PDA

View Full Version : Why do terrorists kill innocent children?



XASA
04-21-2004, 03:47 PM
Twenty-three children were brutally murdered by terrorists today. In the past, they have also blown up innocent men, women and children, and bombed mosques. Why haven't the anti-American posters who are so quick to decry accidental collateral damage by the coalition not condemning such heinous acts? Reeks of hypocrisy, doesn't it :(

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 21, 2004
One of the Rush-Hour Blasts Hit a School Bus Full of Children
By CHRISTINE HAUSER

BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 21 — Three car bombs exploded in front of Iraqi police stations in the southern city of Basra this morning, killing 68 people and wounding 98, the governor of Basra said. The deaths included 23 schoolchildren and 9 police officers.

The governor, Waei Abdul Latif, said he believed the attacks were the work of an alliance between Al Qaeda and extremists in Iraq. He said that the attacks had been simultaneous.

"The attacks have the hallmark of Al Qaeda," he told reporters in Basra, adding that he expected more violence as the June 30 date for the return of sovereignty to Iraqis nears.

In Falluja, United States marines were locked in heavy fighting, using helicopters and tanks, even as insurgents began to hand over weapons today as part of a deal that American officials and civic leaders hoped would lead to an end to the violent confrontation there. But skeptical American troops who inspected the weapons said the armaments were mostly old and did not reflect a true intention to fully disarm.

The Iraqi interior minister, Samir Sumaitey, condemned the Basra killings at a news conference in Baghdad.

"The terrorists want to lead Iraq down the path of darkness and chaos," he said. "The Iraqi government condemns this and is determined to find these people and bring them to justice and bring an end to this cancer that is invading the body of Iraq.

"Every child that has been lost represents the future of Iraq."

A fourth explosion today hit a police station in the nearby town of Zubeir, according to a witness in one of Basra's main hospitals, who was speaking to medics as they brought in people wounded in the blast.

One of the explosions in Basra today hit a school bus during the morning rush hour, according to Iraqi witnesses. Traffic was heavy around the police stations, situated in the center of the city.

Bodies of schoolchildren were burning inside the bus, witnesses said. Iraqis helped pick up bodies as ambulances rushed to the scene. Burned corpses were brought to the city's hospitals.

Hisham Halawa, a spokesman for British forces in Basra, said on the Arab satellite television channel Al Jazeera that British forces were unable to reach at least two of the police stations. Al Jazeera, quoting its reporter in the city, said angry Iraqis had pelted the British forces with rocks.

Iraqi police stations have frequently been struck by attackers who see them as allied with American-led occupation forces.

Officer Halawa said that some Iraqi forces were among the wounded, but that most of the victims were civilians.

Al Jazeera broadcast pictures of a charred corpse being loaded onto a pickup truck and of the smoldering skeleton of the school bus. Iraqi women shrieked and wailed at the scene.

The weapons handover in Falluja took place at a mosque there. An Iraqi policeman, Mohammad Khalaf, said that mujahadeen fighters pulled up to the building throughout the day and unloaded a hodgepodge of weapons from their car. The weapons were loaded into a small Mitsubishi pickup truck, and the truck was driven through an American checkpoint to a camp on the edge of the city.

"These guys listen to the clerics," Lieutenant Khalaf said.

At the American checkpoint, Iraqi police and civil defense units arranged the weapons in the sand to be counted. There were homemade rockets, surface-to-air missile launchers, machine guns, mortars and a roadside bomb made out of a car's shock absorber. Many of the weapons were damaged or rusty.

American marines on the scene muttered about the haul.

"This is one of these tests to see how stupid we are," one said, as the Iraqis unloaded the truck.

"This is an insult," said another.

"It's not serviceable stuff," said a third. "It's junk. It's rusty. This is not frontline stuff."

Capt. Paul Cushman sounded a more charitable tone as he surveyed the weapons, the first haul of what the Americans hope will be many more. "We have quite an eclectic collection of ordnance," he said. "They are trying, but they have got a long way to go."

The handover of heavy weapons is a cornerstone of an agreement between American officials and Fallujan civic leaders to try to end the the most serious fighting of the American-led military occupation. American troops have surrounded the town, but American authorities said they would not resume their offensive if the guerrillas turned in their weapons.

More hauls were expected on Thursday.

"This is probably not even a drop in the ocean in Falluja," Captain Cushman said. "But it is a start. Whether it is an honest step to peace, I do not know."

