clever, Mycroft.

Surely, you acknowledge that people not concerned about showing respect, but are merely there for the entertainment value, would also show up?

If they were adverse to trouble, they wouldn’t be mujahideen.

O...K.

You expect the locals to detect that there's trouble ahead, so they will stay away.

Yet, you expect the mujahideen to show up, not expecting any trouble. And then, only they would be killed.

Just how stupid is your argument going to get, before you will realize how untenable it is?

By attendance.

Nobody gets curious? A world-renowned icon is buried, and only his close supporters show up?

Please.

[Elind]

Ah, of course.

Has the US ever lost a conflict that *could* have been won?

Has the US ever been in a conflict that you think it shouldn't have been in?

Have you (Denmark) ever been in a conflict on any principle, except perhaps the one that the US was instrumental in rescuing you from?

[WildCat]

Getting back to the topic at hand, anybody know where Zarqawi is these days?

Confirming his burial, the U.S. military said only that he had been interred "in accordance with Muslim customs and traditions." It gave no more details, saying the issue was in the hands of the Iraqi government.
Al-Rubaie told The Associated Press that al-Zarqawi's body was in a secret grave in the capital but would give no other information.
Source (http://my.earthlink.net/article/int?guid=20060702/44a744c0_3ca6_1552620060702-986895793).

[Mycroft]

For some, yeah. And those, you want to bomb. Real clever, Mycroft.

Yes, a clever trap. Now that the body has been buried is secret, OBL has a propaganda victory. He can no doubt claim the US was afraid to have a public funeral.


Surely, you acknowledge that people not concerned about showing respect, but are merely there for the entertainment value, would also show up?

Surely, if you assert this to be true, you will provide corresponding evidence that this is likely to happen?


O...K.

You expect the locals to detect that there's trouble ahead, so they will stay away.

That’s a part of the world with a lot of trouble. They do not have it like we do, where people may attend public events without fear. They live in a world where car bombs are placed next to schools, people who sell falafel are shot for being non-Islamic, where people in line to find work may be targeted for killing, and even people going to services in a mosque may be killed. In this environment, you claim a lot of people would come just from curiosity? I highly doubt that.


Yet, you expect the mujahideen to show up, not expecting any trouble. And then, only they would be killed.

The Mujahideen are the ones normal people would be afraid of, they themselves would not likely to be afraid.


Just how stupid is your argument going to get, before you will realize how untenable it is?

I would ask you the same, but that draws very close to making this a personal argument. Please, keep this civil.


Nobody gets curious? A world-renowned icon is buried, and only his close supporters show up?

Please.

It is your assertion that many innocents would show up, but you provide no evidence except your own opinion that they would. Iraq right now is a dangerous place, and I believe it is unlikely you would see many people go out unnecessarily, particularly to the funeral of a man so closely associated with the danger that rules their lives.

[CFLarsen]

Yes, a clever trap. Now that the body has been buried is secret, OBL has a propaganda victory. He can no doubt claim the US was afraid to have a public funeral.

OBL will claim victory no matter what happens. But he sure does have a point, if you arrange for a funeral and then start dropping bombs.

What were you thinking??

Surely, if you assert this to be true, you will provide corresponding evidence that this is likely to happen?

You are the one asserting that this won't happen - despite human nature. It is most certainly an extraordinary claim. You know the drill. Let's see your evidence.

That’s a part of the world with a lot of trouble. They do not have it like we do, where people may attend public events without fear. They live in a world where car bombs are placed next to schools, people who sell falafel are shot for being non-Islamic, where people in line to find work may be targeted for killing, and even people going to services in a mosque may be killed. In this environment, you claim a lot of people would come just from curiosity? I highly doubt that.

You may doubt all you like. Expecting curious people to stay away from an event such as this is arguing against human nature.

The Mujahideen are the ones normal people would be afraid of, they themselves would not likely to be afraid.

Why not? They are very careful not to expose themselves to the risk of being caught by the American forces, but they would wade into your trap with totally open eyes?

Mycroft, that's crazy. Are you arguing because you truly believe what you say, or are you arguing for the sake of argument?

I would ask you the same, but that draws very close to making this a personal argument. Please, keep this civil.

I am both civil, and keeping it non-personal. Note that I am attacking your argument, not your person. Your argument is stupid, pure and simple.

It is your assertion that many innocents would show up, but you provide no evidence except your own opinion that they would. Iraq right now is a dangerous place, and I believe it is unlikely you would see many people go out unnecessarily, particularly to the funeral of a man so closely associated with the danger that rules their lives.

But he is dead, so where's the danger? They don't know that they are going to be blown to smithereens, so why not show up?

You do acknowledge that this would be a huge event? The official, public burial of Al-Zarqawi, US Enemy Number 1? It will attract a lot of attention throughout the Muslim world?

After all, that is how you will get the Mujahideen to come, isn't it? Are you going to write "The US Military Kindly Invites Only Mujahideen To Attend Funeral of Al-Zarqawi" on the news release?

[Mycroft]

OBL will claim victory no matter what happens. But he sure does have a point, if you arrange for a funeral and then start dropping bombs.

What were you thinking??

I’m thinking of sending a lot of Mujahideen and their supporters along to paradise.


You are the one asserting that this won't happen - despite human nature. It is most certainly an extraordinary claim. You know the drill. Let's see your evidence.

Actually, my assertion was merely that this was a great way killing a lot of terrorists and their supporters. It was your objections that introduced the idea that many innocents would be killed.

Evidence, please.


You may doubt all you like. Expecting curious people to stay away from an event such as this is arguing against human nature.

Against human nature in the West, where people feel safe in attending whatever event they please. That does not describe Iraq today, where people may be at risk with any excursion.


Why not? They are very careful not to expose themselves to the risk of being caught by the American forces, but they would wade into your trap with totally open eyes?

Mycroft, that's crazy. Are you arguing because you truly believe what you say, or are you arguing for the sake of argument?

You are simultaneously arguing that innocent civilians would come to the funeral in droves motivated by nothing more than curiosity and the desire for a spectacle, but the brave Mujahideen, who not only don’t fear death but welcome it, would be too cowardly? Can’t you see the absurdity of your position?


I am both civil, and keeping it non-personal. Note that I am attacking your argument, not your person. Your argument is stupid, pure and simple.

Of course, and your argument smells of excreta, but I don’t mean that personally. :oldroll:


But he is dead, so where's the danger? They don't know that they are going to be blown to smithereens, so why not show up?

With the sectarian violence? Suni, Shia, Christian, anti-government, pro-government…
anyone might have a perceived reason to bomb that crowd.


You do acknowledge that this would be a huge event? The official, public burial of Al-Zarqawi, US Enemy Number 1? It will attract a lot of attention throughout the Muslim world?

That’s what Osama Bin Laden claims.


After all, that is how you will get the Mujahideen to come, isn't it? Are you going to write "The US Military Kindly Invites Only Mujahideen To Attend Funeral of Al-Zarqawi" on the news release?

No, I think only Mujahideen would want to come.

[CFLarsen]

I’m thinking of sending a lot of Mujahideen and their supporters along to paradise.

And their supporters? Even people who hasn't done anyting?

Actually, my assertion was merely that this was a great way killing a lot of terrorists and their supporters. It was your objections that introduced the idea that many innocents would be killed.

Evidence, please.

Innocents are killed whenever you start dropping bombs on a group of people. That's one of the biggest problem in modern warfare: How to get the bad guys and not hit innocents.

Let's see your evidence that innocents wouldn't attend such a funeral.

Against human nature in the West, where people feel safe in attending whatever event they please. That does not describe Iraq today, where people may be at risk with any excursion.

And they learn to live with it, because they also have lives that need to be lived. Even Iraqis need to go to the market, or to the cafes, or to the cinema.

You are simultaneously arguing that innocent civilians would come to the funeral in droves motivated by nothing more than curiosity and the desire for a spectacle, but the brave Mujahideen, who not only don’t fear death but welcome it, would be too cowardly? Can’t you see the absurdity of your position?

No, they would be too cautious. Do you see the Mujahideen storm in a frenzy against US troops wherever they spot them? No, they plan their attacks carefully.

Of course, and your argument smells of excreta, but I don’t mean that personally. :oldroll:

I'm fine with that.

With the sectarian violence? Suni, Shia, Christian, anti-government, pro-government…
anyone might have a perceived reason to bomb that crowd.

Including the Mujahideen. Or are they to stupid to smell the trap, even though everyone else can?

That’s what Osama Bin Laden claims.

Mycroft, you are the one wanting to make as much of a spectacle of this funeral as possible, so you can get as many Mujahideen as possible to attend.

Sheeesh.... :rolleyes:

No, I think only Mujahideen would want to come.

Let's see your evidence that innocents wouldn't attend such a funeral.

[Mycroft]

And their supporters? Even people who hasn't done anyting?

We are talking about war.


Innocents are killed whenever you start dropping bombs on a group of people. That's one of the biggest problem in modern warfare: How to get the bad guys and not hit innocents.

Yes, which is why this idea makes so much sense.


Let's see your evidence that innocents wouldn't attend such a funeral.


It was your assertion that innocents would attend the funeral. It has been your assertion from the second post in this thread.


And they learn to live with it, because they also have lives that need to be lived. Even Iraqis need to go to the market, or to the cafes, or to the cinema.


Iraq is not yet Beirut or Gaza, where the violence has gone on for decades. “Survival mode” is not taking unnecessary risks. Certainly attending the funeral of Zarqawi would be such a risk.


No, they would be too cautious. Do you see the Mujahideen storm in a frenzy against US troops wherever they spot them? No, they plan their attacks carefully.

So you continue to argue that the people who should be timid will become brave like lions, and the ones that should be bold will suddenly become pants-wetting cowards? Oh-kay. :shrug:


Including the Mujahideen. Or are they to stupid to smell the trap, even though everyone else can?

Why should they? You argue the idea is insane. Its very audacity would work in our favor.


Mycroft, you are the one wanting to make as much of a spectacle of this funeral as possible, so you can get as many Mujahideen as possible to attend.

Sheeesh.... :rolleyes:


There could be a contest. Whichever cleric writes the best letter will be allowed to handle the funeral arrangements. Only the CIA will make sure some radical with terrorist ties wins. He will be asked to make his arrangements secret, but to make sure mourners are people who respected him and shared his goals in life. Then when the day comes….it’s BOOM! BOOM!! BOOM!!! it’s target practice time! :)

[CFLarsen]

We are talking about war.

Showing sympathy is now a capital crime? If a group of people express what they believe in, and you don't agree with them, that gives you the right to bomb them to smithereens?

Can you please explain the difference between you and a terrorist?

Yes, which is why this idea makes so much sense.

To you, yes. But then again, you are not on the receiving end when the bombs start falling.

It was your assertion that innocents would attend the funeral. It has been your assertion from the second post in this thread.

Of course they would attend, Mycroft. A big name they've all heard of? That's natural for humans to be curious.

Let's see your evidence.

Iraq is not yet Beirut or Gaza, where the violence has gone on for decades. “Survival mode” is not taking unnecessary risks. Certainly attending the funeral of Zarqawi would be such a risk.

Iraqis don't go to the market? Really? (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/01/iraq.main/index.html)

So you continue to argue that the people who should be timid will become brave like lions, and the ones that should be bold will suddenly become pants-wetting cowards? Oh-kay. :shrug:

Stop misrepresenting what I say, Mycroft. I didn't say timid, but cautious.

Why should they? You argue the idea is insane. Its very audacity would work in our favor.

What is it about the innocents that makes them smell the trap, but the Mujahideen can't?

There could be a contest. Whichever cleric writes the best letter will be allowed to handle the funeral arrangements. Only the CIA will make sure some radical with terrorist ties wins. He will be asked to make his arrangements secret, but to make sure mourners are people who respected him and shared his goals in life. Then when the day comes….it’s BOOM! BOOM!! BOOM!!! it’s target practice time! :)

Not only are you luring innocents to their deaths, you are also making fun of it. Way to go, Mycroft.

[Mycroft]

Showing sympathy is now a capital crime?

This is war. We are not talking about crime and punishment, we are talking about war.

