SADDAM CAPTURED...MUG SHOT
- Thread starter WiCkEd
- Start date
Ok, so only a fool would believe that Bush Senior DID NOT support the torture, rape, and murder or innocent men, women, and children, outside of war? Only a fool would believe that he DID NOT support civilians being dropped into acid bath's, the amputation of tounge and limbs, hanging, and the torture/domise of the sporting world (list goes on much further)? I think either your making dumb statements just to counter one of my posts, or you really don't know whats going on.
He is supporting Saddam by invading his country, killing his sons, freeing his people, and making him stand trial? This concludes my thoughts about your previous statement.
Thats a two-way statement. It could mean that..
1. Bush must support Saddam because he is seeking advice from his father who did support him.
2. Bush Sernior doesn't support Saddam, because if Bush Jr. is seeking advice from him, clearly feelings of disgust are present when looking at what the consequences to Saddam's actions were.
Everything that Saddam did when Bush Senior was in power was not out in the open, people in Iraq were not willing to talk. I understand that Bush Senior supported Saddam through some of the damage he did, but to assume that he supported everything the man did up to and including the killing of children is like I said, a fool's way of thinking. How are we supposed to know what he does behind closed doors in his country, they didn't have a camera strapped to him so that we could watch his every move.
He is supporting Saddam by invading his country, killing his sons, freeing his people, and making him stand trial? This concludes my thoughts about your previous statement.
Thats a two-way statement. It could mean that..
1. Bush must support Saddam because he is seeking advice from his father who did support him.
2. Bush Sernior doesn't support Saddam, because if Bush Jr. is seeking advice from him, clearly feelings of disgust are present when looking at what the consequences to Saddam's actions were.
Everything that Saddam did when Bush Senior was in power was not out in the open, people in Iraq were not willing to talk. I understand that Bush Senior supported Saddam through some of the damage he did, but to assume that he supported everything the man did up to and including the killing of children is like I said, a fool's way of thinking. How are we supposed to know what he does behind closed doors in his country, they didn't have a camera strapped to him so that we could watch his every move.
Look who's talking smartass. Do you know everything thats going on? FUCK NO. So shut your fucking yap about that shit.
Im saying that Bush does support the cold blooded killing of Iraqi civillians... I dont give a fuck if its within wartime or not, the way Saddam did it or not - Bush is still killin mutha fuckas no matter what way you look at it! Yes, civillians too. But nowhere did I say he supported Saddam (although you never know, yes, YOU never know)... you just arguing for the sake of arguing... ho shit.
We killing children over there right now, genius. Get the fuck outta here FOOL.
Your right, Iraqi civilians are dying under his command, but not dileberatley. If Bush had the choice of eliminating the opposition without civilian casualty, he would definatley go that route. It's a time of war, something you just don't understand. Can you name a single war in the history of this world where a civilian did not die? Our purpose is to rid the evil from that country whereas Saddam's purpose was to make people fear and obey him through torture and murder. If you don't understand the difference then I will let this go right now.
Put it this way, what we are doing is similar to when we execute a prisoner who has been sentenced to death; what he is doing is what that prisoner did to get the death sentence.
I apologize, I must have misinterpreted that part of your post.
War is ugly. Murder is even uglier.
Put it this way, what we are doing is similar to when we execute a prisoner who has been sentenced to death; what he is doing is what that prisoner did to get the death sentence.
I apologize, I must have misinterpreted that part of your post.
War is ugly. Murder is even uglier.
did you say cold blooded killing of iraqi citizens??? if so can you supply some reputable source?? because i doubt that we are over there just killing people for the fun of it.
thats too bad although we all feel bad about it (colateral damage) it is part of war.
you act as if we are targeting children.
its sad when we make a mistake and people die.
thats too bad although we all feel bad about it (colateral damage) it is part of war.
you act as if we are targeting children.
its sad when we make a mistake and people die.
YES
NO
REALLY??? ARE YOU A SOLDIER WHO WAS OVER THERE PARTICIPATING IN A TORTURE SESSION??
HOW CAN YOU MAKE SUCH AN ASSUMPTION AND PAINT IT AS A FACT???
REALLY??? WELL THEN IF THIS IS REALLY ABOUT OIL WHY DIDNT WE DO IN EARLIER???
