Iraqi teens bludgeon to death U.S. soldiers

In Mosul, Iraq yeterday, teenagers dragged two bloodied U.S. soldiers from a wrecked vehicle and pummled them to death with concrete blocks.

I have been distressed about the increasing death toll of Americans in Iraq. But it has been more on the intellectual level. It's thousands of miles away, and I don't know any of the deceased. However, this latest act of violence had a much more visceral effect on me. It sickend me, to imagine myself being pulled from a car wreck and then beaten to death.

I think conservatives in power in this country are out to prove they have the biggest cocks, and can piss farther than anyone else in the world. In the very male-centric arab cultures a defeat in war is a direct affront to their manhood. That's why they react so violently.

>I think conservatives in power in this country are out to

>prove they have the biggest cocks, and can piss farther than

>anyone else in the world. In the very male-centric arab

>cultures a defeat in war is a direct affront to their manhood.

Really? I heard from other Bush-haters that the war was because of oil, or because the President had to prove things to his daddy, or because the economy is bad and conservatives wanted a distraction from it, or because they wanted to get work for Halliburton, or because conseravatives are fascists and want an excuse to build conentration camps and impose tyranny.

So, after all, the reason for the war is because conservatives weant to prove they have big dicks and can piss far? Thanks for clearing that up. You should tell your ideological brethern so they'll stop claiming it's for all of those other reasons.

It goes without saying, of course, that the war has nothing at all to do with 9/11, or the fact that our country and our civilization are at war with Islamic fundamentalists, or that Saddam (perish the thought) would develop WMDs and use them like he did before, or that the U.S. percevied it was in their interest to have a democracy smack dab in the Middle East, or anything like that. None of that had anything to do with it. It was all because they wanted to prove what big cocks they had. You must be a historian.

>That's why they react so violently.

Really? So the reason that Baathist guerilla fighters are waging war on the Americans is because they see the war an affront to their manhood? Fascinating. I thought it had to do with the fact that the Baathists and Sunnis had enormous privileges under Saddam's regime, and they're mad that they lost those and want to get them back. Thanks for clearing that up.

<----CONSERVATIVE

}(

I thought you were a liberal. A liberal can have a big cock without a compulsion to fuck everyone in the ass with it, unlike a conservative.

Of course, if we're not talking about politics I say "fuck away"!

Also, a conservative might think he has the biggest cock, when reality doesn't match his fantasy.

that's the most ridiculous piece of shit i've heard here in a while!

It's no more ridiculous than arguing politics.

>It's no more ridiculous than arguing politics.

Then why did you come here and do it, moron?

And you're absolutely right - having discussions about things such as war and terrorism and the economy and social freedoms is totally ridiculous and stupid. Instead, we should follow your lead and all be constructive, non-ridiculous adults by confining our discussions to cock size and ass licking and gooing over 19-year-old hookers.

You call it having a discussion when you are constantly bludgeoning people with your opinion? Just because we're discussing politics doesn't mean we can't have a laugh. Life's a bitch and then you die! Get over it.

And yes it is ridiculous to argue politics, especially with someone like you. It's like pissing in the wind.

>You call it having a discussion when you are constantly

>bludgeoning people with your opinion?

If you feel "bludgeoned," it's probably a sign that you're convinced by what I'm saying but can't accept that you've become convinced. The fighting against that recognition makes you feel like you are at war and are being bludgeoned.

>Just because we're

>discussing politics doesn't mean we can't have a laugh.

True, but in order to have a laugh, you have to say something funny. Nothing you've said qualifies even remotely - and any objective reading of your first post makes painfully clear that the idiocy you spewed about the war was not intended to be humorous. You're just embarrassed now by how dumb it is and are consequently trying to cover that up by claiming you were just kidding. That's the opposite of funny.

> Life's

>a bitch and then you die! Get over it.

Oh, look - a teenage cliche followed by a campy, faggy platitude.

>And yes it is ridiculous to argue politics, especially with

>someone like you. It's like pissing in the wind.

3 cliches in 4 sentences - not bad.

If you feel like you are covered in urine once you express your "political views," you may want to look inward for the cause of that, rather than blaming others.

You obviuosly missed the point of the cliche, which was referring to the futility of arguing with you. The only thing I want to avoid getting covered with is the crap that comes out of your head.

You might want to make sure you have plenty of vaseline to put on your lips. They must be hurting from wearing the condescending smile all conservatives have when arguing politics.

Can we please get one thing straight here:

The Iraq war has NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Even the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State and the Defense Secretary have all said over the last 8 or 9 months that there is no link between invading Iraq and 9/11.

It doesn't stop 70% of Americans believing that there is a connection, according to some opinion polls.

But the leaders who would have most to gain from making that connection - Bush, Cheney, Powel and Rumsfeld - have all said that there is no such connection.

Now back to your normal program.

>Can we please get one thing straight here:

>

>The Iraq war has NOTHING to do with 9/11.

That's just your opinion - stop stating it as though it's some sort of mathematically verifiable fact.