Was being in the same house as Zarqawi at the moment of his death a capital crime? No, it wasn’t a crime at all. It’s not about crime.


If a group of people express what they believe in, and you don't agree with them, that gives you the right to bomb them to smithereens?

That depends. If they’re in Berkley California and it’s a march of nudists to save the gay whales from Bushitlerhaliburton, then yes. I’ll smile, nod my head and enjoy the scent of patchouli for a while before continuing on my business.

If it’s in Iraq and it’s a bunch of Mujihideen demonstrating in support of Zarqawi, murder, and oppressive Sharia law, then I do think a couple thousand pounds of STFU are in order.


Can you please explain the difference between you and a terrorist?

That’s easy. I target people for what they are and what they do.

Of course they would attend, Mycroft. A big name they've all heard of? That's natural for humans to be curious.

And I’ve named perfectly valid reasons why they would not. Where is your evidence that your view is more accurate than mine?


Iraqis don't go to the market? Really?

If you must lie about what I say to make your point, please don’t bother. It’s not as though I would let you get away with it. I have never said Iraqis don’t go to the market, and it’s foolish to claim I did.


Stop misrepresenting what I say, Mycroft. I didn't say timid, but cautious.

So?


What is it about the innocents that makes them smell the trap, but the Mujahideen can't?

Again, I did not say that innocents would “smell the trap.” I believe ordinary people who live in such a dangerous place in such a dangerous time will naturally be cautions. That’s common sense.



Not only are you luring innocents to their deaths, you are also making fun of it. Way to go, Mycroft.

If you can’t poke fun at exploding jihadists, who can you poke fun at?

[CFLarsen]

This is war. We are not talking about crime and punishment, we are talking about war.

Was being in the same house as Zarqawi at the moment of his death a capital crime? No, it wasn’t a crime at all. It’s not about crime.

...

That depends. If they’re in Berkley California and it’s a march of nudists to save the gay whales from Bushitlerhaliburton, then yes. I’ll smile, nod my head and enjoy the scent of patchouli for a while before continuing on my business.

If it’s in Iraq and it’s a bunch of Mujihideen demonstrating in support of Zarqawi, murder, and oppressive Sharia law, then I do think a couple thousand pounds of STFU are in order.

Why the difference? They haven't done anything to you. You are bombing people for what they believe - not what they have done.

That’s easy. I target people for what they are and what they do.

That's exactly what you don't do: You bomb - don't wrap it up nicely by calling it "targeting" - people for what they say - not for what they do.

And I’ve named perfectly valid reasons why they would not. Where is your evidence that your view is more accurate than mine?

No, you have not. They are not perfectly valid reasons, because they go against human nature. We are curious by nature, and will show up at big events, even though we don't necessarily

What you are doing is treat Westerners one way, and people from the Middle East another. You feel you can bomb the latter indiscriminately, even if they only voice their disagreement with you.

If you must lie about what I say to make your point, please don’t bother. It’s not as though I would let you get away with it. I have never said Iraqis don’t go to the market, and it’s foolish to claim I did.

I asked if they did. I'm glad you seem to agree. But you need to explain why they do it. It is clearly a place where they expect trouble, yet they do it. So why wouldn't they show up at Zarqawi's funeral?

So?

You are misrepresenting my stance. That's dishonest of you.

Again, I did not say that innocents would “smell the trap.” I believe ordinary people who live in such a dangerous place in such a dangerous time will naturally be cautions. That’s common sense.

But the Mujahideen also live in such a dangerous place in such a dangerous time. And despite their much greater need for being cautious, you claim that they will be far less cautious, and show up at the funeral.

Why? What is it about Mujahideen that make them so careless?

If you can’t poke fun at exploding jihadists, who can you poke fun at?

It speaks volumes that you will poke fun at innocent people you are prepared to bomb.

[Mycroft]

Why the difference? They haven't done anything to you. You are bombing people for what they believe - not what they have done.

The difference is that in Berkley California the difference of opinion will not be resolved by violence.

That's exactly what you don't do: You bomb - don't wrap it up nicely by calling it "targeting" - people for what they say - not for what they do.

If they are attending a funeral, they are doing something.

No, you have not. They are not perfectly valid reasons, because they go against human nature. We are curious by nature, and will show up at big events, even though we don't necessarily

We do, but not necessarily?! :confused:

What you are doing is treat Westerners one way, and people from the Middle East another. You feel you can bomb the latter indiscriminately, even if they only voice their disagreement with you.

No. I’m pointing to their attendance at Zarqawi’s funeral as evidence that they are jihadists or jihadist supporters. Osama Bin Laden, an acknowledged expert on the issue, has stated the same.

I asked if they did. I'm glad you seem to agree. But you need to explain why they do it. It is clearly a place where they expect trouble, yet they do it. So why wouldn't they show up at Zarqawi's funeral?

Because getting food is a necessity. Attending a funeral that’s likely to be attended by the most dangerous people in Iraq is not a necessity.

You are misrepresenting my stance. That's dishonest of you.

Timid and cautious are synonyms.

But the Mujahideen also live in such a dangerous place in such a dangerous time. And despite their much greater need for being cautious, you claim that they will be far less cautious, and show up at the funeral.

True of false: Jihadist militants are likely to come from the less cautions segment of society?

Why? What is it about Mujahideen that make them so careless?

They have certainly show a greater willingness to risk their lives than others.

It speaks volumes that you will poke fun at innocent people you are prepared to bomb.

That is our fundamental disagreement. You believe there will be innocents there. I do not.

[CFLarsen]

The difference is that in Berkley California the difference of opinion will not be resolved by violence.

But who resolves it with violence? You. You are the one dropping bombs on people who are merely demonstrating.

If they are attending a funeral, they are doing something.

In what way are they hurting you? How are you hurt by people attending a funeral?

We do, but not necessarily?! :confused:

Strike "even though we don't necessarily".

No. I’m pointing to their attendance at Zarqawi’s funeral as evidence that they are jihadists or jihadist supporters. Osama Bin Laden, an acknowledged expert on the issue, has stated the same.

Have you checked that they have done anything to harm you? Or are you merely taking the word of the very terrorist you are fighting for granted?

Because getting food is a necessity. Attending a funeral that’s likely to be attended by the most dangerous people in Iraq is not a necessity.

"likely"? You don't know for sure, yet you'd rather be on the safe side, and throw a lot of bombs. Even if it means that innocents will be killed.

Timid and cautious are synonyms.

Wrong.

Timid:
1 : lacking in courage or self-confidence <a timid person>
2 : lacking in boldness or determination <a timid policy>

Caution:
1 : WARNING, ADMONISHMENT
2 : PRECAUTION
3 : prudent forethought to minimize risk
4 : one that astonishes or commands attention <some shoes you see... these days are a caution -- Esquire>

(Webster)

True of false: Jihadist militants are likely to come from the less cautions segment of society?

That's the question you should answer. And explain why.

They have certainly show a greater willingness to risk their lives than others.

But they don't do it by mindlessly running against any American troops they see. They plan, they plot. Think roadside bombs. Think assassinations. Think ambushes. Think any kind of attack. All require careful deliberation.

That is our fundamental disagreement. You believe there will be innocents there. I do not.

Not a single innocent walks into your trap?

[Mycroft]

But who resolves it with violence? You. You are the one dropping bombs on people who are merely demonstrating.

You’re wrong again. I specifically said I would not bomb the demonstration, merely enjoy the scent of patchouli for a while and then move on. It was the funeral I would bomb.


In what way are they hurting you? How are you hurt by people attending a funeral?

I never claimed anyone was harmed by attending a funeral.*


Have you checked that they have done anything to harm you? Or are you merely taking the word of the very terrorist you are fighting for granted?

I don’t think it’s feasible to check before releasing the bomb. I take OBL’s word because in this case what he says sounds reasonable.


"likely"? You don't know for sure, yet you'd rather be on the safe side, and throw a lot of bombs. Even if it means that innocents will be killed.

I have a tendency towards understatement sometimes. Strike the word “likely.”


Wrong.

It’s not difficult to find sources that say I’m right:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/timid

Noun1.timid - people who are fearful and cautious; "whitewater rafting is not for the timid"

The bold emphasis on the word “cautious” was added by me. Note this is found on the section of the page listed as “Thesaurus” and that “cautious” is specifically listed as a synonym for “timid”.


That's the question you should answer. And explain why.

I think the answer is self-evident to both of us, which is why you didn’t answer it.


But they don't do it by mindlessly running against any American troops they see. They plan, they plot. Think roadside bombs. Think assassinations. Think ambushes. Think any kind of attack. All require careful deliberation.

You claim there is no danger to a funeral such that any curious Iraqi will come along for the show, then simultaneously you claim it’s too dangerous for the Jihadist, who wouldn’t be so reckless as to place himself in such obvious danger. Which is it?


Not a single innocent walks into your trap?

Already answered here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1739178#post1739178), here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1740587#post1740587), and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1742072#post1742072).


*Well, I suppose if my suggestion were carried out, some people would be harmed by attending a funeral, but that's not what you meant.

[Earthborn]

I specifically said I would not bomb the demonstrationMaybe that's what you meant to say, but it is not what you specifically said. You said pretty much the opposite:
... that gives you the right to bomb them to smithereens?If they’re in Berkley California ... then yes.If you meant to say that these protestors do not give you the right to bomb them, that last sentence should have ended with "... then no."

[Mycroft]

Maybe that's what you meant to say, but it is not what you specifically said. You said pretty much the opposite:
If you meant to say that these protestors do not give you the right to bomb them, that last sentence should have ended with "... then no."


Good catch! You're absolutely right, I should have said no!

[Beerina]

I see no problem with the idea of letting Zarqawi's body have a proper funeral-- except that there is a slight amount of discomfort involved in doing what Osama Bin Laden asks us to do. Let people go to the funeral. Even if it is composed mostly of "Jihadists," jihadists are people too. Therefore, a funeral would make people happy without really much of a price (what else are we going to do with the body, toss it in the garbage?) therefore it is a "good thing."

Bombing the funeral is of course an idiotic idea. For one, there is a difference between being a terrorist and being pro-terrorist, and for two, it would be an insanely bad PR move to bomb a goddamn funeral, therefore quite possibly creating a net increase in terrorists.

Yes, but a funeral would offer the unique opportunity to give a lot more people for the US to start tracking.

[CFLarsen]

You’re wrong again. I specifically said I would not bomb the demonstration, merely enjoy the scent of patchouli for a while and then move on. It was the funeral I would bomb.

But the people attending the funeral are also demonstration, aren't they? They express a certain point of view - that's why they are there.

I never claimed anyone was harmed by attending a funeral.*

But if you are not harmed by people attending Al-Zarqawi's funeral, what right do you have to bomb them?

I don’t think it’s feasible to check before releasing the bomb.

Really? That means you have no way of knowing who will show up?

Gee, Mycroft: You just shot yourself in the foot, didn't you?

I take OBL’s word because in this case what he says sounds reasonable.

You find it reasonable that he claims that all those attending the funeral are his supporters? Don't you think that's a little naive? Is it possible that he exaggerates?

It’s not difficult to find sources that say I’m right:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/timid

Noun1.timid - people who are fearful and cautious; "whitewater rafting is not for the timid"

The bold emphasis on the word “cautious” was added by me. Note this is found on the section of the page listed as “Thesaurus” and that “cautious” is specifically listed as a synonym for “timid”.

They are cautious because they are fearful. But being cautious does not have to mean that you are fearful. Correct?

I think the answer is self-evident to both of us, which is why you didn’t answer it.

No, it is not self-evident to me why you think this. Please explain.

You claim there is no danger to a funeral such that any curious Iraqi will come along for the show, then simultaneously you claim it’s too dangerous for the Jihadist, who wouldn’t be so reckless as to place himself in such obvious danger. Which is it?

You also have a tendency to distort people's arguments. I am saying that your claim that only Jihadists will be stupid enough to attend a funeral, set up as a trap by you, is not credible. Especially because you just admitted that there is no way you can know who will show up.

Already answered here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1739178#post1739178),here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1740587#post1740587), and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1742072#post1742072).

All already countered.

