Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The media are minimising US and British war crimes in Iraq

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
HEh, You seem, so sure of yourselves.

Because I know these men and women.



So basically what the british are admitting to be doing, is that they are getting their vehicles as close to civilian vehicles as possible, so that the iraqi resistance cannot attack them using the new weapon. Basically admitting using iraqi civlians as human shields.

Nope, thats YOUR assesment.
A) the british troops are going nose to bumper with the vehicles in areas so that bombs will not go off due to iraq insurgents using infra red bombs, this infact saves civilian lives. How?
Because then a civilian doesnt get killed when a bomb goes off.
IF they where using human shields they would get iraqis to go in a circle around the unit.
Simply driving behind an iraqi vehicle that is already is not illegal, nor immoral.
Or are you trying to say that we are strapping people to the front of land rovers?




It's an israeli tactic as Trodas, has mentioned. I guess the US learns from it's allies.

So I guess being nice to the locals is now illegal?
Yes ofcourse.



Why, you don't consider iraqies human?

The US and the UK see iraqis as human.
Aparantly the iraqi insurgents dont though.



LOL, you mean, if people are patriotic enough to fight against the illegal invasion of the fine country iraq.

Fine country ruled by a mad dictator who murdered hsi own people, yes I can see why they would not want change.

[quote
You will kill them, and anyone that supports them.

No , they kill people who kill co-alition forces.


Well FIY , IT'S THEIR COUNTRY!!!!!! and they have the right to fight against an invader, even if you belive yourself to be "liberating them" you have no stake or responsibility over the lives of iraqies, Your not their parent that knows what's good for them, and you have no right to meddle with them.

Oh so NOW its not OUR problem, but it IS our problem to solve natural disasters?
It IS our problem to help people if they are being murdered?
I guess you believe in the UK's policy of the 1930's huh?


The only thing you seem to be liberating them from is their lives and their oil.

Says you.


Hitler said he was "liberating" poland. History has a way of repeating, you so called liberators.

Hitler also extreminated comunists and said it was ok.
Hitler also used the SA to intimidate people but guess what.....the coalition isnt doing that.
--------------


LOL, civilians may not be fighting but they ofcource can help the resistance in a 1000 other ways.

Worked in WW2 for the french.


The iraqi resistance could not exist without the iraqi people.

And we both know rogue, which side is using human shields, and which side has no qualms about burning children to death with chemical weapons.

So your now saying its only a 2 sided war?
How ignorant you are..
you yourself claimed it wasnt but now you contradict yourself?
The resistance can exist without them, how? Because the iraqi people are not all with hem and the resistance is not all about the iraqi people.


What a racist comment, If we are barberic, what are you? Barbarism is the British occupation of india, barbarism the American slaughter of 10 million native americans. Barbarism, is wiping out the aboriginals. Barbarism is the war on vietnamn and the war on iraq.

Gee lets see, britain done that what? Several DECADES ago?


Barbarism is Agent orange, Napalm, white phospherous, and depleted Uranium.

Barbarism is executing civilians, barbarism is bombing areas where civilians ARE and not military camps. Atleast I can say one thing....the IRA and the UVF and all thier comrades in arms where atleast a more honourable foe than the iraqi resistance...atleast some of thier own didnt just civilians.




posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Do you have any credible reports apart from some anonymous resistance commander


YEah the Image i just posted., AND THE REPORT FROM the GUARDIAN, a western media source i do belive.



the british troops are going nose to bumper with the vehicles in areas so that bombs will not go off due to iraq insurgents using infra red bombs, this infact saves civilian lives. How?
Because then a civilian doesnt get killed when a bomb goes off.


LOL LOL, It saves British lives, not civilian lives. BECAUSE BY YOUR ADMITION, the resistance can no longer use the infra red bombs, when british cars get so close to civilian cars, since that could result in the death of civilians.

The pure definition of human shields, the british are taking those cars hostage.

Evidence that my assesment is correct and yours is not, the next line OF the report goes :

"This can work in busy, urban centres like Basra but is more difficult in the wide, nearly empty deserts that make up much of the south of the country."

So obviously the brits concern, is not that civilian could be at risk when the bomb goes off, but that there are not enough civilians around to use as human shields.


Or are you trying to say that we are strapping people to the front of land rovers?


