In a meeting President Bush had arranged with General David Petraeus, The President outlined a policy regarding the rules of engagement in Iraq:
I made it very clear, as did the Secretary, that our policy is going to be to protect our troops in Iraq. It makes sense that if somebody is trying to harm our troops, or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them.
Did you see it? “It makes sense that if somebody is trying to… stop us from achieving our goal… killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them.”
When will Rethuglicans ever learn. What about the children?
2004–2008
31 responses so far ↓
1
fmragtops
// Jan 26, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Heh, that makes me want to vote for him again.
2
Sssteve
// Jan 26, 2007 at 4:23 pm
screw the children!!
3
David Jenson
// Jan 26, 2007 at 4:54 pm
I made it very clear, as did the Secretary, that our policy is going to be to protect our troops in Iraq. It makes sense that if somebody is trying to harm our troops, or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them.
This is not an indorsement for killing innocent citizens, read the whole paragraph. you people are fucking dumb
4
fmragtops
// Jan 26, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Bullshit! President Bush wants to kill innocent civilians, and I, for one, am with him!
5
Eileen (aka Coboble)
// Jan 26, 2007 at 6:24 pm
This isn’t your usual subtle sarcasm.
It doesn’t even state that anyone is for killing innocent civilians.
The word is “OR” not “OF”.
“It makes sense that if somebody is trying to harm our troops, OR stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them.”
Also note the location of the commas correctly:
It is NOT “or stop us”, “from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens”.
There is no comma after “stop us”.
Therefore the phrase “or killing innocent citizens” is something our troops are allowed to stop others from doing, not something that is their goal to do themselves.
We know that Bush has trouble with the English language, but he actually did o.k. in the SOTU this time around.
6
RT - Chief Mongress
// Jan 26, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Ugh. Cluelessness is just sooooooo boring.
Great post FIAR!
It is about time we gave our troops a fighting chance. They need to be able to kill the scumbags.
7
FIAR
// Jan 26, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Indeed, children are scumbags. Well stated, RT.
8
FIAR
// Jan 26, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Eileen and David,
The President is using the same trick here, putting “Our goal” and “killing innocent citizens in Iraq,” in close proximity to create a Jedi mind trick on the American people. I think we all know what he’s up to.
9
richj
// Jan 26, 2007 at 10:27 pm
I had expected Eileen to get it after all her time visiting here. I was wrong.
David, browse the archives for awhile and maybe you’ll figure it out. Don’t be a dumbass.
Gotta go, more innocent children to run over with my SUV.
10
fmragtops
// Jan 27, 2007 at 2:42 am
True, FIAR, Children=Shit. I think if our military had been killing children all along, Iraq may well be liberated by now.
11
KC
// Jan 28, 2007 at 1:28 am
Rule number one for trolling on blogs:
Realize when posts are sarcastic, especially if you’re going to say that someone lacks intelligence.
You really hate to be “that guy” who plays the intelligence card when he’s actually the one has no idea what’s going on.
Bummer when that happens, eh?
Heh. I just called someone a troll for the first time. It was all that I thought it could be and more.
12
Skul
// Jan 28, 2007 at 10:03 am
I was always taught that when you kill something, you should have the common sense to eat it and not let it go to waste. Mmmm, baby-back Bacon.
13
fmragtops
// Jan 28, 2007 at 11:58 am
Heh, KC is defending FIAR, how’s that for ironic. I guess we all really can get along and sing kumbaya and stuff.
14
RT - Chief Mongress
// Jan 28, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I’m getting hungry.
15
Diesel
// Jan 28, 2007 at 6:33 pm
“Or” can to separate two equivalent nominative phrases such as in this illustration, or example.
Thus “goal” clearly = “killing innocent citizens.”
16
Skul
// Jan 28, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Correct you are Diesel. I do wonder of the word
“killing” is somehow disturbing David and Eileen. Perhaps we could just go with “culling”.
Naturally, if we intend to eat the children, we
could use the word “harvest”. Much more sensitive.
Whadda y-all think?
17
Eileen
// Jan 29, 2007 at 1:53 pm
As much as the baby killing idea repulses me, there is a side of me that found it funny enough to link your prior article to multiple other discussions.
But maybe this was more because I had always considered my own solution (of placing all the kids into institutions to be re-educated) so cruel, and it seemed so kind compared to yours.
Sometimes, with the so subtle sarcasm, the line is not always clear. Sometimes its obvious and other times I am really not sure what you really believe and what you are just making fun of. (Consider me stupid if you want, I may draw the same conclusion about others who post comments here).