[gumboot]

I have to say,

Although I think the notion of bombing a funeral is a really dumb idea, as far as advancing the war on terror, in the argument of who would attend, I would be incredibly surprised if any significant number of "innocent" civilians turned up.

Let us compare to a similar terrorist-infested area - Palestine. When civilians are killed by Israelis in Palestine, innocent civilians do not attend the funerals. In fact, usually the FAMILY do not even attend. Terrorists attend. Lots and lots of terrorists attend, and show their grief and anguish at such a loss by burning flags and waving AK-47's in the air (some even PRETEND to be relatives if a western news crew happens to turn up).

And that is for the funeral of a civilian.

I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt - and in this case I'd like to believe Iraqi people are fairly intelligent. I'd like to believe they're intelligent enough to realise that the funeral of such a high profile terrorist is going to be attended by crowds of other terrorists. Terrorists who might just set off a bomb in said Iraqi civilian's bazaar next Monday.

I'd like to give Iraqis the benefit of the doubt and assume they would be smart enough to know that being anywhere near such a funeral would be a very stupid idea.

In contrast, I would be surprised if mujahedeen didn't attend. I'd expect them to come in force - show their outrage and their solidarity. Imagine the shame, were I to stay home while my fellow fighters attended the funeral of our great leader?

No doubt there will be civilians at such a funeral. I would expect some collateral damage in the event of an attack on such an event. But I would also expect to see many more dead terrorists. Of course one would also expect one or two brave western journalists to attend (despite the threat of being kidnapped and beheaded). But then I have never really been overly concerned about the fate of journalists in a war zone.

Incidentally, I suspect that such an act would not be a violation of the laws of armed conflict.

-Andrew

[CFLarsen]

Let us compare to a similar terrorist-infested area - Palestine. When civilians are killed by Israelis in Palestine, innocent civilians do not attend the funerals. In fact, usually the FAMILY do not even attend. Terrorists attend. Lots and lots of terrorists attend, and show their grief and anguish at such a loss by burning flags and waving AK-47's in the air (some even PRETEND to be relatives if a western news crew happens to turn up).


How do you know all this?

[gumboot]

How do you know all this?


Because a very good work mate of my father's (in our Air Force), formerly of the RAF Regiment, spent a long time in that area as an UNMO. He offered a lot of revelations about the Palestinian terrorists and the IDF and their ways. It was quite common for militants to STEAL bodies off the families so they could stage their "funerals".

Based primarily on his first-hand experience keeping a close watch on Arab militant funerals, I would be surprised if any significant number of innocent civilians attended the funeral of a prominant terrorist.

But, I have the capacity to be surprised, of course. As I said in my previous post, "I would expect". It is, of course, possible that your assertations are correct. I just know that in the event of that happening, myself and many others (including a significant number of soldiers who served in the middle-east with the UN) would be very surprised.

-Andrew

[CFLarsen]

Because a very good work mate of my father's (in our Air Force), formerly of the RAF Regiment, spent a long time in that area as an UNMO. He offered a lot of revelations about the Palestinian terrorists and the IDF and their ways. It was quite common for militants to STEAL bodies off the families so they could stage their "funerals".

Based primarily on his first-hand experience keeping a close watch on Arab militant funerals, I would be surprised if any significant number of innocent civilians attended the funeral of a prominant terrorist.

But, I have the capacity to be surprised, of course. As I said in my previous post, "I would expect". It is, of course, possible that your assertations are correct. I just know that in the event of that happening, myself and many others (including a significant number of soldiers who served in the middle-east with the UN) would be very surprised.

-Andrew

Do you know what we usually call that kind of source?

[MRC_Hans]

I think they should hand over the body, no frills. There is such a thing as respect for a beaten enemy. Let them have a big parade and shoot AK47s in the air, if they want. That is one (relatively, watch ur head :rolleyes: ) harmless use of ammo.

Hans

[CFLarsen]

I think they should hand over the body, no frills. There is such a thing as respect for a beaten enemy. Let them have a big parade and shoot AK47s in the air, if they want. That is one (relatively, watch ur head :rolleyes: ) harmless use of ammo.

Hans

Take photos, if you must. But drop bombs on a funeral? That is as stupid as it gets.

[MRC_Hans]

Yeah. Just because the enemy act as scoundrels, there is no reason for us to do the same, quite the contrary, in fact.

Hans

[Mycroft]

But the people attending the funeral are also demonstration, aren't they? They express a certain point of view - that's why they are there.

Are they? Previously you were arguing they were just everyday folk who were curious. You know, innocent bystanders.


But if you are not harmed by people attending Al-Zarqawi's funeral, what right do you have to bomb them?

I am not harmed when militants murder falafel sellers either, but I have no problem when those militants get killed.


Really? That means you have no way of knowing who will show up?

Gee, Mycroft: You just shot yourself in the foot, didn't you?

Not at all. It’s not feasible to stop everyone on the ground and check their identity before dropping a bomb on them, but then it’s never feasible to do that before dropping a bomb. We are, however, reasonable certain of who they are and what their sympathies are.


You find it reasonable that he claims that all those attending the funeral are his supporters? Don't you think that's a little naive? Is it possible that he exaggerates?

It’s possible, and I would certainly be willing to consider any evidence you would provide.

Oh, wait…you have yet to provide any evidence.


They are cautious because they are fearful. But being cautious does not have to mean that you are fearful. Correct?

No moving the goalposts. My claim is that “cautious” and “timid” are synonyms, which you then claimed was wrong. My source specifically lists “cautious” as a synonym for “timid”, true or false?


No, it is not self-evident to me why you think this. Please explain.

It’s not self-evident to you that militants, as a group, are less cautious than the population at large? I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.


You also have a tendency to distort people's arguments. I am saying that your claim that only Jihadists will be stupid enough to attend a funeral, set up as a trap by you, is not credible. Especially because you just admitted that there is no way you can know who will show up.

You also have a tendency to distort people’s arguments. I said that checking who was there before dropping a bomb wouldn’t be feasible, that’s very different from saying there is no way to know who will show up.

All already countered.

Hmm. Your definition of “countered” must be quite different from mine, unless somehow when I wasn’t looking you’ve proven that journalists won’t be there.

[CFLarsen]

Are they? Previously you were arguing they were just everyday folk who were curious. You know, innocent bystanders.

That's your stance, Mycroft: That they are there because they want to express a certain standpoint.

Are you now backing down on that?

I am not harmed when militants murder falafel sellers either, but I have no problem when those militants get killed.

Whoa, whoa. What exactly have these people done that you feel justified in killing them?

I'm not talking about the Mujahideen. I am talking about those who show sympathy for them. Is attending a demonstration really enough for you to murder them?

Not at all. It’s not feasible to stop everyone on the ground and check their identity before dropping a bomb on them, but then it’s never feasible to do that before dropping a bomb. We are, however, reasonable certain of who they are and what their sympathies are.

But you are the one setting up this funeral, Mycroft. You can easily set up control posts.

It’s possible

Thank you. It's possible that people attending the funeral will be curious bystanders. And yet, you are willing to trap them, only to kill them.

No moving the goalposts. My claim is that “cautious” and “timid” are synonyms, which you then claimed was wrong. My source specifically lists “cautious” as a synonym for “timid”, true or false?

True. Duh. I asked you a question: Is it correct that being cautious does not have to mean that you are fearful?

It’s not self-evident to you that militants, as a group, are less cautious than the population at large? I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Fine. Explain why you think so.

You also have a tendency to distort people’s arguments. I said that checking who was there before dropping a bomb wouldn’t be feasible, that’s very different from saying there is no way to know who will show up.

Of course it's feasable. It's your trap, your setting. You can easily check who attend.

Hmm. Your definition of “countered” must be quite different from mine, unless somehow when I wasn’t looking you’ve proven that journalists won’t be there.

Not just journalists. If journalists can attend, why not curious bystanders?

[Mycroft]

That's your stance, Mycroft: That they are there because they want to express a certain standpoint.

Are you now backing down on that?

Excuse me, are you saying I was claiming they were innocent bystanders? I believe I was claiming they would be jihadists and their supporters.


Whoa, whoa. What exactly have these people done that you feel justified in killing them?

I'm not talking about the Mujahideen. I am talking about those who show sympathy for them. Is attending a demonstration really enough for you to murder them?


The fundamental problem in fighting an enemy that doesn’t wear a uniform is how to separate them from the civilian population. Here we have had an opportunity where they would separate themselves from the civilian population. I think that’s an opportunity that should have beent taken advantage of.


But you are the one setting up this funeral, Mycroft. You can easily set up control posts.


That’s an interesting idea. How would you go about it?


Thank you. It's possible that people attending the funeral will be curious bystanders. And yet, you are willing to trap them, only to kill them.

That’s rather dishonest editing, don’t you think? Reading it, one might think you hadn’t just blown off yet another request for evidence.


True. Duh.

Thank you. So you concede that “cautious” and “timid” are indeed synonyms.


I asked you a question: Is it correct that being cautious does not have to mean that you are fearful?

Sure, but being timid does not have to mean you are fearful either.


Fine. Explain why you think so.


Because being a militant is inherently dangerous, and cautious people are not likely to want to be one.


Of course it's feasable. It's your trap, your setting. You can easily check who attend.


Explain how this might be accomplished?

Not just journalists. If journalists can attend, why not curious bystanders?

The issue is not who is able to attend, but who will attend. You claim, without presenting any evidence despite repeated requests, that large numbers of wholly innocent people will come just out of curiosity, I disagree.

[CFLarsen]

Excuse me, are you saying I was claiming they were innocent bystanders? I believe I was claiming they would be jihadists and their supporters.

Then you are not backing down from that. The supporters merely express a certain view which you happen to disagree with. What gives you the right to bomb people who disagrees with you?

The fundamental problem in fighting an enemy that doesn’t wear a uniform is how to separate them from the civilian population. Here we have had an opportunity where they would separate themselves from the civilian population. I think that’s an opportunity that should have beent taken advantage of.

But they haven't done anything. They merely disagree with you. What gives you the right to bomb people who disagrees with you?

That’s an interesting idea. How would you go about it?

Ask them. "Only those close to Zarqawi can attend". Not particularly suspect, is it? That's what we do here in the West, too.

That’s rather dishonest editing, don’t you think? Reading it, one might think you hadn’t just blown off yet another request for evidence.

No, I don't. Because that is what you are doing: You will set up a trap, knowing that innocents will be lured also, yet you want to bomb them.

Thank you. So you concede that “cautious” and “timid” are indeed synonyms.

Not in the context I used.

Sure, but being timid does not have to mean you are fearful either.

:hb:

You are simply arguing this to argue. I've explained what I meant. You can misrepresent that as much as you like. Honesty is not a general trait in you.

Because being a militant is inherently dangerous, and cautious people are not likely to want to be one.

Would you call OBL cautious? As in "careful"? Or perhaps you want to strike the word "likely"?

The issue is not who is able to attend, but who will attend. You claim, without presenting any evidence despite repeated requests, that large numbers of wholly innocent people will come just out of curiosity, I disagree.

How many innocents do you think would attend, out of a group of how many?

[MRC_Hans]

I think the discussion of who would attend is moot. To use a funeral service as a trap to kill people, even your worst enemies, is so despicable that it should be below even contemplation by civilized people.

IMHO

Hans

[gumboot]

Do you know what we usually call that kind of source?


From your point of view it is heresay, because I am claiming someone told me it happened.

From my point of view, he is a material witness, because he directly described the events to me.

Put it this way, in a court of law, *my* "Evidence" (being a claim that person X told me Y) would not be admissable, and nor would *yours* (being a claim that I told you person X told me Y). However HIS evidence (being that he saw Y) *would* be admissable. In the same way most other "evidence" any of us are able to provide on the matter (such as a link to a newspaper article) would also not be accepted as evidence.

I also have more faith in directly talking to someone present at such events (or claiming to have been present at such events) than I do the media - which has a track record of dishonesty and subjective reporting (not to mention articles saturated with emotive writing, which to me is gross dishonesty). I mentioned in a thread somewhere that I have somewhat unusual sources for various events because I have made contact, and do have contact, with people more directly involved in said events. There's no reason why any of you should take what I say as fact (I could be lying this entire time) but that's how it is.

