Because the insertion of a sniper into an area where the terrorist may be requires a MUCH higher risk (to US troops), more planning, more time, more consequences if he is captured. yes i realize that launching a cruise missile or anything has a significantly higher risk to noncombattant personell... but we have to watch out for us before them.

In short, yes, it's a horrible thing. It was not intentional, so there is absolutely not way to say 'we are as bad as the terrorists'



------------------
saberopus
oh yeh wlel i jsut gots finesht wiht my morrwoind mod for teh JO An it takes up teh 900 gigabiets of spaec but i wlil not sowh yuo gyz teh scrnshoots becasue we dunat kare wut u gyz tihnk ne1 no wear i kan get ti hostad 4 dounlowd!!!!11!111 --Checksum

Hrm...

The target was a man believed responsible for the killing of two foreign contractors who were working on an Afghan road, West said. He did not identify the contractors and had no information about their deaths, but two Indian engineers were reported kidnapped while working on the road Saturday.

Looks to me like they weren't very sure if he was even a terrorist...or even the man responsible for the Indian engineers kidnapped.

West said U.S. troops collected ``extensive intelligence over an extended period of time'' and located the suspect targeted Saturday at an ``isolated, rural site.''

A) This sounds more like a problem for the local authorities to handle.
B) Seems like they had ample opportunity for a sniper to be deployed on a naighboring building.



------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

your sig is extremely ironic in that post. please try to make your nick accurate and edit your sig out of your post so it removes the irony. thankyou.

------------------
your curiosity will get the better of YOU one day.
alpha1: winner of the 2003 tfti award.
http://members.shaw.ca/orichan/images/MyArt/Guards.jpg
fear the evil pointy finger of death. yu-gi-oh Dub.

I just wonder if this man was a terrorist and if he had known that he was going to be targeted if he didn't intentionally get those kids there to either A)Hope that the soldiers saw and wouldn't fire or B)Give US bad press... If this might've been the case it was an extreme win win situation in this guys eyes

------------------
"So there I was completely naked and covered in tartar sauce..."

three words, anti missile rockets.

------------------
your curiosity will get the better of YOU one day.
alpha1: winner of the 2003 tfti award.
http://members.shaw.ca/orichan/images/MyArt/Guards.jpg
fear the evil pointy finger of death. yu-gi-oh Dub.

Hi. My name's Brandon. Ever since I was a young by, my father told me about a group of people who do horrible things. A group of people who want to put an end to our religious ideals. These people use an amazing force and unfair terms to destroy our world. Entire buildings, with thousands of people destroyed. Some of those people were innocent men, women, and even children. Now I'm going to enlist! I'm going to fight for our freedom, our rights! I'm going to fight in the name of Ameri-Allah!

We can't hate them any more than they hate us, because in their eyes, we're no different from what they are in our eyes. The Taliban needed to be put under control, yes, but still? There are few enemies left in Afganistan, and those that are left are of no threat to us at home. And Iraq? There's no reason to be there. At all. 70 US soldiers died because Bush likes oil. Iraq has no ties to Afganistan or the Taliban in any way. And the people we're fighting in Iraq? People from the Taliban that came TO Iraq because we were there. No, there's no reason those kids should have died, and there's no reason those American Soldiers should have died, and there's absolutely no reason we shouldn't see our family members for 3 more years.

JediKirby

------------------
"I was driving along listening to the radio, when Judas Priest comes on. It was 'You've got another thing coming.' All of a sudden, I enter 'VICE CITY RAMAGE MODE' and nearly ran some guy over"
- ]-[ellequin

no rocket currently in the possession of a lone terrorist has the slightest hope of shooting down a US launched cruise missile.



------------------
saberopus
oh yeh wlel i jsut gots finesht wiht my morrwoind mod for teh JO An it takes up teh 900 gigabiets of spaec but i wlil not sowh yuo gyz teh scrnshoots becasue we dunat kare wut u gyz tihnk ne1 no wear i kan get ti hostad 4 dounlowd!!!!11!111 --Checksum

jEDIkIRBY, i'm glad you listen to what others say about bush wanting oil, and spout 'OIL OIL OIL HE WANTS OIL' every time you need a fact against our action in Iraq. Coming from the 'opposition', it's always anti-bush, never pro-iraqi-freedom...

