Breaking:
By on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 7:47 pm
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Order the flags to half-staff!!!
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:48 pmSay….that reminds me…
Jake“Alfredâ€,Still waiting for proof of your assertion that Chimpy ordered flags flown at half-mast in honor of Tillman’s death.
How’s that search coming?
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:52 pmNeocons and other various forms of Bush Supporters…
check this out…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDABe8AOuCQ
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:55 pmYeah, the surge of dead marines is working.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:56 pmCue the troll spewing trash about celebrating the death of troops in 3…2…1
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:57 pmMy condolences to the families of these poor servicemen and women.
May George W. Bush, and all the neo-con warmongers, rot for eternity in the hell of their own making. May they hear the crys of mothers, fathers, wives and husbands for their dead loved ones FOREVER.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:58 pmZooey,
Thank you for your wishes. You are correct. I and my TRAITOROUS WAR CRIMINAL henchmen will BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY for crimes of MURDER, LIES and THIEVERY.
See you in hell, my follower (cause I’LL be THERE),
Mr. Bush
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:08 pmMURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COXUCKER PUNK TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM)
I wonder if this was one of the sites Bush showed in his presentation.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:09 pmLet’s hear some right-wing idiots justify this loss of life.
Go ahead….
We’re waiting…
(crickets chirping)
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:11 pm#9 – smafdy
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:18 pmJakeAlfred already made light of it in #1.Go ahead scum. Celebrate the deaths of Americans. Cheer the deaths of Americans. There is a special place in hell for all of you.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:20 pmHow many more ?
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:21 pmtirehead!
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:25 pmYou’re out of bed, and it’s still daylight!
(And you’ll be waiting there in hell with the hot pokers and the Busch-Lite?)
Go ahead scum. Celebrate the deaths of Americans. Cheer the deaths of Americans. There is a special place in hell for all of you.
fvkhead,
You are right. I AM scum, and a MURDERER and a TRAITOR to the USA and all it used to stand for.
I WILL BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY, along with Nazis like YOU. Thanks for thinking of me, and Satan, your MASTER.
See you in hell fvkhead (cause I’LL be THERE),
Mr. Bush
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:27 pmMURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COXUCKER PUNK TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM)
More surge, more death, more civil war, more terrorists, less oil,more profits for Exxon, less clean air, more food that makes you sick, more crime, more illegal aliens, less good paying jobs, more tax cuts for those with more money than they need, more families living in poverty, more Vets coming home to shoddy health care, more families ruined for nothing, more hypocrites, crooks, lies, more spying on Americans, more
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:29 pmcivil liberties lost, more empty slogans, more denial, more disease, ahh now those are some TRUE Republican Values for America and the world.
Another horrific day in Iraq. Yet Bush says “we’re making progress.”
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:33 pmCondolences to the families of these 9, and the thirty-three hundred who preceded them.
Twenty were wounded in this blast; yesterday we read another piece on the injured who were being ordered back into battle.
Bush’s “surge” which is really a simple escalation of the war is not working, but the obedient media have been given instructions to downplay the negative.
It is hard to downplay this horror of today.
Nine people dead, because of Bush’s lies. Nine families mourning because of those lies. Remember this is being done in our name.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:35 pmI’m not “making light” of it. I am saying the President of the United States should order flags lowered out of respect.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:38 pmI’m not “making light†of it. I am saying the President of the United States should order flags lowered out of respect.
Comment by Alfred
Liar. Three exclamation points are not necessary for a respectful request, Jake.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:42 pmAlfred…the flags are already lowered to half staff, for the Virginia Tech massacre.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:43 pmYou don’t mean that, therefore you are making light of it. You are a fu*king scum bag jake. I hope you choke on a pretzel.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:43 pmfiredickhead, why don’t you enlist? I will celebrate your coming home in a body bag.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:44 pmComment by Alfred — April 23, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
Like he did for Tillman?
BTW, when can we expect that proof, Shakey?
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:46 pmWay to go, right-wingers, you’ve killed nine more of our troops. When will you stop killing our troops? When will you stop killing Iraqis? Is this really what “good Christians” are all about?
If you right-wingers don’t think you’re responsible for all of this carnage, then as Mr.BushGoesToHell writes:
See you in hell.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:46 pmAwe c’mon guys you just don’t understand. It’s not like I want the killing, but we just solomnly accept it and try not to remind people of it.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:48 pmWhat’s it gonna take to wake this country up?
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:56 pmI already stated I thought the request to lower flags at FOB was reasonable on that other thread. It doesn’t matter to me if you believe me or not.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:01 pmBadger:
Flags were only ordered lowered to half-staff until yesterday for that.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:03 pmAlfred, how about instead of lowering the flag, the media regularly cover things like families affected by the deaths, you know those who gave up everything, and have now lost their father or mother, son, or daughter, brother or sister over a lie, you know the one about WMD’s. How can you even believe in the American way, you know innocent until proven guilty if we’re going to invade a nation, and kill 600K, and displace millions.
Wouldn’t you want the evidence against you to stand up, who knows you could end up being put down just like an unwanted dog.
Luckily for you we have science that brought us DNA tests, you know those same kinds of THINKERS who have brought you everything from mans greatest invention soap, to the next greatest invention generating electricity, to computers, cars, astronomy, space travel, and so on,yet you want to deny these same people their thoughts on everything from evolution to stem cell research, and lets not forget climate change.
Then lets hear how there are something like 100,000 private mercenaries, and contract support,they aren’t counted in official totals, and they cost the American tax payer 3 times what it would for a govt agency to do the same. If the military really needed people, we have a draft. Then cowards like you, or maybe someone in your family has to go put their life on the line for a couple grand a month.. A privately contracted military should scare you as much me, after all in 08 well have a democrat as CiC.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:07 pmCan-O-Whoop-Ass:
Democrat or Republican President, I’d rather our all-volunteer military (and yes Blackstone) fight the terrorists over there than here.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:09 pmHey,
Jake“Alfredâ€,Still waiting for proof of your assertion that Chimpy ordered flags flown at half-mast in honor of Tillman’s death.
How’s that search coming?
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:10 pmobssessed, the country is waking up. It’s just that Herr Bush doesn’t give a damn, just like he doesn’t give a damn about these soldiers. How many funerals has he attended again? oh yeah..