-Andrew

[CFLarsen]

I think the discussion of who would attend is moot. To use a funeral service as a trap to kill people, even your worst enemies, is so despicable that it should be below even contemplation by civilized people.

IMHO

Hans

You're quite right.

It just underlines the fact that even though we are fighting pure scumbags, there are also those among us who are willing to sink even lower than that.

It is an utterly indefensible position. But it is important that we make it known that such contemptible opinions are only held by very few people.

[CFLarsen]

From your point of view it is heresay, because I am claiming someone told me it happened.

From my point of view, he is a material witness, because he directly described the events to me.

Put it this way, in a court of law, *my* "Evidence" (being a claim that person X told me Y) would not be admissable, and nor would *yours* (being a claim that I told you person X told me Y). However HIS evidence (being that he saw Y) *would* be admissable. In the same way most other "evidence" any of us are able to provide on the matter (such as a link to a newspaper article) would also not be accepted as evidence.

I also have more faith in directly talking to someone present at such events (or claiming to have been present at such events) than I do the media - which has a track record of dishonesty and subjective reporting (not to mention articles saturated with emotive writing, which to me is gross dishonesty). I mentioned in a thread somewhere that I have somewhat unusual sources for various events because I have made contact, and do have contact, with people more directly involved in said events. There's no reason why any of you should take what I say as fact (I could be lying this entire time) but that's how it is.

-Andrew

We are not in a court of law. And you are quite right, it is hearsay.

[gumboot]

But they haven't done anything. They merely disagree with you. What gives you the right to bomb people who disagrees with you?



To my mind this sums up much of your failure to understand the nature of the situation...

It is a war. In war you kill the opposition. The hypothetical targets don't "merely disagree with you". They are publicly associating with the enemy. That makes them a legitimate target.

It's a rather sweet notion to think that war is about shooting people that have guns and are shooting you. That's not how war works. In war you kill any enemy you can. If they're unarmed or running away, that's their problem. They might be a teenager with a walkie talkie, telling someone else which road the army trucks took. They might be bringing enemy soldiers food. You're perfectly within your "rights" (as you called it) to drop a bomb on their head.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

We are not in a court of law. And you are quite right, it is hearsay.


To you it is.

Not to me. It is not influencing your opinion on this matter. It is influencing mine. And I am expressing my opinion. At least I have some logical explanation for my opinion, rather than a repetitive and totally unsupported claim that innocent bystanders would willingly attend the funeral of a reknown terrorist in Iraq.

I have some personal experience with this kind of situation (that being the matter of curiosity vs risk of harm). I work in the film industry, and our work naturally attracts a lot of curious bystanders. As an AD I have the task of managing the set, so I deal with these bystanders a lot.

Usually it is a struggle to get people to keep out of the way, because they want to see what's going on. Their curiosity can ruin a shot.

However earlier this year I worked on a TV Commercial for an Insurance Company called "Vero". They had an earlier commercial which involved a 1200kg bull in a china shop. The bull returned for this commercial.

We were shooting in a very popular part of the city, with very dense foot traffic. Normally such a job would be a nightmare. However, almost without exception, the moment we mentioned there was a 1200kg bull in the street, people decided not to hang around. Most never even tried to see the bull. The mere thought of a bull in the street sent them fleeing (yes, some literally ran away).

This happened throughout the day, despite our assurances that the bull was entirely harmless and there was no threat. We encouraged them to come through the street (our permit did not allow us to close the street to foot traffic except when shooting).

But no one wanted a bar of it.

The lesson?

Curiosity is inversely proportional to perceived risk of harm to the individual.

So the question is... would an Iraqi civilian, knowing that terrorists and insurgents would be expected to attend, consider there to be sufficient risk of personal harm to overcome their curiosity in attending such an event?

I believe so. I know I would consider hanging out with a crowd of emotional (it's a funeral afterall) terrorist more dangerous than being on a street with a 1200kg bull... for example. And I don't have the added experience of almost daily bomb attacks by the exact same terrorists.

-Andrew

[CFLarsen]

To you it is.

Not to me. It is not influencing your opinion on this matter. It is influencing mine. And I am expressing my opinion. At least I have some logical explanation for my opinion, rather than a repetitive and totally unsupported claim that innocent bystanders would willingly attend the funeral of a reknown terrorist in Iraq.

No, you don't. What you have is hearsay. That means nothing. We can't go with what you have experienced, the same way we can't go with what people experience, when they see ghosts.

I have some personal experience with this kind of situation (that being the matter of curiosity vs risk of harm). I work in the film industry, and our work naturally attracts a lot of curious bystanders. As an AD I have the task of managing the set, so I deal with these bystanders a lot.

Usually it is a struggle to get people to keep out of the way, because they want to see what's going on. Their curiosity can ruin a shot.

Yeah. People will show up at events, won't they? Curiosity is strong in humans.

However earlier this year I worked on a TV Commercial for an Insurance Company called "Vero". They had an earlier commercial which involved a 1200kg bull in a china shop. The bull returned for this commercial.

We were shooting in a very popular part of the city, with very dense foot traffic. Normally such a job would be a nightmare. However, almost without exception, the moment we mentioned there was a 1200kg bull in the street, people decided not to hang around. Most never even tried to see the bull. The mere thought of a bull in the street sent them fleeing (yes, some literally ran away).

This happened throughout the day, despite our assurances that the bull was entirely harmless and there was no threat. We encouraged them to come through the street (our permit did not allow us to close the street to foot traffic except when shooting).

But no one wanted a bar of it.

And yet, each year, hundreds of people willingly do this. (http://www.spanish-fiestas.com/spanish-festivals/pamplona-bull-running-san-fermin.htm)

The lesson?

Curiosity is inversely proportional to perceived risk of harm to the individual.

Nope. Your personal anecdote is up against a verified, annual event, reported by major news newworks. Which do you think carries more weight on a skeptics' board?

So the question is... would an Iraqi civilian, knowing that terrorists and insurgents would be expected to attend, consider there to be sufficient risk of personal harm to overcome their curiosity in attending such an event?

I believe so. I know I would consider hanging out with a crowd of emotional (it's a funeral afterall) terrorist more dangerous than being on a street with a 1200kg bull... for example. And I don't have the added experience of almost daily bomb attacks by the exact same terrorists.

-Andrew

Some might think like that. But some will invariably show up. Not are people just curious, they all too frequently aren't all that smart. Combine those two, and Mycroft ends up with a lot of innocent blood on his hands.

Remember, this is a trap, set by Mycroft. He knows what will happen. And yet, he wants to bomb a funeral.

The lack of respect for human life is mind-blowing.

[CFLarsen]

To my mind this sums up much of your failure to understand the nature of the situation...

It is a war. In war you kill the opposition. The hypothetical targets don't "merely disagree with you". They are publicly associating with the enemy. That makes them a legitimate target.

It's a rather sweet notion to think that war is about shooting people that have guns and are shooting you. That's not how war works. In war you kill any enemy you can. If they're unarmed or running away, that's their problem. They might be a teenager with a walkie talkie, telling someone else which road the army trucks took. They might be bringing enemy soldiers food. You're perfectly within your "rights" (as you called it) to drop a bomb on their head.

-Andrew

We are talking about a trap, set up by Mycroft.

Even if it wasn't, do you honestly think that bombing a funeral is such a good idea?

A funeral??

[Elind]

:bananalama::k:

I've been reading The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. The book, not the guide. The book of the book of the guide. Really, the real one.

Whenever I put it down I check this thread, just to make sure I can recognize reality.

[LW]

Now that the body has been buried is secret, OBL has a propaganda victory. He can no doubt claim the US was afraid to have a public funeral.

I'm not certain about that victory part in the long run: now he doesn't have a "Grave of a Martyr" to become a shrine.

[Mycroft]

Then you are not backing down from that. The supporters merely express a certain view which you happen to disagree with. What gives you the right to bomb people who disagrees with you?

Merely? No, if Zarqawi’s supporters only expressed a point of view which we disagreed with, we would never have bothered to kill him.


Ask them. "Only those close to Zarqawi can attend". Not particularly suspect, is it? That's what we do here in the West, too.

We are in agreement then? Make this one small change, and you would support the change?


No, I don't. Because that is what you are doing: You will set up a trap, knowing that innocents will be lured also, yet you want to bomb them.

I said I would be willing to consider your point of view if you provided evidence. You dishonestly edited that to seem as though I had conceded the point without having seen any evidence.

Where is your evidence?


Not in the context I used.

So they’re synonyms…except when you wave a magic wand?


You are simply arguing this to argue. I've explained what I meant. You can misrepresent that as much as you like. Honesty is not a general trait in you.

Please, let’s not get personal.


Would you call OBL cautious? As in "careful"? Or perhaps you want to strike the word "likely"?

Osama Bin Laden certainly has taken great risks in his chosen career.


How many innocents do you think would attend, out of a group of how many?

I believe the only innocents that might attend would be reporters. How many do you think would attend?

[Mycroft]

I'm not certain about that victory part in the long run: now he doesn't have a "Grave of a Martyr" to become a shrine.

Yeah, but they can set up a shrine anywhere. They can even lie and say Zarqs body is in there, who would do a DNA test to prove otherwise?

[CFLarsen]

Merely? No, if Zarqawi’s supporters only expressed a point of view which we disagreed with, we would never have bothered to kill him.

I asked you a question: What gives you the right to bomb people who disagrees with you?

We are in agreement then? Make this one small change, and you would support the change?

Not to bomb people at a funeral, no. Photograph them, tail them. But you don't bomb people at a funeral, Mycroft. That is inhuman.

So they’re synonyms…except when you wave a magic wand?

Another example of your dishonesty. Context, Mycroft.

Please, let’s not get personal.

It's not personal. It's a fact that you are dishonest. You constantly misrepresent what other people say.

Osama Bin Laden certainly has taken great risks in his chosen career.

I asked you a question: Is he cautious? Does he run around, baiting the US to catch him? Or is he carefully covering his tracks?

I believe the only innocents that might attend would be reporters.

But absolutely no innocents, otherwise. Gotcha.

How many innocent reporters will show up? Those you are willing to lure into a trap and bomb, Mycroft?

How many do you think would attend?

A big name like that would draw thousands. And you are willing to bomb them.

[Elind]

Come on Mycroft. :cool:

Give him an answer that isn't open to petty literalism. He baits, you bait and both of you bite. Go back a few pages and the points sound exactly the same.

Some Newbie is going to read this and come away with a poor and inaccurate opinion of the elders of this forum.

[Mycroft]

I asked you a question: What gives you the right to bomb people who disagrees with you?

That’s a nice bit of sophistry, but they are not being bombed because they disagree with me. They are being bombed because they are jihadists and their supporters.


Not to bomb people at a funeral, no. Photograph them, tail them. But you don't bomb people at a funeral, Mycroft. That is inhuman.

Bombing someone during breakfast is inhuman, yet we did that to Zarqawi. Bombing someone during dinner is inhuman, yet we did that to the Hussein boys.


Another example of your dishonesty. Context, Mycroft.

There is nothing in the context that makes timid an inappropriate word choice.


It's not personal. It's a fact that you are dishonest. You constantly misrepresent what other people say.

Possibly, but no more than you do. For example, in the first paragraph of this message you misrepresent my words to claim I would bomb people only because they disagree with me, which is not true.


I asked you a question: Is he cautious? Does he run around, baiting the US to catch him? Or is he carefully covering his tracks?


He plays a very dangerous game, but he plays to win.


But absolutely no innocents, otherwise. Gotcha.

How many innocent reporters will show up? Those you are willing to lure into a trap and bomb, Mycroft?

If a reporter happened to have been interviewing Zarqawi at the time of his death, would we have hesitated? Should we have? These are people who choose to place themselves in danger in pursuit of their craft.


A big name like that would draw thousands. And you are willing to bomb them.

I believe he would draw thousands, but not thousands of innocents.

