Stupid American Killers !!!

Originally posted by aspviper666
I think it was myself who said the grenade remark.
I said something akin to"I would have filled the hole up with napalm and then tossed in a grenade."
I didn't say i would enjoy it.

Fair enough. Pretty sure Slim said something along the lines of 'if only someone had dropped a grenade down that hole' or similar....

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Fair enough. Pretty sure Slim said something along the lines of 'if only someone had dropped a grenade down that hole' or similar....

Slim did say something like that, and I agree...sort of like a roach bomb....set the timer and presto, no more roach problem...😉

Originally posted by chancremechanic
Slim did say something like that, and I agree...sort of like a roach bomb....set the timer and presto, no more roach problem...😉

Yes. That however is like Anakin slicing off the count's head, isn't it.

It's a sure fire path to the dark side.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Yes. That however is like Anakin slicing off the count's head, isn't it.

It's a sure fire path to the dark side.

definitely the dark side for saddam....😉

Originally posted by Rajk999
Youre making nonsense statements again here Stang .

America kills and then hides behind its weaponary and Homeland Security. Other terrorists kill and then hide in villages.

Originally posted by Delmer
There are no Americans below the poverty line in my America, Gnats. And no bastard urchins struggling to survive. But there are a hell of a lot of well-fed, happy dogs. What would you suggest, Gnats, that I deny my dog a steak so that some welfare mother can gather up enough energy to pop another bastard child? I think not. Better the steak goes to the dog.

I hope your dog chokes and some good comes out of it.

Originally posted by STANG
America just killed one and a half dozen people on the Pakistan border. America's intelligence was wrong. Stupid American Killers !!!

Your actions will only bring more terrorism.

looks like you are wrong again stang. Terrorist were killed and many others had been invited but did not show. So it appears intelligence was correct. If you support those that support terrorist I think that makes you a terrorist, stang.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/01/17/pakistan.strike.ap/index.html

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
looks like you are wrong again stang. Terrorist were killed and many others had been invited but did not show. So it appears intelligence was correct. If you support those that support terrorist I think that makes you a terrorist, stang.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/01/17/pakistan.strike.ap/index.html

Actually it says that four terrorists were killed but their bodies were carried off by their compatriots. So they don't know if any terrorists were killed. They do know, however, that 18 non-combatants were killed. Their compatriots didn't carry off the bodies so those deaths are fact.

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
looks like you are wrong again stang. Terrorist were killed and many others had been invited but did not show. So it appears intelligence was correct. If you support those that support terrorist I think that makes you a terrorist, stang.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/01/17/pakistan.strike.ap/index.html

It appears that the intelligence was incorrect. First it said that Ayman al-Zawahiri was there and now they are saying that he wasn't. They are also saying terrorists were killed, but they have no proof. So are 18 confirmed death to civilians acceptable for 4 unconfirmed dead terrorists?

Originally posted by CliffLandin
It appears that the intelligence was incorrect. First it said that Ayman al-Zawahiri was there and now they are saying that he wasn't. They are also saying terrorists were killed, but they have no proof. So are 18 confirmed death to civilians acceptable for 4 unconfirmed dead terrorists?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10889968/

what kind of proof do you need? See people like you have already formed your opinions (based on your agenda), and you use your opinions to draw your conclusions and facts. Instead you should draw your conclusions based on where the facts lead you. Yes, those associated with or harboring terrorists are at risk by their association. See you have to get out of your "theoretical" world and realize that there is a real threat and just because terrorist are in a "villiage" does not mean you don't try to kill them.

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10889968/

what kind of proof do you need? See people like you have already formed your opinions (based on your agenda), and you use your opinions to draw your conclusions and facts. Instead you should draw your conclusions based on where the facts lead you. Yes, those associated with or harboring terrorists are at ri ...[text shortened]... at and just because terrorist are in a "villiage" does not mean you don't try to kill them.

Hmmm... So you are saying that anyone in a village that al Queda members are in are fair game?

So the 18 confirmed dead, all non-combatants, are guilty by assosiation?

Why did you put "village" in quotes. Do you think that this village was an al Queda training camp. No one, but you is claiming that. Do you dictate who can come and go in the town you live in.

By your logic the Oklahoma City bombers were justified in killing all those women and children because they were in the building that housed the object of their hate.