There is not as much of a similarity between us and them as you might think. The populace of Iraq more than likely lived in fear of Saddam Hussein... our president is not a brutal dictator who altered laws to hold power for more than three decades, invaded neighbouring countries for oil, slaughtered dissidents...(in case you don't know, when saddam hussein first came to power, he had 5 or so of his aides killed at random to ensure that none of the others were 'unloyal').

The people of Iraq are not as free now as they should be. yes, the implementation of a democratic government is slow. yes, more people will die. but not as many as if we hadn't acted...

uh......i have a lot more to say, but i really should be doing work... I'll come back to this later, maybe.

Anyway. The basic point is, yes, there are reasons for us to be in Iraq, it's not about oil.

------------------
saberopus
oh yeh wlel i jsut gots finesht wiht my morrwoind mod for teh JO An it takes up teh 900 gigabiets of spaec but i wlil not sowh yuo gyz teh scrnshoots becasue we dunat kare wut u gyz tihnk ne1 no wear i kan get ti hostad 4 dounlowd!!!!11!111 --Checksum

For a pink thing that sucks alot, you sure are intellegent.

People need to think why do the terrorists target us. Why not Luxemborg? Japan? I don't know, other places that have high standards of living.

No, it's because we interfered with their issues, used force on them. The (in my mind justified) defence of Isreal, to numerous operations to delfect communism (Iran, Iraq, the Taliban) in the area, US actions, justfied or not have come to harm Middle Easterners. They hate us for that, and you could try feeling a bit of empathy.

Our current approaches are breeding more hate. These terrorists aren't blindly picking a target to pick off, and we are helping them. All we need now is a few more debacles like this until we get more nations to hate us.

Collateral damage yourself. You say that when your family members die. This hate did not come out of thin air, and many seem to ignore this.

And what do I propse? A harder path to try and at least make us seem less hostile. Want to kill that terrorist? Use a sniper, while not as easy, higher risk, and may require dead on planning, it avoids this. Not using less invasive forms does indeed hurt us more than them. That many more recruits for the terrorists.

[edit]Don't dare use the "we did it for Iraqi freedom" BS. That angers me to no end. Talk to any Iraqi, and ask them, what do they think. The rest of the world isn't as bad as everyone here paints them to be. I just fear the fate of Iran now. People are happy there, but any blurb in the media, any picture you see, it seems that they are living in constant opression. I guess the media is softening that target up now as well eh?
------------------
http://www.4guys-1dragoon.cjb.net -No porn. We promise*

[This message has been edited by Lord Kuat (edited December 07, 2003).]

No, When the president takes one of the highest surpluses ever acheived by his country and manages the new money like a 4th grade bake-sale, sending it into billions of dollars of a deficite, and the American opinion of you has soared to an amazing 8 percent in favor of voting you back into office, and then your country is attacked, thus you strike back, justified. Now that you've spent another 7 billion or so killing every last person wearing a turban and carrying an AK in Afganistan, you're a bit strapped for cash. Your old friend Sadam Suddain has a country near by... And with the sudden soar in patriotism, you've got a chance to use your old friend's oil reserves (Which you tapped in the early 80's, and made sure Sadam had a good supply of weapons in return) to bring your deficite back up into a possible surplus. No, this war isn't about oil. Really, it's about liberating a country that's needed liberation for 100s of years. Just when your own country needs liberation is it time to liberate this country... Don't kid yourself Sab. Bush is looking to get elected next year, and giving us a surplus is his means.

JediKirby

------------------
"I was driving along listening to the radio, when Judas Priest comes on. It was 'You've got another thing coming.' All of a sudden, I enter 'VICE CITY RAMAGE MODE' and nearly ran some guy over"
- ]-[ellequin

[This message has been edited by jEDIkIRBY (edited December 07, 2003).]

But is the role of America to step in and liberate? Or is America doing this to end terrorism against our country?

------------------
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)
---@%

What'd Iraq and it's people ever do to us!? If anything, we should have given Sadam a medal. The guy supported us, and he even had an oil treaty with us for the longest of time! We trade with countries that do bad things, but it's not our say to what they can and can't do, it's the UN. And obviously it's not on the UN's prioreties to slaughter 9 children and 1 terrorist who wouldn't have been near those children if we hadn't started throwing whiffle balls into Iraq's yard!

JediKirby


------------------
"I was driving along listening to the radio, when Judas Priest comes on. It was 'You've got another thing coming.' All of a sudden, I enter 'VICE CITY RAMAGE MODE' and nearly ran some guy over"
- ]-[ellequin

What is terrorism based on? It's based on hate. What are we breeding right now? Hate, and lots of it.