Meanwhile, inside the city of Falluja, the Iraqi police said clashes had erupted between American forces and Iraqi insurgents, killing six civilians. An American soldier at a checkpoint on the edge of the city said, "So much for the cease-fire."

The attacks in Basra came a day after insurgents fired 12 mortar rounds into the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, striking a camp in the sprawling interior where many of the 7,600 Iraqi political detainees are being held by the Americans. United States military officials said that 22 prisoners had been killed and 92 had been wounded.

The attack was part of a pattern of insurgent attacks on the prison, west of Baghdad. The attack sent American officials scurrying for explanations. One theory was that insurgents were seeking to create chaos to help other detainees escape. Another possibility was that the attackers were seeking to undermine Iraqis' already shaky confidence in the occupation authority's ability to maintain control.

That confidence has plunged after a month of turmoil, first in fighting at the Sunni stronghold of Falluja, in Baghdad, then in the uprising led by a militant Shiite cleric, Moktada al-Sadr, across a swath of central and southern Iraq. Many Iraqis, and even some American officials, have wondered at the worst moments whether the troops here would lose control.

American officials acknowledge that the situation remains volatile, dependent in large part on what happens in Falluja, 35 miles west of Baghdad, and in Kufa and Najaf, adjacent cities along the Euphrates where Mr. Sadr has made his stand.

In Falluja, events on Tuesday pointed to an American effort to begin putting into effect a deal reached on Monday between civic leaders, senior American officials and Marine commanders. As a first step toward a permanent cease-fire, 50 families who had fled were allowed to return.

Today, American military officials outside Falluja said that they had allowed a lot of families to return to the city but called a halt because of the fighting. Ambulances were seen going into the city, as was an aid convoy.

An Iraqi family consisting of a mother, three children and the mother's grandfather pulled up to the checkpoint in a pickup truck after having spent 12 days outside the town in an area called Zuba, where the family had taken refuge. The grandfather, Fadil Shamri, said, "We heard about a cease-fire and we are trying to get back home, but our house is in the Shuhada district." American soldiers said the fighting had taken place in Shuhada.

Iraqi civil defense officials were in a camp at the edge of the city getting ready to deploy inside, which is one of the points agreed upon in a deal intended to end the fighting. "By the end of today, 400 to 500 will get passes to go in," said Capt. Steve Poast, a Marine official at the camp.

Hopes that Falluja could become a model of "a city that understands what democracy is," as Dan Senor, a spokesman for the American-led administration said at a briefing, remained slim.

The American goal, defined in the Monday agreement, is complete disarmament by Iraqi insurgents and foreign fighters in Falluja.



Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/21/international/middleeast/21CND-IRAQ.html?hp

usa320
04-21-2004, 03:48 PM
I want Osama dead so bad. Zarquawi and Zawahiri too.

ariweiner
04-21-2004, 03:59 PM
Why do terrorists kill innocent children?

Actually terrorists never target children. No military-style entity does. In this particular instance, the American-placed police were the target. If I were a US military spokemen and this were a US military operation that had done this, I would probably call this "unfortunate collateral damage."

ShadowNeo
04-21-2004, 04:01 PM
Twenty-three children were brutally murdered by terrorists today. In the past, they have also blown up innocent men, women and children, and bombed mosques. Why haven't the anti-American posters who are so quick to decry accidental collateral damage by the coalition not condemning such heinous acts? Reeks of hypocrisy, doesn't it

I saw you posted this already in the Basra Bombings thread, but anyway.

I think there is a general consensus from all members of the forum that the insurgents are conducting themselves in a manner that is indiscriminate and unacceptable. I think it would be hard to find anyone here that would support the insurgents actions.

The US on the other hand is different. They make a considerable effort to identify and eliminate valid targets while trying to minimise collateral damage. The impression I am getting from people that criticise the US's accidental collateral damage is that they hold the view that the US should be taking even more care than it currently is when engaging the enemy - not that I am in any way saying that it isn't doing all that it can, simply the impression I get from such posts.

Also, I wouldn't confuse Anti-Americanism with the more common Anti-US-Foreign-Policy stance that some members of the forum take.

Mark_Aspen
04-21-2004, 04:01 PM
So the kids killed in Ma'alot were supposed to be older? Get real.

HELEX
04-21-2004, 04:09 PM
Why do terrorists kill innocent children?

Because US "collateral damage" does the same. :roll:

usa320
04-21-2004, 04:10 PM
See these bastaards dont care.

The US does everything humanly and technologically possible to avoid civilian deaths.

But no one is perfect, and its especially hard when the line between combatants and civilians isnt always defined.

