What We Iraqis Want

page: 31
1
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
CIA

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   
What do you want us to do?


First, Bush is the president of US, not the president of the world.
Second, you have no right to bomb any country if they didn't bomb you.




posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by CIA


What do you want us to do?


First, Bush is the president of US, not the president of the world.
Second, you have no right to bomb any country if they didn't bomb you.



And those nations we bombed has pretty much no right to commit ethnic cleansing as well, right? Serbs targeting the Albanians and forcing them out of the province. Not to mention the Croations as well in Bosnia. If a big kid beats on a little kid, a bigger kid comes to help.

[edit on 19-12-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CIA
First, Bush is the president of US, not the president of the world.

Your point is?


Second, you have no right to bomb any country if they didn't bomb you.



Just like sadam had no right to slaughter his own people.


CIA

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   
so the biggist kid can beat anyone?



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Is this really what goes on down there?




We never know when American troops will raid our homes, steal our jewels and money, rape our women, beat our men and scare our chidren.


My gosh, I've been so blind!!

For some reason this seems more realistic:




Ms. Naba Saleem Hamid is a scientist, educator, trainer and feminist activist at a time in her country when tumultuous political, social and personal upheaval is a daily reality.

Naba Saleem Hamid is a Professor at the University of Baghdad. She holds an appointment as Professor of Parisitology and Invertebrate Biology in the College of Education at the University. She is an expert in bilharziasis. From 1985 to 1988 Ms. Hamid also held an appointment as a Professor of Psychobiology in the College of Arts at the University of Baghdad. Other scientific background and accomplishments include research and teaching in the College of Medicine, Medical Research Center at the University of Baghdad and publications in her field of specialization as well as curriculum texts.

In 1982 Ms. Hamid’s Ph.D. thesis was suspended as a result of a resolution by the former Ba’ath regime. She has been prohibited since 1982 from pursuing any scientific activities because she is independent. Before that time, she won a W.H.O. fellowship and trained in bilharziasis research at London University.

In September 2003, Ms. Hamid founded New Horizons For Women (NHFW). In the same year her organization was registered in the Ministry of Planning and Development Co-Operation in Iraq. (No. IE150)

link



This seems like it makes more sense to me, but I could be wrong since I don't live in Iraq.



[edit on 19-12-2005 by CogitoErgoSum1]


CIA

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by CIA


Just like sadam had no right to slaughter his own people.


Neither do you



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by CIA

Originally posted by devilwasp


Just like sadam had no right to slaughter his own people.


Neither do you


We dont slaughter innocents. Except maybe the insurgents. But we dont go killing hundreds in a single attack to intentional provoke outrage among their own people that would start a civil war. We dont go ramming cars into markets, mosques and hospitals in the name of Allah. Do you see America doing such a thing in the name of 72 virgins? Nor do you see us launching chemical attacks on civilians like Saddam did back in the 80s. You say we slaughter innocent people like Saddam, I say I dont see the resemblance.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   



We dont slaughter innocents. Except maybe the insurgents. But we dont go killing hundreds in a single attack to intentional provoke outrage among their own people that would start a civil war. We dont go ramming cars into markets, mosques and hospitals in the name of Allah. Do you see America doing such a thing in the name of 72 virgins? Nor do you see us launching chemical attacks on civilians like Saddam did back in the 80s. You say we slaughter innocent people like Saddam, I say I dont see the resemblance.


Are you sure? I remember brits getting caught with bombs and wearing clothing similar to "insurgents"..So i wouldn´t be surprised at all if it would come to attention that usa/uk have caused atleast some of the attacks.
Then the juba with israel made equipment shooting your soldiers?
And surprisingly, the vote day was peacefull. Hmm..weird. And the bombs are usually directed at civilians, which just doesn´t make any sense if you are fighting for your countrys freedom, why would you like to bomb your fellow citizens, even if they help the attacker nation.
.and about killing innocent people..just checkout what happened in fallujah. That was a chemical attack on innocent people.
-aape


CIA

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by CIA

Originally posted by devilwasp


Just like sadam had no right to slaughter his own people.


