ChickenHawk 0 Posted February 14, 2002 how can you rape a group of women and then throw them into a deep water-reservoir and let them slowly drown? How can you possibly do that? People have done waaay worse than that.. http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpaceAlex 0 Posted February 14, 2002 Mrs. slobo is the worst. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
daniel barnett 0 Posted February 14, 2002 a famous person 1nce said at an airport: I have nothing to declare but my genius another famous person also said: all jews, people married to jews, and half jews are to be taken to our camps in the east humans can save someone's life, only to find the next day that someone else has taken that life away. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted February 15, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ChickenHawk @ Feb. 14 2002,17:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">People have done waaay worse than that.. http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres.html<span id='postcolor'> Heh. I like this site, since it only lists the atrocities committed by the losers of the war. Not a peep about atrocities committed by russians, etc... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wobble 1 Posted February 15, 2002 A totally different thing is the soldiers the us captured from al quada They were fighting under the country, and cannot be hold responsible. Al-queda is neither a country nor a goverment, it is a terrorist orginization... and saying they cannot be held accountable for terrorist acts is the second biggest pile of shit ive ever heard. Sadly the us fail to understand this. But if this is the way, i guess we have to trial the pilots in the us-bombers for murders on thousinds civilians? this is the first biggest.. Â "thousands of civilians".. where? in afghanistan? the Taleban themselves set up their military structures in the center id dense civilian populations for the exact reason that they knew if they were ever attacked there would be no way civilians wouldent be killed.. and the sniveling factless ifiots like yourself would try to blame they country attacking them for it.. since alqueda took control many many thousands of people starved to death every year, thousands of women and children were killed by their own goverment for such "crimes" as going to school, showing your face in public, teaching, wearing makup, being raped(thats being raped.. I.E. the victim gets executed).. and the biggest crime of all.. not beliving in the god the taleban tells you to every year.. many many many more people were flat out murdered by the Taleban in 1 year than will EVER be killed accidentley in the airstrikes targeted at destroying the taleban... so what you think is better? a few are killed by the US 1 time in a strike agaisnt their sick twisted "goverment", OR the US leaves them alone and let the starvation and purposful massacre of thousands and thousands of innocent people happen EVERY SINGLE YEAR?? you think the US is the bad guy in afghanistan?? <span style='color:red'>FUCK YOU</span> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted February 15, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 15 2002,10:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">this is the first biggest.. Â "thousands of civilians".. where? in afghanistan? the Taleban themselves set up their military structures in the center id dense civilian populations for the exact reason that they knew if they were ever attacked there would be no way civilians wouldent be killed.. and the sniveling factless ifiots like yourself would try to blame they country attacking them for it..<span id='postcolor'> How much you think could be justified by this excuse of military structures being positioned in civvie population centers? Let's say there was one U.S. soldier inside the WTC during the attack, wouldn't his presence then justify the destruction of the whole building, according to your reasoning? I can see the al-qaeda trooper justifying: "The U.S. was so cowardly that they positioned a military target inside the WTC, so we had to bring the whole building down in order to get it. You cannot blame us for the collateral." Maybe it should be accepted that military structures inside civvie areas should not be bombed at all, since it is immoral to kill the civvies as collateral damage... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
foxer 0 Posted February 15, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe it should be accepted that military structures inside civvie areas should not be bombed at all, since it is immoral to kill the civvies as collateral damage... <span id='postcolor'> Thats going be hard ,see how most of the world population will live in cities in like 10 years (i think ,it was 10 years).You could ban any military stuff from cities ,but people won't play by those rules. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted February 15, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 15 2002,11:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe it should be accepted that military structures inside civvie areas should not be bombed at all, since it is immoral to kill the civvies as collateral damage...<span id='postcolor'> Blah. I can't believe I said that. What I meant was: Maybe it should be accepted that military structures inside civvie areas should not be bombed at all, since you cannot claim that you're a benevolent and honourable nation on a crusade to free the world of all evil, if you kill civvies as collateral damage... However, you COULD still say that you kill whomever you want and nobody can do shit about it, just because you got such big guns. Nobody could fight that statement with stupid humanitarian bullshit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
foxer 0 Posted February 15, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 15 2002,13:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe it should be accepted that military structures inside civvie areas should not be bombed at all, since it is immoral to kill the civvies as collateral damage...<span id='postcolor'> Blah. I can't believe I said that. What I meant was: Maybe it should be accepted that military structures inside civvie areas should not be bombed at all, since you cannot claim that you're a benevolent and honourable nation on a crusade to free the world of all evil, if you kill civvies as collateral damage... However, you COULD still say that you kill whomever you want and nobody can do shit about it, just because you got such big guns. Nobody could fight that statement with stupid humanitarian bullshit.<span id='postcolor'> But then everyone would go hide in cities.I think what the airforce gotta make is a special bomb for city bombing,something really small,but will cut through an tank and blow up,but not too big.Also the army can't go in an city with enemy people there,it would turn out to be another black hawk down thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted February 15, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Feb. 15 2002,13:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But then everyone would go hide in cities.I think what the airforce gotta make is a special bomb for city bombing, something really small, but will cut through an tank and blow up, but not too big. Also the army can't go in an city with enemy people there, it would turn out to be another black hawk down thing.<span id='postcolor'> Everybody hides in cities allready. Still, the U.S. blows the shit out of them and a bunch of collateral civvies also. Maybe the U.S. is not a benevolent entity on a crusade to free the world of all evil? Maybe it is an entity on a crusade to free the world of all those who would attack it? Reality check: The people in U.S. are never going to be able to protect themselves. Nobody ANYWHERE is never going to be able to protect themselves. Whatever anyone ever does, somebody is going to hate him for it and thus, shit ocassionally comes your way. So you have to learn not to dwell in it. You have to learn not to justify anything. You have to learn to abandon all causes. You have to understand that one day you will die and that dying is the easiest thing to do, since you cannot regret it afterwards. And most importantly, you have to learn to laugh at all those who try to lead us, because they are all so very sad, power hungry people. (Rant Mode Off) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
