I hope the US Military pop one in their skulls

arybvtcw0eolkf

kona wrote: »

can i have the 2minutes of my time back from reading that???
its rambling bull**** with no point.

THE AMERICANS WERE ATTACKED, it wasnt a lie, THEY WERE ATTACKED.
if you were attacked in the street would you A) fight back or B)bend over???

Awww boo -fvcking- hoo.. the American's were attacked.

It wasn't the fvcking Iraqi's who attacked them, and who held himself up to be a great leader and slagged off the peace makers (Hans Blix & the UN inspection teams).

Who the fvck told his people ''your either with me or against me'' and who told his people it was UN-PATRIOTIC to question his leadership and that to do so was exposing they're country to DANGER...

I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Walt Disney.

kona

kona wrote: »

can i have the 2minutes of my time back from reading that???
its rambling bull**** with no point.

THE AMERICANS WERE ATTACKED, it wasnt a lie, THEY WERE ATTACKED.
if you were attacked in the street would you A) fight back or B)bend over???

The OP was referring to an attack that was carried out using mentally ill people to carry remote controlled explosive devices into a crowded area.

Who was the attack directred against!!!

"The authorities" was the target, and "normal day to day life", was the victim, not a direct attack on the yanks but an attach on their "puppet" (as seen by the insurgents, whomether they are).

In reallity the Iraqi general public are the real victims, being pawns in a power struggle between external forces.

kona

agamemnon wrote: »

Yes he is. Only he doesn't call it "mass" - probably "chapel" or "Sunday service" instead.


Not by Iraq.

a igloo where ever you pray, he doesnt recruit there.
he does it in schools, just like this county do.


Desert storm circa 1991, they were attacked by Iraq for liberating kuwait.

are you seriously suggesting the Saddam Hussein was a saint??? never started wars or gassed people in his life,IMO Along with hitler and stalin he is one person we could have done with a miscarrige over.:mad:

I find it sad that these scumbags have apparantly fuctioning bodies and some really nice people are in wheelchairs, pity we cant do a swap.

Victor

kona wrote: »

THE AMERICANS WERE ATTACKED, it wasnt a lie, THEY WERE ATTACKED. if you were attacked in the street would you A) fight back or B)bend over???

Sure I'd fight back, but would I kill everyone in the neighbourhood?

kona

Deleted User wrote: »

The OP was referring to an attack that was carried out using mentally ill people to carry remote controlled explosive devices into a crowded area.

Who was the attack directred against!!!

"The authorities" was the target, and "normal day to day life", was the victim, not a direct attack on the yanks but an attach on their "puppet" (as seen by the insurgents, whomether they are).

In reallity the Iraqi general public are the real victims, being pawns in a power struggle between external forces.

there is a bigger picture and a history.
these conversations always boil down to the american invasions on afghanistan and iraq

kona

kona wrote: »

there is a bigger picture and a history.
these conversations always boil down to the american invasions on afghanistan and iraq

Yes!! unfortunately too many don't stand back and look!!!

Manic Moran

Terry wrote: »

What was it before the non-UN sanctioned invasion?

A quick hunt shows no obvious answer.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3889 submits that the average over his entire tenure was 16,000 a year taken over a period of time between 1979 and 2003, though obviously it is skewed heavily by figures such as 30,000 a month during Anfal. Other figures being bandied about seem to vary at a mathematical average of from 50-120 a day over Saddam's 8,000 day tour of duty depending on who you talk to. Again, this varies widely, the day he gassed the Kurds would have strongly counteracted the week he was feeling generous because he just got laid.

Unfortunately, I am finding it much tougher to come up with figures specific to the period of, say, 2000-2002 (Especially before one counts the effects of the UN-sanctioned sanctions, which UNICEF, for example, credited with 4-5000 children deaths a month), though granted my Google-Fu is weak.

How many of those ciVILLIANS were kiled by the invaders?

Presuming you mean the US, apparently the tally for Dec07 is 39.