Well in Fallujah as the image shows, you strapped kids to humvees. But in Basra, you just get as close to the back of them as possible so they would get hit first.





It's an israeli tactic as Trodas, has mentioned. I guess the US learns from it's allies.


So I guess being nice to the locals is now illegal?


So your definition of being nice to locals, is kidnapping a palestinian kid and tying him up at the front of the vehicle, using him as a human shield?


The US and the UK see iraqis as human. Aparantly the iraqi insurgents dont though.


LOL are you trying to say Iraqies don't See IRAQIES as human?



Fine country ruled by a mad dictator who murdered hsi own people, yes I can see why they would not want change.


a) you helped that dicator into power in the first place
b) It's only Iraqies right to change and overthrow their own leaders, it's not the place of another country to come in and medle with anothers, the Iraqi people won'e accept such an affront on their dignity. It's not that Iraqies don't want change, they just don't want you to change it for them, And not through A WAR ON THEIR COUNTRY. If your war on Iraq was really about "change", then why launch such a huge war and occupation, it would only have take one bullet in saddams head. And why this dictator? Why not all the other equally horrible dictatorships that you continue to support? obviously this is not what this is about.
c) The US and Britian has killed more iraqies than saddam ever did, And now they have put in another regime which is just as murderous and torterous and treaturous as the last.


No , they kill people who kill co-alition forces.


You just said it was the civilians own fault they are dead, because they housed resistance fighters!!!! Did you or did you not say that?


Worked in WW2 for the french.


YOu know the nazi's used to wipe out towns, when they saw any resistance coming out of that town. Just like the americans did to fallujah, al Qaim, ramadi, tal afaar, Sadr city, and najaf.



Hitler also used the SA to intimidate people but guess what.....the coalition isnt doing that.


No you use bombs, and CIA interrogators at abu gharib. And you intimidate your own people at home by stripping civil liberties, and calling any american and brit that doesn't support your war a traitor.


So your now saying its only a 2 sided war?
you yourself claimed it wasnt but now you contradict yourself?


Huh? when have i ever said it wasn't a 2 sided war? It is a two side warer, one Side is the Iraqi and it's allies, the other side is america it's lap dog nations and it's puppet traitors.


The resistance can exist without them, how? Because the iraqi people are not all with hem and the resistance is not all about the iraqi people.


No gorrilla army can exist without a support base from the population, that standard 101 . The Iraqi resistance is made up of Iraqi people, Without the support of the iraqi population, they can't move so easily from city to city, and they can't be sheltered and supported. The resistance is made up of the iraqi people and the iraqi people is what its all about.


Barbarism is executing civilians, barbarism is bombing areas where civilians ARE


I agree, like the US executed Iraqi and Vietnamese Civilians and Prisoners of war, and like when the US bombarded the civilian cities hiroshima and nagasaki, and when britian bombarded to shreds the city of dresden, and when the US and Britain bombarded civilian areas all over iraq.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister

I agree, like the US executed Iraqi and Vietnamese Civilians and Prisoners of war, and like when the US bombarded the civilian cities hiroshima and nagasaki.


I dont see your point, what does dropping the atom bomb on japan, which BTW saved more lives(both american and japanese and civilians) than would have just simply invading japan have do with civillians being killed in vietnam or iraq? this just sounds more like lets slam america stuff to me, BTW I would like to ask how many people in the embassies in Kenya and other bombings were killed? quite a few i believe, no one is righteous here.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
YEah the Image i just posted., AND THE REPORT FROM the GUARDIAN, a western media source i do belive.

The image doesnt work, the guardian got thier info FROM the commander, so I ask again.
Do
You
Have
Any
Proof
For
these
lies?



LOL LOL, It saves British lives, not civilian lives. BECAUSE BY YOUR ADMITION, the resistance can no longer use the infra red bombs, when british cars get so close to civilian cars, since that could result in the death of civilians.

No its saves civilians, the first to die in an insurgent attack WOULD BE CIVILIANS. Insurgents have 0 problem attacking coalition forces while civilians are in the road, infact it seems like a common strategy to use them as human shields...gee I wonder....mabye this could be....a tactics?????


The pure definition of human shields, the british are taking those cars hostage.

