rhino 0 #51 January 16, 2006 QuoteThey claimed Saddam had WMD...and were very wrong. I guess he killed all those villagers with a prayer and a song then... Killing innocent people is absolutely horrible. It just plain sucks.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #52 January 16, 2006 QuoteI guess he killed all those villagers with a prayer and a song then... Killing innocent people is absolutely horrible. It just plain sucks.. You mean that killing innocent pople is absolute horrible even if the U.S does it? Or only if others do it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #53 January 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteI guess he killed all those villagers with a prayer and a song then... Killing innocent people is absolutely horrible. It just plain sucks.. You mean that killing innocent pople is absolute horrible even if the U.S does it? Or only if others do it? Define innocent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #54 January 17, 2006 I will come up with a definition we both can agree. Children, they are so young they cannot enrol in the insurgency files. A few of them died in the last raid and many people are not showing the slightest remorse. I also consider innocent those regarless of age that only want to be left alone by terrorist and U.S military alike. But we muy disagree in the last. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rwieder 0 #55 January 17, 2006 QuoteRhino: What disgusting language you use. His language isn't disgusting, it's fucking goddamn pathetic. The sorry son-of-a bitch shouldn't be usning that fucking type of whore house laungauge. Cheap bastard. Fucking forget about it! -Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #56 January 17, 2006 QuoteI will come up with a definition we both can agree. Children, they are so young they cannot enrol in the insurgency files. A few of them died in the last raid and many people are not showing the slightest remorse. I also consider innocent those regarless of age that only want to be left alone by terrorist and U.S military alike. But we muy disagree in the last. It is well known that Zawahri has a price on his head and is being sought by several countries. Therefore, anyone who would associate themselves with him does so with the knowledge there is the possibility that a bomb could go off at anytime. For Tribal leaders to invite Zawahri to their home with this knowledge and to then claim "innocent" people were killed, when the inevitable happens is true. It's just that it was due to the fact the Tribal leaders were the ones responsible for their deaths. Capturing and/or killing terrorists like Zawahri put US, Iraqi, and Pakistani forces at a disadvantage. They wear a uniform which indentifies them as the enemy to terrorists. It says "here I am, come and get me". Terrorists don't put themselves at this disadvantage. Why do you think they hide among the civilian population? Why doesn't AQ wear some identifying mark like an arm band or a hat? This isn't the same as a terrorist walking down the street and innocent people being killed by a bomb. This is a case where Tribal leaders subjected their own people to the serious consequences of associating with a known terrorist. It is sad and I am sorry that innocent children were killed, but the responsibility for their deaths falls on their parents and Tribal leaders. Nobody else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuteless 1 #57 January 17, 2006 I suppose you think that your perverted English is a sign of something intelligent. Not likely Bill Cole . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #58 January 17, 2006 QuoteI suppose you think that your perverted English is a sign of something intelligent. Not likely. Well, I do hear that's it's "a fact" that's it's the International language of everything. Perverted English, the International Language. What do we win? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,147 #59 January 18, 2006 QuoteIt is well known that Zawahri has a price on his head and is being sought by several countries. Therefore, anyone who would associate themselves with him does so with the knowledge there is the possibility that a bomb could go off at anytime. Are you serious? You really think they get CNN International Edition on the tv in their village? Unbelievable....just becaus ethey have TV in bumfuck Idaho doesn't mean they have tv everywhere in the world.....I know, I know, it is quite a shock when you find out the whole world isn't like the US.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #60 January 18, 2006 You must be kidding. The U.S has indeed a problem taking responsability. If someone in the U.S gives shelter to a criminal no matter how heinous his crimes are, do you guys bomb the hell out of his house killing all the family and some neighbours or you try to take the criminal by other means. If you guys don´t do the same in Irak than in the U.S. it must be because you don´t consider an Iraki civilian as worthy as an U.S. civilian. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #61 January 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt is well known that Zawahri has a price on his head and is being sought by several countries. Therefore, anyone who would associate themselves with him does so with the knowledge there is the possibility that a bomb could go off at anytime. Are you serious? You really think they get CNN International Edition on the tv in their village? Unbelievable....just becaus ethey have TV in bumfuck Idaho doesn't mean they have tv everywhere in the world.....I know, I know, it is quite a shock when you find out the whole world isn't like the US.... And you know they are unaware of Zawahri? You assume they are just a bunch of ignorant mountain people with no connection to the outside world? How condescending of you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #62 January 18, 2006 QuoteYou must be kidding. The U.S has indeed a problem taking responsability. If someone in the U.S gives shelter to a criminal no matter how heinous his crimes are, do you guys bomb the hell out of his house killing all the family and some neighbours or you try to take the criminal by other means. If you guys don´t do the same in Irak than in the U.S. it must be because you don´t consider an Iraki civilian as worthy as an U.S. civilian. You are confusing a war criminal with a common criminal. Zawahri is wanted dead or alive. Therefore anyone associated with him is guilty by that association. Or did you think he was meeting with the Tribal leaders to discuss baking cookies? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #63 January 18, 2006 >Zawahri is wanted dead or alive. Therefore anyone associated >with him is guilty by that association. Anyone associating with a war criminal is guilty by association? When are you bombing the White House? (I know, I know, you meant "anyone we don't like who associated with him is guilty, but if we liked the guy, it was for a good reason.") Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #64 January 18, 2006 Quote>Zawahri is wanted dead or alive. Therefore anyone associated >with him is guilty by that association. Anyone associating with a war criminal is guilty by association? When are you bombing the White House? (I know, I know, you meant "anyone we don't like who associated with him is guilty, but if we liked the guy, it was for a good reason.") No, I meant anyone responsible for flying airplanes into buildings and murdering 3000 human beings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #65 January 18, 2006 >No, I meant anyone responsible for flying airplanes into buildings >and murdering 3000 human beings. Have you abandoned the "Saddam is an inhuman monster who killed tens of thousands with his WMD arsenal" approach, then? Interesting! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #66 January 18, 2006 Quote>No, I meant anyone responsible for flying airplanes into buildings >and murdering 3000 human beings. Have you abandoned the "Saddam is an inhuman monster who killed tens of thousands with his WMD arsenal" approach, then? Interesting! Same thing. When we decided to invade Iraq, anyone sitting at the dinner table with SH had a reasonable expectation they could be hit by a bomb at any time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #67 January 18, 2006 Oh, I'll see your Rumsfeld SH and raise you a Clinton/Arafat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FireMedicJumper 0 #68 January 18, 2006 Check out this link to a story about the supposed missle. It appears the NY Times may be a tad off the mark on this one. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48374 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #69 January 18, 2006 QuoteCheck out this link to a story about the supposed missle. It appears the NY Times may be a tad off the mark on this one. Quote http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48374 Clicky"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #70 January 18, 2006 So I think we can agree that "anyone who associates with these types is NOT neccessarily guilty." Fair enough? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #71 January 18, 2006 QuoteSo I think we can agree that "anyone who associates with these types is NOT neccessarily guilty." Fair enough? No, not fair enough. Anyone who associates themselves with Bush ie. Generals, White House Staff etc know that a bomb could go off at anytime. Same with our soldiers on the battlefield. They know and accept this fact. I never hear you claim dead US soldiers were innocent victims, so why should the people who are collaberating with Zawahri be. As far as I'm concerned, the fact the Tribal leaders don't have AQ uniforms doesn't mean they are "innocent victims." At the very least, they were aiding and abetting a fugitive or assisting in planning for AQ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #72 January 18, 2006 QuoteNo, not fair enough. Anyone who associates themselves with Bush ie. Generals, White House Staff etc know that a bomb could go off at anytime. So are Barbara Bush and her twin daughters valid targets since they more often than not gives shelter Bush at home? ¿Bush or Cheney or Clinton, you name it.? QuoteAt the very least, they were aiding and abetting a fugitive or assisting in planning for AQ. For some of them maybe so, maybe not. For the kids, I very much doubt they were planning for AQ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #73 January 18, 2006 QuoteIt is well known that Zawahri has a price on his head and is being sought by several countries. Therefore, anyone who would associate themselves with him does so with the knowledge there is the possibility that a bomb could go off at anytime. For Tribal leaders to invite Zawahri to their home with this knowledge and to then claim "innocent" people were killed, when the inevitable happens is true. It's just that it was due to the fact the Tribal leaders were the ones responsible for their deaths. I'm genuinely curious how you arrive at this point of view. What countries other than the USA have you spent time in? Of those countries, what percentage of that time was spent mixing with the natives and emersing yourself in the local culture? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #74 January 18, 2006 Since I doubt you have been to this particular area of Pakistan, please defend your contention that these people are ignorant mountain people. Heck, the fact I recieve National Geographic gives me a better insight than someone who has never been there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #75 January 18, 2006 What you continue to fail to understand is that the US combatants wear a uniform to identify themselves as "targets." AQ intentionally disguises themselves and seeks to hide within the civilian population. By doing so they put all civilians at risk. If they were truely concerned about protecting "innocents" they would identify themselves as combatants. It is AQ and the Tribal leaders who are responsible for innocents being killed. By your standards, unless we use a precision, laser guided weapon that would only kill the one person it was aimed at, we are responsible. I disagree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
