It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Originally posted by CIA
When you kill 30,000 people with WMD, you are a peace lover;
Uhh yeah whatever.
when you fight invaders, you are insurgent
when you blow up your enemy with your self, you are a terrorist.
Have no qualms with that unless you are intentionally targeting civilians for the purpose of terrorizing them. Remember in Russia, Beslan I believe in a school full of mostly kids? Im sure you probably supported that. Because its logical as to why terrorists blew themselves up with kids. Probably wanted to use them as slaves in paradise in their ideology. And also knowingly that Allah is please, which I doubt it.
Originally posted by CIA
GI has the most powerful WMD to kill, and the thickest armor to keep themself from being killed, they only leave innocent people exposed to those whose loved ones were killed by GI. They have to take revenge, and the only availble target ...
Originally posted by CIA
When you kill 30,000 people with WMD, you are a peace lover;
GI has the most powerful WMD to kill, and the thickest armor to keep themself from being killed, they only leave innocent people exposed to those whose loved ones were killed by GI. They have to take revenge, and the only availble target ...
Originally posted by kozmo
Come on buddy... I know you're WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY Smarter than this. You're being duped by a troll
Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
So you're saying because it's considered "revenge", then it's ok to target innocent and unprotected civilians?
Originally posted by CIA
American got a shortest history in the world, but involved most war, killed most people.
Originally posted by CIA
American got a shortest history in the world, but involved most war, killed most people.
Originally posted by CIA
I'm no historian, but didn't american involved in almost all the major wars, at least after WWII, and not as a victim, nor an accommodator, but simply the invader.
Originally posted by aape
Just a thought:
en.wikipedia.org...
during 2003, 41000 us soldiers thought they have killed atleast 1 iraqi.
"In this study, 48% of the Army soldiers who had served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 65% of the Marines said that they were responsible for the death of at least one enemy combatant.Since at least 180,000 Army soldiers and 58,000 Marines served in Iraq in 2003, this means that a minimum of about 124,000 U.S. troops who returned from Iraq by the end of 2003 each believed they had caused the death of one or more enemy combatants. This would not include any deaths caused by Navy or Air Force personnel, such as those that resulted from the bombing missions during the invasion, nor would it include those killed since the beginning of 2004. However, this could reflect either more or less than 124,000 enemy combatants killed, as there are likely cases where one soldier felt responsible for the deaths of multiple Iraqis, where several soldiers each felt responsible for the death of the same person, and where soldiers were incorrect in their belief that anyone had died."
after that read:
en.wikipedia.org...
and count how many war crimes nazi germany did, and after that count how many usa did .
-aape
Originally posted by CIA
If you count in those killed by missiles, and those civilian, and those dead in Vietnam and Korea, and, they are so proud of their killing.
Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
Can you imagine if Americans ran in the streets and burned Arabic flags? Or if they all celebrated cutting some school teacher's head off with a sword? Then it would be no different. Should we be THAT proud or is that a bit too much?
Originally posted by CIA
I'm no historian, but didn't american involved in almost all the major wars, at least after WWII, and not as a victim, nor an accommodator, but simply the invader.