American Soldier: We even shot women and children!

Hey fanoose, you little zobuk you shut plz.

An andin arabuk!!!


regards chapo

Originally posted by Corinthas
Any one care to show the differevce between a terrorist and a soldier now?

I cant see one... hang on one of them has a "job"!

Can't see a difference, huh?

How 'bout this:

Terrorists strap explosives to themselves, and blow up buses
terrorists behead innocent truck drivers on video
terrorists take over elementary schools and kill students
terrorists hijack planes and fly them into buildings
terrorists string charred bodies from bridges
terrorists drag corpses down the street
terrorists are the reason my rights are being taken away
terrorists are the reason I can't visit ancient sites around the world
terrorists hack tourists to death in Egypt.

And you're comparing the actions of soldiers to these sadistic wackos?

Soldiers have training. Terrorists go to 'camps' to learn about brutality, how to terrorize civilians, and how to hack someone to death with a machete. Comparing a professional soldier to a terrorist is just plain wrong.

Originally posted by nathraq
Meaning?

If you're going to kill in cold blood, at least act like a cold-blooded killer for Christ's sake. Little punks shooting someone and, "huh-huh, I got 'im, Sarge"...

Candyass Pansies!

They're going to wet the bed for the rest of thier lives now because of this war.

By the way, well said on the above post

[edit on 8-9-2004 by DeltaChaos]

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

If you're going to kill in cold blood, at least act like a cold-blooded killer for Christ's sake. Little punks shooting someone and, "huh-huh, I got 'im, Sarge"...

Candyass Pansies!

That's a little harsh, I think. Marines are not cold blooded killers, in the sense the you use the term. In America, we don't raise cold bloode killers by design. We do train servicemembers to kill in the line of duty. These Marines did just that.

They're going to wet the bed for the rest of thier lives now because of this war.

Many will pay a price for the actions they commit and the terror and stress they endure. It is normal and if they need help getting on with their lives, they will receive it.

Originally posted by marg6043
Intelearthling,

It's ok to be upset but don't blame the entire Islam nation and remember we have muslin Americans in the US and they have nothing to do with what is going on with the Islamic radicals, these group are acting on their own and have their own agendas and Allah is just another name for the same god of Christianity so don't let your anger cloud your senses.

I'd have to debate you on "their Allah the same as our God". Our God has a Son, His name is Jesus Christ, in which He came into the world so the world may be saved through Him. Their Allah has no such son. Therefore, their Allah and our God are two entirely different entities. Ours is right, theirs is wrong.

Originally posted by Intelearthling

I'd have to debate you on "their Allah the same as our God". Our God has a Son, His name is Jesus Christ, in which He came into the world so the world may be saved through Him. Their Allah has no such son. Therefore, their Allah and our God are two entirely different entities. Ours is right, theirs is wrong.

Of course their are the same God. The God of the Jews, Christians and Muslims. The Jews don't believe God had a son either, do they still believe in the same God?????

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Originally posted by flashburn

Originally posted by taibunsuu
To be honest there are no weapons in sight on that video. The thing on the left is clearly a tractor with a ground tiller, two trucks, none of the three men have weapons, and when shooting starts guy on tractor is waving cloth material.

Whether or not these guys are related to insurgency you can't say from the video. From the video alone it looks like three unarmed farmers were shot.

I question if this was taken in Iraq anyway. It looks more like anti-narco activity.

like the man said, you saw the short version. in the longer version the weapons are clearly visible. The guy with the tractor was there to cover up the burial location.


This is not the whole video (forgive me if you all know this already) It's over 3 min long and in the beginning you can see the insurgent running across the field with the rocket launcher in a bag and throw it down. Just before the second guy gets wasted behind the tractor you can see him trying in vain to pull the launcher out of the bag it's in.

Well, I've watched the video many times, and I don't see a bag with a rocket launcher in it. I'm very familiar with all types of rocket launchers. I see him trying in vain to wave cloth material. What an insurgent is going to do with a rocket launcher against a pitch black sky from which 30mm death is coming at the cyclic rate, I have no idea. This isn't to implicate the guys firing, we really have no idea what happened immediately before the video starts. In the video itself I see absolutely no weaponry.

To all of you who say "Hey it's war, terrible things happen", let me put this into the perspective the rest of the world sees it.


Your country ILLEGALLY invaded another sovereign nation under FALSE pretenses.

YOU started the war, so every single death on either side is on YOUR country's head. Every atrocity, every tragedy, every "collateral" child getting his arms and legs blown off.

Pray that you are never asked to make reparations to the Iraqis, becuase it will financially bankrupt your already morally bankrupt country.

Originally posted by Jakomo
To all of you who say "Hey it's war, terrible things happen", let me put this into the perspective the rest of the world sees it.

ah�.here we go with the peer pressure argument again�.post after graduation please.

Originally posted by Jakomo
Your country ILLEGALLY invaded another sovereign nation under FALSE pretenses.

Frankly, I think your verbal assault on my nation is offensive and indefensible. America has provided reparations to every nation we have ever gone to war against. We are making reparation to Iraq even now.