How many flags have been lowered for the dead sodiers again? oh yeah…
But he had time to host the NFL champs at the White House today, while our soldiers are up to their asses in his dirty work, continuing to die for his lies.
I disagree with one thing Reid said today. Bush isn’t in denial. He’s a petulant brat and he’s going to get his way no matter who tells him he’s wrong. And right now, that’s a whole lot of people.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:10 pmI answered that question already, TripMaster Monkey.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:12 pm9 more lives who could be having dinner with their family were just blown away … and for a lie.
Ok, whats on TV?
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:14 pmJake“Alfred” sez:So…when can we expect results, Shakey?
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:15 pmCould we please, ignore, Jake? Or is it really urgent to answer him back?
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:15 pmI already stated I thought the request to lower flags at FOB was reasonable on that other thread. It doesn’t matter to me if you believe me or not.
Comment by Alfred
You can’t even address me by name, can you Jake? Ashamed of your behavior the other night?
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:16 pmZooey sez:
Not to be morbidly curious, but what did he do the other night, Zooey?
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:18 pmWhat’s it gonna take to wake this country up?
Comment by obsessed — April 23, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
Emails showing Rove, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others actively involved in planning and carrying out the attacks of 9/11.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:20 pmAlfred wow are you a republican, you sure dodged all that I had to say with one line slogan. The all volunteer military is not cutting it, even with the contractors. Why is that? Why are the only “supporters” of this war at home hiding? Yah this means you, why aren’t you over there? Don’t you think we need a draft? I do! If we’re gonna have a surge, let’s put 100 soldiers on every block. I mean its like a population of 24 million or something. We surely could draft 24 million people between 18-42 or whatever they upped it to, and have 1 for 1 guard until these people get along don’t ya think?
Wow talk about those that are pro- gun, they can mess with some of the best the world has to offer, maybe tanks, planes, big ass ships, woo hoo it’s just like playing a video game, only there’s no respawn point, we just drop you, or what’s left of you in the ground and the bush administration just chalks it up to the cost of doing business, your life.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:23 pmThat surge is going great, isn’t it?
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:27 pmre 11
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:30 pm“Go ahead scum…”
already been done by one of your own fireant.
but since you’re obviuosly imparied here it is.
“Order the flags to half-staff!!!
Comment by Alfred”
Has any member of the chickenshit chickenhawk PNAC ever served in the military?
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:30 pm#37 – TMM
Jake was pissed because I’d trapped him into being “vulgar,” and things went downhill from there.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/20/iraq-brain-injury/#comment-3761574
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:32 pmklyde,
Sorry this is so late in coming but man you called it. What a f’n retard that firehead is.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:33 pmthis is a shout out to hacker bob;
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:35 pmI know you don’t work with soldiers, but this still must hurt in ways I can’t understand. my thoughts are with you and yours.
And I grieve…Blessings to all the fallen and their famalies…There is going to be to many more before this is done….All countries will turn away from us and the hate will be endless…
Before this is done I can see rioting in our own street’s, sadly the one’s responsible will not be held accountable untill much later than they diserve….The democratic party had better get their act together if they plan for a future or else there will be a division and a 3rd party will take the lead..That may be the best solution any way..The republican(neo-con ) party will be banished, litrely….I have a dream, when all the war’s, rioting and removal of the most evil is done America will rise up again and rebuild anew, that is ofcourse if we survive all the rest…..Blessings…The vultures are circling the capitol and the troll’s circle jerk here…
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:36 pmWonder why fox news doesn’t have this on their website?
Nor CNN..
I’d say 9 soldiers is a big deal… Main story on Fux news is about the Dem’s, and Alaska’s new Quarter pathetic.
Way to support those troops…
McCain want to make a return trip?
Alfred wanna make your first?
How bout you firepants?
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:42 pm“There is a special place in hell for all of you.”
Gee. Fairy tales scare the piss out of me. Wow. I’ve changed.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:43 pmRemedy for ending all terrorism: Have the Bush twins give blow jobs to all of the jihadists everywhere. If the terrorists want more then get on all 4’s ladies and bark like the bitches you are!!
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:44 pmComment by Zooey — April 23, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
Thanks, Zooey…I just read through the thread. Now I have to go take a scalding hot shower.
A Jake by any other name is still a vile little toad. I really wish I could meet him in person sometime, so I could explain to him why such behavior in the presence of a lady is unacceptable.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:53 pm#
“That surge is going great, isn’t it?
Comment by Reginald Yoyodyne — April 23, 2007 @ 9:27 pm”
Swimmingly.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:58 pmGee. Fairy tales scare the piss out of me. Wow. I’ve changed.
Comment by Reginald Yoyodyne #48
…you can’t change…
…your rotten Karma has DOOMED you…
…take a good look at what your gods Bushiva and L’il Dick have done to Iraq…
…then transpose that horror onto your own home and family…
…it’s your pride, prejudice and arrogance that doom you…
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:00 pmChimpy says stay the course. The useless Democrats have no guts to say “out now”! So, young Americans continue to die for a lie and their so called leaders back home dont appear to care very much. America, you should be ashamed!!
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:03 pm#50 – TMM
It was a bit pesonal.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:04 pmPeople die daily in Iraq. How many soliders need to be killed in a day to qualify for the flag being flown at half mast? Ponder the absurdity of this question.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:05 pm#9 – smafdy
Jake Alfred already made light of it in #1.
Comment by Zooey — April 23, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
Absolutely, there’s a SPECIAL place in hell reserved the him.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:25 pm#50 – TMM
It was a bit pesonal.
Comment by Zooey
OMFG, Zooey.
What an A$$hole scum.
Are you OK? I missed that exchange – sorry.
That scum doesn’t deserve a thing! How low.
TP?!!?
HELLO???
Can we finally do something about this?
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:25 pmI’m not “making light†of it. I am saying the President of the United States should order flags lowered out of respect.
Comment by Alfred — April 23, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
You are a lying traitor pig. You don’t care about soldiers or how many are injured or die. All you care about is that your scared pansy self is safe and that your money isn’t touched.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:29 pmGo to hell.
firedickhead, why don’t you enlist? I will celebrate your coming home in a body bag.
Comment by Uncle Ho — April 23, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
A M E N, Uncle Ho
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:30 pmTP?!!?
HELLO???
Can we finally do something about this?