You think bringing down thunder is going to solve anything? The harder we clench our fist, the more they slip through our fingers. Dropping the hammer and dispensing indiscrimiate justice does not apply here.

------------------
http://www.4guys-1dragoon.cjb.net -No porn. We promise*

Neither. And anyone at the Pentigon can tell you the same thing. We will never, ever, ever, EVER, put an end to terrorism. It simply is not possible.

If you think back leading up to initiating war on Iraq, think of what you heard Bush keep saying over and over:

"Iraq as Weapons of Mass Destruction...."
"Iraq as ties to Al Quieda (or other terrorist organizations)..."

The pentigon knew early on from the data they had collected that Saddam didn't have WMD's. Not only did they know, but other international orginazations that keep track of WMD material movements, knew about it and were even outspoken about it...though, only to a small degree.

But, for the most part, you didn't hear any of this. As time wore on and the inspectors weren't coming up with anything, we started hearing a shift from WMD's to:

"We must act to liberate the people of Iraq from an evil man..."

Now...why wasn't that on Bush's original to-do list? It wasn't until it was starting to become painfully obvious that Iraq didn't have WMD's, that Bush made this shift to "Iraqi Freedom".

And this was STILL before they found the report that stated that Iraq "most likely" did NOT have WMD's. Odd that Bush would change his focus midstream, don't you think? Obviously, they had already told him about it, and he was hoping that those reports would never be found (kudos to the guy/lady that leaked them).

Then, Bush declares "Time up Saddam", and tells the inspectors to get out before the bombing starts. Why not let the inspectors continue looking for the WMD's? I mean, wasn't the WMD's the original focus? Oh yeah, darn, that's right, there's a NEW focus now "Iraqi Freedom," Yah!

Then, Bush proclaimed that "The Iraqi people will be allowed to construct a new government...one of their choosing."

What did we hear next?
"We will help them to establish a democratic government."

Wait a sec, I thought we were going to allow them to choos their own governement? So now their limited to a democratic government? Am I the only one starting to see a pattern?

Then, when the pentigon document shows up about the WMD information, Bush denies any responsibility, claiming that he did not know anything about it. Yeah, and the moon is made of cheese. So, why did he make the focus shift from WMD's to Iraqi Freedom in mid-stream and for no apparent reason, for? Yep, you guessed it. Oh, he knew about it alright...

The lot of you have been fooled and decieved by such words as 'Dictator', 'Axis of Evil', 'Patriotic Duty', ect.

In closing, I leave you with some words of wisdom:

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

and

"Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited December 07, 2003).]

I just showed a friend this and she had an intresting idea:
"...i think someone needs to show bush the wonders of playing war video games, so he can kill people (and himself) in them, rather than pretending that *real life* is a video game. "

I thought that was cute and funny as hell when an image of Bush and Rumsfield playing BF1942 popped in my head:

BUSH: Damnit, Ronald, you ****ing hacker terrorist!



------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited December 07, 2003).]

people, read rolling stone. bush is a psycho who wants to restructure the whole world to be controlled by him

he's my idol...only i'm not crazy

------------------
Life and death are equally jests
-Poe

Logic would argue that if you're going to blame someone for killing children, blame the soldiers. Or blame the commanding officers who are ordering them to eliminate targets in a way that unduly threatens civilians.

Don't blame the politicians. The politicans tell them what to do, not how many children to kill in the process. Think about this logically: You think Bush pulled those triggers? You think Bush is ordering his soldiers to kill civilians?
I'm not a Bush supporter. He may be a lot of things, but one way or the other what he did in Iraq was what he thought was right. Whether he's right about that or terribly wrong, that still puts him a step up from all of you armchair generals who always seem to have an opinion about a subject but never have the guts to do something about it.

Enough said.

Yeah, because nobody gave a crap about civilians back then.

Does anyone else think that it is interesting that the first thing America secures and rebuilds is the oil. Granted, that's Iraq's main source of income and they really really need it trade and stuff. Did you hear how the US military controls all the oil right now and who gets it? The US government has exclusive rights to the oil. The entire campaign to get rid of Saddam was calculated by Bush's administration ever since 9/11. WMD's... never found. Ties to Al-Qaeda... none. Iraqi freedom... might be attainable. Oil... already secured and pumping. Just like in Afghanistan.

I am definitely voting next year. For anyone other than Bush. I trusted Clinton more than I trust Bush, the only thing he really lied about was some sucky ****y.