[BPSCG]

Give him an answer that isn't open to petty literalism. That's the trouble when dealing with Claus; there is no claim that is so self-evident, no evidence that is so ironclad, no wording that is so precise, that he won't dispute it on the most trivial of rhetorical grounds. Language is an imperfect means of expressing thought, and Claus is apparently never so happy as when wrecking a thread by proving just that.
He baits, you bait and both of you bite. Go back a few pages and the points sound exactly the same.

Some Newbie is going to read this and come away with a poor and inaccurate opinion of the elders of this forum."Elders." Heh.

[Mycroft]

Come on Mycroft. :cool:

Give him an answer that isn't open to petty literalism. He baits, you bait and both of you bite. Go back a few pages and the points sound exactly the same.

Some Newbie is going to read this and come away with a poor and inaccurate opinion of the elders of this forum.

I'm not sure how. I ask for evidence, he ignores my requests. I answer his questions, he merely rephrases them and presents them again. How does one move forward when debating with CFLarsen?

[CFLarsen]

That’s a nice bit of sophistry, but they are not being bombed because they disagree with me. They are being bombed because they are jihadists and their supporters.

What have their supporters done? Disagreed with you.

Bombing someone during breakfast is inhuman, yet we did that to Zarqawi. Bombing someone during dinner is inhuman, yet we did that to the Hussein boys.

It speaks volumes that you equate dinners with funerals. Have you no decency?

There is nothing in the context that makes timid an inappropriate word choice.

Don't tell me what I meant.

Possibly, but no more than you do. For example, in the first paragraph of this message you misrepresent my words to claim I would bomb people only because they disagree with me, which is not true.

Sure it is. They haven't done anything, have they? They have merely expressed their disagreement with you.

He plays a very dangerous game, but he plays to win.

Answer the question: Is he cautious? Does he run around, baiting the US to catch him? Or is he carefully covering his tracks?

If a reporter happened to have been interviewing Zarqawi at the time of his death, would we have hesitated? Should we have? These are people who choose to place themselves in danger in pursuit of their craft.

Answer the question: How many innocent reporters will show up? Those you are willing to lure into a trap and bomb, Mycroft?

I believe he would draw thousands, but not thousands of innocents.

How many, Mycroft?

[Mycroft]

What have their supporters done? Disagreed with you.

Tell me, do you think Zarqawi’s supporters limit themselves to mere disagreement? Yes or no, please.


It speaks volumes that you equate dinners with funerals. Have you no decency?


Logically, what is the difference between them?


Don't tell me what I meant.

I’m not, I’m telling you what I meant. I was the one who first used the word “timid” and there was nothing inappropriate in its usage.


Sure it is. They haven't done anything, have they? They have merely expressed their disagreement with you.

According to this article, Zarqawi supporters do quite a bit more:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1659133.htm


Answer the question: Is he cautious? Does he run around, baiting the US to catch him? Or is he carefully covering his tracks?

Those are not mutually exclusive options.


Answer the question: How many innocent reporters will show up? Those you are willing to lure into a trap and bomb, Mycroft?

It’s your claim that innocents will be lured into this trap, yet time and time again you have refused to provide evidence. While I don’t have a specific number of how many Journalists would show up, I don’t believe it would be a very large number.

It could be taken as an opportunity to advance on another front as well. For example, the reporter from the Washington Post might get a hint that for that occasion he may want to by the video from Al-Jazeera, while the reporter from the New York Times might not be told anything at all.

[CFLarsen]

Tell me, do you think Zarqawi’s supporters limit themselves to mere disagreement? Yes or no, please.

I haven't seen anything else than merely expressing disagreement.

And no, I am not talking about those who have committed terrorist acts. I am talking about those who merely show up voicing their disagreement.

Logically, what is the difference between them?

A funeral is a time to remember the dead, to honor them, to pay respect. There's a hell of a difference between a funeral and a dinner, Mycroft.

I’m not, I’m telling you what I meant. I was the one who first used the word “timid” and there was nothing inappropriate in its usage.

I don't care what you meant about what I said.

According to this article, Zarqawi supporters do quite a bit more:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1659133.htm

Then, they are not merely supporters, but terrorists. I am talking about those who merely voice their disagreement with you.

Those are not mutually exclusive options.

Answer the question: Is he cautious? Does he run around, baiting the US to catch him? Or is he carefully covering his tracks?

It’s your claim that innocents will be lured into this trap, yet time and time again you have refused to provide evidence. While I don’t have a specific number of how many Journalists would show up, I don’t believe it would be a very large number.

It could be taken as an opportunity to advance on another front as well. For example, the reporter from the Washington Post might get a hint that for that occasion he may want to by the video from Al-Jazeera, while the reporter from the New York Times might not be told anything at all.

I didn't ask if you thought the number would be big. I asked how many innocent reporters will show up.

Answer the questions.

[Skeptic]

Showing sympathy is now a capital crime?

Actually, in many situations, showing sympathy to a criminal is a crime (being an "accessory after the fact"), while showing sympathy to an enemy soldier, for example, is in theory punishable as treason or collaboration.

I doubt the same situation holds here, but certainly bombing supporters of bin Laden is not necessarily illegal, since in war killing as such is not a crime, it is only SOME killing that is a war crime.

[CFLarsen]

Actually, in many situations, showing sympathy to a criminal is a crime (being an "accessory after the fact"), while showing sympathy to an enemy soldier, for example, is in theory punishable as treason or collaboration.

I doubt the same situation holds here, but certainly bombing supporters of bin Laden is not necessarily illegal, since in war killing as such is not a crime, it is only SOME killing that is a war crime.

Please present the international convention that allows you to kill people for merely showing up for a funeral, which is really a trap.

[Elind]

Please present the international convention that allows you to kill people for merely showing up for a funeral, which is really a trap.

Humoring your linguistic games, I'd like to ask if you think trapping your enemies is against the Geneva conventions, or whatever conventions you are using today?

[CFLarsen]

Humoring your linguistic games, I'd like to ask if you think trapping your enemies is against the Geneva conventions, or whatever conventions you are using today?
The question is: How do you know they are your enemies? Does what they have done justify you bombing them?

Setting up a funeral trap like Mycroft's and then start bombing away? I'd like to see the international convention that allows that.

[Grammatron]

The question is: How do you know they are your enemies? Does what they have done justify you bombing them?

Setting up a funeral trap like Mycroft's and then start bombing away? I'd like to see the international convention that allows that.

Unless there's a international convention, national or international laws that forbid it then it is not a problem.

[CFLarsen]

Unless there's a international convention, national or international laws that forbid it then it is not a problem.

Do you understand the implications of what you just said?

[Grammatron]

Do you understand the implications of what you just said?

Do you?

[CFLarsen]

Do you?
If there is no law or convention against slavery, then it is not a problem to hold people as slaves?

If there is no law or convention against child exploitation, then it is not a problem to exploit children?

If there is no law or convention against extermination of Jews, then it is not a problem to exterminate Jews?

You want to rethink that stupid, ignorant and downright immoral remark?

[Grammatron]

If there is no law or convention against slavery, then it is not a problem to hold people as slaves?

If there is no law or convention against child exploitation, then it is not a problem to exploit children?

If there is no law or convention against extermination of Jews, then it is not a problem to exterminate Jews?

You want to rethink that stupid, ignorant and downright immoral remark?

Those are wonderful strawmen, do you build them yourself or is there a kit I can order?

[CFLarsen]

Those are wonderful strawmen, do you build them yourself or is there a kit I can order?
Oh, oh, oh...look at him scurry towards the rat hole.

Please point to the laws or international conventions that forbade the Nazis to exterminate the Jews.

If you cannot do that, then you agree that it is quite OK for the Nazis to exterminate the Jews.

[Elind]

The question is: How do you know they are your enemies? Does what they have done justify you bombing them?

Setting up a funeral trap like Mycroft's and then start bombing away? I'd like to see the international convention that allows that.

I have an uneasy feeling about this conversation:o, but I'll pretend I'm Arthur Dent.

Anyone offering sympathy and respect for Zarqawi is my enemy. OK so far?

Anyone dumb enough to attend a public funeral for him (in Iraq I presume we mean), when we appeared dumb enough to allow it, and not suspect a trap, is probably not smart enough to be a real threat. On the other hand they probably know that as much as we would like to bomb them just on principle, we probably won't because there will be innocent Al Jazeera and CNN reporters there, and some of those will be our spies taking all their pictures and DNA samples by slobbering kisses.

So, we track their cars home with eyes in the sky, accidentally drop the pictures and addresses in front of a Shiite mosque, and go work on the next trap.

See? "bombing" is a synonym for ...............

[Grammatron]

Oh, oh, oh...look at him scurry towards the rat hole.

Pardon? Is this your idea of a civil discussion?

Please point to the laws or international conventions that forbade the Nazis to exterminate the Jews.

If you cannot do that, then you agree that it is quite OK for the Nazis to exterminate the Jews.

Or I could ignore your stawman since it has nothing to do with the topic.

[CFLarsen]

I have an uneasy feeling about this conversation:o, but I'll pretend I'm Arthur Dent.

Anyone offering sympathy and respect for Zarqawi is my enemy. OK so far?

No, not OK. Not if you think that is reason enough to justify you killing them.

Anyone dumb enough to attend a public funeral for him (in Iraq I presume we mean)

Most likely, yes. Afghanistan? Also an option.

, when we appeared dumb enough to allow it, and not suspect a trap, is probably not smart enough to be a real threat. On the other hand they probably know that as much as we would like to bomb them just on principle, we probably won't because there will be innocent Al Jazeera and CNN reporters there, and some of those will be our spies taking all their pictures and DNA samples by slobbering kisses.

That is the question, is it? If they expect us to bomb indiscriminately, how can we justify that we are not terrorists ourselves?

So, we track their cars home with eyes in the sky, accidentally drop the pictures and addresses in front of a Shiite mosque, and go work on the next trap.

See? "bombing" is a synonym for ...............

Nope. We don't invent new definitions. I agree fully with the suggestion that we track down those whom we know have participated in violent actions, or are plotting in violent actions, against us. Those who merely voice their disagreement, we leave alone.

Heck, if we truly believe in freedom of speech, we would encourage them to voice their disagreement.

[CFLarsen]

Or I could ignore your stawman since it has nothing to do with the topic.
Why is it a strawman?

Is it not your contention that, if there isn't a law or international convention against something, then there are no problems doing it?

[Grammatron]

Why is it a strawman?

Is it not your contention that, if there isn't a law or international convention against something, then there are no problems doing it?
No.

Edited.

[Dr Adequate]

Actually, in many situations, showing sympathy to a criminal is a crime (being an "accessory after the fact"), while showing sympathy to an enemy soldier, for example, is in theory punishable as treason or collaboration. You're confusing sympathy with assistance.

[CFLarsen]

Why is it a strawman?

Is it not your contention that, if there isn't a law or international convention against something, then there are no problems doing it?

No.

O....K.

Perhaps you would care to explain this post of yours?

Unless there's a international convention, national or international laws that forbid it then it is not a problem.

[Grammatron]

O....K.

Perhaps you would care to explain this post of yours?

Sure, you were asking the wrong question.

[CFLarsen]

Sure, you were asking the wrong question.
What is the right question?

[Grammatron]

What is the right question?

The question I posed.

[Elind]

Those who merely voice their disagreement, we leave alone.

Good point. I'll leave you alone now.

[BPSCG]

Good point. I'll leave you alone now.I'm starting to form a hypothesis that CFL is a bot. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary?

[Elind]

I think he has a bet to win the most posts award at the restaurant at the end of the universe. (Still have The Guide on my brain).

[Dr Adequate]

Having read so much nauseating trash here, I should just like to take the opportunity to salute Huntsman for a post he made on another thread.

I have bled for the Constitution of this nation. I have spent years away from my family and friends for the Constitution of this nation. I have been up to my elbows in blood, under fire, holding an artery shut in an attempt to save a life for the Constitution of this nation. I have personally saved the life of four of our nation's enemies, defeated in battle, because I believe not only in the Constitution of this nation but also that the principles therein should be applied to all men, equally.
:usa:

And here I read our armchair generals explain how "sympathy" may be equated with treason, and how "clever" it is to bomb a funeral.