Comment by trueblue
Not here true, my son comments on TP sometimes….
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:37 pm17 I’m not “making light†of it. I am saying the President of the United States should order flags lowered out of respect.
The only thing that should be lowered to have any meaning is Chimpy into a 6′ x 3′ hole in the ground
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:45 pmJust a few more incidents like this one and even the most staunch Republican war supporters in Congress will fall away……and the veto will be over-ridden
The troop pull out starts this year.
Bush is too stubborn and stupid to see it, but this war was over long ago.
The aftermath got out of control under Bremer.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:47 pm#62 Great point, Eargy. The war HAS been over since the infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner. They DID accomplish the mission…and then Bushie kept them there to babysit, which is not what soldiers do. And they are surprised when things go wrong? There are a whole lot of people who need to swing in the wind for that.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:54 pm#33
But Juan, according to you the people who killed these soldiers were just simple “peasants” acting in “self-defense” against the military of the “greatest terrorist state in the world:”
Self-defense is what the Iraqi insurgency is doing…
Comment by Juan C — July 24, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
So, Ex, how does it feel losing a war against peasants just like in Vietnam?
Comment by Juan C — April 23, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
US is the greatest terrorist state in the world
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:11 pmComment by Juan C — April 23, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
Exley,
It must be nice to have nothing to do all day except take another poster’s comments out of text on your “Cut and Paste” spree.
Are you on Disability or Unemployment?
Surely you wouldn’t have the time to accrue these quotes otherwise…..
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:20 pm#64 Exley, I disagree with Juan often. That said…what the he!! is your point? Peasants? Yeah, the insurgents are mostly peasants.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:21 pmEx, I didnt get your point. You seem to have a crush on some of my posts.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:27 pmJPark,
You are a sensible poster, so it does not surprise me that you would frequently disagree with Juan. I highlighted Juan’s “peasant” remarks in the context of his other quotes to show that Juan tends to glorify the Iraqi “insurgents” (read: terrorists) and defend their actions.
Secondly, and less importantly, I doubt most of the Iraqi “insurgents” are “peasants.” “Peasants” is a somewhat archaic term that applied to sharecroppers and rustic farm laborers. It is much more likely the Iraqi insurgency is made up of former Baathists and Sunni middle class workers who had been loyal to fellow Sunni Saddam Hussein. (Not to mention fanatical Islamist extremists that are mixed in)…The Iraqi insrugency is not a “peasant” rebellion.
Juan’s efforts to compare the Iraqi insurgency and the Viet Cong and do not hold up.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:36 pm#67
Just pointing out your hypocrisy, Juan. On some threads you feign regret and sorrow over the deaths of U.S. soldiers and then on other threads you celebrate those who kill those soldiers and claim those soldiers are nothing more than servants of “the world’s greatest terrorist nation.”
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:41 pmExley, Iraq’s unemployment before the war was 40% and is now above 50%. If they aren’t peasants, what are they? They are desperate people doing desperate things. Can you imagine your neighborhood with 50% unemployment? Can you imagine the things they would do…especially if they were occupied by an antagonistic nation?
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:43 pmJPark,
I do not argue that unemployment is rampant in Iraq. Like you said, it was at 40% even before the war. And I am not denying there is economic suffering in Iraq. I am simply saying that unemployed, poor urban and previously middle class workers are not by definition “peasants,” which, as I said has a specific meaning under a specific type of economic system. To use the term “peasants” to describe those waging Iraq’s terror campaign against fellow Iraqis and the U.S. military is a rhetorical effort to glorify and romanticize the insurgents by portraying them as simple country folk who took up arms to fight for their freedom. That is obviously not the case in Iraq. Those carrying out car bombings in market places and mosques are mostly Baathists, the Sunni middle-class, and religious zealots seeking to establish a Taliban-like state in Iraq.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:53 pmThe White House isn’t concerned about how many soldiers die in Iraq they only want the money. As you have noticed the US troops are only in Iraq until Bush gets the money Congress is holding back. The money isn’t for the troops it’s for the White House to pay off the promises made to others to go along with the invasion. The Middle East will be lead by Al Sadr and Maliki will move out of Iraq. Cheney is spit Halliburton now and has KBR in Texas and Halliburton in Dubai. While Americans are looking at Gonzo lie Cheney is closing up shop. Wolfie is gone but he did get his share of the Iraq stolen money. Not all Republicans were involved in the Bush Administration crimes but come election day they will have to pay too. Our troops were used as a front for the White House to steal oil and money from the US Treasury. Americans were played for fools by the Bush Administration and we will pay heavy for that mistake. We have just witnessed the worse crimes of a President in the history of the United States. Our troops have died based on nothing more then lies as the American people set back and watched. No flag will go half-staff for our troops because Bush doesn’t consider them has human just numbers.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:57 pmDropped word: This should have read:
“I do not argue that unemployment is not rampant in Iraq.”
Even more clear, avoiding the double negative, “I agree that unemployment is rampant in Iraq.”
April 24th, 2007 at 12:00 am#71 What is Iraq’s terror campaign? Really, if you want to use the term you might want to check on the American Revolution. They were the terrorists of the day. Guerrila warfare was virually unknown. Everybody lined up and shot at each other. That was the honorable way. The Brits were aghast at the evil Americans. My point is you use the term terrorist while that is a subjective word, one that could have been used against our freedom fighters in the late 1700’s.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:00 amI highlighted Juan’s “peasant†remarks in the context of his other quotes to show that Juan tends to glorify the Iraqi “insurgents†(read: terrorists) and defend their actions.
Comment by Exley — April 23, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
Ex, that read: terrorist is low. I thought you wanted to debate.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:02 amBush went to Virginia Tech to honor the dead but he has yet to attend ONE SOLDIER’S FUNERAL. Fricking cannon fodder…that is what they are.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:03 amJPark,
Yes, but there is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism. When Al Qaeda or some other extremist group sets up a car bomb in a marketplace filled with innocent, unarmed Iraqi men, women, and children, that is not guerilla warfare. That is terrorism and mass murder.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:06 am#75, Absolutely, Juan…I am always up for a good debate with you (although, it is getting late here on the East Coast).
April 24th, 2007 at 12:07 amThat is terrorism and mass murder.
Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 12:06 am
Your definition makes US bombs as weapons of terrorists.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:08 am#75, Absolutely, Juan…I am always up for a good debate with you (although, it is getting late here on the East Coast).
Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 12:07 am
Please, dont put words in my mouth. Try to think objective for once. If Americans were fighting an invading force, I would be right behind you in your right to self-defence. This is not about which people we like or dont, it is about justice.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:14 am#77 There was no difference back then. Guerrilla warfare was something new and it was dishonorable. No, it didn’t kill women and children but then there were no women and children to kill. Do you really think they wouldn’t have done it for their freedom?
April 24th, 2007 at 12:15 amYou seem to think tactics matter in war, Exley? The Sunni’s have NO power, NO defense, NO weapons. So they use what they can to fight off an occupying force and the Shia majority that uses death squads to cow the minority into submission. What would you do?
April 24th, 2007 at 12:17 amJuan, I am not putting words in your mouth. Every one of the statements I cite in posting #64 is a direct quote from your postings. I have provided the date and time to so validate.
You talk of “justice.” Where was the justice when a car bomb was exploded last week in a Baghdad marketplace killing 157 innocent Iraqis?
April 24th, 2007 at 12:18 amWhat would you do?
Comment by JPark
He would hide under his sagging, dripping bed.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:20 amJPark, I disagree that the Sunnis have no weapons….There are an awful lot of dead American service men and women, and dead innocent Iraqi men, women, and children that are a tragic testament to that. And I hold no brief for the Shiite death squads. But don’t believe for one moment that there are not Sunni death squads, as well.
I understand though what you are getting it (and, I think, Juan as well)…You are talking about the right of resistance. Yes, the right of resistance is recognized by international law. But, by that same token, international law requires that resistance movements be organized and follow the law of war. Just because you call yourself a resistance fighter or a resistance group does not give you carte blanche to carry out any type of attack against any type of target.
The Third Geneva Convention (1949) provides, in part:
members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
April 24th, 2007 at 12:25 am(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Where was the justice when a car bomb was exploded last week in a Baghdad marketplace killing 157 innocent Iraqis?
Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 12:18 am
Once again…do I have to say this all the time before you stop cherry picking my posts? Terrorists are no INSURGENTS. Thats what I think. IMO, Insurgents dont kill innocents, this is my romantic idea of what insurgency should mean. If those attacks are not against the invading army they are not INSURGENCY ACTS. THOSE ARE TERRORISTS ACTS. Dont confuse one with the other.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:26 am#86, Okay, Juan…That’s fine (Although I wish you would be as careful with language as when you libel U.S. troops and falsely claim they carry out indiscriminate killings of innocent Iraqis and use prohibited weapons)…
But as I point out above, even resistance movements are required under international law are required to conduct themselves in a certain manner and comport with the law of war in their operations. The Iraqi insurgency (leaving aside the terrorists in Iraq) do not follow these international legal guidelines.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:32 amExley, the Sunni’s have no power so they use IEDs. It isn’t pretty and a lot of innocent people suffer. That makes nobody happy but with no other option available, what are they to do? Honestly, if they laid down arms what do you think would happen to them?
April 24th, 2007 at 12:33 am“Insurgents dont kill innocents, this is my romantic idea of what insurgency should mean. If those attacks are not against the invading army they are not INSURGENCY ACTS. THOSE ARE TERRORISTS ACTS.”
Okay then…We are in agreement.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:34 amYou talk of “justice.†Where was the justice when a car bomb was exploded last week in a Baghdad marketplace killing 157 innocent Iraqis?
Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 12:18 am
What amazes me is your hypocresy. You bring this terrible, daily event (157 people dead) which was made by Muslim extremists against another group of Muslims so to prove that I support terrorism? This is beyond lame, it is pathetic, that you bring this stuff up, but you defended the use of chemicals (WP) by the US against civilians. You say nothing about Haditha, Fallujah and Qana. You say nothing about Abu Ghraib, Gitmo (well, you said that it was ok to waterboard some people), you defended torture and extermination of Leninist-Marxist followers in Chile (I hope you remember), you said Contras were freedom fighters even after this:
On November 2, 1989, a U.S. citizen, Sister Diana Ortiz, 31, of the Ursuline order based in Maple Mount, Kentucky, was kidnapped, beaten, tortured, and sexually molested by three men, one of whom was a uniformed Guatemalan police officer.
The Human Rights Watch contended this should have triggered a suspension of U.S. training programs for the Guatemalan police, but the U.S. State Department didn’t even register a protest, saying the case fell under Guatemalan jurisdiction. Compare this with the response by the Bush Administration to the alleged sexual threat to a U.S. lieutenant’s wife by Panamanian armed forces that Bush used to partially justify the invasion of Panama by 26,000 U.S. troops.
and Im the one supporting terrorism? Get a freaking grip, dude.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:35 amI am really not interested in perceived justice. This is reality. Resistance groups by nature are outlawed by international law because the assumption is that the UN will take care of things. This is where I agree with righties…you can’t always trust a group of countries with their own interests primary. The Sunnis are absolutely nothing to any world body (except maybe the Arab League). Considering this, what do they have to lose by doing what they feel is necessary?
April 24th, 2007 at 12:37 amThe Iraqi insurgency (leaving aside the terrorists in Iraq) do not follow these international legal guidelines.
Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 12:32 am
CIA meet Exley, Exley meet the CIA.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:37 am#88,
JPark, They also have RPGs, automatic weapons, small arms, and mortars.
But, look, that is beside the point. I think you are being a little to lenient on some facets of the Iraqi insurgency. I do indeed think some facets of it (the radical Islamic extremist/Al Qaeda part) that is indeed VERY happy when innocent people are killed or wounded. That is why some facets of it (Al Qaeda) deliberately target civilain targets, such as marketplaces and mosques.
I guess you and I should clarify exactly what we are discussing. Are you (like Juan) disintiquishing between those who carry out attacks solely against Coalition forces and those who carry out attacks against such civilain targets?
April 24th, 2007 at 12:41 am“you defended the use of chemicals (WP) by the US against civilians”
And there you go again, Juan…You take one step forward but then take two steps back….We have already discussed and I have disproved this canard that white phosphorous (which, by the way, is not a chemical weapon) was used against civilains in Fallujah or anywere else. It is a myth, Juan, and you know it.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:44 am#93 Exley, the supposed Islamic extemist/Al Qaeda part is a very small minority (estimated at 5% by military intelligence). So, if you are going to state that al Qaeda is some type of leader in the insurgency there is really no point in talking to you. That is nothing but right wing talking points in effect.