Now these bastards on the other hand, they know they are killing women and children, and they have absolutely no problem doing it.

ExtraT
04-21-2004, 04:11 PM
Actually terrorists never target children.

This is pure bul****. There are TONS of cases that prove otherwise. I personally witnessed an attack deliberately directed at school children in Afula in 1994. By sheer luck (the terrorist was off by about 2 minutes) no children died.

mack pl
04-21-2004, 04:18 PM
Why do terrorists kill innocent children?

Because they are f***n terrorists.

Midav
04-21-2004, 04:23 PM
These things happen in war.

However, there is a difference between purposefully targeting and accidentally killing civies.

If the insurgents were concerned about preserving life, they wouldn't have detonated those bombs at little after 7 am on a wednesday morning.

They target the populous to get it pissed off. If these things continue, we're very likely to see a civil war erupt.

Yup, even this here armchair strategist knows that. Do my fellow armchair colleagues agree?

UkrainianAmerican
04-21-2004, 04:32 PM
Some people in this thread, do not have a sense of what is moral and what is not.
I hope you dont behave like that in real life.

XASA
04-21-2004, 04:35 PM
Twenty-three children were brutally murdered by terrorists today. In the past, they have also blown up innocent men, women and children, and bombed mosques. Why haven't the anti-American posters who are so quick to decry accidental collateral damage by the coalition not condemning such heinous acts? Reeks of hypocrisy, doesn't it

I saw you posted this already in the Basra Bombings thread, but anyway.



I did post this under another thread but thought the topic deserved a thread of its own. Judging by some of the responses so far, my initial impression of hypocrisy on some forum members' part stands.

Beowulf
04-21-2004, 04:38 PM
Why do terrorists kill innocent children?

Because US "collateral damage" does the same. :roll:

Yeah but we don't intentionally target children jackass.

What's more is that the US spends so much money on accurate weaponry and risks SOF soldiers lives for good recon/intel to avoid collateral damage/civilian casualties.

I've mentioned a thousand times that pithy one-liners serve almost no purpose, except for humor.

Your post's only purpose is to antagonise. Cut it out.

ExtraT
04-21-2004, 04:38 PM
Actually terrorists never target children. No military-style entity does.

I just reread your post and noticed this: You believe terrorist organizations to be "military-style". This is not only a grave mistake on your part, but also a severe insult to all the (ex)military people that frequent this board. I believe you should apologize immidately!

mack pl
04-21-2004, 04:41 PM
Some people in this thread, do not have a sense of what is moral and what is not.
Moral guru :roll:

Midav
04-21-2004, 04:51 PM
Actually terrorists never target children. No military-style entity does.

I just reread your post and noticed this: You believe terrorist organizations to be "military-style". This is not only a grave mistake on your part, but also a severe insult to all the (ex)military people that frequent this board. I believe you should apologize immidately!

Nice catch. I overlooked that one.

martinexsquaddie
04-21-2004, 04:58 PM
ask Irish man he's sure to explain
how the IRa have killed children sometimes they even aplogized :roll:
so that makes it all right

Tane Angle
04-21-2004, 05:03 PM
Great post, XASA! And some others too, especially b.

Just to reiterate what everyone has already said very well: How often is it that the US conducted actual command-level sanctioned operations targeting children? Massacres such as My Lai were/are tragedies, and I apologize on behalf of my nation and military, but they were not command-level sanctioned.

Terrorists groups have been shown repeatedly to have intentionally targeted school buses, schools, children, etc.

We work very hard to avoid collateral damage. Hence the use of snipers, hence the development of less-than-lethal systems, including the famous flashbangs, hence the hundreds of thousands-millions of dollars spent on each fighter's training, hence the development of the SDB(Small-Diameter Bomb). We're trying. We're not perfect, and I admit that freely, but we're trying. We don't have to pay taxes that fund this research, and our military could instead buy more chemical weapons, but instead, spends a tremendous amount of money on research to allow for the minimum use of force necessary.

Thread on here that discussed the SDB some:http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12674&start=0&sid=d7e1a46d30fb4e89f718b6903f79e653
Some pages from globalsecurity.org:
http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sdb.htmhttp://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mmc.htmhttp://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/ssbrex.htmhttp://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/locaas.htm
http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/diamond-back.htm
http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/longshot.htm

Sorry, I started ranting. Have a good one all, and as always, just some thoughts...

California Joe
04-21-2004, 05:12 PM
Just listen to Tane and Beo. You know nothing of what is involved to avoid collateral damage. You have absolutely NO clue how hard we try to avoid them.