No they are not, if they where they would FORCE them to drive in formation around the convoy, they are not.
The definition of human shield is holding a baby infront of you as a shield, geee wonder if the "resisitance" does that? Yes it does.


Evidence that my assesment is correct and yours is not, the next line OF the report goes :

"This can work in busy, urban centres like Basra but is more difficult in the wide, nearly empty deserts that make up much of the south of the country."

No evidence to suggest that it doesnt work out in the open IS in it but no evidence saying they are using them as human shields.


So obviously the brits concern, is not that civilian could be at risk when the bomb goes off, but that there are not enough civilians around to use as human shields.

No thats YOUR assesment, Thats YOUR opinion.
The brits concern is about civilian lives, read up on NI and what mistakes we made then.


Well in Fallujah as the image shows, you strapped kids to humvees. But in Basra, you just get as close to the back of them as possible so they would get hit first.

Nope, the british army doesnt use humvees. Thier a POS.
The british forces drive that close to save people from being killed if an attack happens, why? Because insrugents do and will plant bombs in civilian areas, disguised as civilians and use civilians as a weapon.



So your definition of being nice to locals, is kidnapping a palestinian kid and tying him up at the front of the vehicle, using him as a human shield?

Nope, giving him sweets is now seemingly illegal to everyone on the board.



LOL are you trying to say Iraqies don't See IRAQIES as human?

The insurgency isnt all iraqies, you and I know this , YOU are generalising.
The insurgency cares about winning, not the cost. That is a typical paramilitary style thinking, the IRA thought that way and so did the UVF.




a) you helped that dicator into power in the first place

And we removed him


b) It's only Iraqies right to change and overthrow their own leaders, it's not the place of another country to come in and medle with anothers, the Iraqi people won'e accept such an affront on their dignity. It's not that Iraqies don't want change, they just don't want you to change it for them, And not through A WAR ON THEIR COUNTRY. If your war on Iraq was really about "change", then why launch such a huge war and occupation, it would only have take one bullet in saddams head. And why this dictator? Why not all the other equally horrible dictatorships that you continue to support? obviously this is not what this is about.

No, A) assasinations lead to chaos and anrachy meaning civil war.
B) Simply taking him out doesnt remove the regime that ruled with an iron grip.
C) I guess we shouldnt have stopped the nazis in WW2 then huh since that is meddelling in the rest of europes problems.


c) The US and Britian has killed more iraqies than saddam ever did, And now they have put in another regime which is just as murderous and torterous and treaturous as the last.

The iraqi government has never to my knowledge become as bad as the Ba'ath one did.
The coalition did not kill over 400,000 iraqi's.
No way in hell we could manage that body toll.



You just said it was the civilians own fault they are dead, because they housed resistance fighters!!!! Did you or did you not say that?

I didnt say that lol.
I said coalition forces kill insurgents but civilians hide them, if the insrugents use them as shields what do we do?




YOu know the nazi's used to wipe out towns, when they saw any resistance coming out of that town. Just like the americans did to fallujah, al Qaim, ramadi, tal afaar, Sadr city, and najaf.

Yes I know they wiped out towns, but as far as I know america has never flattened any town and killed everyone inside.
BTW, it would be easy for the coalition to do so to.




No you use bombs, and CIA interrogators at abu gharib. And you intimidate your own people at home by stripping civil liberties, and calling any american and brit that doesn't support your war a traitor.

And our survery said...wrong.
The UK has no CIA.
The UK does not work at abu gharib.
Our country is very open about its lack of support for the war now, and we certanly dont call the traitors.
Oh and BTW, we do not strip liberties here, hell I can still do everything I could before with 0 risk.



Huh? when have i ever said it wasn't a 2 sided war? It is a two side warer, one Side is the Iraqi and it's allies, the other side is america it's lap dog nations and it's puppet traitors.

BTW, "lap dog nations", oh yeah I'm sure the worlds oldest democracy is SOOO acting like a lap dog that it is infact the president of the EU.
You yourself have claimed many times isreali's and varios other governments are involved.
I thought you where thinking outside the box?
Think about it....who would gain from a war like this? Dont just think about the western barons and the governments.....or the eastern criminals and governments.....
Think...



