Originally posted by WheelyBombs will go off for the rest of our lives .
Well, fair enough I suppose. Just as long as nobody objects when the next terrorist bomb goes off in Washington and fifty people get blown up as collateral damage to the real target.
Ido not condone this but it is just something you can not stop ,just like time ,you can't stop that either.
Originally posted by WheelyNew day, I must have missed it. They must have done a bad job. Because it didn't stick. I don't recall any of your threads. did any of them make sense?
I seem to remember you saying something similar in this thread or one of the other lesser,no good threads. I also remember some people debating your points which is why I asked you the question.
Originally posted by WheelySometimes it's just hard to get a point across. It is possible I have repeated myself. I really don't recall. You made me look though. I haven't seen anything yet. But that is a lot of reading. You are right, in that who is to say who is right and who is wrong. The ones who say you are right may be wrong, or the other way around. Why is the world so crazy?
That would depend on your point of view I suppose. To me, at least fifty percent of them did.
Originally posted by shavixmirWe were the only country to use Nuclear weapons because at the time we were the only ones to have them. It was used to save an estimated million US soldiers lives, something you can't understand. I'm pretty damn sure if Hitler had built the bomb first he would have used it on England. Yes we have probably killed more civilians since 1944 because we have been in more wars. Why start at 1944? Why not 1941? That way we could add up the civilians England killed in Germany when they were bombing them in WW II. Or is it you think you're hands are clean? Why don't you mention how many lives American soldiers have also saved since 1944? You're US bashing is really starting to bore me.
God...where to start...
The 9-11 or September the 11th 2001 attacks as they should be referred to, were not an act of war at all. If anything they were a retaliation.
Al Zarqawi, although claiming (like Bin Ladin) credit for the attack, have never been tried or any such thing. Nobody knows who did what or exactly why.
Besides, before 9-11, al qaed ...[text shortened]... 60th of the amount).
And...Hitler killed himself. Semantics, yes, buy accurate all the same.
Originally posted by PalynkaUnfortunately, news stories which look bad for britain and the u.s. seem to change links a lot more frequently on the bbc, than other news stories. I didn't have time to track down the relevant bbc article this morning.
That article is not propaganda? It's simply ridiculous.
It's interesting how so many people decide that anyone that doesn't agree with them is being brain-washed. Funnily enough, many of those come out with the most surreal conspiracy theories. Go figure.
Here is the relevant news article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4264614.stm Obviously, this is the news as told by the british army and the government officials installed by the invading forces. Why do people accept this side of the story, but dismiss immediately another side?
I wouldn't celebrate the death of somebody I don't know based on the link. Other people choose to celebrate, based on media of equally dubious nature.
Surreal conspiracy theories? Do you not agree that if you have 2 enemies, and can get them fighting each other, then their attacks against you will be reduced?
Seperate question... Do you not think it suits the invading forces to have the world see the need for the international policing? Does it not remove an awful lot of pressure from the illegal invaders to withdraw if the invaded country appears to be experiencing civil war?
D
Originally posted by cashthetrashIn the eyes of the U.S., you are at war. Undoubtedly, a very dubious war on "terror", but you are at war, nonetheless. I see absolutely no difference whatsoever between a soldier who kills 1 innocent person by beheading him, and a soldier who drops a bomb, which kills 50-100 innocents (remember a "precision missile" has a damage radius of 600 metres?
Though I am no supporter of this war. And I [b]am not a supporter of 'George W. Bush.' I am a supporter of the removal whether it had come from arrest or death of 'Mr. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi'.
But, they are there now and I wish America and their allies success. And ultimately Iraq and the rest of the world success as a result.
Mr, Ragno ...[text shortened]... d go fishing with 'Mr. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi'. But somehow, I really, really doubt that.[/b]
I'd also like you to provide quotes of mine which show my "hatred" of Joe America. Upon rereading my posts, you'll notice I said that I considered people like the Ritter to be the Nazis, as opposed to the Muslims as he says, which he advocates the extermination of, in this post..."Indeed, the forces of Islamo-Nazism can not be negotiated with, nor can they be appeased, as Canada, England, Spain and Holland have found out to their dismay. The forces of Islamo-Nazism can only be killed."
Don't be so weak minded as to be influenced by other people seeing something which wasn't there. It was Mochiron who first suggested that I had something against all americans. The only time I referred to Joe America was when I said that most americans think that Iraq had something to do with 9-11, providing a link to the Washington Post poll which said that 70% of americans thought that.
Unfortunately, it seems to be not only americans like yourself who have adopted the mind set, as initiated by Bush, that anybody who criticises american actions is an american hater and a terrorist.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakBecause one side makes some sense and the other does not. One side is a credible news source quoting from official British and Iraqi statements, the other one quotes random news event and extrapolates away with hints and suspicions. I'm not innocent to say the BBC owns the truth, but compared to the linked site it certainly is more credible.
Unfortunately, news stories which look bad for britain and the u.s. seem to change links a lot more frequently on the bbc, than other news stories. I didn't have time to track down the relevant bbc article this morning.
Here is the relevant news article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4264614.stm Obviously, this is the news as told by the brit ...[text shortened]... llegal invaders to withdraw if the invaded country appears to be experiencing civil war?
D
I'm not celebrating anything, but defending the legitimacy of such a bombing operation in the context of the presence of US forces in Iraq (which is another issue).
No, I don't think the a civil war would suit the US. A serene pro-American government is what suits the US both internally and externally. A civil war (and even more the division of the country if it happens) clearly point a failure in this type of American policy. What legitimacy would it gain if a "liberated" country erupted into civil war?
Originally posted by RagnorakWell lets see. Be-heading a prisoner who is tied up and at your feet is a hell of a lot different than dropping a bomb from thousands of feet. More personnal don't you think?
In the eyes of the U.S., you are at war. Undoubtedly, a very dubious war on "terror", but you are at war, nonetheless. I see absolutely no difference whatsoever between a soldier who kills 1 innocent person by beheading him, and a soldier who drops a bomb, which kills 50-100 innocents (remember a "precision missile" has a damage radius of 600 metres?
I ...[text shortened]... anybody who criticises american actions is an american hater and a terrorist.
D
Originally posted by slimjimWhat a load of trailer trash bollocks... as per usual.
We were the only country to use Nuclear weapons because at the time we were the only ones to have them. It was used to save an estimated million US soldiers lives, something you can't understand. I'm pretty damn sure if Hitler had built the bomb first he would have used it on England. Yes we have probably killed more civilians since 1944 because we have been ...[text shortened]... rican soldiers have also saved since 1944? You're US bashing is really starting to bore me.
The allies could have set up a sea block around Japan and financially crushed them, instead of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Japan was on the point of surrendering anyway...
Originally posted by slimjimI read that the plane pilot who flew the B29 which dropped the "little boy" had serious mental problems ever after.
Well lets see. Be-heading a prisoner who is tied up and at your feet is a hell of a lot different than dropping a bomb from thousands of feet. More personnal don't you think?
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirThe blocade would have lasted years. How many would have starved in the name of the "glorious" emperor till they surrendered? Japanese soldiers rarely surrendered even at the point of a rifle. Maybe its sewer trash bollocks as usual?
What a load of trailer trash bollocks... as per usual.
The allies could have set up a sea block around Japan and financially crushed them, instead of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Japan was on the point of surrendering anyway...