NTM

kona

Mairt wrote: »

Awww boo -fvcking- hoo.. the American's were attacked.

It wasn't the fvcking Iraqi's who attacked them, and who held himself up to be a great leader and slagged off the peace makers (Hans Blix & the UN inspection teams).

Who the fvck told his people ''your either with me or against me'' and who told his people it was UN-PATRIOTIC to question his leadership and that to do so was exposing they're country to DANGER...

I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Walt Disney.

thats disgusting, the murder of 3000 people is not boo hoo.:mad::mad:
boo-hoo........standard response from a full of **** hippy who has no bull**** reply:mad::mad:
how else do you rally a coutry for a war???
its not a easy thing, what about churchill , truman, stalin???
hans blix was ****ed out of iraq by hussein, (god youd swear at this stage he had nothing to hide)
bush was just finishing what should have been done in 1991.

walt disney was a filthy nazi.

and you still havnt explained why you wasted 2mins of my time???:mad:

kona

Victor wrote: »

Sure I'd fight back, but I would kill everyone in the neighbourhood.

you would if the neighbour hood was all attacking you.......actualy this is kind of the way irish skangers operate;)

some neighbourhoods in dublin could do with a daisycutter tbh, wouldnt mind some of the local scumbags left off the warning list either:D

arybvtcw0eolkf

kona wrote: »

boo-hoo........standard response from a full of **** hippy who has no bull**** reply:mad::mad:

LOL, your the only one here on boards.ie who'd call me a hippy!.

STFU for christsake.

AckwelFoley

This thread is heading down the sh1tter fast...

kona

kona wrote: »

bush was just finishing what should have been done in 1991.

That is one of the biggest mysteries of the the whole gulf confilct!!

But then agailn think of which country in the middle east has the most influance *cough*(oil) and it comes clearer as to why the US/(united nations, etc) didnt oust Sadam at that time (as the yanks should have done), also consider the fact that the americans had supported Saddam's regime up to the previous year as an "anti Iran" buffer!

Like a lot of things in the middle east, the goal post's were moving faster than the US policy makers could keep up with.

snyper

snyper wrote: »

This thread is heading down the sh1tter fast...

It beat me to it!

kona

Mairt wrote: »

LOL, your the only one here on boards.ie who'd call me a hippy!.

STFU for christsake.

why?? is there another message board where more than one person calls you a hippy????;)
maybe its a different word im looking for which i cant think of because im sitting here typing because i dont have the will to get off my ass and go to bed.
maybe confused???
STFU, sounds like a WWF wrestling move:D:D
just say it.;)

Well, you do sound like one, (i may be wrong , very hard to tell on a message board)

but yes back on topic, i think id save the ammo.
id take a vice grips and pull every tooth out of their mouth, then every nail, then scalp them, then burn them, drag them through the street from the back of a hum vee. then hang them from a bridge(last bit i have to credit insurgents with)

Overheal

MordÜff wrote: »

do you pay any attention to the american media? talk radio, blogs? Do you talk to many americans on the interwebz? yes you get lots of reasonable, intelligent people but also wave after wave of bible thumping, evolution hating jackasses. 300m leaves alot of room for wild intelligence and blind stupidity, and stupidity is just easier.

And at that very moment, Overheal swoops in.

Pisses me off to end to see some of these posts:

Manic Moran wrote:

I'll do you one better. I hope the Iraqi military pop one in their skulls.

Unless they are popping one in the head of the Administration, leave Mom's only son out of the bloodshed wishes, yea? Volunteer or no, why call for any more killing?

Kona wrote:

nuke the whole middle east tbh

bunch of backwards muck savages.

i pity the yanks, they are fighting in a war with different rules for both sides, wonder what would happen is the US did the same.

Do-Gooder hippies can say what they like about the americans, they are doing the right thing and IMO a very good job

ross kemp in afghanistan is a great eye-opener, the scumbags use mosques as cover to murder the coalition soldiers in sneaky ambushes, because they know the NATO forces cant fire back.

hope they level the playing field and bring back the daisy cutters and call in napalm just like vietnam.

