What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
134 Comments
- chicoer2001, on 10/12/2007, -11/+59Note to Paul. The people who decapitated NYC were terrorists.
- harumph, on 10/12/2007, -18/+51@jaymoon
what you people don't realize is that is our callousness toward the innocent civilians of iraq and afghanistan that have largely turned opinion in those countries against us. most countries around the world, even places like iran that officially hate the u.s. have populations that love most of what america stands for. they can love americans and dislike our policies at the same time. that is a good thing for the u.s.. when we indiscriminately kill their civilian population, in much larger numbers than what happened on 9/11 by the way, suddenly they tend to forget anything positive about us. we would have the rest of the world much more willing to help us and by extension a much easier time in rooting out terrorists if we at least pretended to care about innocent humans around the globe equally. - mickeyknoxxx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+34Exactly.
I wonder if Paul would be okay if a few american civilians blew up a building in China and China decided to just come over here and start murdering everybody in the U.S. over it. - Charlesbian, on 10/12/2007, -10/+36What set of logic does this guy prescribe to? Because people who hail from your part of the world become terrorists make you instantly liable for their actions? Hey Harvey, remember John Walker Lindh, the american citizen fighting for the taliban? By your logic we should be dropping bunker busters on ourselves.
and his other quote about how it was justified to use small pox infected blankets and african slaves to "grease the skids" because we eventually became prosperous is just....inane. Im going to go give a microphone to the homeless guy "Scanner Dan" who lives downtown on campus, it will probably end with better ideas being heard. (and this guy carries around a friggin Police Scanner for christsakes) - taobabyluv, on 10/12/2007, -29/+49Wow, that's a sick puppy.
- shawnfassett, on 10/12/2007, -15/+29Drug test the old man. Sounds like he found a 'friend of Rush' and swallowed both the blue and the red pills.
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17seeing civilians as unofficial or indirect combatants is the kind of logic the terrorists use. they see everyone from the "other" side as a legitimate target. how do we expect them to stop killing innocent people when we do the same and write it off as "collateral damage".
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+25Is the technical term for this nutjob "sociopath" or "psychopath"?
- R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -16/+28I think ABC needs to adopt an "out with the old in with the new" mentality.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18I think you people are completely misunderstanding his point. He is NOT equating women and children to terrorists... in fact, he is doing the opposite. He is pointing out that the word "civilians" is inadequate in this case. Words like "innocents" would be better since the terrorists are in fact civilians themselves.
Jees people, listen to the words and give them a little thought before jumping to stupid, stupid conclusions. Some of you are so narrow minded, the truth simply can't fit. - barneytoe, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16and not ONE of them was from Iraq.
- poornbroken, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19@harumph
wow... first off, though there are americans that kill civillians, as we can see, they are being prosecuted. the MAJORITY of civilian deaths have not been under american hands. it has been under sectarian hands. i'm pretty sure if the u.s. used the same rules that the sectarian groups are using, the u.s. would win hands down. why don't they do that? because they are NOT callous to civilian casualties.
unlike their neighbors, the u.s. soldiers on the ground DO care about the civilians. that is why they have frustrations distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. it does not mean they get it right all the time, but they attempt to make that distinction. can't say the same for terrorists. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Nope. I agree that bombs can't tell the difference between military and civilian targets.
I'n no fan of Paul Harvey but he has been speaking out against the war on an almost daily basis for years now. Just so you know. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -16/+23His point was that they were not members of an organized military. Therefore, by strict definition, they were civilians. Furthermore, he also stated that since the invention of the aerial bomb there was very little distinction between civilians and military anyway. He's right about the bombs because they don't care who they kill and he's correct about the terrorists. I do not complete agree with him but I get his point.
- Axfire, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13I didn't know Paul Harvey was still alive.
- libertypatriot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10These kinds of vermin are what are destroying the fabric of society, and the principles which free civilization rest upon:- moral responsibility, respect and a sense of justice for all
" When what was once the beacon of light for the world becomes distorted and dark, it allows for many dark and evil things to sliver in its shadows " - heartbreakboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@EochaidRiata
Uh oh, looks like you are getting dugg down for going against the groupthink. Shape up or be ready for re-education. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You can download the audio from his web site.
http://www.paulharvey.com/ - MrEguy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13My crazy what?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Ummm, thinkprogress? He is saying JUST THE OPPOSITE. He is saying DON'T call them civilians forthe reason you are giving. In other words, they are NOT The same, so don't laebl them with the same word.