Well, when I cheered Tony Blair for pledging on 9/11, to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with the US, it was because I took that to refer to Huntsman's America, not yours. I wouldn't lift a finger nor shed a tear for your America. Why should I?

[Elind]

You distort whatever you touch. Who the hell are you to think anyone you disagree with is in disagreement with someone else, Huntsman in this case? Have you heard someone say so?

You sound and perhaps look like your avatar and no doubt there are reasons why people choose a particular one. You did well in that regard.

[Dr Adequate]

You distort whatever you touch. Who the hell are you to think anyone you disagree with is in disagreement with someone else, Huntsman in this case? It would be a stretch to say that you "distorted" what I just said. You just made up your own version out of the whole cloth, didn't you?

Has the Slag Fairy been whispering in your ear?

[Dr Adequate]

You sound and perhaps look like your avatar and no doubt there are reasons why people choose a particular one. Two words : "hot skepchicks".

[Elind]

Having read so much nauseating trash here, I should just like to take the opportunity to salute Huntsman for a post he made on another thread.


:usa:

And here I read our armchair generals explain how "sympathy" may be equated with treason, and how "clever" it is to bomb a funeral.

Well, when I cheered Tony Blair for pledging on 9/11, to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with the US, it was because I took that to refer to Huntsman's America, not yours. I wouldn't lift a finger nor shed a tear for your America. Why should I?

I'll start with the original.

You insult me by hiding behind my flag with your pretend patriotism and you insult, in my opinion, another American by using his comments (I suspect without his approval) to pretend to bolster your agenda, without the slightest slightest reasons to think that someone else has a problem with what he has said.

I asked you before, politely, to stick to your side of the fence. The reasons are obvious and your motives are clearly personal. They have no place in this debate.

[Dr Adequate]

Ah, I think I have identified your delusion.

... without the slightest slightest reasons to think that someone else has a problem with what he has said. Are you completely off your head?

You are making up insane nonsense and ascribing it to me. But it isn't coming from me. It's dribbling out of your mouth.

Dr A, that could have been put a little more politely - slap!

[Mycroft]

I haven't seen anything else than merely expressing disagreement.

Technically you haven’t seen anything at all, as the entire situation is hypothetical. However, that doesn’t change that you are dodging the question: Do you think Zarqawi’s supporters limit themselves to mere disagreement? Yes or no, please.

A funeral is a time to remember the dead, to honor them, to pay respect. There's a hell of a difference between a funeral and a dinner, Mycroft.

Yes, thank you for stating the obvious. Both a funeral and a dinner are occasions where, under normal circumstances, it would be in poor taste to interrupt them with high explosives. Tell me, in war what is it that makes bombing a dinner acceptable but bombing a funeral not?

I don't care what you meant about what I said.

Now you’re just getting confusing. I take it you have conceded that “timid” and “cautious” are synonyms and there was nothing inappropriate about my use of the word “timid”? Thank you.

Then, they are not merely supporters, but terrorists.

Thank you.

Answer the question: Is he cautious? Does he run around, baiting the US to catch him? Or is he carefully covering his tracks?

What’s with the or?! Are you claiming he cannot do both?

I didn't ask if you thought the number would be big. I asked how many innocent reporters will show up.

Since you raise the issue and since the lives of reporters seems to be important to you, I think we can have some influence over what happens to them. More, I think we could use that influence for long-term advantage.

It would be simple, I think, to set up a “media booth” where favorable media gets a good view of the funeral procession, from an elevated position that’s out of danger from the explosives. It could even be strategically placed for optimum camera angle for when the explosives occur (let’s discard the idea of dropping the bomb from the air, if we get to set the route, we can have the explosives in place ahead of time) so that the world gets to see what happens to enemies of the US on live (hehe) television. Favorable media, of course would be media more favorable to the war effort.

Non-favorable media, Al-Jazeera, the BBC, the New York Times, that commie rag from Italy, the Guardian, The Age, anything with any connection to Code Pink or International ANSWER would be invited to get the “real scoop” from an up-close and personal position. Woo-Hoo!

CNN? Well, they kinda straddle the line, they might get to choose for themselves where they stand, only without having the pun explained to them ahead of time.

Answer the questions.

You answer the questions! I’ve posed several to you so far!

What is your evidence, other than your opinion, that large numbers of innocents would be lured into this trap?

Should we not have bombed Zarqawi if we had learned a reporter was interviewing him at the moment?

If we limited attendance of the funeral to only those close to Zarqawi, would you support bombing it then?

[Dr Adequate]

Non-favorable media, Al-Jazeera, the BBC, the New York Times, that commie rag from Italy, the Guardian, The Age, anything with any connection to Code Pink or International ANSWER would be invited to get the “real scoop” from an up-close and personal position. Woo-Hoo! The BBC and the Guardian?

You are a ridiculous wannabe terrorist and an enemy to my country.

Your fantasies of bombing the free British media would be repulsive and disgusting were they not so ... so darn pathetic.

Of course the USA would not do this. The country which you pretend to speak for would not do this. The USA is a great and free republic and you are ... there are forum rules which prevent me from finishing this sentence.

[Mycroft]

The BBC and the Guardian?

You are a ridiculous wannabe terrorist and an enemy to my country.

Your fantasies of bombing the free British media would be repulsive and disgusting were they not so ... so darn pathetic.

Of course the USA would not do this. The country which you pretend to speak for would not do this. The USA is a great and free republic and you are ... there are forum rules which prevent me from finishing this sentence.

Tch. Please, let's not get personal.

I wish I could link to the post directly, but maybe we should discuss your previous offer to give us “yanks” a lesson in Sarcasm For Beginners. (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?p=1742987#post1742987)

[Dr Adequate]

Tch. Please, let's not get personal.

I wish I could link to the post directly, but maybe we should discuss your previous offer to give us “yanks” a lesson in Sarcasm For Beginners. (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?p=1742987#post1742987) Yes, let me make good on that offer.

Let me give you a lesson.

To explain "sarcasm for beginners" : "sarcasm" is not the same thing as screaming hateful insane bloodthirsty filth about people who are your nation's friends and allies.

Half a dozen British servicemen have died in Afghanistan in the past week.

Our response is to deploy more ground troops.

Explain the joke. How is it funny, except to ***** like you, to fantasise about the murder of the free British press?

[Mycroft]

Yes, let me make good on that offer.

Let me give you a lesson.

To explain "sarcasm for beginners" : "sarcasm" is not the same thing as screaming hateful insane bloodthirsty filth about people who are your nation's friends and allies.

I do not scream, and only one of us is using profanity.


Half a dozen British servicemen have died in Afghanistan in the past week.

My sincerest sympathy for your loss.


Our response is to deploy more ground troops.

A reasonable decision.


Explain the joke. How is it funny, except to ***** like you, to fantasise about the murder of the free British press?

Simple. People make jokes out of terrible things, it’s human nature. Most humor, if you think about it, is about someone’s pain, suffering or humiliation.

[a_unique_person]

Bombing funerals, Mycroft? Is there no limit to what you will do?

Terrorism?

[Dr Adequate]

I do not scream, and only one of us is using profanity. Oooh, "profanity". You skeptic you, please point out where I have taken the Lord's Name In Vain. Which of the Ten Commandments would that be?

Or redefine "profanity" as it suits you. That would be the usual technique.

Here is a sample of your bloodthirsty screams.

Non-favorable media, Al-Jazeera, the BBC, the New York Times, that commie rag from Italy, the Guardian, The Age, anything with any connection to Code Pink or International ANSWER would be invited to get the “real scoop” from an up-close and personal position. Woo-Hoo! Oh, the humor as Britons die. "Woo-Hoo!"

But no "profanity", so that's all right.

Simple. People make jokes out of terrible things, it’s human nature. Most humor, if you think about it, is about someone’s pain, suffering or humiliation. And this means that you can laugh about the murder of the British press? Very well, it's a free country --- but where is the joke? What is funny about a BBC reporter being murdered? What is funny about 7/7?

Do you know that you're screaming your nonsense about what a "joke" the murder of Britons is on the aniversary of 7/7?

I cannot find that funny.

Oh yes, we're a different nationality and we don't always agree with you. Is that a reason for you to daydream and laugh about your nation murdering our citizens in a terrorist attack? And you come out with this filth on the first aniversary of 7/7?

[Skeptic]

Please present the international convention that allows you to kill people for merely showing up for a funeral, which is really a trap.

Well, you can bomb people who show up at an army base. There is certainly no limit in the rules of war about bombing combatants, and they are forbidden to use the civilian population as shelter.

So if there is good reason to believe many enemy combatants will show up at the guy's funeral, then it could be bombed, even if some civilians are there.

[Mycroft]

Dr Adequate,

Clearly this issue has touched you beyond all expectations. You have my sympathies for your pain and loss on this anniversary, and my humble apologies for having inadvertently exacerbated your feelings.

I hope you find peace and healing.

[Dr Adequate]

Dr Adequate,

Clearly this issue has touched you beyond all expectations. You have my sympathies for your pain and loss on this anniversary, and my humble apologies for having inadvertently exacerbated your feelings.

I hope you find peace and healing. Wow, that's pathetic.

You have to pretend that there's something strange about me that I'd care about this, and then try to patronize me.

You gloated and daydreamed about the murder of Britons on the first aniversary of 7/7.

Believe me, it's not some little quirk of my personality that makes me feel sick.

[CFLarsen]

Technically you haven’t seen anything at all, as the entire situation is hypothetical. However, that doesn’t change that you are dodging the question: Do you think Zarqawi’s supporters limit themselves to mere disagreement? Yes or no, please.

Why did you leave out the part where I explain who I mean?

I haven't seen anything else than merely expressing disagreement.

And no, I am not talking about those who have committed terrorist acts. I am talking about those who merely show up voicing their disagreement.

Why do you think you can get away with a cheap trick like that? If you are going to be dishonest, at least try to conceal it a bit.

Yes, thank you for stating the obvious. Both a funeral and a dinner are occasions where, under normal circumstances, it would be in poor taste to interrupt them with high explosives. Tell me, in war what is it that makes bombing a dinner acceptable but bombing a funeral not?

A dinner is an every day event. It's just a meal. A funeral is where you honor your dead.

I am frankly not surprised that you can't see the difference. Is there no event that you wouldn't bomb? Would you bomb a maternity ward, if you knew Zarqawi was there?

Now you’re just getting confusing. I take it you have conceded that “timid” and “cautious” are synonyms and there was nothing inappropriate about my use of the word “timid”? Thank you.

Don't lie. I have not conceded anything. I said that I don't care what your interpretation is. It has no bearing on what I meant.

Thank you.

Answer the question: What about those who haven't done anything, but merely expressed disagreement? Supporters but not terrorists?

What’s with the or?! Are you claiming he cannot do both?

Answer the question: Is he cautious? Does he run around, baiting the US to catch him? Or is he carefully covering his tracks?

Since you raise the issue and since the lives of reporters seems to be important to you, I think we can have some influence over what happens to them. More, I think we could use that influence for long-term advantage.

It would be simple, I think, to set up a “media booth” where favorable media gets a good view of the funeral procession, from an elevated position that’s out of danger from the explosives. It could even be strategically placed for optimum camera angle for when the explosives occur (let’s discard the idea of dropping the bomb from the air, if we get to set the route, we can have the explosives in place ahead of time) so that the world gets to see what happens to enemies of the US on live (hehe) television. Favorable media, of course would be media more favorable to the war effort.

Non-favorable media, Al-Jazeera, the BBC, the New York Times, that commie rag from Italy, the Guardian, The Age, anything with any connection to Code Pink or International ANSWER would be invited to get the “real scoop” from an up-close and personal position. Woo-Hoo!

CNN? Well, they kinda straddle the line, they might get to choose for themselves where they stand, only without having the pun explained to them ahead of time.

I didn't ask who would come. I asked how many innocent reporters will show up. Answer the question.

You answer the questions! I’ve posed several to you so far!

You pose questions to avoid my questions. Answer the questions.

[CFLarsen]

You gloated and daydreamed about the murder of Britons on the first aniversary of 7/7.

Link?