Once a living thing dies, there is nothing wrong with making use of the material left behind. Although some would be appalled if they used the fur, from cats who have been put to sleep (I mean death) at the humane society, cruel.
18
fmragtops
// Jan 29, 2007 at 2:03 pm
You people appall me! You’re debating the merits of sarcasm instead of the merits of killing children. I think the reason is because you know deep down in your hearts that killing children is the only way.
19
von
// Jan 29, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I’m indifferent about the children. I suppose that as long as they are innocent, and citizens, then we can kill them….
20
Skul
// Jan 29, 2007 at 5:59 pm
I still want my baby-back Bacon!!
21
Eileen (aka Coboble)
// Jan 29, 2007 at 7:26 pm
von,
Why do they have to be innocent, what about guilty civilians?
Seriously (am I allowed to be serious here?),
President Bush, has so often stumbled with his speech, had he actually accidentally said that our troops mission included the killing of innocent civilians, it would not have surprised me.
However, I apologize if anyone interpreted my initial comments as an indication that I thought the initial poster was stupid. That was not my intent.
I was accused of being a Troll on another blog recently. I used my “other” blogger account (I have accounts in both old blogger and new blogger for testing purposes). I didn’t change my personality (as I was just as critical with my usual login). I left a pretty clear trail to the owner of the account for anyone who knew me (or anyone who had read my profiles). I didn’t change or mask my IP address. I didn’t pretend to be new to the blog. Being called a Troll, and having my post removed, bothered me more than being called stupid. I haven’t been back to that blog since. (I no longer link to it either).
22
RT - Chief Mongress
// Jan 29, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Hobbits are the cornish game hens of the human race. Tasty.
23
Redneck
// Jan 30, 2007 at 10:13 am
The war is getting closer to the ultimate goal:
Kill all the children, take over all the oil fields, and give me my $0.10-per-gallon gas.
Until the war has made all this happen, we still have a long way to go. In fact, I want to be able to go over there and purchase a part of the oil field. Since Haliburton can, so should I be able to.
Dangit.
24
FIAR
// Jan 30, 2007 at 11:10 am
By my definition, a troll is someone who comments for no purpose other than to insult the blog author and the core readership. I don’t delete comments, unless they are spam, most of which gets blocked by Bad Behavior before it even gets the chance to be blocked by Akismet.
Some people consider anyone who has a differing opinion to be a troll. I think that’s just stupid.
Seriously (am I allowed to be serious here?)
No. That’s the first rule.
my own solution (of placing all the kids into institutions to be re-educated)
That’s pretty much what we’re doing, but it’s not indoctrination. It’s called the free exchange of ideas, which is something people in tyrannies do not have. The free exchange of ideas will eliminate the threat. The problem is, in order to have the free exchange of ideas, you must first get rid of the tyrant. This requires military force.
That is what we are doing.
25
FIAR
// Jan 30, 2007 at 11:12 am
Also, a troll wouldn’t say something like, My favorite right leaning master of Sarcasm:
Even if the name of the blog is spelled wrong.
26
fmragtops
// Jan 30, 2007 at 1:03 pm
As to Eileen’s question about guilty civilians vs innocent civilians: No civilian is completely innocent, therefore all civilians are as innocent as the others, so all civilians are innocent. C’mon, hippy, your side started this stuff.
27
Eileen
// Jan 30, 2007 at 1:47 pm
I fixed the spelling, thank you for pointing our my error.
28
Skul
// Jan 30, 2007 at 5:30 pm
by RT — “Hobbits are the cornish game hens of the human race. Tasty.”
Wrapped in Bacon of course, then deep fried.
Second best way to cook children.
I like trolls, ’specially in a good gravy.
29
RT - Chief Mongress
// Jan 30, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Yummmmmay!!!!!!!!! Skul=chef monger©
30
Skul
// Feb 1, 2007 at 1:06 am
HA!
31
Gilt
// Jul 16, 2008 at 1:15 pm
As to fmragtops comment that all civilians are equally innocent what about the politicians and bureaucracy of the enemy? These people are technically civilians yet they are handing down commands to people to attack us. Doesn’t that make them less innocent, even guilty?
As for not any civilian being completely innocent well nobody’s completely innocent, but if we’re talking in the context of war there very well might be civilians especially helpless babies who aren’t contributing to the enemy’s war effort.
Leave a Comment or the Terrorists Win!
If you're wondering how to get an icon next to your name, go to gravatar.com and sign up for a free account.
Remember, only terrorist sympathizers don't have a gravatar.