Who's the real muck savage here, using dated terms like do-gooder hippies? I mean come on at least act the part of a right wing bigot who knows what they're talking about

Unfortunately Kona its not like the Pentagon was completely unawares guerilla fighting was going to occur - the entire region has been notorious for it throughout history. I place kudos on them for their advances in counter-terrorist technology and warfare, but I can't condone them letting the media play it off as 'oh, we never saw it coming... they're not playing by the rules... waaaah!' Its not a video game, ffs. You're invading these people's homes (and to some extremists, their holy land, faith, etc.) So no, I can't help lick the wounds of the armed forces as much as I respect the boots on the ground, that for the most part are the same age as me.

AngryHippie wrote:

I hope the Americans go home, and the iraqis find a solution to their civil war before thousands more are killed.
Fcuk Team America.

Then only to deflate my last point about do-gooder hippies, an Angry Hippy replies. Irony. Have to agree with withdrawal myself. Situation in the Mid-East is going nowhere fast.

Oriel wrote:

Spoonful of propaganda anyone?

+1. How quickly we forget all the so called 'smartbomb malfunctions' when the 'surge' took place. 70 people: I'm sorry, America, but how much ordnance did you rid yourselves of yesterday?

PeakOutput wrote:

for the record and maybe just coz i want to stir it up i completely believe they were right to invade iraq and remove the government after that they ****ed it up but the initial action was justified imo(and no i dont believe they had wmds and am under no illusion they did it for oil BUT that dosnt change the fact saddam needed to be removed...imo anyway)

the fact they initially armed these people i see as a kind of a mute point. at the time it was the best course of action and at the time im sure it saved many lives.

No, they were wrong to invade Iraq. I don't know why they invaded Iraq and my mind has been left to daydream that the Saudi Royal Family put the bush administration up to it. Which I can only imagine is not too far from the truth.

But they were so wrong to invade Iraq. America, the people, wanted Osama Bin Laden. We sent our force out to catch Bin Laden. My peers signed into the armed forces to go hunt down Bin Laden.

And we had him at least penned into the mountains of Afghanistan. He was screwed. It was only a matter of time. But no, before too long the United States pulls out of Afghanistan - only to start a [lets just call it an invasion shall we] of Iraq, on what in hindsight was incredibly suspect, incredibly false, misinformation.

Your point about them being armed - true, it was a while ago, in political terms. But its just the idea that since Pearl Harbor, America has constantly been on the Team America approach when they realised how profitable it was. read up on the Great Depression: war is profitable. Profit comes before morals in international politics. Its been that way for the last Century (if not longer!)

Morduff wrote:

I feel sorry for the people that are caught in the middle in america's war. You say you're well aware of what happened during the cold war, but you don't think America should shoulder any of the responsibility for the current situation?
yes 3000 people died on sept 11, alot more have died since. They don't count less because they've had the misfortune not to have been born in a western country.

yeah, because the american govt. never uses propoganda to rally it's dimwitted public into war fever. Saddam has wmd. Saddam has links to al qaeda. Saddam is buying uranium. and on, and on, and on...

i thought about it, typed something else.. then thought about it again and decided to keep it.

I worked in Canada for a year, taking phone calls all day for several months from americans. I wasn't that prejudiced before, I am now.

Not a very bright people.

Who do I flame more: you, or the moderators that let you keep posting after racist commentary like that. Get the **** out. If you want to argue Americans need to wake up and clean their entire act: I tend to agree; and thats an entirely new thread in itself. However, your take on us americans, is complete tripe.

kona

Is it a bird??? is it a plane??? a **** no its just overheal.


war is profitable, and tbh America needed one.

yes i agree the pentagon aint dumb, especially after vietnam, they would have known what they were getting into.
BUT

nobody expected the Iraqi army to be crushed so quickly and easily, although with the amount of explosives used in shock and awe it probably isnt a suprise.

and america didnt mess up here, they messed up the post invasion, because they were not ready and the extremists exploited this.