The Bush Administration never claimed that the Iraqi Government participated in the planning or implementation of the 9/11 attacks, so why you and your cohorts endlessly shriek about how they've now "admitted" that they have no evidence proving such an involvement is a complete mystery.

Get this through your fucking head, please: The fact that the Iraqi Government didn't participate in the 9/11 attacks is not the same thing as saying that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

In case you haven't heard, what gave rise to 9/11 and the long string of attacks before that was the existence of a virulent strain of anti-Western Islamic fundamentalist militancy in the Middle East. Thus, ANY ACTION that is designed to lessen or eliminate that militancy and/or make it more difficult to function - such as, say, freeing 25 million Muslims from a unimaginably brutal dictatorship and establishing democratic rule in its place - has to do with 9/11. Get it now?

I'll do it one more time: Proving that the Iraq Government did not plan the 9/11 attacks is NOT THE SAME as proving that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. You can still claim that the war in Iraq is unrelated to 9/11, but you have to do a lot more than simply show that the Iraqi Government didn't plan those attacks.

This is a really simple point. I have faith in your ability to digest it if you work really hard.

"I have faith in your ability to digest it"

Most of your stuff comes pre-digested anyway!

more fucking ridiculous nonsense vitriol directed against conservatives.

Doug is correct, of course. The war in Iraq has a lot to do with 9/11. The neocons, particularly Dick Cheney and Rummy, had already decided to invade Iraq prior to 9/11. The attack on the WTC gave them just the excuse they needed to carry out their plans.

The Bush administration has failed to bring Osama bin laden to justice. The war in Iraq was designed to distract us from that. It also provided Bush with the opportunity to get revenge for Daddy as well as provide funds for the Halliburton Corporation amongst other things Doug as already mentioned.

Doug is also correct when he says that the Administration has never claimed a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. However, they have used every opportunity to link the imagery of 9/11 to Saddam. They never come out and say it, but such phrases as "learning the lessons of 9/11" have been used in conjunction with Saddam and Iraq. It has been subtle and indirect, but it has definitely been there.

Oh, God... I hope no matter where your sympathies lie, that every reader on this board tonight will take a moment to reflect on the lives lost.

These men (and women) are pawns in a game... both the US soldiers and the Iraqi teens.

May God have mercy on us all...

Trix

Regardless of all the replies you have gotten about your opinions on conservatives and their cocks, it doesn't change the truthfulness of your observation on this incident.

I agree, that so far, it is the most disturbing report on an American soldier's death in this fiasco going on in Iraq. If this report on the gruesome brutality committed against young American men and women, doesn't sicken Americans and cause them to question our presence in Iraq, then God help us, nothing will.

American resentment against the rising death toll of American soldiers and the brutality they suffer in those deaths is increasing every day. The morale of our soldiers in Iraq and their doubts/resentment at being there is also increasing daily.

This is no surprise to me, as I believe I stated such, way back in May when all the debate was going on here on the mc board about whether we should attack Iraq and what would be the aftermath of an expected swift victory in overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

Do I feel vindicated in having my opinion from then validated? Hell no, I just feel a deep sadness, that our young men and women are dying horrible deaths for the questionable goals of the current administration.

I look at the pictures of all the dead soldiers, and the details of when and how they died as reported every month in the Washington Post, and read all the stories in the Post about all the funerals at Arlington National Cemetery and grieve for the family of those soldiers who have nothing left of their loved ones but a cheap metallic medal and a granite tombstone lost in a sea of granite tombstones that is so far away from their homes that they can not even visit and grieve their loss.

To all those who argue for our presence in Iraq, for whatever reason, I only ask that you put yourselves in the place of these two young men. Ask yourselves what they were thinking and feeling after being shot and then pulled out of their vehicle, having their throats slashed and looking up at a crazed mob of people holding cinder blocks in preparation of having their brains smashed out. Do you think they were thinking about dying for their country for a less than noble cause, or do you think their last thoughts were of their loved ones and asking God for mercy?

>The morale of our soldiers in Iraq and

>their doubts/resentment at being there is also increasing

>daily.

i'm not picking a fight with you, but... how do YOU KNOW that? did you go over & chat with them?

>To all those who argue for our presence in Iraq, for whatever

>reason, I only ask that you put yourselves in the place of

>these two young men.

it is horrible that they suffered and died as they did. but let's don't forget that any one of COULD put ourself in that position. we have an all-volunteer army. no one was forced to enlist. i'm NOT saying they deserved it, but, be honest: if you don't consider that there just might be danger when you enlist, you weren't thinking at all.

>Do you think they were

>thinking about dying for their country for a less than noble

>cause

how do you know those two dead men didn't think the cause is noble? did you ask either?

i don't disagree that the events were tragic, but... i think you're reaching a bit when you extend that tragedy to make a political statement. they deserve better.

I don't know why I bother responding to someone who is obviously deaf, dumb, blind AND stupid - but here goes:

1. I never said that the lack of connection was some grave and recent admission. The US Administration has consistently said there is no connection.