[fishbob]

Since you raise the issue and since the lives of reporters seems to be important to you, I think we can have some influence over what happens to them. More, I think we could use that influence for long-term advantage.

It would be simple, I think, to set up a “media booth” where favorable media gets a good view of the funeral procession, from an elevated position that’s out of danger from the explosives. It could even be strategically placed for optimum camera angle for when the explosives occur (let’s discard the idea of dropping the bomb from the air, if we get to set the route, we can have the explosives in place ahead of time) so that the world gets to see what happens to enemies of the US on live (hehe) television. Favorable media, of course would be media more favorable to the war effort.

Non-favorable media, Al-Jazeera, the BBC, the New York Times, that commie rag from Italy, the Guardian, The Age, anything with any connection to Code Pink or International ANSWER would be invited to get the “real scoop” from an up-close and personal position. Woo-Hoo!

CNN? Well, they kinda straddle the line, they might get to choose for themselves where they stand, only without having the pun explained to them ahead of time.
Repugnant.
Venal and small-minded and juvenile and repugnant.
The third-in-line naked mole rat view of humanity.

[CFLarsen]

The question I posed.
And what is that?

[Skeptic]

A dinner is an every day event. It's just a meal. A funeral is where you honor your dead.

I fail to see how this is relevant for the rules of war. I don't recall "festive occassions" or "honoring someone" being off-limits while "everyday events" being legitimate targets.

If anything, morally speaking, those honoring dead like al-Zarqawi seem more, not less, legitimate targets than those just having a meal.

[Skeptic]

Repugnant.
Venal and small-minded and juvenile and repugnant.
The third-in-line naked mole rat view of humanity.

Er, I don't think Mycroft was 100% serious on this one, for some reason. Then again, I for one never understood why the death of journalists in war is so much more important and shocking than the death of say, physicians--apart from the fact that it is other journalists who report about it.

[CFLarsen]

Well, you can bomb people who show up at an army base.

We are not talking about people who show up at an army base.

There is certainly no limit in the rules of war about bombing combatants

We are not talking about combatants.

and they are forbidden to use the civilian population as shelter.

We are not talking about people who use the civilian population as shelter.

So if there is good reason to believe many enemy combatants will show up at the guy's funeral, then it could be bombed, even if some civilians are there.

Show me the international convention that allows you to kill people for merely showing up for a funeral, which is really a trap, please.

[Skeptic]

Show me the international convention that allows you to kill people for merely showing up for a funeral, which is really a trap, please.

Since you have excellent reason to believe important enemy comatants and many of them will come to the funeral, you have a legitimate target even if civilians show up--just as you can bomb a military base without first verifying that no group of civlians happens to be visiting the place at the time.

As for it being a trap, it is no more a trap than deliberately hanging around any other legitimate target is being "trapped". You'd have to be a complete idiot to not realize that going to the guy's funeral with all of the who's who leadership of the terroirsts insurgents brave anti-imperialist freedom fighters is taking a risk.

[CFLarsen]

Since you have excellent reason to believe important enemy comatants and many of them will come to the funeral, you have a legitimate target even if civilians show up--just as you can bomb a military base without first verifying that no group of civlians happens to be visiting the place at the time.

Show me the international convention that allows you to kill people for merely showing up for a funeral, which is really a trap, please.

As for it being a trap, it is no more a trap than deliberately hanging around any other legitimate target is being "trapped". You'd have to be a complete idiot to not realize that going to the guy's funeral with all of the who's who leadership of the terroirsts insurgents brave anti-imperialist freedom fighters is taking a risk.

It is far worse: Mycroft set up the funeral as a trap.

[Dr Adequate]

Link? Already given, but let's repeat it.

Non-favorable media, Al-Jazeera, the BBC, the New York Times, that commie rag from Italy, the Guardian, The Age, anything with any connection to Code Pink or International ANSWER would be invited to get the “real scoop” from an up-close and personal position. Woo-Hoo!

[Dr Adequate]

Dr A, that could have been put a little more politely - slap!
Demonstrate.

Frothing nonsense is being put into my mouth by someone I despise.

Please tell me the polite way to point this out.

I can't think of any way to refute Elind's nonsense that doesn't involve pointing out (a) that I never said that (hence, he is a liar) and (b) that it is impossible for him to convince anyone that I said that (hence, he is a stupid liar).

And I have asked the mods this question again and again : I know that it is impolite to call someone a stupid liar. But what else can I do if someone bases his case on telling stupid lies about me?

One way or another, I'm going to have to point it out.

[Dr Adequate]

Er, I don't think Mycroft was 100% serious on this one, for some reason. That's what I thought when I first saw this thread.

Having read it through ...

... bletch.

[fishbob]

Er, I don't think Mycroft was 100% serious on this one, for some reason. Then again, I for one never understood why the death of journalists in war is so much more important and shocking than the death of say, physicians--apart from the fact that it is other journalists who report about it.
1 - Fooled me.
2 - Where did you get that idea?
Paraphrasing - 'lets trap and blow us up some journalists we don't like' does not in any way translate into 'death of journalists more important than the death of physicians'.

[Mycroft]

Why did you leave out the part where I explain who I mean?

Because it doesn’t alter the meaning of the words. You seem to be talking about a hypothetical event as though it were something that already happened.


Why do you think you can get away with a cheap trick like that? If you are going to be dishonest, at least try to conceal it a bit.

I don’t know what you mean by “cheap trick”, I assert that Zarqawi’s supporters do not limit themselves to merely “expressing disagreement.”


A dinner is an every day event. It's just a meal. A funeral is where you honor your dead.

So?

All you do is describe the events. You don’t give any reason why it’s okay to bomb one but not the other.

A dinner is an every day event…? Does that mean I can’t bomb someone getting a haircut? That’s not an every day event. The truth is any bombing mission stands a good chance of interrupting some sacrament or another, the question is what international law or moral principle says that can’t be done. Do you have an answer?


I am frankly not surprised that you can't see the difference. Is there no event that you wouldn't bomb? Would you bomb a maternity ward, if you knew Zarqawi was there?

Who would keep dead people in a maternity ward?


Don't lie. I have not conceded anything. I said that I don't care what your interpretation is. It has no bearing on what I meant.

So you disagree that “timid” and “cautious” are synonyms, despite the evidence I provided. What kind of skeptic are you if you disregard evidence so cavalierly?


Answer the question: What about those who haven't done anything, but merely expressed disagreement? Supporters but not terrorists?

How many will be there?


Answer the question: Is he cautious? Does he run around, baiting the US to catch him? Or is he carefully covering his tracks?

What’s with the or?! Are you claiming he cannot do both?


I didn't ask who would come. I asked how many innocent reporters will show up. Answer the question.

Let’s make it by invitation only.


You pose questions to avoid my questions. Answer the questions.

If that were my strategy, you could defeat it easily by answering my questions and leaving me nothing left to hide behind!

Again:

What is your evidence, other than your opinion, that large numbers of innocents would be lured into this trap?

Should we not have bombed Zarqawi if we had learned a reporter was interviewing him at the moment?

If we limited attendance of the funeral to only those close to Zarqawi, would you support bombing it then?

[Dr Adequate]

Mycroft --- don't you think you've exposed yourself enough?

Remember, each answer you give just bumps this thread.

[CFLarsen]

Because it doesn’t alter the meaning of the words. You seem to be talking about a hypothetical event as though it were something that already happened.

It most certainly alters the meaning of the words. You left out the part where I specifically point out that I am talking about those who only voice their disagreement, and then go on to ask me if I think Zarqawi’s supporters limit themselves to mere disagreement.

I am talking about those, who only voice their disagreement with you. Nothing else. Do you understand that? If you do, could you answer the question: What right do you have to bomb people who only voice their disagreement with you?

I don’t know what you mean by “cheap trick”, I assert that Zarqawi’s supporters do not limit themselves to merely “expressing disagreement.”

Zarqawi does not have a single supporter who isn't actively engaged in terrorist activity? Are you serious? :dl:

So?

All you do is describe the events. You don’t give any reason why it’s okay to bomb one but not the other.

A dinner is an every day event…? Does that mean I can’t bomb someone getting a haircut? That’s not an every day event.

You know perfectly well what I mean by every day event.

The truth is any bombing mission stands a good chance of interrupting some sacrament or another, the question is what international law or moral principle says that can’t be done. Do you have an answer?

What international law or moral principle allows you to set up a funeral as a trap and then bomb those who show up?

Who would keep dead people in a maternity ward?

Stop playing games. If Zarqawi was still alive, and in a maternity ward. Would you bomb him then?

How many will be there?

You decide. It's your trap, remember?

What’s with the or?! Are you claiming he cannot do both?

OK, you don't want to answer the question.

Let’s make it by invitation only.

Very well: How many innocent reporters will you invite to be slaughtered by you? Give me a number.

[fuelair]

Uh, if Iam reading this aright, there are some questions operating as what international rulles allow X. I believe the relevant rules tend toward not allowing Y and therefore those asking should likely be asking what international rules do not allow Y (or X). As to the actual event/suggestions, I have already given mine and have not remotely changed them as I "do not like" terrorists, their followers,supporters, butt buddies, apologists, suppliers, glamorizers etc. and have no interest in their lives beyond their ending.

[fishbob]

Uh, if Iam reading this aright, there are some questions operating as what international rulles allow X. I believe the relevant rules tend toward not allowing Y and therefore those asking should likely be asking what international rules do not allow Y (or X). As to the actual event/suggestions, I have already given mine and have not remotely changed them as I "do not like" terrorists, their followers,supporters, butt buddies, apologists, suppliers, glamorizers etc. and have no interest in their lives beyond their ending.
Go to a foreign country. Pick a guy at random within the potential blast radius. Identify him with certainty as a terrorist, follower, supporter, butt buddy, apologist, supplier, or glamorizer.
Can you? Do you blow him up anyway? If so, how are you any different than the terrorist? If not, are you not just blowing hot air?

[Mycroft]

It most certainly alters the meaning of the words. You left out the part where I specifically point out that I am talking about those who only voice their disagreement, and then go on to ask me if I think Zarqawi’s supporters limit themselves to mere disagreement.

So to be clear, you’re describing a very specific target demographic of people who:

1) Supported Zarqawi in his efforts to murder innocent Iraqis, including people during services and children attending school.

2) Yet who don’t feel so strongly about the issue they are willing to do anything about it, nor will they support or give aid to anyone else doing anything about it…

3) Yet they do feel strongly enough about it that they’re willing to go out of their way to attend Zarqawi's funeral to show their respect while publically outing themselves as Zarqawi supporters?

I think once you apply all these qualifiers, your target demographic becomes vanishingly small. How many people fitting this description do you think there will be?


I am talking about those, who only voice their disagreement with you. Nothing else. Do you understand that? If you do, could you answer the question: What right do you have to bomb people who only voice their disagreement with you?

This is a straw-man. I’m not advocating for the right to bomb people merely because they disagree with me. This is shockingly dishonest of you as we have already been over this. Remember the example I cited of the Berkley protest? Enjoy the scent of patchouli for a while, then move along…


Zarqawi does not have a single supporter who isn't actively engaged in terrorist activity? Are you serious?

I never said any such thing. Did you think you could get away with claiming I did?


You know perfectly well what I mean by every day event.

It’s an event that happens every day, right? What else could it mean?


What international law or moral principle allows you to set up a funeral as a trap and then bomb those who show up?

No, no, no…you don’t get to get away with that. In law what is not forbidden is permissible. If you assert that bombing a funeral is against international law, it’s up to you to show what international law is violated.


Stop playing games. If Zarqawi was still alive, and in a maternity ward. Would you bomb him then?

If Zarqawi were alive, that would be quite a miracle after the bombing he took. In such a scenario, it would be in our best interests to capture him for scientific study.


OK, you don't want to answer the question.

Actually, I have answered the question by asserting that those two things are not mutually exclusive.


Very well: How many innocent reporters will you invite to be slaughtered by you? Give me a number.

Well, since it seems to be a factor under our control, let’s make it zero. Now will you answer my questions?

Again:

What is your evidence, other than your opinion, that large numbers of innocents would be lured into this trap?

Should we not have bombed Zarqawi if we had learned a reporter was interviewing him at the moment?

