Previous  1  2  3  4

'If you ment to show a clear majority then you should have said you felt a majority of the prisoners in Cuba where innocent. Still I'll ask you to back that up.

If you can't read, don't blame me. Weren't you the guy who claims to read a lot? There was absolutely no indication that that was a quote source but my own meaning it doesn't have to be explained any further.

'What makes you think that most of the prisoners in Cuba are innocent?''

The fact that they are there without charges. Jesus. Will you wake up just a little? Where did you get all this information that they were released? What are they doing, taking an extended spring break.

   

'I can see for your hatred of the Americans is that you are still bitter that the Communists lost the Cold War. '

Man, what a stretch. You must have some sort of majic hat that you pull things like this out of. Let me see, you have somehow managed to direct blame towards the USSR, every Communist, the Ronald Reagan, Gorbachev, the Shah, France, NATO, the UN, American citizens, Iraqui citizens, everyone in Canada, Afghanistan and its citizens, Syria, Cuba and even Casa Blanca to the events in Iraq. Sorry if I've forgotten anyone, it's hard to keep up with them all. What about Santa Claus, Ebenezer Scrooge and Mickey Mouse? Did you forget about them or are you just reading about their connections now?

   

'We are not saying that nobody is responsable for the victims of war we are saying that the responsability lays with Saddam for this one.'

No you are not. You are saying that everyone in Iraq is responsible. Big difference.

   

That's cause you've got nothing!



They where enemy combatants they don't need to be charged, get your head out of your ass! As for information on the Americans realising prisoners...
U.S.-led coalition released 7,000 Iraqi prisoners so far
Ain't that a kick in the nuts!



That's because everything is connected. Nothing happens in a vacume. We are all guilty to some extent. Even the an event that seems to be insignifigent has some role in shaping the future. Those who opposed the war are guilty of turning their backs on Saddam's crimes. Those who supported the war myself included are guilty of taking to long.



No. We are saying it was Saddam and his supporters who are responsable. That includes people like you .

Now why don't you tell us who you are?

   

'They where enemy combatants they don't need to be charged, get your head out of your ass! '

Wrong! It has not been proven that ALL of them were enemy combatants.

'That's because everything is connected. Nothing happens in a vacume. We are all guilty to some extent. Even the an event that seems to be insignifigent has some role in shaping the future. Those who opposed the war are guilty of turning their backs on Saddam's crimes. Those who supported the war myself included are guilty of taking to long. '

And don't forget those Iraqui civilians who you maintain were killed by Saddam Hussein and not coalition forces.


'No. We are saying it was Saddam and his supporters who are responsable. That includes people like you .'

I don't even know Saddam and I don't know George Bush or Tony Blair just in case you try to pin that on me as well. Who exactly killed those students? If you insist Saddam Hussein, then you also have to hold Bush, Blair and any other involved officials responsible as well. The ones who killed them were the soldiers who pulled the triggers, whether intentionally or unintentionally. It's that simple. Just as terrorists are responsible for killing people so are military.

   

Sign in! Won't kill ya. Responsibility is sadly lacking everywhere. But where should it start? Whatever happened to the politician with the best ideas winning the election? They play the polls for policy, so what do the "poor unwashed masses" do?

   

'Responsibility is sadly lacking everywhere. But where should it start? Whatever happened to the politician with the best ideas winning the election? They play the polls for policy, so what do the "poor unwashed masses" do?

Excellent questions. Great food for thought. And just to add to 'But where should it start?," I would say 'Who or What should decide?' If you know what I mean.
I've seen posts saying that when civilians pick up a gun and fight against soldiers, they are no longer civilians but just because someone picks up a gun, it may not necessarily be to fight soldiers.
Let me give you an example. I have met many Arabs over the years in my line of work ranging from 20-70 years old. I've heard horror stories about monsters like Saddam Hussein that would make anyone shudder. Recently however, one told me something that happened in Baghdad.
After the initial invasion, there was a lot of looting. An Iraqui store owner, in an attempt to stop looters, had a rifle and chased two other guys out into the street. No shot was fired. The owner just wanted to scare the looters away. A soldier saw the owner with the rifle, the looters pointed to the owners and then the soldier gunned the man down. The guy who told me this told me that the man was a friend of a friend's. Now whose fault was that?

   

Nether has it been proven that they are innocent. Coalition forces had good reason to view these people as hostile when they captured them. You obviously are looking for absloutes, unfortunatley you wont find them in the real world.



Reread my first post. I never said all the Iraqis were killed by Saddam. I said that when the Americans and co kill civilians it is UNINTENTIONAL!



Where exactly did you hear about this incident with the students? How's about a link or something. You oppossed the war which helped Saddam. therefor you supported Saddam and are responsable in some measures for the crimes he commited.



If this is true put yourself in the soldiers position. Your on patrol theres chaos all around you when suddenly you see an Iraqi with a gun. Keeping in mind that most of the fighting has been against Iraqi's who do not where uniforms and use human shields, what do you do. Do you a) Shoot him, or b) Ask him if he's on your side and risk getting shot in the back later. BTW kind of convient that you where told this by someone who heard it from his friend who heard it from his friend.

   

The broadcast about the students was on BBS at least twice in one day. A reporter even managed to get a sentence from a reluctant soldier. It really happened. Ask the family of the victims if you really want proof so badly.

So according to your implication, nothing that person said about the store owner is true and there is no possibility of all that it happened. Not everything that happens makes the books or the Internet although we may believe that the Net know all and has all. But wait, somebody might write about it one day in the future. Of course, by that time everyone would have forgotten about it except those whose knew the man. Nevertheless, you will have you sacred written proof and the memory of that man will just be another part of history.

Speaking of which, let me tell you something about history: it's not all documented. In fact, most of it (and that means 51% or more just in case you don't understand) is not documented but passed on through word of mouth. Considering that most people on a given day talk more often than they actually write, the figure is probably much much higher than 51%. Even if all of history were documented, it is still open to interpretation.

'That's because everything is connected. Nothing happens in a vacume. We are all guilty to some extent. Even the an event that seems to be insignifigent has some role in shaping the future. Those who opposed the war are guilty of turning their backs on Saddam's crimes. Those who supported the war myself included are guilty of taking to long. '

I didn't reply to this earlier because I thought you had made a closing point. Nevertheless it finally did come out. I suspected there was a hidden motive and I'm not surprised. I've experienced it too many times to be surprised. Don't get me wrong, there is truth in what you wrote but the tone definitely has other implications.

I don't know if you understand exactly what I'm referring to but unfortunately, I can't explain it because no matter how I phrase it, you still would't understand. I've tried that enough times to know better. But that OK because it will be more meaningful if you figure it out for yourself. And in that, I sincerely wish you luck. I know you can do it because everybody has been there at some time in some way.

On a personal note, I will say that I have honestly enjoyed these discussions. This is true. You have explained and offered a lot of valuable points and insights.

BTW, I'm a linguist.

   

I'm not saying there is no possability of this happening, I'm just a little sceptical with information that's third or fourth hand. That said it wouldn't surprise me if something like that happened. Probably did.



I have also enjoyed this discussion. You have given me some things to think on. Why don't you join this sight? It would be interesting to see what you have to say on other matters.

   

I'm impressed. I enjoyed reading this little debate. First one I've read in a while that didn't resort to name calling and the normal breakdown into "I'm right and your wrong." Thanks to both of you.

   

An interesting artical. Gives an account of the War on Terror to date.

Playing Offense

   

Previous  1  2  3  4