Im not biggoted, but say what you please, if america crashed two planes out of the blue into bagdad id be fairly unimpressed to say the least.

what i mean by different rules is that, the american troops are fighting a guerilla war which is hard enough, without having to worry about collateral damage and bad press, and turning people against them.
the extremists dont care about any of this.
IN a no holds barred war, the yanks would have crushed these parasites by now:D

Overheal

Wasnt trying to imply you were a bigot.... I just heard Muck savage and hippy and thought I was listening to Michael Savage... who happens to be an amazing quackjob btw. Wiki the name for more data on him. Sorry bout that.

Yea, I do find myself torn between needing the troop withdrawal and putting the boots under pressure :-/ but to be fair extraction in the long run, is the better option for the boots.

kona

kona wrote: »

what i mean by different rules is that, the american troops are fighting a guerilla war which is hard enough, without having to worry about collateral damage and bad press, and turning people against them.
the extremists dont care about any of this.
IN a no holds barred war, the yanks would have crushed these parasites by now

When extremists start using mentally ill peoiple to carry bombs you unfortunately bring it to an new "low".

jdivision

kona wrote: »

THE AMERICANS WERE ATTACKED, it wasnt a lie, THEY WERE ATTACKED.
if you were attacked in the street would you A) fight back or B)bend over???

Precisely. They were attacked by a bunch of terrorists and then attacked two countries. Given where the terrorist were from it was refreshing to see them go and wipe out the house of Saud, which is extremely corrupt and allows the teaching of fundamentalist Islam in schools they fund. Oh wait. Sorry. George Bush Sr is mates with the Saudi royal family and is a key link between the Caryle group and the Saudis. So the son is hardly going to attack those who attacked the US.

Or maybe they should have just focused on Osama and his family. Oh wait they sent a private jet around the United States after Sept 11, picked up the Bin Ladens who were there and flew them back to Saudi.

By the way do you know where the Bush family got its money originally?

thelordofcheese

kona wrote: »

Is it a bird??? is it a plane??? a **** no its just overheal.


war is profitable, and tbh America needed one.

yes i agree the pentagon aint dumb, especially after vietnam, they would have known what they were getting into.
BUT

nobody expected the Iraqi army to be crushed so quickly and easily, although with the amount of explosives used in shock and awe it probably isnt a suprise.

and america didnt mess up here, they messed up the post invasion, because they were not ready and the extremists exploited this.

Im not biggoted, but say what you please, if america crashed two planes out of the blue into bagdad id be fairly unimpressed to say the least.

what i mean by different rules is that, the american troops are fighting a guerilla war which is hard enough, without having to worry about collateral damage and bad press, and turning people against them.
the extremists dont care about any of this.
IN a no holds barred war, the yanks would have crushed these parasites by now:D

why is it that the amount of passion someone has for a point of view is almost always inversely proportional to their ability to form a coherent post?

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

Unless they are popping one in the head of the Administration, leave Mom's only son out of the bloodshed wishes, yea? Volunteer or no, why call for any more killing?

One of us is failing to understand the other. I've no idea what you're on about, is it possible it's because you mistook my comment to mean that an Iraqi should shoot an American? (This would be a bit odd since I'm a US troop). My comment was to indicate that I would prefer that the Iraqi Army or police be the people to track down and remove whoever it was that wanted to blow up a pet market. After all, it was Iraqis that they killed, and the Iraqi security services are getting a lot better of late. I'll wager the Iraqi military are looking for blood over this a lot more than the US military are.

NTM

SimpleSam06

kona wrote: »

yes i agree the pentagon aint dumb, especially after vietnam, they would have known what they were getting into.

The Pentagon isn't stupid, its a war machine. When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. They are very good at their job, its just that influencing policy shouldn't be one of their jobs.