If we limited attendance of the funeral to only those close to Zarqawi, would you support bombing it then?

Have you finally conceded that “timid” and “cautious” are synonyms?


Edited for syntax.

[CFLarsen]

So to be clear, you’re describing a very specific target demographic of people who:

1) Supported Zarqawi in his efforts to murder innocent Iraqis, including people during services and children attending school.

2) Yet who don’t feel so strongly about the issue they are willing to do anything about it, nor will they support or give aid to anyone else doing anything about it…

3) Yet they do feel strongly enough about it that they’re willing to go out of their way to attend Zarqawi's funeral to show their respect while publically outing themselves as Zarqawi supporters?

I think once you apply all these qualifiers, your target demographic becomes vanishingly small. How many people fitting this description do you think there will be?

There will be hundreds, of course. If not thousands. This is The Man. The Big Guy. The One Who Defied The Great Satan. You bet there will be a lot of people.

This is a straw-man. I’m not advocating for the right to bomb people merely because they disagree with me. This is shockingly dishonest of you as we have already been over this. Remember the example I cited of the Berkley protest? Enjoy the scent of patchouli for a while, then move along…

It is simply impossible that no innocent people will show up at your funeral-trap. Somebody innocent will get killed. Likewise is it impossible that no supporter-but-only-in-opinion will show up. They will also get killed.

What right do you have to bomb people who only voice their disagreement with you?

I never said any such thing. Did you think you could get away with claiming I did?

Hey, if I misunderstood you, fine with me: You do, then, acknowledge that Zarqawi has supporters who are not actively engaged in terrorist activity. But not one of these will show up at the funeral? That's simply not credible.

No, no, no…you don’t get to get away with that. In law what is not forbidden is permissible. If you assert that bombing a funeral is against international law, it’s up to you to show what international law is violated.

You are the one claiming that it is OK to set up a trap like this. You point to what gives you the right. The onus is on the claimant.

If Zarqawi were alive, that would be quite a miracle after the bombing he took. In such a scenario, it would be in our best interests to capture him for scientific study.

So, you would not bomb a maternity ward. How about if he were in a market place? You know there are lots of innocents there.

Actually, I have answered the question by asserting that those two things are not mutually exclusive.

Of course it isn't. Either OBL is cautious or he is not.

Well, since it seems to be a factor under our control, let’s make it zero.

How will you do that? Set up a trap and invite those who want to come, but exclude the media? Don't you think there will be some reporters sneaking in? Ever heard of investigative journalism?

[Mycroft]

There will be hundreds, of course. If not thousands. This is The Man. The Big Guy. The One Who Defied The Great Satan. You bet there will be a lot of people.

Your opinion, and one you have failed to provide evidence of.


It is simply impossible that no innocent people will show up at your funeral-trap. Somebody innocent will get killed. Likewise is it impossible that no supporter-but-only-in-opinion will show up. They will also get killed.

Where is your evidence?


What right do you have to bomb people who only voice their disagreement with you?

I have not said I claim that right.


Hey, if I misunderstood you, fine with me: You do, then, acknowledge that Zarqawi has supporters who are not actively engaged in terrorist activity. But not one of these will show up at the funeral? That's simply not credible.

That is an assertion. Kindly provide evidence of yoru assertion.


You are the one claiming that it is OK to set up a trap like this. You point to what gives you the right. The onus is on the claimant.

My only claim was to propose a good use for the body, you’re the one who objects to the use I would put it to. If part of your objection is the claim that my plan violates international law, then it’s up to you to demonstrate so.


So, you would not bomb a maternity ward. How about if he were in a market place? You know there are lots of innocents there.

I didn’t say I wouldn’t bomb a maternity ward, I said our best course of action (in those circumstances) was to capture Zarqawi for scientific study.


Of course it isn't. Either OBL is cautious or he is not.

The we must conclude, given his very dangerous choice of career, he is not cautious.


How will you do that? Set up a trap and invite those who want to come, but exclude the media? Don't you think there will be some reporters sneaking in? Ever heard of investigative journalism?

If we take steps to exclude journalists, then we cannot take responsibility for what happens with journalists who evade our measures. Investigative journalism in a war is dangerous, I’m sure they understand that.

Now, deleting my questions does not make them go away:

What is your evidence, other than your opinion, that large numbers of innocents would be lured into this trap?

Should we not have bombed Zarqawi if we had learned a reporter was interviewing him at the moment?

If we limited attendance of the funeral to only those close to Zarqawi, would you support bombing it then?

Have you finally conceded that “timid” and “cautious” are synonyms?

By what evidence do you conclude bombing a funeral is against international law?

[CFLarsen]

Your opinion, and one you have failed to provide evidence of.

????

You are the one arguing that we have someone who is so famous that he will draw people to his funeral.

Now, he won't?

Where is your evidence?

If you can control who is innocent, you don't need to set up a trap. You already know who you are looking for.

I have not said I claim that right.

By dropping bombs on people, you have claimed that right. If you reject this, then you are simply bombing away, without assuming responsibility for your actions.

That is an assertion. Kindly provide evidence of yoru assertion.

Again, you are the one arguing that we have someone who is so famous that he will draw people to his funeral.

My only claim was to propose a good use for the body, you’re the one who objects to the use I would put it to. If part of your objection is the claim that my plan violates international law, then it’s up to you to demonstrate so.

Nope. You have to take responsibility for your actions. You are the one dropping bombs on people. It is not up to others to prove you wrong.

I didn’t say I wouldn’t bomb a maternity ward, I said our best course of action (in those circumstances) was to capture Zarqawi for scientific study.

Would you bomb a maternity ward?

The we must conclude, given his very dangerous choice of career, he is not cautious.

Please explain why he hasn't been caught, then.

If we take steps to exclude journalists, then we cannot take responsibility for what happens with journalists who evade our measures. Investigative journalism in a war is dangerous, I’m sure they understand that.

But if you accept that you can't control who attend, then you can't control that innocents won't attend.

In the end, you will bomb innocent people at a funeral you set up as a trap, to get Zarqawi.

[Mycroft]

????

You are the one arguing that we have someone who is so famous that he will draw people to his funeral.

Not someone, Zarqawi.

Not people, but jihadists and supporters of jihadists.

Please refrain from the dishonesty of altering what it is that I argue.

Now please provide evidence that there would be hundreds, if not thousands, of “innocent” people in attendance who don’t feel strong enough about their beliefs that they would be a jihadist or render aid to a jihadist, but who do feel strong enough about these beliefs that they would go out of their way to attend a possibly dangerous funeral where they would publicly display their respect and affection for Zarqawi while publicly outing themselves as his supporters.


If you can control who is innocent, you don't need to set up a trap. You already know who you are looking for.

This is a non-sequitur. To remind you what that means, it is a statement that is out of place and doesn’t logically follow from anything that I have said. I had asked you to provide evidence of your views, and once again you have failed.


By dropping bombs on people, you have claimed that right. If you reject this, then you are simply bombing away, without assuming responsibility for your actions.

No, I am very specific on who I propose to drop bombs on.


Again, you are the one arguing that we have someone who is so famous that he will draw people to his funeral.

Again you have failed to provide evidence when asked.


Nope. You have to take responsibility for your actions. You are the one dropping bombs on people. It is not up to others to prove you wrong.

That makes no sense. You are claiming I am wrong, so prove it. How am I wrong?


Would you bomb a maternity ward?

In general no. There would have to be a very good reason to do so.


Please explain why he hasn't been caught, then.

If I did, it would not change his not-cautious behavior.


But if you accept that you can't control who attend, then you can't control that innocents won't attend.

I never claimed to control that.


In the end, you will bomb innocent people at a funeral you set up as a trap, to get Zarqawi.

No, you haven’t been paying attention! Zarqawi is already dead! We don’t need to get him!

And of course, once again, the growing list of questions you are dodging:

What is your evidence, other than your opinion, that large numbers of innocents would be lured into this trap?

Should we not have bombed Zarqawi if we had learned a reporter was interviewing him at the moment?

If we limited attendance of the funeral to only those close to Zarqawi, would you support bombing it then?

Have you finally conceded that “timid” and “cautious” are synonyms?

By what evidence do you conclude bombing a funeral is against international law?

[CFLarsen]

This leads nowhere.

[fishbob]

Mycroft - please recall the infamous "Bring 'em on" quote, and carefully consider just how well boldness has worked so far. That complete lack of competence thing just keeps throwing monkey wrenches into the propaganda catapult.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/
timid
adj 1: showing fear and lack of confidence [ant: bold] 2: contemptibly timid 3: lacking self-confidence; "stood in the doorway diffident and abashed"; "problems that call for bold not timid responses"; "a very unsure young man" [syn: diffident, shy, unsure] 4: lacking conviction or boldness or courage; "faint heart ne'er won fair lady" [syn: faint, fainthearted] n : people who are fearful and cautious; "whitewater rafting is not for the timid" [syn: cautious] [ant: brave]

cautious
adj 1: showing careful forethought; "reserved and cautious; never making swift decisions"; "a cautious driver" [ant: incautious] 2: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate" [syn: conservative] 3: cautious in attitude and careful in actions; prudent; "a cautious answer"; "very cautious about believing everything she was told" 4: unwilling to take risks n : people who are fearful and cautious; "whitewater rafting is not for the timid" [syn: timid] [ant: brave]

[Mycroft]

This leads nowhere.

Try answering some of the questions put to you:

What is your evidence, other than your opinion, that large numbers of innocents would be lured into this trap?

Should we not have bombed Zarqawi if we had learned a reporter was interviewing him at the moment?

If we limited attendance of the funeral to only those close to Zarqawi, would you support bombing it then?

Have you finally conceded that “timid” and “cautious” are synonyms?

By what evidence do you conclude bombing a funeral is against international law?

[Mycroft]

Mycroft - please recall the infamous "Bring 'em on" quote, and carefully consider just how well boldness has worked so far. That complete lack of competence thing just keeps throwing monkey wrenches into the propaganda catapult.

I agree with you in that I don't like Bush Jr. very much.



From http://dictionary.reference.com/

timid
adj 1: showing fear and lack of confidence [ant: bold] 2: contemptibly timid 3: lacking self-confidence; "stood in the doorway diffident and abashed"; "problems that call for bold not timid responses"; "a very unsure young man" [syn: diffident, shy, unsure] 4: lacking conviction or boldness or courage; "faint heart ne'er won fair lady" [syn: faint, fainthearted] n : people who are fearful and cautious; "whitewater rafting is not for the timid" [syn: cautious] [ant: brave]

cautious
adj 1: showing careful forethought; "reserved and cautious; never making swift decisions"; "a cautious driver" [ant: incautious] 2: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate" [syn: conservative] 3: cautious in attitude and careful in actions; prudent; "a cautious answer"; "very cautious about believing everything she was told" 4: unwilling to take risks n : people who are fearful and cautious; "whitewater rafting is not for the timid" [syn: timid] [ant: brave]


Thank you for the evidence supporting one of my many points.

[fishbob]

I kind of like the idea of prudence and careful forethought.

I was previously unfamiliar with definitions that synonomize caution and timidity.

[luchog]

This leads nowhere.Try answering some of the questions put to you:
You're asking Claus to actually answer a difficult question?
:dl:
And while you're at it, why don't you ask John Edwards to scientifically prove that he can channel the ghost of bigfoot to predict the future.

[E.J.Armstrong]

What you are suggesting is to lay a trap for "jihadists" so you can bomb them. But you don't warn the innocent people whom you know will also be there. Is that really worth it to you?

Good question.

[E.J.Armstrong]

[QUOTE=Mycroft;1741065]

I’m all for minimizing the loss of innocent life, but dare we allow that stop us entirely? Sometimes an innocent person will get caught in the crossfire, but at the same time, innocent people shouldn’t be hanging around these people.

[QUOTE]

How does a seven year old stop being taken to a funeral by his mother? Indifference to the lives of the innocent is what characterises Mycroft's attitude and yet I have never heard him claim that is completely appropriate for the same activities to be carried out in the USA. That is the mark of his hypocrisy and his blood curdling inhumantity.