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!!!
Okay fine, let me explain this to you. I said we were killing innocents in Iraq. To this you responded by saying:
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....
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...."

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.

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..........
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?

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."
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.