Bush: "Innocent Women and Children"

Discussion in 'Politics' started by tomahawk, Jul 30, 2007.

  1. GWB keeps using the point that terrorists are "willing to kill innocent women and children to achieve their objectives" as part of the justification for our continuing efforts in Iraq (heard him say it at least twice in this morning's press conference). Of course in chasing down terrorists, we have killed many times over the number of 9/11 victims, in terms of Iraqi and Afghan civilians. Now, true there's a big difference because we are (theoretically) not specifically targeting the innocent. However, even if the level of innocent casualties we've inflicted were somehow justified, I think that the "willing to kill innocent women and children" arm of the administration's anti-terrorism argument is a tad hypocritical and glosses over the innocent blood that is absolutely on our hands.

    It seems so obvious - why doesn't the press ever challenge him on this?
  3. One could argue that those 15,000 casualties are an indirect result of our continued occupation of Iraq. The region has become a magnet for terrorists, thanks to us.

    Not sure I would trust those figures anyway (especially the "141").
  4. damn.. i want some of that crack you are smoking fightboy... there are close to 700,000 deaths now. it is genocide... all based on lies. this is done in our name.. we are hated... 70% of americans want the troops home.. the bush admin ignores this. the dem's were sent to DC with one important job and they have failed.

    this is not our govt anymore.. these are puppets of oligarchs that have their own agendas. they hate our freedoms and they see us as pawns to be "dealt with." wake up idiots!!!
  5. Your ally, Al-Qaeda, is conducting terrorist activities in dozens of countries without US involvement. Al-Qaeda is not interested in negotiations, only world domination that people accuse the US of doing.

    Where is the war? This is a peacekeeping mission that liberals are so fond of. The vast majority of the libbies voted and promoted the invasion.

    I don't want the US in Iraq either, but then on the other hand, I don't hate the Iraqi people like most people do. Al-qaeda even likes to kill hundreds of soccer players and fans. Imagine what will happen to all Iraqis when the US pulls out. The US may have made a mistake. Should it go uncorrected? The Iraqi government also has got to get its act together.

    Eventually things will work out well in Iraq and the libbies will take all credit for it.
  6. FTF let me pose a simple question to you ... is it or is it not hypocritical of us to accuse our enemies of being "willing to kill innocent women and children to achieve their objective"?

    (This was not intended to be a dem vs GOP debate).
  7. Our enemies, as you suggest, are the enemies of the Iraqi people. A lot of soccer players have been pulled out of cars and shot for wearing shorts. It's amazing any were left alive to play let alone win the Asian cup title. Wearing shorts and an endless list of other such things are intolerable to such an ideology that wants to over run the country.

    Where is the hypocrisy? The US is doing what it can right now to protect the civilian population from Al-Qaeda. Is that a bad thing or the right thing to do? Where are the reports of Iraqi civilians being blown up with US bombs? All I hear from the anti-US media are reports of civilians being kidnapped and tied to the steering wheel of a car full of explosives to be remotely detonated as the kidnapped victim is told to drive to the village market.

    If the US leaves right now, the terrorist activities will not stop, they will continue and escalate. Iraq would be a huge prize to them, so they would continue. Al-Qaeda will not forgive any of the Iraqi people for having not previously joined them, before the US leaves. Iraqi forces are not ready to go it alone.

    Those other factions that were fighting the US have joined the US in a joint effort to get rid of Al-Qaeda. None of them want Al-Qaeda there.
  8. "An accusation of hypocrisy may be considered a logical fallacy (specifically that of argumentum ad hominem) because the person carrying out the condemnation is not relevant to the argument used as the basis for that condemnation. A parent who instructs a child not to smoke cigarettes, but who himself smokes, could be making an argument that is valid in and of itself, regardless of the parent's behavior."
  9. #10     Jul 31, 2007