As if the "insurgents" only beheaded and murdered people with some connection to the United States. It is pure BS. I'm offended by people who are so pro-American they don't stop to consider those who died for no reason because of US actions. I'm just as offended by those who are so taken with the "freedom fighter" romantic garbage that they defend almost any action taken in the name of this "freedom".

Originally Posted by Keltoi

As if the "insurgents" only beheaded and murdered people with some connection to the United States. It is pure BS. I'm offended by people who are so pro-American they don't stop to consider those who died for no reason because of US actions. I'm just as offended by those who are so taken with the "freedom fighter" romantic garbage that they defend almost any action taken in the name of this "freedom".

It "offends" me to hear accusations that only contain half-truths no matter who they're talking about. To speak the whole truth: this is war... and war is ugly and poor civilians are always the ones who pay the price because they can't move themselves from the battle-ground. I didn't get that at first. I would have thought they all would leave because that's what I would do. But that didn't happen in Iraq. It didn't happen in New Orleans - even when they had three days notice to get the hell out.

Has nothing to do with romance... It's not like I gave my heart on a silver platter to Zarqawi. He had to earn that. He did.

Ninth Scribe

Rules of Engagement:

1) All American soldiers are targets.
2) Anyone who helps them (Iraqis, Americans, anyone) are targets.

Civilian women, of any background, are excluded from this list for obvious reasons. Zarqawi himself demanded that Maragaret Hassan's kidnappers publish proof that she was a "spy, conspiring against Muslims" or release her immediately.

By your sickening 'rules of war' that means that all civilians that are not women and children are legal targets.

So by your disgusting theory American has the right to run around and kill any Iraq male civilian and chop his head off if they help the insurgents?

Absolutly barbaric and you have made me sick to my stomach at the thought of this.

Originally Posted by therebbe

By your sickening 'rules of war' that means that all civilians that are not women and children are legal targets.

So by your disgusting theory American has the right to run around and kill any Iraq male civilian and chop his head off if they help the insurgents?

Absolutly barbaric and you have made me sick to my stomach at the thought of this.

Well, I'll be... twacks your monitor screen from the other side...aren't you so perfect and innocent! Yes, yes, no human being "kills to live" in this world, do they now? So it's the beheading style of execution that gets you the most? Well, I would normally complain myself, but I know I'd hear the tinkling of a glass house shattering very soon after that. Where I come from, we did worse to the Bourbons. You push any human being to the point where they feel their lives are threatened and just watch how the lines are drawn. The hunters will live. That's the way it works here.

Ninth Scribe

Your a true advocate for peace and justice.

Killed or be killed.

Where did you learn your ever so deep philosophys. The school of Cave Men and Cave Women?

By your theories the world the will never be peaceful.

If she wants to play by those rules so be it. Let's place the age at let's say 13. I would implement that all males 13 and older would be shot on site because by not reporting these"freedom fighters" obviously they are collaborating them. I would also implement that no body shall be burried instead they will be slathered in pig fat and burned on the spot. Anyone that tries to stop this action would meet the same fate male or female because they will then cease to be innocent civilians. I mean this is war isn't it?

Originally Posted by Geronimo

If she wants to play by those rules so be it. Let's place the age at let's say 13. I would implement that all males 13 and older would be shot on site because by not reporting these"freedom fighters" obviously they are collaborating them. I would also implement that no body shall be burried instead they will be slathered in pig fat and burned on the spot. Anyone that tries to stop this action would meet the same fate male or female because they will then cease to be innocent civilians. I mean this is war isn't it?

She is loading her shot gun as we speak.

It's just garbage founded in nothing but one person's sick version of reality. I shouldn't even have responded to it, but I was bored at the time.

Has nothing to do with romance... It's not like I gave my heart on a silver platter to Zarqawi. He had to earn that. He did.

How did Zarqawi earn your 'heart'? Did he earn your heart after he blew up a wedding in Jordan where he killed 30 people celebrating there marriage?

Maybe after you saw the pictures of the babies that he killed on the news, that is what won him your "heart"...

Do you call it a "heart"?