Trident-za
04-21-2004, 05:15 PM
OK, as someone who has questioned the US tactics in Falluja I assume that you are referring to people like me, XASA, so I'll throw in my 2c worth. ( do hope you don't think I'm one of these, though )


...self-nominated, anti-American forum members...

1) As has been mentioned previously, most people on this forum (including myself) find the actions of terrorists despicable. It's not a big suprise, though, when they do this type of thing again and again. I personally ASSUME that we all feel bad for all the innocents killed each time.

2) We all know that terrorists behave badly, but we expect the US military to behave on a "higher moral level". To be honest, I think they usually do this very successfully - collateral damage is impossible to avoid completely and the point is that the US military isn't deilerately trying to kill civilians.

3) Speaking personally, my criticisms of the tactics in Falluja are based to a large extent on the long-term consequences in terms of strategic goals. Whether you are doing it deliberately or accidently, adopting tactics that will result in the deaths of civilians (including women and children) is not a good idea, in my opinion. I believe that the ROE employed by the marines in Falluja could most certainly have been "improved" upon in that respect. (Note: I think the blame here lies more with the officers sending orders down, than the guys actually doing the shooting)

4) Again, speaking personally - a good deal of my "commentary" on collateral damage has been a direct response to certain individuals who think that nuking a city full of civilians is a good idea if it saves the life of 1 US soldier.

5) You mention hypocrisy... I've noticed a bit of hypocrisy too, and from more than one "point of view". I personally am saddened by each new death of a coalition soldier... and each new death of an Iraqi civilian. There are some on this forum who hypocritically expect coalition casaulties to be mourned for decades, while completely ignoring civilian casaulties. This type of hypocrisy is just as irritating.

Anyway... as per usual, no offence intended. I will continue to be disgusted by terrorist actions aimed at civilians, and will continue to be saddened by collateral damage. I will continue to expect the coalition forces to behave on a higher moral level... if they don't then the world is a lost place.....

budanski
04-21-2004, 05:23 PM
Strategypage (http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=IRAQ.HTM)

April 20, 2004: So far in April, 99 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq. There are three reasons for that high number of combat losses.

First, the it’s no longer a wartime situation. This means American troops don’t go charging towards objectives in large numbers, with artillery and bombers ready to obliterate any opposition. In this wartime mode, American troops moved fast and shot frequently at any sign of resistance. A year later, most of the firepower is gone, and the troops move more slowly to avoid civilian casualties.

The Rules of Engagement (ROE) U.S. troops operate by put great emphasis on avoiding civilian casualties. While the ROE put the lives of U.S. troops first, the need to be more careful slows things down in a way that makes American troops more vulnerable.*

Lastly, the Iraqis, like the Afghans in 2001, quickly learned how to cope with some of the American battlefield advantages. In particular, the Iraqis learned to exploit the ROE. This meant setting up combat bases in mosques and moving and firing while surrounded by women and children. The civilians usually were not volunteers for this duty, but Iraqis with guns tend to get their way with other Iraqis.*

After over a week of negotiation, the local leadership in Fallujah agreed to a deal that would surrender all the illegal weapons held in the city and allow joint (U.S./Iraqi) patrols in the city. There would also be Iraqi cooperation in finding those guilty of murder and other crimes.

The al Sadr militias remain disbanded or contained, with al Sadr himself surrounded in a mosque in Najaf and, in effect, under siege by more senior Shia clerics who are demanding that he surrender.*

Huck Mucus
04-21-2004, 05:25 PM
Devil's Advocate:

Dresden, Tokyo, Sand Creek (stretching cut-out ******s over saddle horns and using scrotums for tobaco sacks, tossing babies around on bayonettes?), Wounded Knee, Mia Lia (and other never-to-be known places in VN, Korea), etc. Oh, and kicking tied-and-bound Iraqi POWs in the balls and otherwise torturing them. The list is endless. War sucks.

I recently read an article where someone actually tried to justify Dresden on the grounds that German war-efforts were moving to Dresden. This, in spite of the well known fact that our intent was to bring the war home to the German people. Same with the fire bombing of Tokyo (which killed WAY more than Heroshima and Nakasaki combined). It worked. I'm not questioning the tactics (I'd do the same), I'm just pointing out who the REAL hypocrites are.

Just remember, our guys are soldiers. Their guys are terrorists. Our people are hostages. Their people are POWs (or enemy combatants, depending on whether we want the Geneva Convention to apply or not). They are evil. We are good.