You and those like you are not interested in anything but your own narrow self-righteous view of the world, but if you get bored, you might read some of the following to find some answers to why the US was justified in invading Iraq.

www.staff.city.ac.uk...

www.free-definition.com...

www.cnn.com...

www.un.int...

www.whitehouse.gov...

www.whitehouse.gov...

www.worldpress.org...

www.fact-index.com...

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Jakomo
Your country ILLEGALLY invaded another sovereign nation under FALSE pretenses.

Frankly, I think your verbal assault on my nation is offensive and indefensible. America has provided reparations to every nation we have ever gone to war against. We are making reparation to Iraq even now.

You and those like you are not interested in anything but your own narrow self-righteous view of the world, but if you get bored, you might read some of the following to find some answers to why the US was justified in invading Iraq.

www.staff.city.ac.uk...

www.free-definition.com...

www.cnn.com...

www.un.int...

www.whitehouse.gov...

www.whitehouse.gov...

www.worldpress.org...

www.fact-index.com...

These sites almost all mention the *pre-Butler Report/Intel Committee* versions of the WMD intelligence. We know now that we were misled.

-koji K.

I read the documents linked by Grady and found among other things this, which demostrated that the grounds for the invasion were at the very least dubious:

The Irish delegate noted: "As far as Ireland is concerned, it is for the Council to decide on any ensuing action." The Mexican ambassador stressed that "the use of force is valid only as a last resort, with prior explicit authorization required from the Security Council." The Bulgarian delegate said: "This resolution is not a pretext for automatic recourse to the use of force." The Colombian representative noted: "This resolution is not, nor could it be at this time, a resolution to authorize the use of force." Similarly, the ambassador from Cameroon expressed relief that the resolution "does not contain traps or automaticity." And the Syrian ambassador said: "The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue."

So basically the flawed document (which however mentioned Security Council) was abused by the US.

Originally posted by Aelita
So basically the flawed document (which however mentioned Security Council) was abused by the US.

Were you trying to show it was flawed because someone actually quoted Ireland and Syria for condemning terror opposition or was that why it was flawed, I was a little confused by that.

Nothing can ever justify the US invading a sovereign nation that held no threat to us.

Take those blah, blah, blah documents and flush them down the toilet because that's what they amount to.

Anyone who has an interest in the military, weapons, and geopolitics knew that the US reasons for going into Iraq were false. The rationale was no better than the rationale spewed out by the Nazis for invading their neighbors. Totally baseless in reality.

Tell me one single war promise that panned out.

"Iraq has WMDs." Uh-huh.

"The Iraqis will greet us as liberators." Yep.

And Grady, what reparations did the US make to...

Vietnam
Spain
Cuba
American Indians
Great Britain
Germany in WW1
Iraq, Gulf War 1
Iran

"War reparations" are a means of supporting the government of a country turned friendly by a war with the US. The US does not usually say 'sorry' with a big check after a military defeat.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Nothing can ever justify the US invading a sovereign nation that held no threat to us.

Take those blah, blah, blah documents and flush them down the toilet because that's what they amount to.

Anyone who has an interest in the military, weapons, and geopolitics knew that the US reasons for going into Iraq were false. The rationale was no better than the rationale spewed out by the Nazis for invading their neighbors. Totally baseless in reality.

Tell me one single war promise that panned out.

"Iraq has WMDs." Uh-huh.

"The Iraqis will greet us as liberators." Yep.

And Grady, what reparations did the US make to...

Vietnam
Spain
Cuba
American Indians
Great Britain
Germany in WW1
Iraq, Gulf War 1
Iran

"War reparations" are a means of supporting the government of a country turned friendly by a war with the US. The US does not usually say 'sorry' with a big check after a military defeat.

To the Victor go the Spoils. The US does not have the right to provide a check. It may be good courtesy, but it is not necessary.

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by Aelita
So basically the flawed document (which however mentioned Security Council) was abused by the US.

Were you trying to show it was flawed because someone actually quoted Ireland and Syria for condemning terror opposition or was that why it was flawed, I was a little confused by that.

No it was flawed because the procedure for military action was not described in enough detail. There are words like "Security Council will face its reponsibilities" and blah blah and there were references to use of force etc, but it was left vague enough. It would appear that most countries voted for the resoultion thought it was understood that a separate measure needs to be adopted to actually start war.

And yes, Mr.Powell was shaking an empty vial in his hand in a ridiculous circus act at the UN, trying to scare people of anthrax.

Originally posted by Aelita
��.. will face its reponsibilities" ���. there were references to use of force etc

so what you are saying is that there were references to use of force and Iraq having to face use of force�.but it was vague�..hmmm, so if some one comes up to you and references the use of force and then says give me your wallet or you will face the responsibility for not doing so��you�d tell them to rephrase. do you really think the diplomats are that stupid.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Nothing can ever justify the US invading a sovereign nation that held no threat to us.

so you believe the fact the Iraq was planning terrorist activities in the US was no threat to us?