Originally Posted by therebbe

How did Zarqawi earn your 'heart'? Did he earn your heart after he blew up a wedding in Jordan where he killed 30 people celebrating there marriage?

Maybe after you saw the pictures of the babies that he killed on the news, that is what won him your "heart"...

Do you call it a "heart"?

After I saw that comment I suddenly lost interest in anything else the poster had to say.

Originally Posted by therebbe

By your sickening 'rules of war' that means that all civilians that are not women and children are legal targets.

So by your disgusting theory American has the right to run around and kill any Iraq male civilian and chop his head off if they help the insurgents?

Absolutly barbaric and you have made me sick to my stomach at the thought of this.

Dear Kettle,

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah!

The Pot

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah!

Great input.



Ninth Scribe said and then minutes after edited it out:

Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe (was later edited out)

ETA: Door swings BOTH ways pal. It isn't like these people weren't provoked, but that's not what they teach the cattle here.

So because they were "provoked" they know under your theory on war have the right to kill any civilian who aids America because "thats war"? If the door truly "swings both ways" then you would have no objection to American soldiers killing civilians who aided the insurgency because "thats war" correct?

Since the door "swings both ways" I assume you agree that America than had the right to invade Afghanistan I mean they were "provoked" were they not? Notice I am using your own theories here...

Let me guess, with all your theories of how innocent people are all fair game because "its war" when are will you be receiving your Nobel peace prize? If every country implemented your theories of what war is into there own policy we would probably see genocides and massacres unknown to anyone in the history of this earth.

Originally Posted by Islamicboy

Iraqis have to act smart be like hezbollaah unity is number 1 and allah will help them to victory inshallaah. All the people that commits sectarian violence are criminals.

Well, the way I understood it, the Shia in Iraq were buying the whole government thing because a Shiite was in office. The stategy, if it could be called that, was to demonstrate to the Shiite armies that America was still pulling all the strings. So Zarqawi engaged them, and the American troops intervened. In so doing, the point was proven: It didn't actually make a difference that a Shiite was in office... he has no real power. They may have killed Zarqawi, but the point was still made. I'm pretty sure Al Sadr, who wasn't fond on the occupation from the start, can see that now.



Ninth Scribe

Originally Posted by therebbe

Great input.



Ninth Scribe said and then minutes after edited it out:


So because they were "provoked" they know under your theory on war have the right to kill any civilian who aids America because "thats war"? If the door truly "swings both ways" then you would have no objection to American soldiers killing civilians who aided the insurgency because "thats war" correct?

Since the door "swings both ways" I assume you agree that America than had the right to invade Afghanistan I mean they were "provoked" were they not? Notice I am using your own theories here...

Let me guess, with all your theories of how innocent people are all fair game because "its war" when are will you be receiving your Nobel peace prize? If every country implemented your theories of what war is into there own policy we would probably see genocides and massacres unknown to anyone in the history of this earth.

Wow, stalking the thread? Impressed! No, the U.S. doesn't have the right to rule the whole world just because it has a hard-on for Al Qaeda... but that's what Bush is trying to do and he'll bring the whole of the western world into this war, kicking and screaming, to get his way. None of these men give a rat's behind about the poor civilians. They never have. If you can't deal with that dose of reality - too bad, that's the way this world has ALWAYS been!

I'm not out to win a prize... a cookie... or a rubber biscuit.

Ninth Scribe

Wow, stalking the thread? Impressed!

Thank you! I get an E-mail everytime someone posts in this thread and I rush over here to see if it was you posting your latest theories on how the innocent civilians in war are all "fair game" according to your theories.

No, the U.S. doesn't have the right to rule the whole world just because it has a hard-on for Al Qaeda...

The US does not have the right to rule the whole world...

Just like Al-Queda has no right to crash airplanes into buildings and kill innocent...

Just like Saddam has no right to gas thousands upon thousands of Kurds and then try to cover up there remains because he feels like it...

None of these men give a rat's behind about the poor civilians.

And Zarqawi your "hero" who won your "heart" cares about the poor civilians when he blows up a wedding that kills 30 people including babies? Disgusting.

Each post you make only builds up the list of contradictions your 'theories' have.