Just curious, but how in the world did you extract this interpretation from canyonman00's statement ???
I too am trying to find this disconnect. It is usually reserved for folks with an agenda in their statements.
Yeah, possibly an agenda ... but I read a lot of frustration and confusion with what to believe and from whom. I guess that's the privelege of youth.
When I expressed outrage at a murder that was reported in press, I was told that: 1. The press was not to be believed. 2. Unless I had expressed equal or greater outrage to an earlier murder, I had no right to be outraged now. 3. I should focus my youthful energy on what is happening in my own community instead of worrying about Iraq. (There seems to be an implied message here). 4. I must have an ulterior agenda for starting the thread on the murder. So now they have successfully changed the subject from discussing the murder to character assassination. Why don't you guys stop attacking me and tell us what your opinions are on the alleged war crimes?
War is ugly. For all you know, the guy that was shot was responsible for the deaths of hundred's of civilians. Perhaps he sent his son into a mosque strapped with bombs. "Innocent"... something tells me the marines wouldn't randomly pick a house. This isn't an endorsement for killing people in cold blood. In any event, I give OURs the benefit of the doubt. The crowd that marches in their own American streets burning effigages of the president, and dressing him up in Nazi gear, do not. They side with our enemies. People lash out at others who post photos of dead iraqi's, because they realize the vast majority of american soldiers are risking life and limb to help them. It's offensive, and certainly doesn't open up dialog. Youth is no excuse.
Back way off the paranoia!! 1. Take the press with a grain of salt and wait until you have the facts and not just a story. 2. I have no problem with you and worry over murder. I just want you to worry (and be concerned) about murder that is happening closer to you. 3. Yes, there is. Whatever your community is, it has needs of your actions and abilities. Not just your concerns. Get up, make a difference and stop just being outraged. 4. And not so much as you having a motive, it's usually that's why these types of threads start. Never once did I mention your character. I have no idea what it is and that might be what I am trying to determine. There are many folks who talk a great game, on both sides. I am just looking at why the negative position is exposed about something that you have only read sketchy details about. If it is merely for murder, then you're outraged at every nightly newscast. And that too is ok if that reasoning is understood by me! It allows me to put your outrage into perspective.
Chill, JB ... Chill a minute, man. I just had to re-read everything here to make sure I was on the right thread. You imply a lot of messages here. And I read no attacks on you ... but rather expressions of disagreement and presentations of alternative points of view. Now ... with all due respect : 1. I did not say the press was not to be believed, sir. But I did raise question about the blind belief of a story just because it appears in the press. You've never read a story in the press whose facts later turned out to be questionable ??? 2. Where did I say that you had no right to be outraged now ?? If this story proves to be true, you have every right to feel any way you want to. If you look back, I said that it was disheartening to think that the slaughter of 6 Western kidnap victems didn't give you the same inspirations as your subject story. Yes - I am personally disappointed that their decapitations are less significant to you ... that you didn't afford them equal time ... yes. But that's my right as well - or should I "read" into your words that I do not have that right??? ( I don't , really - but can you see my point?) 3. Now what in the world would be wrong with directing some of your steam and passion to your local community??? 4. In today's world, it's so difficult to believe that anyone would express such blind trust and faith in the press that such a suspicion shouldn't surprise you at all. JB3 - there has been no attempts at character assination here. Your thread didn't (seem) to address war crimes per se, but rather you focused on discussing a singular incident. ( This is a statement of clarification, no insults or disrespect intended.) When opinions were expressed, you heard all sorts of other things whose interpretations I'm still trying to figure out. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE VALID CONCERNS Just please, before you you off on what you read, just take a deep breath and chill, man !!
Leave it to Murtha to try to score cheap political points over something like this. Who knows what happened? How could "bystanders" know what happened inside a house? This whole incident points out the futility of our mission in Iraq however. The enemy concentrates on killing our troops, anyone who supports us and anyone connected to the govenment who isn't supporting their faction. We devote enormous resources to holding soldiers accountable for an isolated incident. I know, we have to uphold our standards, etc. The problem is, you can't defeat this type of enemy using ACLU-approved tactics. The French learned that in Algeria and Vietnam, the Latin Americans learned it in Columbia, Argentina, Chile, etc, and we will learn it. Better to stay out of this type of situation if we are not prepared to do what is necessary.
Given the sacrifice of our soldiers, don't you think that Iraqis actually deserved Saddam Hussein (just as we deserve George Bush)? Other than humanitarian missions, the United States always receives the brunt of the criticism when it interferes with the sovereignty of other nations. The only way to remain neutral is to stay out of other nations' business and to send foreign aid to democracies and democratic movements. And as for our Marines killing Iraqis in cold blood, I highly doubt it.
There. This is what I call sensible discussion - only opinions but no redirecting of the questions to poster's personal character ("dissappointed" at not having more outrage for another murder, etc). Murtha is a public figure so trashing him is a political opinion.