I don’t distinguish between those who attack soldiers and those who attack civilians. Our Shia allies attack both as well.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:47 am#91 JPark:
“Resistance groups by nature are outlawed by international law”
That is incorrect. I already showed that the Third Geneva Convention specifically references and recognizes organized resistance movements and lays out the rules of behavior and organization for such movements.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:47 am#94 DU IS a chemical in American ammunition. Do you think it is not a chemical weapon?
April 24th, 2007 at 12:48 amBut as I point out above, even resistance movements are required under international law are required to conduct themselves in a certain manner and comport with the law of war in their operations. The Iraqi insurgency (leaving aside the terrorists in Iraq) do not follow these international legal guidelines. Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 12:32 am
Tell that to the people of Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, and Argentina who all suffered under American led terrorism, murder, torture and military misconduct. You know, the acts you defend, because the CIA was behind them?
Tell that to Ronnie RayGun that applauded these same acts of terrorism, when the Taliban and their foreign supporters (soon to become Al Qaeda) were engaging in these “acts” he called them “freedom fighters”.
You’re a hypocrite, a fool, and a human piece of sh*t ExLax.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:48 amWhat is this about white phosphorus, Exley? Yes, it has been used by the US against Iraq. Are you denying this?
April 24th, 2007 at 12:49 am“I don’t distinguish between those who attack soldiers and those who attack civilians.”
Wow….I gotta say, JPark, that surprises me. Even Juan makes a sees a moral distinction between those who carry out attacks on armed Coalition forces and those who deliberately explode a car bomb in a crowded marketplace full of innocent unarmed men, women, and children…
Do you really equate the two?
April 24th, 2007 at 12:50 amWe have already discussed and I have disproved this canard that white phosphorous (which, by the way, is not a chemical weapon) was used against civilains in Fallujah or anywere else. It is a myth, Juan, and you know it. Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 12:44 am
White Phosphorous is a chemical, and it is a weapon – your lack of reason, logic and simple english is astounding ExLax… You may think it’s not a chemical weapon of MASS DESTRUCTION – but even chlorine bombs are chemical weapons – you r*t*rded piece of sh*t.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:50 amI do indeed think some facets of it (the radical Islamic extremist/Al Qaeda part) that is indeed VERY happy when innocent people are killed or wounded. That is why some facets of it (Al Qaeda) deliberately target civilain targets, such as marketplaces and mosques.
Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 12:41 am
This is where all your debating abilities, which are good, drop to nonsensical child talk. AlQaeda is NOT happy about the deaths of innocent people, just like Bush is NOT HAPPY about the deaths of children. These people, national extremists, like Bush or Muslim religious extremist leaders, are NOT evil. This is not an Alien vs Predator film, Ex.
However, for them, it is more convenient to have dead innocents or dead American soldiers if that means that they make PROFITS. If as a religious leader, I put a bomb in a mosque that would mean chaos, uprisings and terror in the civilian population, that means more power and profit for me, cause I get to recruit more people to die for my “just” cause and escalate the conflict until I get to some position of power.
If, as President, more dead Americans mean more chauvinism from people like you, and no oil pipes getting blown, then it is OK. It doesnt have to MAKE YOU HAPPY, it is only more convenient for me.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:50 amThat is incorrect. I already showed that the Third Geneva Convention specifically references and recognizes organized resistance movements and lays out the rules of behavior and organization for such movements. Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 12:47 am
Torturing prisoners, and our invasion of Iraq were also violations of international law – yet you apparently have no problems with those violations. You hypocritical nazi b*tch.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:51 am#99 Not at all, JPark. It has been used and it is legal do so. White phosphorous is not banned or prohibited by any international agreement. What I am saying is that it has not been used improperly or illegally or against Iraqi civilains.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:53 am#99 Not at all, JPark. It has been used and it is legal do so. White phosphorous is not banned or prohibited by any international agreement. What I am saying is that it has not been used improperly or illegally or against Iraqi civilains. Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 12:53 am
There are lots of agents that can be used on civilians that SHOULDN’T BE – you st*pid piece of sh*t. Arguing to the *legality* of a heinous act, is the worst kind of NAZI apologist b*llsh*t – SON!
April 24th, 2007 at 12:55 am#100 No, when they don’t have any alternative, no, of course I don’t see a difference. Maybe I would have said yes before Iraqis started attacking Iraqis but not anymore. If you have a group (Shi’ites) grabbing people off the streets…torturing and killing those people…and dropping them off at their doorstep I really can’t say what the appropriate response would be.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:55 amWe have already discussed and I have disproved this canard that white phosphorous (which, by the way, is not a chemical weapon) was used against civilains in Fallujah or anywere else. It is a myth, Juan, and you know it.
Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 12:44 am
Yeah, there was no Napalm over Vietnamese kids, neither.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:55 am#104 That is exactly the problem. If Iraq had it and we didn’t it would be illegal. Agree?
April 24th, 2007 at 12:56 amYeah, there was no Napalm over Vietnamese kids, neither.
Comment by Juan C — April 24, 2007 @ 12:55 am
Or agent orange – don’t forget that was legal too…
April 24th, 2007 at 12:57 am“AlQaeda is NOT happy about the deaths of innocent people,”
And your evidence of this is what, Juan? The numerous apologies and statements of remorse Bin Laden has made after 9/11 and innumerable other deliberate attacks against civilain targets????
