mr2mk1g 10 #26 January 25, 2005 QuoteThe nazis didn't kill people to just make a political point or instill fear in a population. Yes they did. Not that has much impact on the conversation... just correcting an inaccuracy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #27 January 25, 2005 QuoteWhat does the WTC have to do with Iraq? I am guessing he is a regular Fox news watcher..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blitzkrieg 0 #28 January 25, 2005 QuoteWhat does the WTC have to do with Iraq? Wendy W. what does a 6 year old girl have to do with iraq? bystanders get killed all the time everywhere. i never layed blame on the commercial airlines for landing there planes in buildings full of innocent people. at least the US is not intentionally bombing civilians. maybe i'm wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,444 #29 January 25, 2005 Quotewhat does a 6 year old girl have to do with iraq? bystanders get killed all the time everywhere. That doesn't really answer the question of what does the WTC have to do with Iraq. Normally, though, we consider something that takes the life of a 6-year-old to be tragic and wrong, and we try to fix it. Think about no-speed zones around schools, and stop-for-the-school-bus laws. The girl is in Iraq; that does have something to do with Iraq. Yes, she would die someday anyway. My son will, too, but don't think that if were to die prematurely I wouldn't do everything in my power to make sure that the system didn't allow that to happen to someone else's son. How do you think her parents are going to react? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #30 January 25, 2005 QuoteBefore we invaded, Iraq had few, if any, terrorists Um, not at all true. Abu Nidal Organization http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/abunidal.html Ansar Al Islam http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/ansar.html Kurdistan Workers' Party (KWP) http://www.cfrterrorism.org/groups/kurdistan.html Kongra Gel (KGK) Mujahadin El Khalq (MEK) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/mek.htm Palestinian Liberation Front (PLF) Et cetera. (BTW, the above information was found on a brief search using Google...there were thousands of pages of results - these came from the first one...) Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blitzkrieg 0 #31 January 25, 2005 well, it just looks like a parody to me. the WTC doesn't have anything to do with iraq. i just don't think it's justified to blame the US for bombing children. it is a problem, but these are not uncommon problems in any warzone. personally, i don't think we should be in iraq, mainly cuz i don't care about their country and we have enough of our own problems to deal with internally. but i can't change that myself. and kids will continue to get blown up by the factions running wild there long after we leave. how do you fix that? i sure don't know. and just for the record, i hate fox news. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #32 January 25, 2005 QuoteNo i just saw the picture of a father picking pieces of her 6 years old daughter who was blown up by an U.S bomb. Really. What's you proof it was a US bomb. How about that it actually occured in Iraq? That it was an bomb at all? That it was the kids father? Not saying it didn't happen, it could have, war is hell, but don't believe the media.......---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feuergnom 28 #33 January 25, 2005 would you mind - just for clarification - which kind of term you used for your search?The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle dudeist skydiver # 666 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #34 January 25, 2005 Nice post Michele. Ties Iraq to terrorists especially Abu Nidal. QuoteHas the Abu Nidal Organization received state support? Yes. Iraq, Syria, and Libya have all harbored the group and given it training, logistical support, and funding, often using the ANO as guns or hire. Abu Nidal began working with Iraqi intelligence while representing Fatah in Baghdad, experts say. He formed his organization with Iraq’s help and began by attacking Syria and the PLO. In 1983, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein expelled Abu Nidal and his group in an attempt to win American military support for Iraq’s 1980s war with neighboring Iran. Once the war ended, Iraq resumed its support of Abu Nidal. After being expelled from Iraq, the organization moved to Syria, where it worked to undermine peace plans involving Jordan, Israel, and the PLO. In turn, Syria expelled the Abu Nidal Organization in 1987, probably under U.S. pressure to distance itself from terrorists, at which point Libya took it in. In 1999, in an attempt to rid itself of international sanctions, Libya kicked out the Abu Nidal Organization. Where does the group now operate? It is now thought to be based in Iraq, with cells in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. In 1999, Egypt and Libya closed down ANO offices in their countries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #35 January 25, 2005 QuoteNice post Michele. Ties Iraq to terrorists especially Abu Nidal. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Has the Abu Nidal Organization received state support? Yes. Iraq, Syria, and Libya have all harbored the group and given it training, logistical support, and funding, often using the ANO as guns or hire. Abu Nidal began working with Iraqi intelligence while representing Fatah in Baghdad, experts say. He formed his organization with Iraq’s help and began by attacking Syria and the PLO. In 1983, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein expelled Abu Nidal and his group in an attempt to win American military support for Iraq’s 1980s war with neighboring Iran. Once the war ended, Iraq resumed its support of Abu Nidal. After being expelled from Iraq, the organization moved to Syria, where it worked to undermine peace plans involving Jordan, Israel, and the PLO. In turn, Syria expelled the Abu Nidal Organization in 1987, probably under U.S. pressure to distance itself from terrorists, at which point Libya took it in. In 1999, in an attempt to rid itself of international sanctions, Libya kicked out the Abu Nidal Organization. Where does the group now operate? It is now thought to be based in Iraq, with cells in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. In 1999, Egypt and Libya closed down ANO offices in their countries. Kind of like funding Saddam and then turning around and calling his followers terrorists Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #36 January 25, 2005 QuoteKind of like funding Saddam and then turning around and calling his followers terrorists A banker is a banker until he launders money.. Then he is a fugitive. Just because the bank employed him before he laundered the money doesn't necessarily put them in the wrong. Surely you have the capacity to understand ones actions places him or her into a certain category. Surely you understand that... