To all pro-war advocates

[dotNetKing]

Manic, I'm with you here.

"Collateral damage" is an innocuous sounding phrase that seems to justify far too much.

The news repeatedly said that the civilians hit by "the" missile "were not targets", which, to me was trying to say "we didn't do it", when I assume "we did".

It also seems wrong to call people terrorists, apparently just for being suicide bombers, people who presumably want to defend what they see as their country.

I'm sure many of the British and US troops would be prepared to sacrifice their own lives planting a bomb to kill people who they considered had invaded their own country.

 

[Beachie]

Originally posted by dotNetKing
I'm sure many of the British and US troops would be prepared to sacrifice their own lives planting a bomb to kill people who they considered had invaded their own country.

The difference is that we wear uniforms, stand and fight, not dress as civilians and blow ourselves up.

Perhaps if Saddam and his cronies hadn't killed so many Muslims themselves I could stomach all the "holy war" jihad rubbish:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/01/sprj.irq.address/index.html

 

[NamePopper.com]

Originally posted by Beachie
difference is that we wear uniforms, stand and fight, not dress as civilians and blow ourselves up.

Well said Chris!

We also don't steal children from their homes - and threaten to kill their families if the males don't go and fight. We also don't have women and children walking in front of our military vehicles - as they move from one place to another. We also don't intentionally locate our key military targets just feet from hospitals and schools - so we can later claim that our civilians were killed. The list could go on forever......

Our guys are soldiers. Their guys are terrorists. Big difference.

 

[draqon]

suicide bombers are the lowest level of scum on the planet.

Originally posted by dotNetKing

It also seems wrong to call people terrorists, apparently just for being suicide bombers, people who presumably want to defend what they see as their country.

I'm sure many of the British and US troops would be prepared to sacrifice their own lives planting a bomb to kill people who they considered had invaded their own country.

 

[think]

Sadness fills my heart as I read about the women and children that have already lost this war.......................................

U.S. Captain to troops: "You just killed a ****ing family!"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/dailybriefing/story/0,12965,927233,00.html

It shouldn't be about numbers but the counter keeps ticking.........

www.IraqBodyCount.net

Aljazeera is back in English. Aljazeera had their site hacked immediately after coming out with the English version the first
time about two weeks ago.

www.Aljazeera.info

 

[think]

Well, Aljazeera was up in English this morning but not anymore
www.Aljazeera.info .................................
www.Aljazeera.net is still up but I don't know Arabic..........

 

[NameCaster]

Originally posted by dotNetKing


It also seems wrong to call people terrorists, apparently just for being suicide bombers, people who presumably want to defend what they see as their country.

Cowards is what they are. Strapping a bomb to themselves and killing innocent people.
Not my definition of a patriot!

 

[dvdrip]

Is someone trying to defend his country any way he can a terrorist?
I don't think so.
Your guys are missionaries. Iraqis are defending their country.

Originally posted by NamePopper.com


Well said Chris!

We also don't steal children from their homes - and threaten to kill their families if the males don't go and fight. We also don't have women and children walking in front of our military vehicles - as they move from one place to another. We also don't intentionally locate our key military targets just feet from hospitals and schools - so we can later claim that our civilians were killed. The list could go on forever......

Our guys are soldiers. Their guys are terrorists. Big difference.

 

[dvdrip]

I agree but only when they are attacking civilians.
In war against an army there is no terrorism.

Originally posted by draqon
suicide bombers are the lowest level of scum on the planet.

 

[dvdrip]

Who is innocent? The Americans invading Iraq?

Originally posted by NameCaster


Cowards is what they are. Strapping a bomb to themselves and killing innocent people.
Not my definition of a patriot!

 

[dotNetKing]

Good points dvdrip

 

[Jack Gordon]

I have to agree - suicide bombing directed at American forces seems like a legitimate form of resistance. The question to ask here is what is their motivation? Most Iraqis should have no real reason to want to harm the invading troops. The ones who do may very well be the ones who have something to fear from a society based on justice and the rule of law. They do the world a favor by blowing themselves up - hopefully the "collateral damage" they cause is minimal.