------------------
~amor sui~

[This message has been edited by Schming (edited December 08, 2003).]

I'm glad to see that so many of you have seen the reality of American imperialism. I was arguing the same sort of things after the ridiculous anti-Arab sentiment after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, but to a very different response. It is the ignorance and arrogance, injustice and intolerance, fear and hatred that is at the centre of American culture and at the heart of the Amerian people; this is the cause of terror.

Prior to the recent (and ongoing) third gulf war, Iraq had a solid infrastructure, a stable economy, extremely good health services, and a rapidly improving education system. Certainly before the second gulf war, before the sanctions, I believe Iraq was the second wealthiest country in the Middle East (second to Saudi Arabia). Hussein did oppress the people, the journalists, but also the potential 'terrorists'. The people could happily walk down the street and buy their groceries and get on with their lives. They couldn't criticise the Ba'ath party, but why would they want to, when they could walk down the street, buy their groceries, and get on with their lives? Hussein acted like a floodgate, as the oppression really only affected the rebels, the extremeists. Now, that floodgate has been destroyed.
The people may have 'freedom', but so do the rebels, the extremeists, the 'terrorists'. There is an attack every day, killing Iraqis. Can they walk down the street, buy their groceries and get on with their lives?

'But they didn't have democracy!' you may cry. The majority of the world does not have 'democracy', will America 'liberate' the world? Let's take Palestine, as Palestine has never had an election since Arafat came to power, yet the Palestinian people love Arafat. He is one of the people, he once led the PLO against the invading Zionist forces of Israel, and is a symbol to the people. The people do what Arafat wants, and Arafat does what the people want; this is why Arafat cannot destroy the 'terrorist' groups, for that would be going against what the Palestinian people want.

But Arafat has repeatedly organised temporary cease-fires with Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and also (but to a lesser extent) Hamas, which is far more than Britain and America have ever managed.
So what does Britain and America have? The system of regular propaganda campaigns of lies and false promises, to lull and decieve the people into electing them, after which the government disregards the people altogether? There were huge demonstrations against the invasion of Iraq, in Britain, but Britain still went to war, and the British people were never once asked whether they wanted to or not. Britain has yet to say 'yes' or 'no' to the Euro, but the British people have not been asked at all. Is Tony Blair one of the people, can Britons relate to him at all? The very mindset of 'oh politicans know more than us let them sort it out' suggests that the government is superior to the people, an elite that governs and controls the people. That is not democracy.

Incorrect. The basis of a healthy economy is the flow of currency. For quite a long time, Iraq has been under an oil-for-food program. The oil, Iraq's only source of income, was controlled by the government and Hussein skimmed from that and shunted it into foreign bank accounts.



In the sense of that average people can be provoked to commit acts of terrorism, yes.



Saddam's sons + Human sized meat grinders = SAFETY!



No, I'd say the oppression affected the Kurds quite a bit.



Wait for it.... waaaaiiit for it.....



Funny, I thought he as just as self-interested, arrogant and greedy as Saddam Hussein. I guess that's why you like him.
Strange how the vaunted and kind leader of the Palestinians, a culture that's currently wracked with such poverty that Saudi Arabian bribes can coerce them to commit suicide attacks, is on the list of the world's richest people. Huh.
And, of course, the reason he isn't disbanding the terrorist groups couldn't have anything to do with the fact that he uses them to cement his power, could it?

And of course he isn't stalling the peace process. Right?



Britain and America don't lead terrorist organizations. They kill them. There's a difference.



Britain and America have a democratic system...



...WHICH MEANS YOU ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE FOR A LEADER WHO DOES THINGS YOU WANT, WHICH IS MORE THAN THE IRAQIS HAD!



No, it's representative democracy. It's not supposed to be true democracy, because then NOTHING WOULD EVER GET DONE. WHY DID YOU NOT TAKE THIS IN SCHOOL? WHY?

...you really believe that? I suppose losing a soccer match could be classified as extremist.

I'm not denying that Iraq is currently a mess, but sheesh, the oppression under Saddam stretched far beyond those who actively rebelled.

------------------

Cantina Cloud | BCF | The Massassian
Corrupting the kiddies since '97

That's a despicable attempt at implying people who support what you call "imperialism" also support racism. As this thread has made perfectly clear, the ignorance, arrogance, etc, you say are at the center of my culture are not at all unique to America. And for every example of racist bigotry you can point to in my culture, I can counter with examples of spineless and convictionless trash spewed by your radical ilk.