2. For once, this is one issue where I believe the US Administration. If there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, they would be the first to proclaim the fact. They've never said there was one, before or after the Iraq war.

3. It's not my "opinion" that there is no connection: it's the expressed view of the people who would know, namely the President of the United States and his senior administration.

4. Despite that, an extraordinary number of Americans believe there is a connection. It seems you're one of them.

5. In the face of denials from the US Administration of any connection, I'd respectfully suggest it's actually up to you to show some connection, otherwise it's just some fantasy swirling around in your head.

>1. I never said that the lack of connection was some grave and

>recent admission. The US Administration has consistently said

>there is no connection.

Wow - It's really amazing - you still don't understand the point. I'm not saying you don't agree with the point. I'm saying you actually can't comprehend it in order to agree or disagree with it.

This is NOT a political point. It's a logical proposition.

There are two statements, which you continuously mix up, that are NOT THE SAME as a matter of basic logic:

Statement 1 - The Iraqi Government had no involvement in the planning and implementation of the 9/11 attacks.

Statement 2 - The war in Iraq had no connection to 9/11.

You keep claiming that the Administration admitted Statement #2 when they didn't. They only admitted Statement #1. But because you are incapable of understanding the difference between the two statements, however, you can't keep this straight.

Statement #1 is a matter of fact. Statement #2 is a matter of political opinion. There are NUMEROUS ways - many of which I set forth - as to how Statement #2 could be true even though Statement #1 is not.

Could anyone REALLY be so dense as to not understand this? I genuinely think that's scary.

wait... first you were carla del ponte and now you're james wilson?

Ethan, thank you for your rational reply. I didn't think that you were trying to start an arguement by any means!

I appreciate your observations that my post could be a political point of view, and after rereading it I can see why you might feel this way, but I never meant it to be a political post, just a response to imo, the original thoughts of the author of the thread about the tragedy of these young men's deaths.

I was only trying to look at this from a humanist point of view, not a political one, because so many people look at war from the political view and justify that view, either pro or con, by equating soldiers to numbers rather than as individual people. I apologize if I didn't succeed in that by letting my political opinions creep in and taint my intent.

As far as the morale issue, I do believe this has been affirmed via many articles in the print media (and no, I can't link to any of them at this point).

As far as these men's final thoughts, I only asked what other's thought they were thinking, and never stated what they were thinking. Of course the way I posed the question does indeed express my thoughts on what I believe they were thinking, but this issue is a prime example of a moot point.

This actually isn't difficult.

If the Iraqi government had no connection with 9/11, and if the purpose of the invasion of Iraq was to overthrow the Iraqi government, then there is no connection between the war in Iraq and 9/11.

The only connection you have yet been able to make is the tenuous one that we are engaged in a war on terrorism generally. Yet even there the US Administration has been unable to find any tenable connection other than the fact that Saddam Hussein used to curry favour with the Arab community generally by sending cheques to the grieving relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers.

If we were seriously engaged in a war on terrorism, it would have made much more sense to (a) give a lot more financial and logistical support to the new Afghan government, (b) use all diplomatic means possible to push the Saudis into significant democratic reforms in Saudi Arabia, and particularly © using the billions of dollars we are spending in Iraq to build a viable Palestinian infrastructure and economy to remove the longstanding grievances of the Palestinians about the relative poverty of their territory.

Instead, we invaded Iraq, and we find people making far fetched claims about its connection with terrorism. I actually supported the Iraqi invasion, because while I saw little connection with terrorism, I did see major concerns about a rogue government in Iraq with access to WMDs.

I think you'll find that's what a lot of people thought, because that was what we were told. It wasn't terrorism, we were worried about. It was Iraqi Scuds tipped with nuclear or biological weapons landing in Germany or Kenya from bases inside Iraq. That's a pretty frightening scenario, and certainly enough in my mind to justify invading Iraq.

>Saddam Hussein used to curry favour with the Arab community

>generally by sending cheques to the grieving relatives of

>Palestinian suicide bombers.

they weren't grieving. they were celebrating and passing out candy. the families of grandmothers and babies blown up at a cafe while getting ice cream or students boarding a bus were grieving. the difference matters.

>using

>the billions of dollars we are spending in Iraq to build a

>viable Palestinian infrastructure and economy to remove the

>longstanding grievances of the Palestinians about the relative

>poverty of their territory.

the poverty excuse is such bullshit. i don't question palestinian poverty or suffering, but i find it odd that one doesn't find people living in slums in mexico city blowing up babies. why do you excuse it with palestinians just because they're poor?

>It wasn't terrorism, we

>were worried about.

let's be perfectly honest: it is YOU who wasn't worried about terror.

>It was Iraqi Scuds tipped with nuclear or

>biological weapons landing in Germany or Kenya from bases

>inside Iraq.

heaven forbid they should land in germany or kenya. ehh... so what if they land in tel aviv.