Are you delusional, Juan? It is when you make such statements that you indicate you are utterly detached from reality. The fact is that Al Qaeda deliberately targets civilain targets because it advances their goals. When they carry out an attack against the World Trade Center or the trains in Madrid, of course they are happy. They achieved their objective, which is the deaths of civilains in and of itself. You seem to have difficulty grasping the concept of terrorism, Juan.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:59 am#109 Well, that one took awhile to take effect. Clearing a cave with napalm was a bit more obvious. I can’t imagine pulling that trigger. Sick.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:59 am#110 Honestly, I don’t think they care one way or the other if innocent people die as long as they get their way. People are a means to an end.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:06 am#108, JPark, Saddam Hussein’s army had white phosphorous weapons. It is a tactical weapon used by militaries all over the world. Its use against combatants is not prohibited by any international convention.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:07 amThe fact is that Al Qaeda deliberately targets civilain targets because it advances their goals. When they carry out an attack against the World Trade Center or the trains in Madrid, of course they are happy. They achieved their objective, which is the deaths of civilains in and of itself. You seem to have difficulty grasping the concept of terrorism, Juan.Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 12:59 am
Actually ExLax, the founders of Al Qaeda spent a great deal of resources attacking military targets in Afghanistan, as they have in Iraq. You also forget the attack on the Cole. The reason terrorists often resort to attacking civilians has as much to do with being outgunned and desperate as it does your sense of “immorality”. The wingnuts that run Al Qaeda are just like you. If you were backed in a corner, and you felt that your only way to protect Israel was to kill civilians – say in a Nuclear attack on Iran, you’d do it in a heartbeat. This is the same thing, these people feel “pressed” to do something that makes us hurt, because otherwise we won’t recognize they’re hurting. Much like your ruby ridge/Waco nuts. They’re all strung out and desperate. I’m sure you understand this state of mind – as it seems to be where all of the sh*t you post emanates from.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:07 amAbout WP, Ex:
From the link:
“Yes, it was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants.
Beautiful people.
You seem to have difficulty grasping the concept of terrorism, Juan.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:08 amComment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 12:59 am
Well, I bet you know enough if you support Contras.
#110 Honestly, I don’t think they care one way or the other if innocent people die as long as they get their way. People are a means to an end. Comment by JPark — April 24, 2007 @ 1:06 am
Were you describing Bush/ExLax, or Al Qaeda here? It seems to fit both, sadly.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:09 am“Yes, it was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants.”
Thank you, Juan. You are man enough to admit you were wrong when you claimed it was used against civilains and that I was right when I said it was properly used in battle in combatants.
I accept your retraction, sir.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:12 amExley, would you have a problem with someone blowing up an airplane to make a political statement against a government? I am sure you would. Can you tell me why the Bush administration is harboring Luis Posada Carilles. For that matter, can you tell me why, in the middle of the “War on Terror” the US government is supporting the MEK (an organization that our government considers a terrorist organisation) in Iran? This whole era is bullsh!t. Lies, coverups and hypocrisy.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:13 am#108, JPark, Saddam Hussein’s army had white phosphorous weapons. It is a tactical weapon used by militaries all over the world. Its use against combatants is not prohibited by any international convention. Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 1:07 am
It is a weapon used to illuminate, not as a chemical weapon. If white phosphorous is used in an enclosed space, it can in fact violate the general protocols of the Geneva Convention concerning the “Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases”. Or were you not aware that there was a “generic” ban for this *type* of weapon?
Tell me ExLax, how long have you walked around with your own head up your *ss?
April 24th, 2007 at 1:16 am#113 That is certainly debatable. Napalm would also be banned under the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. But the US failed to ratify Protocol III so I guess you are right. Aren’t you the one saying that Sunnis should only use aboveboard tactics, Exley? But we didn’t ratify a treaty so it really isn’t illegal. I don’t get how you can really defend your position since mines and IEDs aren’t technically illegal.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:17 amThank you, Juan. You are man enough to admit you were wrong when you claimed it was used against civilains and that I was right when I said it was properly used in battle in combatants.
I accept your retraction, sir.
Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 1:12 am
That means Juan was right, according to the Geneva Convention ban on asphyxiating weapons. As an incendiary weapon often suffocates in a confined space. Or were you not aware of that?
I accept your retraction, child.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:18 am#119 Thanks, VVGFU, I knew there was a big brouhaha over its legality. I wasn’t sure what it was, though.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:19 amJeez, law is stupid. I would rather asphyxiate than be burned alive with a substance that needs no fuel. Christ.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:22 amThis is from the US battle book…’[i]t is against the Law of Land Warfare to employ WP against personnel targets,’ and which would be in contravention of the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the War Crimes Act.”
WP=white phosphorus.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:25 amJPark, using ExLax’s loose interpretation that if a country (like the US) doesn’t ratify specific protocols of international law, that we aren’t bound by them. I wonder what member of Al Qaeda or even the current Iraqi government ratified those protocols again for their side?
If we’re going to “split legal hairs”, as ExLax can only do to avoid being morally and intellectually wrong – as he ALWAYS is, then they haven’t violated any treaties or international laws they haven’t signed onto to.
Sorry ExLax, but you’ve destroyed your own points, by the unwillingness yourself to ABIDE by the broadly accepted international laws, and justifying it as being legal…
I accept your admission that you’ve failed, and that you’re an ignorant st*pid little child with the debating ability of a 3rd grader. Maybe that’s why you make those EVER so childish remarks like “I accept your admission”. You’re such a st*pid, dum bass little weasel… But you already knew that, didn’t you scumbag?
April 24th, 2007 at 1:25 am#124, JPark, yeah, just like in Iraq, ExLax declared VICTORY, before he lost. These brats are all the same, st*pid ignorant and incompetent little pieces of sh*t.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:26 amJPark,
Unlike Al Qaeda, which openly and proudly boasts of its attacks against civilain targets, as on 9/11, Luis Posada Carilles has denied any involvement in the 1976 bombing. Moreover, he was twice acquitted by Venezuelan courts of plotting to bomb the plane, according to the BBC. Moreover, the U.S is not “harboring” him. He was released pending trial by the court OVER the objections of the Bush Justice Department, which wanted him held without bail. He is stand trial in the U.S. in May.
As for the MEK story, that has not been confirmed. But I admit I don’t know enough about that allegation to answer fully.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:27 amSaddam Hussein’s army had white phosphorous weapons.
Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 1:07 am
Oh, the memories…
Lets make a quick review of US chemical and biological weapons:
1917: Not signing the 1898 and 1907 treaties against asphixiating and nocive gases, the US used more than 1000 tons of mustard gas, phosgene and chlorine in I World War.
1941-1945: Merck Pharma Company began, when asked by the government, R & D in order to get lethal bio weapons. The main plan was to elaborate Anthrax against German cities. It was cancelled. But not the mustard gas, which was forbidden.
1951. Although the US denies it, North Korea was the target of bio attacks with Pest, like the Northeast part of China. A commission of 6 scientists promoted by China showed this.
1961. In Vietnam, US used WP, neurotoxical gases and Agent Orange. C-123 planes with capability of 4,500 kg of AO destroyed vegetation of 9 million of fertile land.