So, to recap on the whole Iraq mess:

• British plus some other muppets create a country where there was none before, and call it Iraq. This country is made up of several disparate groups who hate each other. This maneuver is repeated several times in British foreign policy, by the way.
• US plus several other muppets try to install a puppet government in Iran, because it wants control of the oil. Iranians understandably take umbrage at this and turf them out.
• The US tries to mitigate the situation by arming the hell out of Iraq, Iran's unstable neighbour.
• Unstable neighbour goes nuts and tries to form the first Iraqi empire, standing on the toes of valuable political campaign contributors in the US, like Saudi Arabia.
• US knocks Iraq back to its borders and installs crippling sanctions for a decade.
• Unstable Iraqi leader decides to start trading oil in euros, which would knock the shit out of the US globally, so the US invades and occupies.

Mix into the mess Israel, Afghanistan, and the 9-11 attacks, and you have what we like to call the present day middle east. The only real exit policy I can see at this point is that the US splits Iraq into its component parts and sets up a deal for resource sharing among them.

PeakOutput

Overheal wrote: »

No, they were wrong to invade Iraq. I don't know why they invaded Iraq and my mind has been left to daydream that the Saudi Royal Family put the bush administration up to it. Which I can only imagine is not too far from the truth.

But they were so wrong to invade Iraq. America, the people, wanted Osama Bin Laden. We sent our force out to catch Bin Laden. My peers signed into the armed forces to go hunt down Bin Laden.

please give me one reason why a military dictatorship should not be removed by any means necessary? I couldnt give a **** weather it was america or britain or france or australia who invaded iraq to do it it needed to be done.

the iraqi people welcomed the american troops and celebrated the fall of their dictator. the americans THEN proceded to **** the management of the country up big style THAT is the problem not the original action of invading.


someone was talking about intelligence. think of the average intelligence.......maths will tell you that at somewhere in the region of 50% of people are less intelligent than that so when you have a population of 300million you are going to have a large population of dumb ****s but ireland has a large population of dumb ****s aswell as proven daily by posters on this websites

cozmik

Another point to remember here is that before the U.S. invasion, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in its history and there is no evidence that there were any suicide terrorist' lying in wait in Iraq before the U.S. invaded.

The central motive for these suicide attacks is a response to the presence of the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf and as long as U.S. forces remain on the ground in Iraq these attacks will continue to happen.

cozmik

PeakOutput wrote: »

please give me one reason why a military dictatorship should not be removed by any means necessary?

Military measures may only be taken under a mandate of the UN Security Council, which the U.S. did not have when it invaded Iraq in 2003.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Manic Moran wrote: »

I've no idea what you're on about,

LOL.

You, me and just about the rest of the thread I suspect.

arybvtcw0eolkf

cozmik wrote: »

Another point to remember here is that before the U.S. invasion, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in its history and there is no evidence that there were any suicide terrorist' lying in wait in Iraq before the U.S. invaded.

The central motive for these suicide attacks is a response to the presence of the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf and as long as U.S. forces remain on the ground in Iraq these attacks will continue to happen.

I'd rather the American's there than the Chinese and Russians.

dlofnep

I knew you hated the chinese Mairt! I'm telling!!

PS: You gotta love the Russians.. You just gotta. Did you hear their national anthem? Such power! And Ivan Drago? Come on, that guy isn't even human. Viva la Russia.. and china. BOO AMERIKA!

arybvtcw0eolkf

dlofnep wrote: »

I knew you hated the chinese Mairt! I'm telling!!

I had one last night and it was lovely, so what are you trying to say?..

Eh?..

Mir or Brock tomorrow?.

dlofnep

Mairt wrote: »

I had one last night and it was lovely, so what are you trying to say?..

What are you trying to say! Hmmm??

Mairt wrote: »

Eh?..

Eek!

Mairt wrote: »

Mir or Brock tomorrow?.

