Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Carlton

Marines to France

Recommended Posts

The homicide bombers (terrorists) think pregnant women, babies, children,

the elderly and other noncombatant civilians are legitimate targets. :angry:

 

Every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site."

 

Freedom Fighters .. Indeed ....Ha .

Coallition bombs don't care who they kill either. The coallition bombing innocents is no better then the terrorists doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm I disagree.

 

The terrorist actively target civilians, the coalition does not

the result is the same though, I don't think there is too much of a difference. I doubt the families of those killed by coalition bombs care who the bombs were supposed to kill, it doesn't bring their loved ones back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the result isnt the issue, every war has resulted in numerous civilian casualties. It has everything to do with intent. Terrorist actively target civilian populations in non combantant situations.

 

Its like the US waking up one day and dropping a bomb on the eifle tower just because we thought it should be painted a different color.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the result isnt the issue, every war has resulted in numerous civilian casualties. It has everything to do with intent. Terrorist actively target civilian populations in non combantant situations.

 

Its like the US waking up one day and dropping a bomb on the eifle tower just because we thought it should be painted a different color.

If I shoot your dad because I think he is a terrorist, or I shoot your dad because I feel like shooting someone... can you honestly tell me you would be more sympathetic to me because I thought he was a terrorist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats not a valid situation

 

 

If my dad is hanging out with terrorists and you shoot him because your going there to shoot all the terrorists then yes I would be more sympathetic to you as opposed to you killing him just because you feel like shooting someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats not a valid situation

 

 

If my dad is hanging out with terrorists and you shoot him because your going there to shoot all the terrorists then yes I would be more sympathetic to you as opposed to you killing him just because you feel like shooting someone.

I cannot see the majority of people caring why a loved one was killed, unless it was due to engaging in criminal activities and even then alot of people are not sympathetic to the killer. I know personally if someone killed my parents I wouldn't give a :filtered: why they did it, I would want revenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

say your dad goes to the bank, the bank gets robbed. The robbery is broken up but not before they take everyone in the bank hostage. A few shots are fired, the police storm the bank. You dad gets killed by a bullet fired from an officers gun.

 

Your going to want to exert your revenge on the officer? You would simply have misplaced hatred as many of those "terrorists" do today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, if a cop were to shoot any of my family members I would be just as angry as if a terrorist did. The end result is the same, sure the intent is different but you can't argue with the results.

 

If America were invaded by the Russians, and they marched down the streets with guns and tanks, I am pretty sure we would see some pretty agressive American behaviour from the citizens. Many Americans have firearms to protect their homes from "bad guys" and I am pretty sure that mentality would be used against the Russians.

 

Does anyone here think that Americans would lay down and let the Russians wipe their feet with them? I know Americans better then that, and I know that they are a resiliant people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats not whats happening, its not even close

Who asked you to go there? You have no right invading a sovereign country without solid grounds for doing so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well when Iceland gasses its own people then invades canada in an attempt to invade canada and do then occupy it to take its lumber industry. Allows its people to starve, shoots those who protest. We as Americans should just sit there, and do nothing.

 

Well hey if that happens I will remember your words here and say hey I know a Canadian who won't mind we therefor shouldn't go to war.

 

Then again I don't know why I bothered posting you will throw up some statement bashing me, my country or my president. And making some strange point out of nothing I have said here. So it is a waste. But let's not forget...

 

Huessein has commited attrocities, gassed Iran and his own countrymen, wrongfully invaded another country, launched missiles agaisnt Saudi Arabia and Israel, and put ex-soviet scientists as well as Pakistani on his payroll. If you believe none of these reasons were good enough to oust him then that is your opinion, but hey it is enough for me.

 

Additionally many Iraqi's are happy that the Americans are there and got rid of him I have a number of friends there (Marine's, and Army) and they have run into fire, but they have also been praised, hugged and thanked. They have been to town's that the citizen have flown American flags. My friends have fought and risked their lived to help Iraqi's and some Iraqi's appreciate them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the result is the same though, I don't think there is too much of a difference. I doubt the families of those killed by coalition bombs care who the bombs were supposed to kill, it doesn't bring their loved ones back

heh ...methinks too ...!

 

there is one difference ..the terrorists count the dead ..and get off on it ...

 

we cant even be :filtered: to even bother to see how many civilians we've killed ... and in places like Fallujah we don't allow press in to see what has been done either .....

 

Now theres torture and chemical weapons being used against Iraqi population .... is there a difference between Saddam and us if your on the receiving end ..?. hard to see it ...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting silly. The whole definition and specification of uses is being twisted into nearly unrecognizeable appearance.

 

What is gun powder? A chemical...and a weapon.

High explossives? Chemical.

In fact with the exception of nukes, all weapons are chemical, and even nukes have high explossive triggers...chemical.

 

Yes, even a wooden club is made of...you guessed it...chemicals.

 

The air you are breathing is chemical.

 

I don't see anything wrong with how this weapon has been used nor the cause it has been used for. I took the time to read up on the matter before commenting and it seems there is a bit of media sensationalism going on and some very suspect "investigative" journalism. Frankly, this is merely a large scale equivalent of a flashbang grenade, and that is how it has been used.

 

But...oh...it's chemical..... :unsure:

 

Perhaps they should be using recycles bullets fired from green weapons and only consume organic MREs?

 

Talk to me when the Coalition is using neurotoxic gas, or chlorine, or mustard gas, etc, then I will be concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its actually not a chemical weapon

Something that burns through the skin to the bone ain't gonna be pleasant old chum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If its okaydoky ..then why the lies and coverup ..?

 

I don't see anything wrong with how this weapon has been used nor the cause it has been used for. I took the time to read up on the matter before commenting and it seems there is a bit of media sensationalism going on and some very suspect "investigative" journalism. Frankly, this is merely a large scale equivalent of a flashbang grenade, and that is how it has been used.

heh ......I wonder if Saddam will google this .....paste and copy for his defence .....?

 

Afterall ...all he used was the equivalent of a vaporized industrial solvent ...... hes just keeping the streets clean

Edited by Tankus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The so-called lies and cover-up seem to be a figment of the media's imagination.

 

As for Saddam, he can use whatever he likes for his defense I assume. I don't think a Googled post from a message board is going to help him defend himself though, especially in the way you suggest. Though he is a lawyer himself and I wouldn't put it past him to try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well chopdoc i am with you on this one.

 

This thread has reaaly taught me a lesson...if ya really want you can make 1+1=Q.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you can't. You can fine-tune hypocrisy, chromium plate it, polish it until it blinds, but it's still hypocrisy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

link

The assault upon Fallujah, 40 miles from Baghdad, took place over a two-week period last November. US commanders said the city was an insurgent stronghold. Civilians were ordered to evacuate in advance. Around 50 US troops and an estimated 1,200 insurgents were killed. How many civilians were killed is unclear. Up to 300,000 people were driven from the city.

 

Following the RAI broadcast, the US Embassy in Rome issued a statement which denied that US troops had used WP as a weapon. It said: "To maintain that US forces have been using WP against human targets ... is simply mistaken." In a similar denial, the US Ambassador in London, Robert Tuttle, wrote to the The Independent claiming WP was only used as an obscurant or else for marking targets. In his letter, he says: "US forces participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom continue to use appropriate, lawful and conventional weapons against legitimate targets. US forces do not use napalm or phosphorus as weapons."

The reason that this came up in Rome ..was due to an Italian TV crew getting access to Fallujah ...and then showing ..on Italian TV evidence of men women and children's bodies showing burns on the skin ..which did not appear to damage the clothes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...