Striking the biggest military target in the world (Pentagon) is an act of terrorism, whereas giving Saddam the chemical weapons he needed for Iran and the Kurds is "national interest." Remember, he killed his own people, even though those people denied being his people and were sepratists.

In a nation of, by and for the people, where we ARE the government, so when WE get hit, maybe we should ask why before we hit back. Where WE sanction, subsidize and actively encourage and support OUR corporate actions overseas, WE still claim "innocent civilian" status when someone strikes us?

It's hard to blame Saddam, Osama, the House of Saud and every tin-horn dictator in the Central America and the rest of the world when we made them what they are today. But it's so easy to blame "their" people when they strike us for propping thier oppressors up, all so our corporations can run rough-shod over the planet, keeping the divedends and the gas flowing while we get fat on bread and circuses.

We call them cowards when they don't fight fair. They call us cowards when we use our technology to avoid fighting fair. As if war was fair.

We kill them a hundred-to-one but all you see on the evening news is our next of kin, a hundred-to-one. Al Jazzeera is evil for showing thier next of kin, at one-to-a-hundred.

I am sure the "enemy" would use smart bombs, fighter jets, cruise missles, helocopter gun ships, night vision equiptment and etc. if they had them. They don't. We do. Does that make us better? Is the system that can produce might right? If so, how can you begrudge them for doing what ever they think it takes? I am sure our founding fathers would have fought the British in the open if they had the troops, the weapons and the training. They didn't. You do what you have to do to win. Ask the Viet Cong. Ask Menachem Bagin (sp?), Grant, Sherman, Sheridan etc. Ask me.

Imagine, if you will, Chicom troopers doing here in the U.S., to you and your sister and mother and father and brother, everything the U.S. troops are doing in Iraq. You people simply would NOT put up with it. So you inflict some collateral damage on your own people, hey, "that's war."

It's easy to talk **** about the enemies tactics when you're in the cat-bird seat. Being in the cat-bird seat makes you mighty. It don't make you right.

Having studied "terrorism" in detail, for over 26 years, part of it under the best anti-terrorist people in the world, I have yet to find a good, decent working definition of the term that couldn't be trashed by any first year debate student.

If you have never left the myth, then you not only have absolutely know idea how stupid we look to the rest of the world, but you don't even care. Worse yet, you have know idea how stupid we really are, notwithstanding what everyone else thinks. We think "pressing on" is our strenght. Maybe for our soldiers. But for our government (WE the people) that is our weakness.

Discuss among yourselves. rofl

California Joe
04-21-2004, 05:25 PM
Those were excellent points Trident. Frankly, I see this situation as soldiers being forced into this role by extremely poor prewar planning. This is a command and intelligence failure.

Trident-za
04-21-2004, 05:27 PM
Frankly, I see this situation as soldiers being forced into this role by extremely poor prewar planning. This is a command and intelligence failure.

I agree 100%.

Trident-za
04-21-2004, 05:32 PM
Huck Mucus

Thought provoking comments... altough I'm not sure how many will agree.

Herrmannek
04-21-2004, 05:52 PM
Huck Mucus has point... I'm not agreeing and not state their are false, but we must take such arguments into consideration...

XASA
04-21-2004, 05:55 PM
OK, as someone who has questioned the US tactics in Falluja I assume that you are referring to people like me, XASA, so I'll throw in my 2c worth. ( do hope you don't think I'm one of these, though )


...self-nominated, anti-American forum members...

1) As has been mentioned previously, most people on this forum (including myself) find the actions of terrorists despicable. It's not a big suprise, though, when they do this type of thing again and again. I personally ASSUME that we all feel bad for all the innocents killed each time.

2) We all know that terrorists behave badly, but we expect the US military to behave on a "higher moral level". To be honest, I think they usually do this very successfully - collateral damage is impossible to avoid completely and the point is that the US military isn't deilerately trying to kill civilians.

3) Speaking personally, my criticisms of the tactics in Falluja are based to a large extent on the long-term consequences in terms of strategic goals. Whether you are doing it deliberately or accidently, adopting tactics that will result in the deaths of civilians (including women and children) is not a good idea, in my opinion. I believe that the ROE employed by the marines in Falluja could most certainly have been "improved" upon in that respect. (Note: I think the blame here lies more with the officers sending orders down, than the guys actually doing the shooting)

4) Again, speaking personally - a good deal of my "commentary" on collateral damage has been a direct response to certain individuals who think that nuking a city full of civilians is a good idea if it saves the life of 1 US soldier.

