Printable View
Nothing important, but, I watched Farenheit 9/11 recently (a great documentary. Worth a see whether you support Michael Moore or not) and many soldiers are very poor and not as patriotic as some people may think. Just wanted to say that because I have met people who call the American soldiers stupid, and blinded by what the President has said.
Other than that, I pretty much agree with what nik0tine has said in this thread.
yeah ok nokotine were killing innocents last time i checked terrorist run in iraq there called al queda or somethin and i dont think terroists are innocent....
blowing up american soliders is not an act of terrorism. it is an act of urban geurrila war. blowing up civillians is terrorism. all soldiers are legitimate targets.
if i remember correctly recently attacks have went up against the army and down against civillians. with the terrorist somehow able to get their hands on army piercing explosives it's now even easier to blow up your local army convoy. and after the bridge incident (noone here cared cos it was the same day as katrina) public opinion has turned grossly against the insurgency in iraq. killing 1,000 people in a day didn't make anyone happy. and blowing up the army is strategically better anyway. they are of course the problem for al qaeda not the civillian population.
it was seen that killing innocents wasn't winning al-qaeda any amount of favour. it was supposed to get more recruits by showing what turmoil the americans brought. but now they have better equipment (a level of sophistication that took the ira 25 years to get) they are better of just blowing up american and british soldiers.
and that is legitimate action really. not terrorism.
and venom it was not about the oil it was about a tactical positiion next to iran. allowing us to invade from 2 borders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackline77
...........are you serious.............do you even have a grasp on what is happening over there.............if you dont watch a show on FX called "over there" then you might be able to the see the error of your ways................
I agree.Quote:
To everyone who supports the war: You're all wrong. Listen to nik0tine, because everything he says is correct.
Do you seriously believe thaat every single person in Iraq is a terrorist? If so you have no place in a semi intelligent discussion. If you are going to argue with me, try to back your argument up. If you can't, you need to do one of two things: Concede your point and admit that I am right, or, do not concede your point, but admit that your argument is invalid since you don't have a single shred of fact to back yourself up. When you come back from watching Fox news I expect a response to this.Quote:
yeah ok nokotine were killing innocents last time i checked terrorist run in iraq there called al queda or somethin and i dont think terroists are innocent....
It's more than that. That is why we invaded Iraq first. But the whole war in the middle east is about a much greater plan. Americanize an entire resource rich region, and gain a military stronghold there before the Chinese.Quote:
and venom it was not about the oil it was about a tactical positiion next to iran. allowing us to invade from 2 borders.
this is turning into another Vietnam, pointless.
Look Sadam is caught all they need now is Bin Laden, if they screw there heads on and actually search for him thintgs would be alright.
The soldiers in Iraq are making people cautious and suspicious causing more attacks and rebellions.
I feel bad for the people of Iraq,who are being tormented by Bushes little power hungry land theft.
Their heads ARE on, and that's why they haven't caught bin laden. Bin Laden is a symbol of the war on terror. If you caught him, the war would pretty much be over. Without the war on terror, the excuse to invade middle eastern countries is gone. Bin Laden will not be captured for a looong time, if at all.Quote:
Look Sadam is caught all they need now is Bin Laden, if they screw there heads on and actually search for him thintgs would be alright.
yeah ok nikotine u give me proof that america is purposely killing innocents....
and obliviously u need to learn how to read because i never said everyone in iraq was a terrorist so u must have no place in an intelligent discussion!!!!!
and what u said has nothing to do with what i said in my last post obliviously u need to get some evidence and quit beatin round the bush........
I don't need to give you proof because I never said this once!Quote:
yeah ok nikotine u give me proof that america is purposely killing innocents....
o rly? Then who said this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackline77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackline77
You obliviously need to clarify what the hell this means, since it makes no sense.Quote:
and what u said has nothing to do with what i said in my last post obliviously u need to get some evidence and quit beatin round the bush........
wow u really do need to learn how to read read it again it says terrorists run in iraq called al queda not all people in iraq r terrorists!!! learn how to read please, and by saying i need to clarify what it means u only prove my point of how ur beatin round the bush, gimme a break..........heres ur quote when u said america kills inoccents-
quote- "it is okay for America to go and kill more innocents. As far as I can tell, you don't have a leg to stand on here."
-
Okay fine, let me explain this to you. I said we were killing innocents in Iraq. To this you responded by saying:Quote:
wow u really do need to learn how to read read it again it says terrorists run in iraq called al queda not all people in iraq r terrorists!!!
