Jesus. That beamer got ripped.

Awesome photos. I hope you get home safe.

And... you know... thanks and stuff for kicking some ***.

TSM_Bguitar, many of the insurgents have arrived from across the border in Syria and perhaps even Saudi Arabia. Heck some of the former Iraqi insurgents who're mostly just pissed that there are foreigners in their country are tentatively agreeing to help the Americans kick out the Al Qaida sympathisers because Al Zarqawi and co are killing Iraqis indiscriminately!

Anyway, keep safe Snoop, no more purple hearts, okay? :p

Speaking of blanket statements...


Speaking of blanket statements...


They support the terrorist movement by fighting for their side. What I said was--they are either directly or indirectly supporting the terrorists. Thus making them plausible enemies.

In reply to Yoshi:

As for the first quote, do you really believe that they are doing it just for the hell of it? or that they believe that what they are doing is right and that they have a good reason?

as for the second reply, my quote was:



now I'm having a hard time seeing how this is a blanket statement as you are suggesting with your reply. Me saying "not everyone..." in the first place is actually countering a blanket statement.

A blanket statement would be something like "Everyone believes..." or "Every Iraqi..."

My above statement is quite true, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.




It's not just one big group against us, there are many factions actually. So this isn't true. They're not necessairly fighting for the terrorists but fighting against us. Maybe they are indeed indirectly supporting them by creating instability, but one could argue that the US created instability by..oh I dont know, invading Iraq and damaging much of its infrastructure.

We fight many factions in Iraq, hell just a week or so ago we had a battle with the Iraqi Army.. which we created..



yet many are Iraqis

I never said they don't believe in their cause. That doesn't mean it's a just cause.


You don't have any proof to support this statement. None. At all. Meaning you're making a generalization to escape the burden of proof.


I know. I never said it was one big group. Insurgents is the group in question, not some terrorist organization.


1) Isn't that exactly what I said? They're indirectly, or directly helping the terrorist cause.

2) We caused momentary instability. What we're building now is far more stable. Don't start on me about "moral relativity" and the implications of pushing democracy on Iraq because I really don't care. It wasn't my decision, it's not what I would have done, I wouldn't have gone to war in the FIRST place, but it's definitely been handled well, all things considered.


Okay, and? They're still supporting the terrorist cause, one way or another. They're still our enemy because they're standing in front of us on our way to get to the enemy. It's the same thing as standing in the way of a federal investigation by not giving information is a felony.

I think they're just in it for the Virgens.

Edit: Oh another pages. And a flame war. I like the pictures better.

VirgIns. With an I.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]I never said they don't believe in their cause. That doesn't mean it's a just cause.[/quote]

I never said it was just, I was simply replying to you saying that "they have no good reason" for doing what they're doing, and not everyone believes that your statement is true




you must have misread what I said. The quote of mine in question is :



so you claim I have no proof that not all people believed that what we did was an alturistic move to free Iraq?

Refer to the guiness book of world records and you'll see that the largest protest ever to take place was in protest to the Iraq war. Those people probably didn't believe that we were making an alturistic move there, and I have a feeling you've met some people who don't believe that.

I don't understand what you're trying to say when claiming I have no proof? Do you need to look up altruism or something?

I don't see what generalization I'm making here, I'm confused, please explain





exactly




please tell me you're not using the whole "you're either with us or against us" attitude. Most intelligent people know that life just isn't as simple as that



I agree that we shouldn't have gone in the first place




Just because someone is an enemy of the United States doesn't make them a terrorist.

If they only attack US military targets for example (as certain groups of Iraqi insurgents) then that is not, by definition, terrorism.

The only points worth addressing.

1) Life isn't as simple as that. War is.

2) No, but when someone attacks US troops, especially during war, they're going to be killed and thusly DESERVE to be killed. At some point instinct has to kick in--self preservation.

3) I never said they were terrorists--just that they're HELPING the terrorists who created this mess in the first place.

Well I'm not saying that the US shouldn't go after people attacking them, of course they should. Thats part of war, if you attack any countries military, expect retaliation.



no it's not, every war is rooted deep in history and has various reasons for it and many many factions/interests. It's not always black and white, look at WW2 for instance, when you quickly think of it you think "oh good vs evil" yet it gave rise to.. the cold war imediatly afterward.



well one could argue that the US created the mess by invading, Im sure you wouldn't disagree too much since you believe that people can be indirectly involved in things and that we shouldn't have gone to war.

But I don't think we should go too much into that



I was hoping you'd clear up what I was confused about earlier, but that's okay

Which was wrapped up in a matter of days





Which all gets flushed down the crapper when you get out on the line and are fighting. No one gives a flying **** about the deep rooted cultural reasons and history when there is someone pointing a gun at you, trying to kill you. Ask any veteran, and they will tell you that it becomes "Him or me", thus making it about survival.





Anyone who can't see that is stupid. However, sometimes things have to get dirty before they get better.

well of course, but to decide to fight, one has to have some sort of beliefs or reasoning.

Of course while you're actually fighting it's different as you stated



What was wrapped up? we're still fighitng to this day



true, but when one could say that there was no good reason for them to get dirty in the first place.. then theres room for debate

Maybe if you're signing up to go fight when there is a war on, say like when people volunteered during WWII, but that's not going to be the case when you're in the Military when there is now war going on. People join for various reasons, and they fight when they are told to fight. You could probably apply what you said to people who are signing up now, though, knowing that there is a very good chance that they will be deployed.





Yes, but we aren't fighting an army. The fighting with the Iraqi military was over very quickly.





There's always going to be a debate there.

That's more of a technical distinction than anything else. Except the people we're fighting now are a much higher percentage of people who genuinely want to. :p

Yeah, but there's a huge difference between fighting an army that wears uiforms and uses military tactics.

you guys really need to stop ****storming on this thread. this debate should be taken elsewhere.

i'm glad to see you're still hanging in, snoop. best of luck!

[QUOTE=Blood Asp]you guys really need to stop ****storming on this thread. this debate should be taken elsewhere.

i'm glad to see you're still hanging in, snoop. best of luck![/QUOTE]
Get your panties out of a twist. Honestly.

[QUOTE=Blood Asp]you guys really need to stop ****storming on this thread. this debate should be taken elsewhere.

i'm glad to see you're still hanging in, snoop. best of luck![/QUOTE]

In a thread dealing with Iraq, it shouldn't be a supprise to anyone that a small debate emerges. It comes with the territory, sorry

And this one has be extremely civil thus far.

the last pic in my last post, the attached image was the SF guy, he is a couple trailers down from me where i live on my base. there are 4 of them, i have no idea what they are doing here with a line unit but they volunteer to go out on patrol with us since my section is a little short due to soldiers taking leave. They are the most down to earth modest guys in the world... he was an E-8 Master Sergeant but he's like whats up man... and is cool as hell which almost makes them more intimidating... As far as this argument goes, insurgents are terrorists, civilian casulaties along with US troops and their lack of distinction on who they attack proves they are terrorists.

If my memory serves me right, didn't Snoop already get one?

Hence "no more". :p