Why is american getting away with all of the crimes it is commiting???

to Thomas Crowne

You are in every right to panick, and it may not even be imputable to you since your governement wants you to live in this fear. But it must also be clear to you that Iraq isnt a threat to US national security, and that making people suffer can have consequences.

America and many american lives are in a precarious situation right now, we can agree on that. Thousands GI's lives are on stake, together with many more Iraqi civillian lives. Perhaps even many american civilian lives are on stake now, with the 100 new bin ladens. Where does that come from ? Terrorism doesnt come up unprovoked. It is the product of american bombs, the consequence of onslaught made in USA.

You are calling me stupid and gullible, while you are the one to buy the cheapisch official racist propaganda.

by me
I started out being pro-war, because the reasons they had seemed solid to me. I am still pro-war, but now I am beggining to think that this whole thing is a distraction. A ploy, somthing for the massess to concentrate on.

I'm not saying Bush is planning somthing, I'm saying more people may be in on it than you think. (Wasn't Bin Laden trained by the CIA?)

I wonder if we are all being misled...

And it seems to me, if I'm right, that you guys would be playing right into their hands. They want chaos and discord, because durring chaos and discord people look for a strong, influential leader. They seem to be doing a good job to me.

I thought people here were conspiracy nuts, not sheep! Where's your spirit!?!?!?

xmb.abovetopsecret.com...

Am I right or am I right? Eh?

oke imagine this, this war never happened, it wasnt even planned.

would all those people still go outside and protest, but this time ofcourse against saddam?

it would be logical, well, if you are against a 'war' because people are being 'killed' then why arent they against the war between saddam and his people?
why not against saddam and his surrounding lands where he dropped bombs on?
YES BOMBS YES, A WAR, another real war!

no, why?
because there stupid f*cks, it never happened, if there soooooo against war then why not against saddam.

its like other people here said, they are only against the war because it is a WAR, but they dont know #.

f*ck i hate the human race, its soo full of C R A P.

Originally posted by mad scientist
Ahhh yes the good ole unbias Iraqi news. Come on you don't really expect them to be telling the truth.

Right, with please, don't suppose CNN is not doing the same, because most of the USA or Britain controlled TVs are *doing* the same. Include the pro-government news media as *controlled*.

This whole thread is absolute garbage.

"We attacked without proof of weapons. We allowed humilating pictures of pow's to be taken by the press. We also used napalm. "

We did have proof! Even France has admitted it has 100% proof.

It's not illegal to take pictuers of POW's. It is illegal, however, to broadcast an INTERVIEW with them.

I would like to see your source stating that we have used napalm along with the U.N./Geneva/whatever document making its use illegal.

Proof? I still haven't seen any.

About PoWs:

www.us-israel.org...

"In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of

proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949. Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."

...and you accused them of Terrorisms without a fair and regular trial.

[Edited on 2003-4-5 by MakodFilu]

About Napalm:

www.cnn.com...

About UN banning Napalm:

www.wikipedia.org...

...still searching: will be back with more

[Edited on 2003-4-5 by MakodFilu]

According to your link the Napalm was only used after a ton of bombs were dropped up there. It wasn't used on anyone living, it was used to clear out the area and destroy what was left of the Iraqi equipment.

Lets also keep in mind the use of Napalm was reported by CNN. I don't remember seeing anything about it on Al-Jazeera.

"and you accused them of Terrorisms without a fair and regular trial. "

We can accuse them all we want. They'll get their trial! I wonder how you expect us to have a trial for them all right out in the battlefield! Give it some time. I wonder how much thought you put into your argument.

Originally posted by Dangerous_Brian
According to your link the Napalm was only used after a ton of bombs were dropped up there. It wasn't used on anyone living, it was used to clear out the area and destroy what was left of the Iraqi equipment.

OK, you admit it was used then. Thanks for your cooperation.

Lets also keep in mind the use of Napalm was reported by CNN. I don't remember seeing anything about it on Al-Jazeera.

So CNN is unfair to your government? Sorry, but I don't buy it. About not appearing on Al-Jazeera... you sure? Maybe in the Arab original version. It seems the English written web was attacked.

"and you accused them of Terrorisms without a fair and regular trial. "

We can accuse them all we want. They'll get their trial! I wonder how you expect us to have a trial for them all right out in the battlefield! Give it some time. I wonder how much thought you put into your argument.

I were talking about the Afghans. I am sure you've benn plenty of time to judge them.

[Edited on 2003-4-5 by MakodFilu]

"OK, you admit it was used then"

I have no idea if we've actually used them. I thought you were smart enough to get what I was implying with my statement about CNN. They report everything they hear, no matter the truth.

Also, can you tell me the harm in tossing napalm onto some Iraqi equipment after everyone in the area has been killed?

If you could kindly give me a link stating the current status of the people in Afghanistan being held for terrorism that would be great.

Originally posted by Dangerous_Brian
"OK, you admit it was used then"

I have no idea if we've actually used them. I thought you were smart enough to get what I was implying with my statement about CNN. They report everything they hear, no matter the truth.

Can I took your statement as certain? Because so often CNN is cited support an statement...

Also, can you tell me the harm in tossing napalm onto some Iraqi equipment after everyone in the area has been killed?

No idea, nor should I have. It could be as it landed on a crater of waste. Those were used. Those are banned. Period.

If you could kindly give me a link stating the current status of the people in Afghanistan being held for terrorism that would be great.

Don't want to do your homework. Already discussed here in other threads, just search about Guantanamo Prison Camp.

Mako

I am curious. If (and that is just an IF) at the end of this the Iraqi people are thankful for the invasion and thank the US for ridding them of and freeing them from Saddam, what would you say to them (the Iraqis) about your position on the US war in Iraq? Would you still have the same stance on it?

You know what...you're a real annoying twitt, probably 20 years old or less...Napalm isn't or at least shouldn't be banned.

But then the UN has banned any bayonette larger than a spoon so who the hell gives a rat's A$$!

America has liberated the world ONCE before, and now it is Liberating Iraq.

So why don't you just buz off or at least come up with REAL arguments.

Here's your war crime:

Originally posted by 5POF
**(suppressed senseless rant)**

But then the UN has banned any bayonette larger than a spoon so who the hell gives a rat's A$$!

America has liberated the world ONCE before, and now it is Liberating Iraq.

So why don't you just buz off or at least come up with REAL arguments.

Yours are surely *great* Come on, kid, don't get picky. America liberated what? We are all dependant to the USA nowadays, so economically speaking, you conquered us economically. You always say 'Be grateful you don't speak German right now' So what? We all speak English now? I don't see the difference: neither one is my native tongue.

Here's your war crime:

What is that? Anyway, it was surely not *my* crime. I have commited none. Besides, that photo is black on white, so it's surely older than I myself. You know you are being senseless.

[Edited on 2003-4-6 by MakodFilu]

Excuse me but it is very apparent as to the intent of Adolph Hitler had he won MakodFilu. You and I would not be speaking any language. By today or within the next 50 years, this planet would have been populated only by blue eyed blondes from Germany and or Austria.

Originally posted by Toltec
Excuse me but it is very apparent as to the intent of Adolph Hitler had he won MakodFilu. You and I would not be speaking any language. By today or within the next 50 years, this planet would have been populated only by blue eyed blondes from Germany and or Austria.

Nice point! Instead, nowadays girls pay to get her hair blonde... Find the differences... No, really, I got your point, but that makes USA 'economycal occupation' only the lesser of tho evils. On EU we are trying to cut somewhat the overdependence on the dollar. Is that wrong? I don't think so.

Back on topic: See the link on my signature.