Iraq did not have a solid infrastructure.

Saddam's government suppressed terrorists? Saddam's government was terrorist - at least to those who would define torturing and killing dissenters for the purpose stifling further dissent as terrorism.

Why would they want to criticize the Ba'athists? I'm not an Iraqi, I wouldn't know. I have a few guesses, though. The Shi'a were never particularly happy about being denied their religious freedom. I don't imagine anyone was very keen on living with rampant human rights abuses.

What you're saying implies that the threat of militancy is grounds enough to deny 20 million people their basic freedoms. That is cowardice, at best.



The Palestinian people rally behind Arafat because he's all they know. Rigged elections aside, he controls the press (broadcast and print) in a way that makes Rupert Murdoch green with envy; in a post-Oslo election, only loud international protests gave his female opponent a very small amount of air time right before the election itself. Given the current state of the Palestinian people, claiming that he has done anything of real worth as their elected leader is absurd.

You and the people like you reject everything around you and replace it with nothing. You have no morals and no conviction. I hate you.

So, to make sure I've got this straight.. You're..... defending(?) Islamic countries by pointing out that they..... hate... jews? ... and.... support suicide bombing?

.... Sorry, anti-semitic psychopaths, if we've angered you by removing an absolute ****ing lunatic from power. Sorry that his sons are no longer free to grab women from the street and brutally rape them. Sorry they can no longer feed people feet-first into PLASTIC-SHREDDING MACHINES.

I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I kind of take a society of people supporting suicide bombing as a negative statement about that country, not the one they're mad at.

Not unlike WTC attacks.

WTC was a deliberate attack on civilians. We didnt set up the WTC right next to a military installation or anything. That is not collateral damage. That's a different story.

------------------
"And when I vest my flashing sword And my hand takes hold in judgement I will take vengeance upon mine enemies And I will repay those who hase me O Lord, raise me to Thy right hand And count me amoung Thy saints." - Il Duce, The Boondock Saints

The WTC-attacks were attacks against the very symbol of capitalism, primarily.

The WTC-attacks were attacks against capitalism in practice, secondarily.

The victims were a bonus, a big bonus even. Like an exclamation mark. But still collateral damage. If they were in it for the civilians, there were much better ways.

We have been living in a dreamworld. America is not the defender of truth, peace and justice. America, like pretty much every country in the world(!), is an imperialistic, agressive bussiness. Like Microsoft.

Distantiate yourselves from the abstract term American and see the Truth. Become enlightened. Killing kids is not cool(lol, I said cool)

If a German dude is murdered and eaten, voluntarily, by another German dude, it's degrading for the entire human race(which it is). If 9 kids playing with their toy cars are shot by Americans, hey, collateral damage.

Anyway, I'm in a rambly/tired mood. You will probably find this post offensive and/or stupid, rightfully possibly, but I don't care cause I'm off to study.

Ciao.

I think what Mort-Hog is refering to is when Saddam came to power he 'upgraded' Iraq and the people loved him for it. Hospitals, roads, school, bridges... all of which was part of his plan I always assumed.

As for the rebuilding of Iraq, it's government and it's economy. From what I can tell it'll be a little America with Muslims instead of Christians.
America has dictated to them what kind of government they should have. This is a different culture and a different religion. As long as there is not another Saddam, let them actually choose thier government. And let them take a trip over here and see what western democracy actually is before they choose this type of government.
As for rebuilding the economy, I think Bush is rebuilding his economy first. Lets ask a question. How many Iraqi's were allowed to work at the docks when it was solidly in US control? Answer, none. How many Iraqi companies are springing up in places when construction is needed and rebuilding is needed? Answer, none from what I've read. Who is dictating who rebuilds this country? America. Who is making all the money? America.
War has always been good for the US economy.

Like when the world trade center needed cleaning up. Thousands of people went to volunteer to help. They wanted to lend a hand in a time of great need. They were turned away because the contracts were already given out for the clean up of the rubble.
Are you ****ing kiding me? And they talk about patriotism. It's more like capitalism.
That's right. Bring the Iraqis to America and show them what kind of government they are getting themselves into.

------------------
To artificial life, all reality is virtual.

If you read the article you're discussing, they were not "shot by Americans". They were hit by an American bomb(s) that wasn't (weren't) intended to hit them.