WHAT THIS IS ABOUT IS NATIONAL SECURITY AND TRYING TO PREVENT ANOTHER 9-11 FROM HAPPENING AGAIN
NO
REALLY??? ARE YOU A SOLDIER WHO WAS OVER THERE PARTICIPATING IN A TORTURE SESSION??
HOW CAN YOU MAKE SUCH AN ASSUMPTION AND PAINT IT AS A FACT???
REALLY??? WELL THEN IF THIS IS REALLY ABOUT OIL WHY DIDNT WE DO IN EARLIER???
WHAT THIS IS ABOUT IS NATIONAL SECURITY AND TRYING TO PREVENT ANOTHER 9-11 FROM HAPPENING AGAIN
Was the guy he was aiming for suspect of hundreds of thousands of death's? Is the shooter a figure of authority? Not that it would make it ok for the child to be killed, but it would completely change the scenerio.
The difference is, those that died in the building were targeted by Bin Laden. The civilians in Iraq were not our target. If he (Bin Laden) declared war on the U.S., aimed at an cotton crop, missed the target and hit a building, it would be different.
The difference is, those that died in the building were targeted by Bin Laden. The civilians in Iraq were not our target. If he (Bin Laden) declared war on the U.S., aimed at an cotton crop, missed the target and hit a building, it would be different.
How did I know you guys were gonna jump on that one? Well then that would make the people on the planes that crashed into the buildings collateral damage, right?
McVeigh said the people inside the building he bombed in Oaklahoma were collateral damage in a message he was sending, so thats ok, right? No? Why, because you dont believe in the same principals in which he based an attack on right? Its the same thing no matter what.
Look... fuck the term collateral damage... thats just a tidy sounding word to take away the ugliness from the word "murder." Hey guys, if your mom was inside a building in Iraq and the US bombed it, would that be ok because she was just collateral damage?
And don't give me this shit about "Well you cant base an argument on "ifs"... because somebodys innocent mother and children are killed everyday in Iraq by the US.
Why do I bother arguing with Bush's sheep.
McVeigh said the people inside the building he bombed in Oaklahoma were collateral damage in a message he was sending, so thats ok, right? No? Why, because you dont believe in the same principals in which he based an attack on right? Its the same thing no matter what.
Look... fuck the term collateral damage... thats just a tidy sounding word to take away the ugliness from the word "murder." Hey guys, if your mom was inside a building in Iraq and the US bombed it, would that be ok because she was just collateral damage?
And don't give me this shit about "Well you cant base an argument on "ifs"... because somebodys innocent mother and children are killed everyday in Iraq by the US.
Why do I bother arguing with Bush's sheep.
No because he planned on them all dying. They were the target regardless what he said. He planted a bomb in a building full of people, he had intent to kill them all.
I would be pissed off, of course. But technically, yes, it would be collateral damage. I would take the responsibility upon myself to do what I can in order to move her out of harms way.
Who said I even liked Bush? That's not to say I do or don't, but I'm just wondering where you came up with this "Bush's sheep", because I never said I like him as a president, or that I believe anything he says.
I love America. I want to see Saddam's regime brought down. America is bringing Saddam's regime down. Bush is heading the action, I support him in the process.
I would be pissed off, of course. But technically, yes, it would be collateral damage. I would take the responsibility upon myself to do what I can in order to move her out of harms way.
Who said I even liked Bush? That's not to say I do or don't, but I'm just wondering where you came up with this "Bush's sheep", because I never said I like him as a president, or that I believe anything he says.
I love America. I want to see Saddam's regime brought down. America is bringing Saddam's regime down. Bush is heading the action, I support him in the process.
From Refdesk.com:
KILL merely states the fact of death caused by an agency in any manner <killed in an accident> <frost killed the plants>.
MURDER specifically implies stealth and motive and premeditation and therefore full moral responsibility <convicted of murdering a rival>.
I think Im using the correct term here.
KILL merely states the fact of death caused by an agency in any manner <killed in an accident> <frost killed the plants>.
MURDER specifically implies stealth and motive and premeditation and therefore full moral responsibility <convicted of murdering a rival>.
I think Im using the correct term here.