This would imply that you meant "We are not killing innocents". However, we ARE killing innocents through collateral damage. That is irrefutable fact. So by trying to say that we have killed no innocents in Iraq, you imply that all Iraqi's are not innocent, and therefore all Iraqi's must be terrorists. You further support my argument when you made this statement: "last time i checked terrorist run in iraq there called al queda or somethin and i dont think terroists are innocent...."Quote:
yeah ok nokotine were killing innocents last time i checked terrorist run in iraq there called al queda or somethin and i dont think terroists are innocent....
So with that said, I think I know how to read quite well. It's you who needs to learn how to argue his point.
No, by saying that you need to clarify I mean that you make no sense. When you decide to NOT clarify after I ask, and try to make me look stupid, YOU become the one who is beating around the bush. So again, would you please clarify? After all, if what you said had a point, this wouldn't be a problem, would it?Quote:
and by saying i need to clarify what it means u only prove my point of how ur beatin round the bush, gimme a break..........
Nice way to quote me out of context. I'll say it again, America has killed innocents in Iraq. Period. No argument. I, however, did NOT say that America intentionally kills innocents. Big difference, bucko.Quote:
heres ur quote when u said america kills inoccents-
quote- "it is okay for America to go and kill more innocents. As far as I can tell, you don't have a leg to stand on here."
okay nikotine then ur saying america is killing inoccents without knowing okay yeah whatever, and when i said ur beatin round the bush i meant u know what i have said yet u say i need evidence and u have none, look have it ur way obliviously u have never heard the saying its better to listen than to speak...
im sorry but i dont have time to argue with people like u.
So you resort to putting words in my mouth? hahaha, nice one! My point is this (What is this, the fifth time now?) In war, innocents die. America is waging war and therefore innocents are being killed. That reason alone is enough for me to be opposed to this war. What about this do you not understand? Or more appropriately I should ask what is it that you refuse to understand?Quote:
okay nikotine then ur saying america is killing inoccents without knowing okay yeah whatever
But that's not the truth. I'm not beating around the bush, I'm simply asking for clarification, because this statement makes NO SENSE!!!!Quote:
and when i said ur beatin round the bush i meant u know what i have said yet u say i need evidence and u have none
All I'm asking is for you to rephrase this sentance. Why you refuse to do that is beyond me, but you in general tend to be beyond me.Quote:
and what u said has nothing to do with what i said in my last post obliviously u need to get some evidence and quit beatin round the bush........
No, actually, I haven't heard that one yet. :pQuote:
obliviously u have never heard the saying its better to listen than to speak...
People like what? I have consistently made sense throughout this thread. I have consistently defended my argument without spouting nonsensical crap. I have supported my argument with both morality and with logic. You, however, have yet to do ANY of this. It should be me who doesn't have time to argue with you. So, I ask you again, what is it about me that you cannot argue with?Quote:
im sorry but i dont have time to argue with people like u.
calm down children.
now about bin laden. he doesn't have any real power. it's a common misconception he planned 9-11. he didn't. i'm about to head to lectures and i can't remember the man who did but i will find it out later.
and about al qaeda as an organisation. alot of mistakes have been made about it. in afghanistan they thought it was a huge organistaion in the tora boras mountains with it's own base. a huge underground bunker complex with hydro power, tanks, helicopters etc. it in fact had a few caves with a bit of ammo in them.
the term al qaeda is an odd one. bin laden never used to use it. even after the embassy bombings it was never used. the first people to use it where in fact the americans while they were trying bin laden in his absence on the mafia laws (only laws which allow you to try in absence). of course the big thing was the construstion of al qaeda. noone knows exactly how it works. or how big it is. it could be thousands upon thousands of men. some think the real numbers are less than a hundred. but the term al qaeda was first used in that trial where they first established it as a real organisation and it's set up. whether this is correct remains to be seen and there are many pointers that it is not and seems to work under a franchise system rather than anything with a direct command like the ira.
also the term al qaeda is also intersting. it is in fact not the name of the organisation. al qaeda means "the base" and refered to the base in sudan. america at the time was still struggling for a name for this organisation that had just wiped out two embassies and so refered to it by this name as the base in sudan.
how much bin laden has anything to do with what is happening in iraq is hard to decide. did he personally send troops? did someone act under his orders? or is someone just doing what they think is what the organisation might like? kinda in the way the nazi government worked. or maybe saying that you work for al qaeda just gets you a better reputation.
aside from killing innocents america tortures them.