------------------
Council of Krok

Are you insane? While you're on that road, let's make Hitler a national hero, and Slobodan a national patriot.

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
Jack Chick preaches it
NMGOH

Are they dead?

Perhaps not overly surprisingly i'm finding myself strongly agreeing with Sine. [consensus].

However rather more disturbingly i'm agreeing with a fair bit that Jon`C has been saying.

And some of these comments are hugely reminding me of this:


------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
Applecore scowled. "What does that mean, 'real'? Amn't I real, you? If you cut me, do I not bleed? If you piss me off, will I not kick you up the arse?" -War of the Flowers
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

Dead: Yes.

Willingly shot by Americans like the German you brought into play willingly practiced cannibalism: No.

If you have any further doubt of the irrelevance of your question about my clarification, feel free to inquire.

------------------
Council of Krok

See, the German wasn't shot. Read the article.

In the event you have any further dubiety concerning the impertinence of your retort vis-a-vis my elucidation, be my guest and canvass. (meaning: don't talk like your superior or explaining something to a kid, it's discommodious)

I feel like you have something against me. If that's the case, either email me about it so we don't bother everyone here, or STFU.



But hey, they did!

Off to sleep. Goodnight all.

Have you ever thought about the fact that their culture is entirely different and the anti-semitism we have in the West is much different than it is in the Middle East.

The anti-semitism in the West is mostly racism, while the hatred of the jews in the Middle East is more like say, Jewish man living in a neighborhood. Jewish man takes neighbor's car. Neighbor complains, jewish man shoots him. Every other neighbor gets scared and starts to hate the jewish man for killing their friend(Palestine). Jewish man calls in bigger thug mafia friends (The US/Britain) who give the Jewish man more guns than the neighbors.

And Jon'C, since when are the Kurds not extremist or rebels? The Kurds in Northern Iraq/Southern Turkey have been fighting an ongoing war for their own free state for the past, what? 80 years since World War I?

Also, someone said before that World War I was justified. How so? One of the main reasons America entered the war was for economic reasons. There's a whole essay called Merchants of Death or something that I had to read in History on the subject.

Also, the US would not have entered World War II until the Germans conquered Europe and attacked us if it hadnt been for our embargo on Japan instigating Pearl Harbor. You think that America is so high and mighty but in the end the government policies are there not to spread freedom and democracy but to rake in the money.

------------------
~amor sui~
<< schming stout >>

[This message has been edited by Schming (edited December 08, 2003).]

Believe it or not, Schming, people in the U.S. recognized the threat and problem that Hitler and the Japanese Empire were to the world - people like FDR, who continually pushed for more support of Britain, not just a few extra, decaying naval warships and a bi-monthly shipment of weapons.

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
Jack Chick preaches it
NMGOH

Tenshu, all I'm saying is that you saying Americans shot these children and by talking about the German cannibal implied that they did so intentionally is incorrect. This shouldn't be hard to acknowledge, but you fail to do so, and it seems you're doing it intentionally.



As for your latest post:



Despite the horrible irrelevance, nowhere in the following did I imply that I thought he was shot:



If you misunderstood this, my understanding of English is not to blame.

------------------
Council of Krok

I've been a long standing proponent of US isolationism. The more we stick our nose in the other nations, the more trouble we get ourselves in. We got problems of our own. Fix those, then worry about the world. They can handle themselves.

Screw OPEC, screw the UN.

------------------
<scribbly handwriting barely resembling name>

I guess everybody missed this part?

I think the strategists we have ordering these bomb strikes are idiots, but let's not think that no one makes mistakes.

------------------
Author of the JK DataMaster, Parsec, Scribe, and the EditPlus Cog Files.

It was not and never has been Bin Laden's intent to attack capitalism. I find it hilarious and despicable at the same time that people such as yourself try to give the killing of 3000 civilians a justification that suits your political agenda.

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."



Where were you when the Husseins gassed the Kurds, dropped people into plastic shredders, tortured kids and left political prisoners to bleed to death in public squares, O Enlightened one? It doesn't take long for Europe to forget the horror of living under a murderous dictator.

As for all you people second-guessing the military: I find it hard to believe that avowed pacifists know anything about military affairs--especially when many of you don't seem to know jack **** about anything else. You're also forgetting to take something very, very important into account: Afghanistan is in the middle of a war. People sometimes die in such things. It doesn't need to be said that war is a terrible thing, but crying foul over accidental civilian deaths in a war is like whining about felled trees in a hurricane. It ****ing happens.