- poornbroken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5look i don't deny that there are americans who do that. but they're making a judgment call. they're trying their best to deferentiate between combatants and non-combatants. that's why they detain them and (shockingly: let them go). they follow some protocol and rules of engagement. their bosses heads go up on the proverbial block if their subordinates screw up.
on the other hand, you have terrorists who do not make that distinction between combatants and non-combatants, and they go through great pains to include as many people in their mess. they know that the more people die, doesn't matter WHO dies, as long as there are enough bodies, americans will pay the consequences. their leaderships is practically impervious to any sort of consequences of these actions. in fact, don't they gain more and more benefits when these incidents occur? - Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5What? Civilians can't be terrorists now? Last I heard civilians were "one not on active duty in the armed services", and terrorists were "those who use the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". Most terrorist groups are not formal armed services, but rather just groups of average people trying to scare people into doing what they want. One does not cancel out the other.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+18Hey mang, sick puppies don't count as "civilians" either. I blame THEM for decapitating New York.
- BonerMachine, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Yes, I'm sure he meant something completely innocuous when he said:
"We didn’t come this far because we’re made of sugar candy. Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and across this continent by giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans. That was biological warfare. And we used every other weapon we could get our hands on to grab this land from whomever.
And we grew prosperous. And yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves. So it goes with most great nation-states, which — feeling guilty about their savage pasts — eventually civilize themselves out of business and wind up invaded and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry up-and-coming who are not made of sugar candy."
I mean he's just suggesting that we should commit numerous atrocities so that we can keep our status as the greatest empire on the planet, what's wrong with that?? - Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well, can't really fight effectively though if you go by rules the others refuse to follow. At times, the enemy fights dirty, like having women and children actively attack, or use them as human shields. In a way, I agree with him. In situations when the enemy are purposely moving people into situations where they will die, just to demoralize us, do you let it bother you and give up or do you try to ignore it and move on?
I'm not saying all women and children should be considered combatants, but we shouldn't assume that they aren't just because they are women and children. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Neither was the first Gulf War but they are described in history as wars. By your logic we would have the following list: Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish American War, WW1 and WW2. However, since true aerial bombs were first used in WW1 I assumed that was where he had started counting.
- luckyric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's the cowardliness of the bleeding heart, crybaby, no morals, lunatic left that is destroying this country.
- poornbroken, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7good point, except that our troops wear uniforms, and are avoided. also, we have the rule of law (even though, according to some, this has been greatly eroding). the chain of command is responsible for the soldier on the street. not so with terrorists. (look at palestine) the errant actions of a "local commander" does not tarnish the chain of command.
aka, there is greater consequences for american troops to kill civilians. in fact, even if terrorists kill civilians indiscriminately, those consequences are triggered for american troops. an example of this is illustrated in what is asked frequently: "why can't americans create security." the real question is: "why can't they stop killing each other?" - toiletduck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Actually, it's called war, and I shed no tears for the family members of these scum. You blame the deaths of these people, whose cowardly men are building car bombs and making suicide vests in their homes, on our soldiers. Pathetic. I hope we never have our own Beslan, because I have a feeling most of you would either justify it or gloat over it.
- poornbroken, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Who was responsible for 9/11?
What country are they from?
Where are the WMDs in Iraq?
Is there any history between the Bush family and the middle east?
i don't think these questions have any real bearing on events happening in the middle east. i think these things you have mentioned are "red herrings."
it does not change the fact that, given a vacuum of power, instead of resolving issues peacefully, they CHOSE to kill each other. religious differences or not, the conclusion comes to mind that the iraqi people want a heavy hand upon them. a heavy hand the u.s. will not apply in good conscience.
one would think that the u.s. would recieve kudos for choosing conscience over convenience, but it has not. it comes down to crying over spilt milk. what people seem to forget is the fact that, good reason to go in or not, iraq is now an american responsibility. some people want to do the convenient thing and shrik this responsibility (and they are quite justified to do so) but that would not be the american thing to do.
the repercussions for simply "getting out" of iraq is quite great. it goes beyond simply civil war and turmoil in the middle east. - aggrazel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7He must have taken too much ssssssssssssssssssssitrical today.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Taking down Paul Harvey will be your undoing, if you try. He's a legend, and frankly from an era that might not necessarily say all the "right" things.
