Regarding the thread titled "Two faced. Two towers"
Originally posted by Derfel Cadarn:
To insult our military is a low blow, even by your snake like standards. You, sir, are a coward. You wouldn't dare talk like this to an American soldier's face. You hide behind a keyboard and insult people risking their lives for a war they didn't start. Big man you are.
My reply:
I am saddened by the deaths of American soldiers but I also recognise them as agents of Bush. Some 100,000 people have died in Iraq, first on the false premise of WMD's and then on the premise of getting Saddam. Why do you consider that more acceptable ?
No answer was received from Derfel Cadarnat at the time the thread was closed.
4 edits
Originally posted by Sambo69Just read that thread - if you call 9/11 "collateral damage" you are an idiot.
Regarding the thread titled "Two faced. Two towers"
Originally posted by Derfel Cadarn:
To insult our military is a low blow, even by your snake like standards. You, sir, are a coward. You wouldn't dare talk like this to an American soldier's face. You hide behind a keyboard and insult people risking their lives for a war they didn't start. Big man you a ptable ?
No answer was received from Derfel Cadarnat at the time the thread was closed.
Collateral damage is inadvertent casualties and destruction inflicted on civilians in the course of military operations, not in the course of fanatical terrorist plots.
Any non-inadvertent deaths of civilians in foreign countries caused by the US/UK/Civilised countries that occur [and are known about] result in either courts martial or criminal proceedings. Not promises of virgins in paradise.
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveI believe what he was referring to is not called "collateral damage" but rather what he meant to say was "Blow back".
Just read that thread - if you call 9/11 "collateral damage" you are an idiot.
Collateral damage is [b]inadvertent casualties and destruction inflicted on civilians in the course of military operations, not in the course of fanatical terrorist plots.
Any non-inadvertent deaths of civilians in foreign countries caused by the US/UK/Civilised count ...[text shortened]... result in either courts martial or criminal proceedings. Not promises of virgins in paradise.[/b]
Blow back is a term the US military uses when describing what the "enemy" will do after the US does something to another country or organization as retaliation.
9/11, the earlier attempt to bomb the world trade centre, the USS Cole bombing and others, was considered "blow back" for 3 decades worth of the US intervening in Arab country affairs. Keeping in mind that most of the hijackers in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, 9/11 was designed, among other reasons, as a retailiation against the US military keeping military bases in Saudi Arabia to quell any public uprisings ensuring the saudi royal family remains in power to ensure a constant supply of oil to the US. Remember, Saudi Arabia just used to be called Arabia before the House of Saud took over power in the 70's. Arabia then became Saudi Arabia. The US signed a deal with the House of Saud around 1976 which in effect required the US to protect the House of Saud militarily in exchange for a free flow of oil to the US.
For the last 30 years, as unemployment grew and the Saudi Royal family became richer and richer, many Arabs have grown to see this deal with the US as intolerable and have tried to kick out the House of Saud from power but have been unsuccesful against a US backed and supplied Saudi army.
From this, many argue it is not suprising that a small percentage of a disgruntled population have resorted to extreme and violent measures in an attempt to retaliate. This retaliation, manifested as 9/11, is the "blow back" for free flowing oil and cheap US gasoline prices. If Americans wonder why events like 9/11 occur, they need look no further than there own appetites for giant gas guzzling SUV's and cheap gas....Bush's "they hate our freedom" ridiculousness nothwithstanding.
As a somewhat moral person, I disagree and condem flying planes into buildings, but I know there a some crazy people out there that will do just about anything when you piss them off enough.
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove1. The term "collateral damage" is used to gloss over the motives for actions and resulting death, injury and destruction.
Just read that thread - if you call 9/11 "collateral damage" you are an idiot.
Collateral damage is [b]inadvertent casualties and destruction inflicted on civilians in the course of military operations, not in the course of fanatical terrorist plots.
Any non-inadvertent deaths of civilians in foreign countries caused by the US/UK/Civilised count ...[text shortened]... result in either courts martial or criminal proceedings. Not promises of virgins in paradise.[/b]
2. It was not necessary to invade Iraq and there were therefore no "inadvertent" deaths, injuries or destruction. There was no "collateral damage". The motives were also false.
3. In inflciting death, injury and destruction, America has the use of fancy military equipment while the "terrorists" could make use of little other than civilians aeroplanes. There is barely any other difference between the two.
4. Politicians benefit from war (e.g. Bush has personal financial interests) and the soldiers get jobs and money. 9/11 was not about promises of virgins in paradise. See the thread titled "The real reasons why America is targeted" - www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=48715
If you dismiss the death, injury and destruction in Iraq as "collateral damage" then you are the idiot. It has only bred more "terrorism".
Originally posted by Sambo69Do you really believe all the crap you write?
1. The term "collateral damage" is used to gloss over the motives for actions and resulting death, injury and destruction.
2. It was not necessary to invade Iraq and there were therefore no "inadvertent" deaths, injuries or destruction. There was no "collateral damage". The motives were also false.
3. In inflciting death, injury and destruction, Americ ...[text shortened]... as "collateral damage" then you are the idiot. It has only bred more "terrorism".
Remember, Saudi Arabia just used to be called Arabia before the House of Saud took over power in the 70's. Arabia then became Saudi Arabia. The US signed a deal with the House of Saud around 1976 which in effect required the US to protect the House of Saud militarily in exchange for a free flow of oil to the US.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_saud
actually Saudi Arabia was renamed in the 1930's when the Sauds took over at that time I believe that the British and France, not the Americans were hegemonic in the Middle East (having mandates in Iraq and Lebanon) but hey, why let accuracy get in the way of a good rant.
Lets all go back to throwing anti american rants at each other.
