US to start shooting looters !

[Restecpa]

WebHold: Article was about shooting looters, which is something totally different from shooting armed forces trying to kill civilians or american soldiers (which is what you are reffering to). Im not saying that this article reflects the real situation, as I dont even trust the media (just like I dont trust government) in a first place. They are both full of disinformation and I dont just buy all the crap they are trying to sell. Instead of it, Im using my own mind.. Im just saying that what coolhost said is very primitive. Hey - I dont see Winona Rider being killed over her recent shoplifting adventure and she was stealing just for the hell of it. Iraqis on the other hand (most of them) steal in order to survive. They have to feed their kids, now tell me - wouldnt you loot for that if you were them? Wouldnt you loot in order to be able to afford a slice of bread and a glass of milk a week to keep your familly alive? And lets not forget that those people were being surpressed and threatend for decades and now all that anger is finally being unleashed. You guys want to shoot them for that? :cry:

 

[DomeBase]

Originally posted by RealNames
Perhaps Bid is from Minnesota, the most liberal state in the US by far and only state Pres Reagan lost out of the 50. These type views are very common in Minn.

Minnesota...

the state that elected Paul Welstone and then Norm Colman...

to say nothing of our variety in governors...

now there's a state with fluid politics...

 

[CoolHost.com]

Originally posted by Restecpa
You guys want to shoot them for that? :cry:

Duh!
Restecpa ... please read ALL of the comments!
I'm sure this was a simple matter of misinterpretation, but no one here is advocating that people be shot SOLELY for looting, IMHO.
What I attempted to relay is that it IS a crime to loot, and SHOULD they be looting weapons to inflict damage on our fella's serving over there ... then, yes, I can understand why the directive was issued.
I would even go so far as to say that if they are looting in order to hoard food from their own people (in effect "mudering" their fellow Iraqis), then, yes, again, I could understand why the directive was issued.
You make it seem like some of us are saying to shoot ANYONE who loots ... and that's simply not the case. I mean c'mon, talk about taking people out of context. Be reasonable. Be responsible.
I'm not primitive, and I'm sure it was a miscommunication. Peace and love, pal.
See you.

 

[Restecpa]

Originally posted by CoolHost.com


Duh!
Restecpa ... please read ALL of the comments!
I'm sure this was a simple matter of misinterpretation, but no one here is advocating that people be shot SOLELY for looting, IMHO.
What I attempted to relay is that it IS a crime to loot, and SHOULD they be looting weapons to inflict damage on our fella's serving over there ... then, yes, I can understand why the directive was issued.
I would even go so far as to say that if they are looting in order to hoard food from their own people (in effect "mudering" their fellow Iraqis), then, yes, again, I could understand why the directive was issued.
You make it seem like some of us are saying to shoot ANYONE who loots ... and that's simply not the case. I mean c'mon, talk about taking people out of context. Be reasonable. Be responsible.
I'm not primitive, and I'm sure it was a miscommunication. Peace and love, pal.
See you.

CoolHost, its not about what YOU think Fact is that if they are trully trying to invent democracy there, then they cant afford such a stupid action. They have to set an example, and if you shoot somebody for a "crime" for which in the States they might even not go to jail, than thats not a good example.. I say cuff them, and put in jail until system takes them to trial. Just like in any other "democratic" country. Hell, I should know..

 

[CoolHost.com]

Ok, Reste ... no worries, I'm pretty sure we're "on the same page" here anyway. Big cheer ... for DEMOCRACY!! WooHoo.
See 'ya.

 

[Restecpa]

 

[CoolHost.com]

Originally posted by Restecpa

Thumbs up!
Have a good one, Reste.

 

[diverge]

Old thread, but I can't resist:

Food for thought: If Bush Sr. had given Nat'l Guardsmen the right to shoot looters during the L.A. riots (A la Kent State 1970), what effect would that have had? Choose one (1):

a) Total chaos nationwide -- nay, worldwide, sparking the worst race riot in the history of race and riots.
b) Peaceful resumption of daily rituals. Looters return to dope dealing to avoid any real penalty for their actions, Bush gets reeleceted in the fall.

Don't get me wrong. I'm conservative and pro-capital-punishment. I believe people who kill should be killed. It's a natural order of things. However, sometimes it seems that it is easier to issue blanket policy from D.C. that affects someone else's country than it would be to take the same policy within our borders.

Personally, I bet the NYTimes is exagerating this claim. I haven't heard anything about this on Fox News or in any other papers. Correct me if I'm wrong on this one.

Something to think about...

 

[Steen]

Originally posted by bidawinner


It is a crime to shoplift..is murder the appropriate response?

These looters arent killing anyone, they arent shooting at the troops..they are stealing crap to SURVIVE.. because our administratrion cant get there heads out of there ass and turn on the freaking electricty and water and get the police back on the streets
AND because some people are just theives..you dont KILL them..

Crap ..we take 10 years or more to KILL people on death row inthe US..but your going to KILL people over there because ..it's over there ?

And you people wonder why the US is so hated ?

I very much agree with bid.