He may be wrong on this, but throwing him under the bus for this one will bring one hell of a lot of wrath on the folks that do. He's right more often in a day than most of you are in a week. Leave the old man alone! - fuzzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12And I'll continue burying LGF articles to counteract you.
- fluidfoundation, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11@imfamous...
used to going off to the extreme to bypass arguing a specific point, are we? - gweezil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Gee, people on digg talking out of their asses? No freaking way. Paul Harvey is a Patriotic guy, but he's no blood hungry war monger. Belive me. He doesn't like this war in Iraq. He criticizes it almost every day, and talks about the horrors of war and the deaths going on.
HIS POINT here is that when a country is at war with another country, there are no "innocent" civillians. The whole country is part of the war. And, the "terrorists" who did 9/11 were civillians, they weren't part of a military or government. They were civillians.
It sucks ass but it's true. The fact that all of us in America can just go about our daily lives, and feel NO impact of the war, have NO burden put on us at all, and Hell, not even watch the news if we choose not to, is CRAZY.
We aren't rationing food, we aren't having to buy war bonds, we don't have a draft. NOTHING. We are totally disconnected from everything. War is HELL and people freaking die. It's a shame that people become extensions of their government, but they do, that's his point. - luckyp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If some terrorist ***** managed to throw a bomb at a mall and killed your family I bet you wouldn't call him a civilian!
This isn't politics folks. These "civilians" are out for our ass. Let's not hand it to them.
"No b*stard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb b*stard die for his country". -- George S. Patton - luckyric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I still love Paul, he's right you know.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6WW1
WW2
Korea
Viet Nam
Gulf War 1 - 5xSTUN, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Does anyone have a link to the exact actual full quote from Paul Harvey? I have a feeling something's been taken out of context.
- luckyric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No kidding! What's it matter if they are a kid or a female when they want to kill you. If it's them or us I say we waste the whole bunch of them.
- m3th0dm4n, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9DaveV is what's wrong with America.
- robdiggity, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7"............................ goooooood day!"
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"I take it back. Harvey is trying to bury the truth because it hurts the war effort. The truth should never hurt the effort. It should be used to evaluate options and consequences."
Oops, should have read
I take it back. Harvey is trying to bury the truth because it hurts the war effort. The truth should never be ignored just because it might hurt the effort. It should be used to evaluate options and consequences of actions. - alex4u2nv, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7@cGt2099 45 minutes "Huh. Wonder if he'll go the way of the Dodo or the Imus?"
Very unlikely. Look at the photo attached to the article. - Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11 by fluidfoundation 8 hours ago
"uhhh.... there is nothing incorrect about that statement. They were not apart of an official military, so that makes them civies.
whatever your political view, that doesnt change."
It is extremely misleading, and you're being obtuse. The 911 "civies" were terrorist. The women and children, are not. By becoming a terrorist, you declare yourself a de-facto combatant and expose yourself to the consequences. The women and children, did not. - LFlynn9, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This jerk was given the "presidential medal of freedom" in 2005, what a load of *****!
Someone should put this guy down, hes way past his sell-by date! - tekkie001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's unfortunate that the insurgents in Iraq are hiding among civilians. They are doing this on purpose to draw fire into these areas. Then it hits the evening news and all the hand wringing begins by Americans tucked safely in their easy chairs making battlefield decisions with a beer in one hand and the clicker in the other. The only thing stopping the evening news from referring to your backyard as a bomb crater are our soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. The insurgents would use the same tactics here if they could. Our military did not choose this type of fight, they can only respond to it and try their best to limit collateral damage. I heard Mr. Harvey's comments as I am a regular listener of his program and have been since I was a boy. I did not take them as a Kudo's to our military for killing women and children, but rather making a point that the line is blurred because of the battle tactics of the enemy.
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1he ain't in an election, so he requires no vote.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11thinkprogress is run by morons. He's trying to say, call them women and children, when you kill them, and admit what you've done. Don't make it antiseptic by calling them civilians. Even the 9/11 hijackers were civilians, but they were not women or children, nor were they innocent. He's not trying to compare women and children to the 9/11 hijackers, he's trying to distinguish women and children from the 9/11 hijackers.
- cywar, on 10/12/2007, -12/+13Unbelievably hardcore, even for a senile old man.
That's the kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.
It's way past time to put this man's radio show in the museum next to the other relics of the cold war. -
Show 51 - 100 of 134 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is