No gorrilla army can exist without a support base from the population, that standard 101

That is true, but what percentage of the population that is IS the question.
[qutoe]
. The Iraqi resistance is made up of Iraqi people, Without the support of the iraqi population, they can't move so easily from city to city, and they can't be sheltered and supported. The resistance is made up of the iraqi people and the iraqi people is what its all about.

Really?
Or is it abotu hitting americans?
Think how many forign fighters go across the border...think about how many iraqis are in it for themselves not iraq.


I agree, like the US executed Iraqi and Vietnamese Civilians and Prisoners of war, and like when the US bombarded the civilian cities hiroshima and nagasaki, and when britian bombarded to shreds the city of dresden, and when the US and Britain bombarded civilian areas all over iraq.

Yes those acts accurred, all but the last mentioned happened in diffrent times and in a diffrent world almost.
The last ones happen because of 2 things
A) Enemy hiding amognst civilians
B) Enemy using them as shields
C) Suspecting the people inside are terrorists.
I really wish you would think outside the box SS....I though you smarter than that....are you proving me wrong?



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Souljah why don't I ever see you crying about your friends the insurgents war crimes? The US and Britain may have done some bad things but they are nothing compared with the scale that insurgents murder, torture, and behead defenseless people. The insurgent strategy for a long time now has been to kill as many Shiites as possible since they believe they are collaborators. They drive car bombs into as big a crowd as to possible to purposely inflict the maximum amount of damage on civilians but you don't say a word about your friends. Oh the Americans are pure evil and the son of satan I guess. (dws)



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   
this is because souljah and syrian have both been programmed by the media who are at political odds with our country at the moment, Id imagine their tones will change after the next election and the political views of the USA meet more the views of their media outlets and they ease their programing....



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
this is because souljah and syrian have both been programmed by the media who are at political odds with our country at the moment, Id imagine their tones will change after the next election and the political views of the USA meet more the views of their media outlets and they ease their programing....

Talking about Programming...

So you think that YOU and others like YOU are NOT under any kind of Propaganda and other Corporate US Media influence?

Please...



Dont underestemate the Power of the Media - especially CORPORATE ones (like Rupert Murdochs Media Empire).



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Souljah and SS are treating the Iraqi conflict as a game, they is no nobility in what they post. It's a race who can dig up the most trash in the shortest amount of time possible. Doesn't matter if it's made up or completely untrue, they post anyway.
Kinda interesting as well, since both these people benefit from a western deomcracy and probably the wellfar system

For wahtever reason, I'm guessing they don't fit. Therefore they've turned their anger into support for some fairytale, knight in shining armour type support for the insurgency. Something they know nothing about except to read dubious BS on the net


As many people have pointed out, they are incapable of any free thought, they just pound the same view, ignoring anything ( and it is alot ) which proves them wrong. Hardly the truth seekers they portend to be



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:05 AM
link   

The image doesnt work, the guardian got thier info FROM the commander, so I ask again.


You miss read the Guardian report. The info is from a BRITISH SOLDIER, not from an Iraqi comander. Read it again.

As for the image, thanks for telling me it didn't work, you can have a look at it by opening the link below.

I hope it works, this time, otherwise i could try to upload it on ATS or send it to you via email or otherwise.





No its saves civilians, the first to die in an insurgent attack WOULD BE CIVILIANS.


LOL, is that why in the article the british soldier was complaining there where not enough Civilian Cars in the desert?


The definition of human shield is holding a baby infront of you as a shield, geee wonder if the "resisitance" does that? Yes it does.


And you accuse ME of lying.

Your report didn't say the baby was held up as a shield. Your report said the soldier didn't see the baby, when he shot the man holding, it because the man had his BACK AWAY from him as he was running, holding the baby protectively away from the fire, not held up in front of you.








No evidence to suggest that it doesnt work out in the open IS in it but no evidence saying they are using them as human shields.


What doens't work out in the open? Using civilians as shields doesn't work out in the open. Because there aren't enough of them around.

LOL, isn't that right?? WELL what is it that doesn't work when civilians aren't around??




The insurgency isnt all iraqies,


Actually dear, even your own government admits that vast majority of the resistance is Iraqi , 90-96%.