Neither do you


We dont slaughter innocents. Except maybe the insurgents. But we dont go killing hundreds in a single attack to intentional provoke outrage among their own people that would start a civil war. We dont go ramming cars into markets, mosques and hospitals in the name of Allah. Do you see America doing such a thing in the name of 72 virgins? Nor do you see us launching chemical attacks on civilians like Saddam did back in the 80s. You say we slaughter innocent people like Saddam, I say I dont see the resemblance.




May be Bush killed less Iraq people than Saddam, if Saddam did killed more than 30,000.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by aape

Are you sure? I remember brits getting caught with bombs and wearing clothing similar to "insurgents".


Similar to insurgents? What do insurgents wear these days? Looks almost like any common people.


So i wouldn´t be surprised at all if it would come to attention that usa/uk have caused atleast some of the attacks.


No such proof at all. All I have seen are attacks and claimed by Jihadists and they are proud of it. Want me to show some of the videos? Annoying songs they put on.



And surprisingly, the vote day was peacefull. Hmm..weird. And the bombs are usually directed at civilians, which just doesn´t make any sense if you are fighting for your countrys freedom, why would you like to bomb your fellow citizens, even if they help the attacker nation.


Yeah it is weird because no car bombs means less casualties and what Jihadist wants to waste his life when he cant use a car bomb when checkpoints all over the place and ban on all private cars. People do bomb their own citizens, look at Saddam in 84 chemical attacks. Same people who supported Saddam which are Sunni Baaths. Same methods. Not to mention foreign fighters who have no qualms about killing innocent Muslims in the name of Allah.



.and about killing innocent people..just checkout what happened in fallujah. That was a chemical attack on innocent people.


Chemical attack with no proof unless you believe that documentary. Does it look similar to Saddam's attack on a Kurdish town in the north?

[edit on 19-12-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Your country admitted use of white phosphorous?
And yes saddam was a bad man, but if you allways correlate to him you are just proving that you are on the same line. This is not a competition who has gassed more civilians.It´s your country in line, not mine. So if you want to be in iraq and face the shait what will follow, so be it. I´m just scared that you pull rest of the world with you.
-aape



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by aape
Your country admitted use of white phosphorous?
And yes saddam was a bad man, but if you allways correlate to him you are just proving that you are on the same line. This is not a competition who has gassed more civilians.It´s your country in line, not mine. So if you want to be in iraq and face the shait what will follow, so be it. I´m just scared that you pull rest of the world with you.


And the use of white phosphorous is illegal? Tell me where it says in the print about the use of WP as illegal like nerve gas. WP can be use as smoke canisters as well by the Marines, but you have no concern for their safety as well, do you? Not to mention the military say it lights up the night, not a very good weapon against civilians, we have a large arsenal of chemicals that can do a better job than WP on civilians. Of course we dont use it on civilians anyways.


CIA

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy


And the use of white phosphorous is illegal? Tell me where it says in the print about the use of WP as illegal like nerve gas. WP can be use as smoke canisters as well by the Marines, but you have no concern for their safety as well, do you? Not to mention the military say it lights up the night, not a very good weapon against civilians, we have a large arsenal of chemicals that can do a better job than WP on civilians. Of course we dont use it on civilians anyways.





Except the nuke on Japan



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   



And the use of white phosphorous is illegal? Tell me where it says in the print about the use of WP as illegal like nerve gas. WP can be use as smoke canisters as well by the Marines, but you have no concern for their safety as well, do you? Not to mention the military say it lights up the night, not a very good weapon against civilians, we have a large arsenal of chemicals that can do a better job than WP on civilians. Of course we dont use it on civilians anyways.


ok..first you say you didn´t do it. Now you admit it and say it isn´t illegal. Was i saying it was? If i have correctly understood your weird usage of geneve laws. You arent under any of them because the insurgent aren´t a national army? Am i correct?
There is smoke which doesn´t melt people, try using that next time. But if you want, just keep on using napalm and wp, like other countries could do something about it if you yourselves cannot?
Enought about wp, your country can use it. It can use napalm also, torture prisoners if they arent inside usa, use uranium shells, start illegal wars with lied proofs, do i really need to say more?
Just for sake of my sanity, my country would consider everything above as illegal and punishable by geneve treaties.
-aape



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by CIA
Except the nuke on Japan


Yeah, its a taste of their own medicine against the Japanese for what they did. But then not many people are talking about it. And also there was no law back then for use of nukes. We just thought it was just a bigger bomb.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Originally posted by aape



ok..first you say you didn´t do it.