1980-1988 During Iran-Irak conflict, US gave Hussein chemical and bio weapons.
1991. In Gulf War, US used Depleted Uranium which causes lung and bone cancer. Radioactivity in battle fields where DU have been used is 150 times larger than ordinary ones. Thousands of American Vets are affected by this weapon, like AO.
1999. In the Balcan conflict, US introduced new chemical and bio weaponry, such as dichlorate ethylene (? sorry about translation), vynil chloride monomer and mercury. All of them, produce cancer.
Hey, what a wonderful world. Right?
April 24th, 2007 at 1:30 amCitation please, Juan.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:33 amUnlike Al Qaeda, which openly and proudly boasts of its attacks against civilain targets, as on 9/11, Luis Posada Carilles has denied any involvement in the 1976 bombing. Moreover, he was twice acquitted by Venezuelan courts of plotting to bomb the plane, according to the BBC. Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 1:27 am
You mean this BBC, which points out he’s an escaped fugitive that was in fact serving time not for an acquitted, but a convicted sentence?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4564715.stm
Moreover, the U.S is not “harboring†him. He was released pending trial by the court OVER the objections of the Bush Justice Department, which wanted him held without bail. He is stand trial in the U.S. in May.Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 1:27 am
We NEVER admit to harboring CIA assets, but that’s just a BIG LIE, ExLax – the only kind you know how to tell!
As for the MEK story, that has not been confirmed. But I admit I don’t know enough about that allegation to answer fully.
Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 1:27 am
That’s the problem ExLax – you NEVER know much about the b*llsh*t you post – but that doesn’t stop you MOST of the time. Ignorant Jake*ss!
April 24th, 2007 at 1:33 am#124 JPark,
You selected that passage from Wikipedia (a questionable source), but ignored the full passage:
“Within the US Army, there appear to be two somewhat conflicting advice on the use of WP against humans. According to the field manual on the Rule of Land Warfare, “The use of weapons which employ fire, such as tracer ammunition, flamethrowers, napalm and other incendiary agents, against targets requiring their use is not violative of international law.”[32] However, the ST 100-3 Battle Book, a student text published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth states that “It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.”[33] At the same time, other field manuals discuss the use of white phosphorus against personnel[34].
Guidelines on WP use in other armies are not adequately disseminated.”
April 24th, 2007 at 1:34 amSaddam Hussein’s army had white phosphorous weapons.
Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 1:07 am
Wonder what country supplied, or facilitated him obtaining them? Maybe to fight the big bad Iranians? Or was it to fight the “commies”?
You wacos will outfit any tinpot dictator with the most dangerous of weapons, as long as he’s expedient for your “business” purposes (personal greed). You’re a hypocrite – *ssh*le.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:35 amOsama Tio Sam. Porqué ama tanto el mundo a los Estados Unidos.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:35 amEd. Grijalbo. RIUS. 2003
Citation please, Juan.
Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 1:33 am
Hypocrite. Where’s your BBC citation again?
April 24th, 2007 at 1:36 am#120, JPark,
According to GlobalSecurity.org, a respected source of information on military and security matters the use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm
April 24th, 2007 at 1:42 amBut let’s get back to the original point of this discussion, Juan, which is the disconnect by which you express regret and sorrow over the deaths of U.S. soldiers and then on other threads you celebrate those who kill those soldiers and claim those soldiers are nothing more than servants of “the world’s greatest terrorist nation.â€
Juan, Do you condone the killing of these nine U.S soldiers?
April 24th, 2007 at 1:47 amAnd here we go with ExLax only quoting Protocol II, saying that even though the US violates Protocol III – the standard accepted by the civilized world, we didn’t do anything illegal.
Since Al Qaeda didn’t sign any of the Geneva Conventions ExLax – by your definition they are also innocent of any war crimes…
St*pid Terrorist Jake*ss.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:48 amJuan, It is 2:00 am here so I must turn in. I look forward to your response to my question above — Do you condone the killing of these nine U.S soldiers?
April 24th, 2007 at 1:48 amJuan, Do you condone the killing of these nine U.S soldiers?
Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 1:47 am
ExLax, do you condone the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, as a result of US policies in that country. Didn’t you also say that international law says insurgents SHOULD be killing soldiers? First you whine when they don’t kill our soldiers, then you whine whey they do.
You seem to have a very selective idea of how people should be killed, and it’s very much at who YOU want to kill. Sicko.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:50 amJPark, One more thing…
Protocol III of The Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians. The protocol also forbids their use against military targets within concentrations of civilians, except when the targets are clearly separated from civilians and “all feasible precautions” are taken to avoid civilian casualties.
Although the U.S. is not a signatory to Protocol III the U.S.’s use of white phosphrous in Fallujah met the requirements of Protocol III since the combatant targets were clearly separated from civilains and all feasible precautions were taken to avoid civilain casulaties. See Los Angeles Times:
“Los Angeles Times reporter Patrick J. McDonnell, who accompanied Charlie Company of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, as it fought its way into Fallouja, recalls seeing night virtually turn to day as white phosphorus shells burst in the air.
“We only saw ‘Willie Pete’ being used for illumination purposes,” McDonnell said. But he also remembers how the proximity of the fiery blasts concerned the Marines.
“The guys in my company were somewhat annoyed for two reasons: It illuminated our positions at night, not a nice thing, and occasionally the bursts came quite close to us. There didn’t seem to be a lot of coordination,” he said by e-mail.
At the time, most civilians had fled town, and U.S. troops seemed to be fighting in a city devoid of almost everyone but insurgents, McDonnell noted.”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/051128-wp-iraq.htm
So, in summation, there was nothing improper or illegal about the use of white phosphrous against insurgent combatants in Fallujah.
Case closed.
Good night all.
April 24th, 2007 at 2:03 amAh ExLax, too bad reality contradicts your claims.
So the Pentagon says it is illegal, what source did you use again ExLax? A blog?
You’re a m*r*n.
April 24th, 2007 at 2:17 amHere’s some more *facts* for you to process, ExLax.