And we removed him


Replacing him with something equally as bad, yourselves.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Souljah and SS are treating the Iraqi conflict as a game, they is no nobility in what they post. It's a race who can dig up the most trash in the shortest amount of time possible. Doesn't matter if it's made up or completely untrue, they post anyway.
Kinda interesting as well, since both these people benefit from a western deomcracy and probably the wellfar system

For wahtever reason, I'm guessing they don't fit. Therefore they've turned their anger into support for some fairytale, knight in shining armour type support for the insurgency. Something they know nothing about except to read dubious BS on the net


As many people have pointed out, they are incapable of any free thought, they just pound the same view, ignoring anything ( and it is alot ) which proves them wrong. Hardly the truth seekers they portend to be





You have voted rogue1 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.



You have hit the nail on the head Rogue1.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
You have hit the nail on the head Rogue1.



LOL, seems so. SS hasn't responded, I think I may have lifted the veil from her eyes. She can see herslef for who she really is



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
You miss read the Guardian report. The info is from a BRITISH SOLDIER, not from an Iraqi comander. Read it again.

Sorry wrong repront, my mistake.
But, the fact still remains, it is there to save civilian lives as well as british.


As for the image, thanks for telling me it didn't work, you can have a look at it by opening the link below.

I hope it works, this time, otherwise i could try to upload it on ATS or send it to you via email or otherwise.

Please send it Via email, my college has got....bad....computers to put it lightly..





LOL, is that why in the article the british soldier was complaining there where not enough Civilian Cars in the desert?

He wasnt complaining, he was simply pointing out it doesnt work since there are less cars out in the desert.



And you accuse ME of lying.

Well you have said that british troops murder and kill civilians.


Your report didn't say the baby was held up as a shield. Your report said the soldier didn't see the baby, when he shot the man holding, it because the man had his BACK AWAY from him as he was running, holding the baby protectively away from the fire, not held up in front of you.

Ah thats the second attack, the first attack is diffrent...or are you forgetting that one?









What doens't work out in the open?

Driving close behind civilian cars.


Using civilians as shields doesn't work out in the open. Because there aren't enough of them around.
[/quiote]
We dont do that.


LOL, isn't that right?? WELL what is it that doesn't work when civilians aren't around??

Driving close behind a civilian car...



Actually dear, even your own government admits that vast majority of the resistance is Iraqi , 90-96%.

That I dont deny
, I am simply pointing out that there are forign fighters.




Replacing him with something equally as bad, yourselves.

I didnt know that medics where bad.
I didnt know that first aid workers where bad.
I didnt know that men and women who are defending civilians where bad....gee I take it then I was also brung up wrong to respect women and act like a gentleman huh?



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Souljah and SS are treating the Iraqi conflict as a game, they is no nobility in what they post. It's a race who can dig up the most trash in the shortest amount of time possible. Doesn't matter if it's made up or completely untrue, they post anyway.

And your living in Denial all of your Life.

Keep doing that, keep living in Ignorance and typing Posts like this one, which show your true nature. I thought this was a Conspiracy Board, where people Discuss all possible Sides and Matter regarding GOVERMENT and othe Conspiracies - but I guess you people are just satisfied with good old Faux News and a Portion of Dan Rather, saying that we must Exterminate the Liberal Vermin and Eliminate the threat of Muslim Invasion.



For wahtever reason, I'm guessing they don't fit. Therefore they've turned their anger into support for some fairytale, knight in shining armour type support for the insurgency. Something they know nothing about except to read dubious BS on the net


...and You do KNOW everything there is to know about the Iraqi War?

What is your mission on this Board?

To Hijack the Threads by redirecting the Talk from the TOPIC of the Thread to the POSTERS in it? I've already seen that Happen....



As many people have pointed out, they are incapable of any free thought, they just pound the same view, ignoring anything ( and it is alot ) which proves them wrong. Hardly the truth seekers they portend to be

I think you did not post a single word about the actually topic of this Thread, but immediatly started with the Personal Attack on Syrian Sister and on Moi. Why are YOU Ignoring the Topic? It's a Very Fine Article from a Renown English Newspaper - The GUARDIAN. Are you saying that Guardian Journalists are Crap and have "Doubious BS" in it, just because they write an article that is directed Against the US and UK and not against the "Terrorists"?

How Ignorant is that?



[edit on 14/11/05 by Souljah]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 06:10 AM
link   
The only war crime is the steady thump of dying brain cells of the major media. Self inflicted wounds from the steady torture of the ame ole lame garbage of anti-american BS.