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #37 January 25, 2005 ***Surely you understand that...... Dont count on itMarc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #38 January 25, 2005 QuoteA banker is a banker until he launders money.. Then he is a fugitive. Just because the bank employed him before he laundered the money doesn't necessarily put them in the wrong. Surely you have the capacity to understand ones actions places him or her into a certain category. Surely you understand that... In this case it is a bit more difficult. The US would support Saddam as long as he would kill those the US wanted dead. Then he stopped doing that and he became a terrorist......... surely you udnerstand that...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #39 January 25, 2005 QuoteQuoteA banker is a banker until he launders money.. Then he is a fugitive. Just because the bank employed him before he laundered the money doesn't necessarily put them in the wrong. Surely you have the capacity to understand ones actions places him or her into a certain category. Surely you understand that... In this case it is a bit more difficult. The US would support Saddam as long as he would kill those the US wanted dead. Then he stopped doing that and he became a terrorist......... surely you udnerstand that...... Suppose Canada trained someone to be a military sniper. That person later decides to become a professional hit man. Would you blame Canada? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #40 January 25, 2005 QuoteSuppose Canada trained someone to be a military sniper. That person later decides to become a professional hit man. Would you blame Canada? Apples and oranges. As in your other post, too little information to base any conclusions on... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #41 January 25, 2005 QuoteSuppose Canada trained someone to be a military sniper. That person later decides to become a professional hit man. Would you blame Canada? Enough said... He wants his cake and to eat it too... He lost this round.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #42 January 25, 2005 QuoteSuppose Canada trained someone to be a military sniper. That person later decides to become a professional hit man. Would you blame Canada? If you want ot compare this "one liner" to Iraq, it is more along these lines: Canada trains a military sniper and then provides the weapon to be used and tell him he can keep it. two years Canada turns around and arrests him for posession of the weapon we supplied in the first place. Yeah, I would blame Canada...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #43 January 25, 2005 That is 2 lines... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #44 January 25, 2005 QuoteCanada trains a military sniper and then provides the weapon to be used and tell him he can keep it. two years Canada and it's neighbors, who all agree, turns around and tells him that he has to either destroy his weapon or give it back --and-- provide proof of having done so, then, after many more years have passed and he hasn't complied, Canada arrests him for posession of the weapon we supplied in the first place. Still Canada's fault?"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflight 0 #45 January 25, 2005 i think the proper term now is guerilla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #46 January 25, 2005 QuoteWould you blame Canada? ALWAYS blame Canada......---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #47 January 25, 2005 QuoteStill Canada's fault? You left out: as it later turns out, the sniper had destroyed his weapon and his arrest was based on gross incompetence by those supplying the intelligence. Yup, still Canada's fault. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #48 January 25, 2005 Quotethe sniper had destroyed his weapon You left out that he was required to show proof that he destroyed it. No proof was shown. Hence the double cap in the forehead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #49 January 25, 2005 QuoteYou left out that he was required to show proof that he destroyed it. No proof was shown. Hence the double cap in the forehead. Ohhh no, the sniper kept telling Canada that he had destroyed the weapon....yet Canada insisted to listen to the grossly incompetent intelligence providers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflight 0 #50 January 25, 2005 without getting into politics, which is what inevitably happens when you birng this subject up, i can only say- i agree. i know people who took part in almost every( more or less) major military conflict starting with ww2, korea, vietnam, afghanistan(that's from the russian point of view) south american bs, and up to now. one thing any of those people will tell, is that if any time you hesitate to pull the trigger- YOU ARE DEAD. u.s. policy makers are in close communications with u.s. military boys. that's why u.s. makes everyone sign off their right to sue for war crimes. they know what it takes in order to have the least amount of casualties.(outside of not having any action at all) there are rules, and there is your own ass. if the rules are made by someone else for your ass not in favor of your ass, you do as your ass should in order not to get fckd. DARWIN would have had a few things to say on this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