April 24th, 2007 at 2:19 am
I don’t really give a fig personally about US soldiers who die. Those US soldiers voluntarily chose the profession of hired killers. They kill for thrills and money, not because they are defending their country. I care about civilians, especially children, of any nationality or religion. I realise, however, that most Americans are infected with racism and nationalism and care only about American deaths and then only white ones,
April 24th, 2007 at 3:21 am>(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
>(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the
> laws and customs of war.
exlaxley, you know this makes your precious blackwater mercenaries into violators or the geneva convention? they are accountable to no laws and they dont wear uniforms. are you going to look like an ass and try to claim im wrong about both these things.
and congrats, Jpark, #118 thanks for piling on this idiot in a way I similarly suggested. Exlaxley, can you explain why Bush is harboring , Luis Posada Carilles, a guy who intentionally blew up a civilian aircraft. Google his name. Does he fit into your definition of “terrorist”?
April 24th, 2007 at 5:41 amhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4564715.stm
“He said the US had no choice but to send him back to Venezuela, where he escaped from jail two decades ago. ”
So he was found innocent twice. In the venezualan courts, there is apparently no double jepardy. So if hes acccused of terrorism in another democracy, he should be send back there to face the music. You know we’ve insisted on 2nd trials for people found innocent of crimes related to 9-11 in other countries, right?
And can you please tell me how Bin Laden addmitting to 9-11 makes everyone whose accused of being in Al-Queda guilty? Honestly, if there was proof this guy brought down the civilian jet and we were refusing to release him to face justice, would you stop your yapping about how other people support terrists and we dont.
>As for the MEK story, that has not been confirmed.
wow, neither was WMD in IRaq. Neither is Iran’s nuclear ambitions..
Neither has the guilty and almost EVERYONE at guantanamo. I love it how when things dont jive with your world view, suddently you need absolute and irrefuteable proof. When things do jive, you’re willing to convict/act on anonymous phantom allegations..
> But I admit I don’t know enough about that allegation to answer fully.
Ah yes, claim ignorance to avoid the hipocracy of your logic. Wake up and smell the coffee d1pshit.. the US FUNDS TERRORIST GROUPS.
April 24th, 2007 at 5:53 am>Go ahead scum. Celebrate the deaths of Americans.
right.. thats why we want them out of iraq.. so they can die on the dangerous streets of america.. you want to celebrate the death of your own countrymen, go whack off to “300″ you sick neaderthal f3ck
April 24th, 2007 at 5:55 amBomb Bomb Bomb
Bomb Bomb Bomb Marines
Not so funny now eh McCain
April 24th, 2007 at 7:49 am“May they hear the crys of mothers, fathers, wives and husbands for their dead loved ones FOREVER. Comment by Zooey
Problem is Zooey, in order to hear they need to be listening. And they have shown us that they are not listening to anything other than the voices who are whispering in their ears….war is good….war is good…more profits for our friends…keep them scared….war is good.
I weep for what we have become.
April 24th, 2007 at 9:55 am“Go ahead scum. Celebrate the deaths of Americans. Cheer the deaths of Americans. There is a special place in hell for all of you. Comment by firehead”
Funny, you read words that are not there. I have not read where anyone has said they are glad that the soldiers are dead. The special place in hell is reserved exclusively for Bush & Company and all the Republics who continue to support this insane occupation. I also suspect, firehead, that there is also a place waiting for you and your minions.
April 24th, 2007 at 9:57 amPoor VVGFU, He tries and tries but just can never seen to get it right. His point was already addressed and yet he missed (or is lying again). Again:
According to the field manual on the Rule of Land Warfare, “The use of weapons which employ fire, such as tracer ammunition, flamethrowers, napalm and other incendiary agents, against targets requiring their use is not violative of international law.â€
Moreover, the use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects.
Poor VVGFU….Taken to school….again.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:05 am“The troop pull out starts this year.”
Sorry, the troop pull-out will not start until the puppet Iraqi parliament signs the bill giving US and British oil companies 70% of Iraq’s oil profits for 30 years. Then and only then will we see a troop pull-out. And the thing that makes me really mad is that I haven’t heard a peep out of the Democrats about this smelly deal. Come on Democrats, stand up and say publicly that we have no right to steal Iraq’s oil.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:13 amJuan, Do you condone the killing of these nine U.S soldiers?
Comment by Exley — April 24, 2007 @ 1:47 am
???????? That´s a stupid question. How can the lives of people can be condone? What world do you think I live in? Maybe you should use JUSTIFY. Then, yes, I justify the resistance movement in Iraq against an illegal, invading, army. Just like I would JUSTIFY your actions against an INVADING ARMY.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:28 am#152,
Okay, Juan. Maybe you are right and the word “justified” in more appropriate.
So, for the record, you believe the killing of these 9 U.S. soldiers and thousands of others were justified.
Got it.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:34 amExlax you didnt seem to answer me in the other thread so I’ll repost here… I’d love to hear the logic behind your “there are only a finite number of terrorists in the world argument-
“there is only a finite number of terroristsâ€.. this is probably the most illogical and stupid thing i’ve heard… there are only a finite amount of people..so what?… what I THINK people who make this statement are trying to assert is.. “there are no new terrorists being created so if we just kill all the ones here then there shouldnt be a problem.â€
Exlaxley, explain somethings to me….
1) explain what phenomena created this “finite amount of terrorists†(bad parenting, genetics, political forces, etc)..
2) having done that now I want you to explain how this phenomena which created terrorists is no longer occuring.
3) also can you pinpoint a date at which the number of terrorists stopped increasing? (i.e. the date at which terrorists ceased to have the ability to reproduce)
4) And do you agree, that according to your logic, all terrorists will be dead in 100 years and there will never be any more terrorism in the world?
You think the pictures of dead iraqi women and children all over the news in about every country but the Us doesnt create more terrorists? Now your limbaugh talking points style is painfully predictable, so you’re probably going to say “well the majority of them were killed by insurgents, not americaâ€.. well.. i hate to tell you , my deeply sheltered friend, that most of the world doesnt see it that way….or are you going to tell me that theres no one out there so angered by the pictures of dead women and children that they want to commit acts of violence against the us…???
even rumsfeld says “we have no way of knowing whether the number of terrorists is growing or decreasingâ€â€¦â€¦ do you disagree with rumsfeld on this point genius?
April 24th, 2007 at 11:58 amOH.. and speaking of consistency, surely you agree with the statement DUmbya made that “the war on terror cannot be won”..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1293995,00.html
April 24th, 2007 at 12:01 pm