It's tough to call.. Idealistically, if Mir wins, it will be in the first round.. If Brock's posture is good (which I expect it to be) - he should be able to stay clear of Frank's submissions and then let his conditioning take over.

Frank is no K-1 level striker, but if Brock has awful standup - then Frank might be able to force Brock to shoot from the outside and cause a bit of panic.

So in closing, I've no idea! But that's what I think.

arybvtcw0eolkf

dlofnep wrote: »

It's tough to call.. Idealistically, if Mir wins, it will be in the first round.. If Brock's posture is good (which I expect it to be) - he should be able to stay clear of Frank's submissions and then let his conditioning take over.

Frank is no K-1 level striker, but if Brock has awful standup - then Frank might be able to force Brock to shoot from the outside and cause a bit of panic.

So in closing, I've no idea! But that's what I think.

I think as a Noob to the cage if Brock isn't overwhelmed in the first I'd have to give it to him.

Solid wrestling background, fantastic athletism & conditioning. Most likely carrying over whelming power...

Back on topic..

dlofnep

Mairt wrote: »

Back on topic..

Indeed.

Overheal

Back to the original post, and playing devils advocate: if you're an extremist group like Al Quaeda, it seems to make more sense to use a husk of a delivery system rather than a strapping young freedom fighter than can other wise function to fight another day. We may find it deplorable, but the bastards may see it as a justifiable ends to a means.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Doesn't sound so good when it's turned against us, does it.

Morlar

MordÜff wrote: »

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Doesn't sound so good when it's turned against us, does it.

I think indymedia are an idiot short.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yeah well I'm rubber you're glue, **** off.

Morlar

MordÜff wrote: »

yeah well I'm rubber you're glue, **** off.

Snappy retort you've got there.

FunkZ

MordÜff wrote: »

America, setting them up and then knocking them down.. coming to a continent near you soon!

Sounds like a line that shoulda been in Team America.

Morlar

MordÜff wrote: »

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Btw that death toll has increased - its now 99 innocent people you are trying to justify the murder of.

Down's Syndrome suicide bomber kills 99
http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/mheyqlkfaumh/

That includes the 2 down syndrome women proxy-bombers but hey 'Desperate times call for desperate measures' and all that.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

how am I justifying it?

honestly, do you expect terrorists to fight fair? would you rather they politely phoned in advance to let people know where they are going to attack?

what in the name of the sweet baby jesus do you expect them to do?

Morlar

MordÜff wrote: »

how am I justifying it?

You said it was a desperate measure but that it was called for as we live in desperate times - right ? That is what you said.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

that it was called for? look, I'll just say it again... what the **** do you expect them to do? They don't have tanks, they have home made weapons and suicide bombing is a very successfull tactic. We already know alot of these people are ****ed up in the head, more are so twisted by rage, helplessness and that little bit of insanity that is in us all that they just don't give a **** any more. Why are you so surprised at what has been unleased? and why are you so adamant that it was the right thing to do to stir up this hornets nest.
This is only going to get worse and so far, at least, the military approach hasn't accomplished ****.
unless you're willing to kill every/most al qaeda member or sympathiser, the military approach just can't work.. if they believe in this ****, why wouldn't they fight for it, and keep on fighting for it. People are bastards, this just proves that. Suicide bombing is about as inhuman as taking a ****, you can call them evil, sick ****s, cowards whatever you want to while you hide behind your own set of 'moral' killers, but until something is done to address the concerns of the thousands/millions of people in the arab world who don't particularly want to be at war or die, but are ****ed up with their current situation and don't see any other way out, then this **** is just going to go on.. and on.. and on, generation after generation.
There are no good guys in this fight, just different sets of bastards fighting for different things. when they are desperate they strap bombs to themselves, or other people and send them to do murder.. when we are desperate we assemble fleets of airplanes to drop bomb after bomb to also do murder. There's **** all moral superiority in war.

whoever wins in iraq, the iraqi people are going to lose and ultimately we all are, because this **** is only going to get worse before (if) it gets better.

so you go ahead an hope the us military pops on in someones skulls, I'm going to hope that someone figures a way out of this bloody mess that will last.