 

[bidawinner]

I think this was totally unnecessary, easier ways of getting Saddam..that aside ..There are some humorus things..like the Iraqi minister of defence at News confrence yesterday.. saying that the idea that the "Coalition" troops were even on Iraqi soil an "Illusion" :laugh:

 

[Mr Webname]

Originally posted by dvdrip
Your guys are missionaries.

Are we missing the plot here somewhere?

 

[think]

Aljazeera is up in English again for a third time. Whether it will stay up is always a question that makes one go "hmmmm". Maybe this time it will stay up for more than a couple hours :

http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/index.asp?cu_no=1&lng=0&template_id=1&temp_type=44

 

[options]

That's why everybody needs independent root servers.
It is really sad that access to a side is blocked, no matter wheather politically correct or not it is.

I managed to find out arabic IP address: http://213.30.180.219/
but can't understand a letter out of it.
Does anyone have english.aljazeera.com IP address?
Ping returns wrong address.
Aparently Mozilla works as well as telnet english.aljazeera.net on port 80, enter "GET / HTTP/1.0", and hit Enter twice, the page will come up.

There is also some English address, maybe a mirror, but the date is March, 23 ???
http://www.thememoryhole.org/media/al-jazeera/index.html

 

[dvdrip]

I agree.
I think it is quite easy to kill any person in the world.
It may take several attempts but I think they could do it.
Especially if they are not hiding in a desert. (hint)
The us could have killed Saddam easily but this not the only thing they wanted to do.
The strange thing is that the us says that Saddam is dead.
So why isn't Iraq liberated? But this is not the point.
They want to take over Iraq, exploit it's resources and while doing this also spent a lot of money on weapons.
We don't want all those misiles to sit there doing nothing!
They don't want an Iraqi goverment despite what they say.

My prediction is that will take over Iraq, keep it under their command for 5 years and then leave taking all the oil!

Originally posted by bidawinner
I think this was totally unnecessary, easier ways of getting Saddam..that aside ..There are some humorus things..like the Iraqi minister of defence at News confrence yesterday.. saying that the idea that the "Coalition" troops were even on Iraqi soil an "Illusion" :laugh:

 

[dvdrip]

I guess you use this word differently. Just realised that.
We greeks use it to describe someone getting paid to fight a was not someone doing charity or something.
Sorry!

Originally posted by Mr Webname


Are we missing the plot here somewhere?

 

[dotNetKing]

ah ha - that is mercenaries, not missionaries.

They are quite similar phonetically, but have almost opposite meanings.

A mercenary is a paid fighter (as you say), but normally paid to fight in a foreign army.

Soldiers recruited by their own country to fight for their own country are not considered to be mercenaries.

A missionary is a member of a religious mission. (e.g. doing religious or social work etc).

 

[Beachie]

Originally posted by dvdrip
I agree.
I think it is quite easy to kill any person in the world.
It may take several attempts but I think they could do it.

Yes, but taking out Saddam is only a fraction of the problem. You've got to take out his sons, and his deluded ministers too. The coalition must remove the Ba'ath party's credibility.

Especially if they are not hiding in a desert. (hint)
The us could have killed Saddam easily but this not the only thing they wanted to do.
The strange thing is that the us says that Saddam is dead.

I don't believe they've said that at all.

So why isn't Iraq liberated? But this is not the point.
They want to take over Iraq, exploit it's resources and while doing this also spent a lot of money on weapons.
We don't want all those misiles to sit there doing nothing!
They don't want an Iraqi goverment despite what they say.

Maybe they could sell them to Iraq Your reasoning is quite strange - They will have to spend money to replace them, so they're not going to blow them up for the sake of it.

My prediction is that will take over Iraq, keep it under their command for 5 years and then leave taking all the oil!

OK, so why didn't the US do this in Afghanistan? It has large, untapped oil, gas and mineral reserves, and now has a non-US government: Afghan Government

What the green, hippy tree-huggers neglect to tell you is that the US and UK have their own oil and gas reserves, as well as importing from South America, Kuwait etc. They don't *need* Iraq. Russia was importing large amounts of oil from Iraq, and they were opposed to the war. Have you figured it out yet?