Where in my post says we didnt do it?


Now you admit it and say it isn´t illegal.


You said that, I didnt. Read my post more carefully.



Was i saying it was? If i have correctly understood your weird usage of geneve laws.


You are using the WP like it was a nuke.



You arent under any of them because the insurgent aren´t a national army? Am i correct?


In the Geneva convention, they dont have to be a national army, its game that we can kill them.



There is smoke which doesn´t melt people, try using that next time. But if you want, just keep on using napalm and wp, like other countries could do something about it if you yourselves cannot?


You tell that to the Marines who use WP to cover themselves from hostile fire.



Enought about wp, your country can use it. It can use napalm also, torture prisoners if they arent inside usa, use uranium shells, start illegal wars with lied proofs, do i really need to say more?
Just for sake of my sanity, my country would consider everything above as illegal and punishable by geneve treaties.


Our country used it, but what can you do? Its not illegal. Same for napalm. Its horrible, but then in warfare why should it not be. Napalm aint illegal as well. Its almost like you comparing these as worse as nukes.

[edit on 19-12-2005 by deltaboy]


CIA

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy


Yeah, its a taste of their own medicine against the Japanese for what they did. But then not many people are talking about it. And also there was no law back then for use of nukes. We just thought it was just a bigger bomb.




Sure, you always develop new WMDs so no bans availble, and always ban WMDs which others can make.


and, "just a bigger bomb",



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   



Where in my post says we didnt do it?



"Chemical attack with no proof unless you believe that documentary."



You said that, I didnt. Read my post more carefully.


"And the use of white phosphorous is illegal? Tell me where it says in the print about the use of WP as illegal like nerve gas."



In the Geneva convention, they dont have to be a national army, its game that we can kill them.


Didn´t really understand that one. Maybe it´s my bad english.



You tell that to the Marines who use WP to cover themselves from hostile fire.


I would if lived in states. And theywerent under a hostile fire. Your forces waited outside of fallujah until it was sprayed with wp from helicopters.



Our country used it, but what can you do? Its not illegal. Same for napalm. Its horrible, but then in warfare why should it not be. Napalm aint illegal as well. Its almost like you comparing these as worse as nukes.

Yup..nothing i can do about it. You are only country who has used nukes against humans. In my books wp and nukes are as equally horrible way to die. Burn or melt?
.. You just made the same points that i did.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   
deltaboy youre full of #. shame on you. you americans are the one and only reason to that fact that this world is going to be in a huge pile of sh*t.
the problem is, that you do your own # and dont ask about it. it just doesnt matter to you if it is illeagal or not. and if few civilians die, who cares? and then u whine about some so called terrorists make suicide attacks against your "oh-so-brave-marines". they deserve to die. thats war. and the way u go to war? first you drop those "a bit bigger bombs" to civilian targets, and only after that, you take your tanks into the town and shoot everyone whos left alive...
shame on you



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by aape

"Chemical attack with no proof unless you believe that documentary."



Like a true chemical attack. Like Saddam's. You know... the usual method.




really understand that one. Maybe it´s my bad english.


Look up on the geneva convention about armed party. National army or not they can be targeted no matter what. Unless you want me to help you on that.


Yup..nothing i can do about it. You are only country who has used nukes against humans. In my books wp and nukes are as equally horrible way to die. Burn or melt?
.. You just made the same points that i did.


We may be the first nation to use nukes. But we are not the first nation to use WMDs. Like biological or chemical attacks.





top topics
 
1
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join