AckwelFoley

One mans terrorist is another mans fredom fighter.

However..

I dont envisage any Downs syndrom ppl winning the Purple Heart any time soon though within the US Military

Morlar

MordÜff wrote: »

unless you're willing to kill every/most al qaeda member or sympathiser, the military approach just can't work.. if they believe in this ****, why wouldn't they fight for it, and keep on fighting for it. People are bastards, this just proves that. Suicide bombing is about as inhuman as taking a ****, you can call them evil, sick ****s, cowards whatever you want to while you hide behind your own set of 'moral' killers, but until something is done to address the concerns of the thousands/millions of people in the arab world who don't particularly want to be at war or die, but are ****ed up with their current situation and don't see any other way out, then this **** is just going to go on.. and on.. and on, generation after generation.
There are no good guys in this fight, just different sets of bastards fighting for different things. when they are desperate they strap bombs to themselves, or other people and send them to do murder.. when we are desperate we assemble fleets of airplanes to drop bomb after bomb to also do murder. There's **** all moral superiority in war.

whoever wins in iraq, the iraqi people are going to lose and ultimately we all are, because this **** is only going to get worse before (if) it gets better.

so you go ahead an hope the us military pops on in someones skulls, I'm going to hope that someone figures a way out of this bloody mess that will last.

You think its 'called for' to strap bombs to down syndrome women to go and kill scores of innocent people ? You are sick.

Not one single american soldier got so much as a paper cut in that attack btw - It was all women, men and children that got turned into mince meat there. There was nothing 'called for' about that. To respond to the original post . . . yes of course the people who planned it should be put against the nearest wall and shot in the head.

Manic Moran

Morlar wrote: »

You think its 'called for' to strap bombs to down syndrome women to go and kill scores of innocent people ? You are sick.

You are totally misunderstanding his point. You are ascribing 'our' rules to the enemy. Unfortunately, playing by 'our' rules is going to result in a fairly rapid defeat for the various destabilising groups. Whether we in the West approve of the technique or not is irrelevant from their point of view: All they know is that it works. It causes destabilisation, and better yet, the Americans get the blame. Win-Win from their point of view, and there's no 'Good sport award' for losing.

NTM

Morlar

Manic Moran wrote: »

You are totally misunderstanding his point.

No you are wrong - I am not misunderstanding his point.

In relation to this boming incident he said ;

'Desperate times call for desperate measures'

Desperate times (ie american occupation) call for (justify) desperate measures (strapping explosives to down syndrome women to kill scores of innocent people).

Point out the precise misunderstanding in my interpretation of what this guy said.

Manic Moran

'Desperate times call for desperate measures'

From the point of view of the bombers, correct.

look, I'll just say it again... what the **** do you expect them to do? They don't have tanks, they have home made weapons and suicide bombing is a very successfull tactic.

This does not mean he supports the actions, just that he can understand why they do it, as can I.

NTM

Morlar

Manic Moran wrote: »

From the point of view of the bombers, correct.

Except he did not say;

'From the point of view of al qaida desperate times call for desperate measures'

He said;
"Desperate times call for desperate measures. Doesn't sound so good when
it's turned against us, does it. "

You are the one introducing the 'from the point of view of ......' bit here.

Agamemnon

Morlar wrote: »

You are the one introducing the 'from the point of view of ......' bit here.

No, it's pretty obvious to anyone reading it that's what he meant and I think we're all fairly certain he's not a member of Al Qaeda.

Morlar

agamemnon wrote: »

No, it's pretty obvious to anyone reading it that's what he meant

I will go by what he said rather than what you think he might have meant.

The post before his was a 'devils advocate' type of a post and clearly so.

His response to that post was not. He was giving his take on the point and agreeing with it - and his take was that 'desperate times call for desperate measures'.