OBL please just nuke us and get it overwith, please put all the lawyers and media morons in your crosshairs......................

Hey Iran, please launch that shahab-6 with the 100 MT EMP monster to somewhere over kansas.....................



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

And your living in Denial all of your Life.

I guess you people are just satisfied with good old Faux News and a Portion of Dan Rather, saying that we must Exterminate the Liberal Vermin and Eliminate the threat of Muslim Invasion.


Actually Dan Rather thought a lot like you do. He felt that this war was unjust and that we have no business in Iraq. Yet you just slammed him when he sacrificed his career for people just like you. Maybe that is part of the problem.


Originally posted by Souljah
Are you saying that Guardian Journalists are Crap and have "Doubious BS" in it, just because they write an article that is directed Against the US and UK and not against the "Terrorists"?

How Ignorant is that?
[edit on 14/11/05 by Souljah]


About as ignorant as someone who would think that yellow journalism could never exist in todays Guardian. Just because a paper spouts stories that appeal to you doesn't make them true. As I have stated before, just because someone writes it doesn't make it true. Just because a link exists on the net doesn't make it true.

As for personal attacks, if you prod someone in the chest with your finger enough times with destructive diatribes (saying how their country sucks and how their lifestyle sucks and their ways are what is bringing down the entire world), it wouldn't surprise me that you might get socked in the eye a time or two.

Especially if you are using technology, that their way of life brought to the entire world, to express your views. Some people may consider that hypocracy. Sort of like having a link about how to "stop hate" in your signature, but yet you are known for mixing it up and splashing the hate around yourself.

At the end of the day, when when we are done arguing our point, we all get to go home, drink a beer, watch a movie, or just chill out, sleep and argue some more tomorrow. The beer still tastes good...even when you lose an argument.

"Ain't nothing but a thing."



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
About as ignorant as someone who would think that yellow journalism could never exist in todays Guardian. Just because a paper spouts stories that appeal to you doesn't make them true. As I have stated before, just because someone writes it doesn't make it true. Just because a link exists on the net doesn't make it true.

Agreed.

Your Source. My Source. Our Source. Their Source. WHAT Source! Its a Source War and a battle for the Information, where the real ART is to find which one of the Information is not FAKED. Frankly I trust the Guardian more then CNN or BBC togather. But that is just IMHO.



Especially if you are using technology, that their way of life brought to the entire world, to express your views. Some people may consider that hypocracy. Sort of like having a link about how to "stop hate" in your signature, but yet you are known for mixing it up and splashing the hate around yourself.

Hmmmmm...

Well, as I remember this Technologhy we use today - the World Wide Web - was created in CERN:



The collective network gained a public face in the 1990s. In August 1991 CERN in Switzerland publicized the new World Wide Web project, two years after Tim Berners-Lee had begun creating HTML, HTTP and the first few web pages at CERN in Switzerland. In 1993 the Mosaic web browser version 1.0 was released, and by late 1994 there was growing public interest in the previously academic/technical Internet. By 1996 the word "Internet" was common public currency, but it referred almost entirely to the World Wide Web.

But yet again, you successfully Took all the Priviledges and Merits of it.

USA is No.1!

We Inveted Everything and we are the BEST.




posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Souljah are you saying the USA didn’t primarily fund and invent the Internet? Because the Internet started in the late 1960s as a project for the U.S. Department of Defense.....



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Hmmmmm...

Well, as I remember this Technologhy we use today - the World Wide Web - was created in CERN:

But yet again, you successfully Took all the Priviledges and Merits of it.

USA is No.1!

We Inveted Everything and we are the BEST.



Once again...lack of homework rears its ugly head.

Arpanet was created by Capitalism and the Military Industrial complex. Two of the things you despise. Funny how that works.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   
In all fairness to Souljah CERN did invent "WWW" as a tool to exchange and modify documents. However this is hardly "inventing" or taking credit for the Internet.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Souljah your posts have really gone done hill since last i was here and SS posts arent even woth messing with.

Corporate programing? oh yes....must buy newest product from china!

please! Corporate programming that sounds so much like a communist you prove my point lol. 'Must destroy capitalism!' BOL...your living in another era, lol!





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join