5) You mention hypocrisy... I've noticed a bit of hypocrisy too, and from more than one "point of view". I personally am saddened by each new death of a coalition soldier... and each new death of an Iraqi civilian. There are some on this forum who hypocritically expect coalition casaulties to be mourned for decades, while completely ignoring civilian casaulties. This type of hypocrisy is just as irritating.

Anyway... as per usual, no offence intended. I will continue to be disgusted by terrorist actions aimed at civilians, and will continue to be saddened by collateral damage. I will continue to expect the coalition forces to behave on a higher moral level... if they don't then the world is a lost place.....

Trident-za, I didn't have you in mind when I started this thread. I have always found your posts to be well thought out and unbiased, even if I might sometimes disagree with your position.

I have already posted by doubts about OIF and how it is being waged here on the forum. Along with others, I took on Sixgun and the Albanian boy wonder when they was insulting everyone left of Hitler. You can look it up :P

The hypocrites I was talking about are those who post countless threads, articles and posts belittling not just American policy but also the behavior of American forces. I don't really care if someone disparages Bush's policy. But when they go out of their way to besmirch the character of the American military and, on a forum mostly populated by Americans with family or friends in Iraq, support the pro-insurgents, that sort of pisses me off.

Does that mean they shouldn't post. Of course not. But it also means they can be called out for being the punks they are on their propaganda, anti-American rants and, yes, hypocrisy when it comes to the deaths of innocent victims.

Finally, the 9/11 tragedy has made us Americans a bit testy when it comes to terrorism. It also gave us a gut check. That people hated us, so much that they would sacrifice themselves along with the women and children in the planes, to fly into the WTC and the Pentagon and kill another 3,000 innocent workers took us by surprise. Most here on the forum would agree. When attacked, you hit back. Sometimes we don't get it right, but we do not purposely target women, children or men as military policy. The terrorists do. Anyone defending that behavior while condemning the coalition's behavior is a hypocrite, too.

XASA
04-21-2004, 05:55 PM
Duplicate Post Deleted

Trident-za
04-21-2004, 05:59 PM
Fair enough XASA. I agree with what you are saying, and I'm relieved that I'm not in your "bad books" :lol:

Kilgor
04-21-2004, 06:35 PM
These bombs were timed to go off during the busy part of the day. No mistake about it, it was designed to kill as many people as possible.
Terrorists know full well that the majority of casualities are always civilian, but thats what they want.

To destablise the country, create hatred and voilence towards different groups and to the Americans so the country will decend into anarchy.

Anyone who thinks terrorists actually care who they kill are just kidding themselves.

Trigger
04-21-2004, 06:44 PM
Huck Mucus: I detect a familiar 'blame America' theme brewing.

Huck Mucus
04-21-2004, 08:39 PM
Trigger:

Yeah, you're right (no pun intended). I reckon I could run with the even more familiar "blame the rest of the world theme" but then I've always run alone, and for the underdog.

Jack Mehoff
04-21-2004, 09:15 PM
where is One when we need him?

MEGR
04-21-2004, 09:59 PM
Why do terrorists kill innocent children?

Because US "collateral damage" does the same. :roll:

What do you mean when who say "collateral damage?" Are you trying to imply that the US purposely bombs civvies? Now be reasonable here. The insurgants had no regard for the safety of these people, and unfortunately killed a bunch of them.

Jack Mehoff
04-21-2004, 10:09 PM
If U.S military wants to kill civilians, we would have turn Fallujah into a parking lot a long time ago. Do you actually believe we want to risk the lives of US Marines going house-to-house for nothing? :roll:

The whole ****ing point of terrorists planting a bomb in a crowded place during morning rush hour is to kill as many as people as they can. How ****ing hard is that to understand? HELEX is a retard so that's understandable.

anonymous individual
04-21-2004, 10:31 PM
I feel sorry for those children. :(

Truthsayer
04-22-2004, 09:09 AM
Late entry into this thread:

What is the point of this thread?

To make everyone start threads every time some moron blows up innocent people and condemn it? (It's already being done?)


Why does the 'american coalition' and to some extent Israels catch a lot of flames for their targeting of 'terrorists and friends'?

Since 'they' are here on this forum and bragging and cheering.

If any HAMAS-members are on this board and cheers, they will get flamed too!


If you don't underastand this, then well...just lets hope you don't ever have the right to bear arms.

Jack Mehoff
04-22-2004, 09:36 AM
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11914&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Truthsayer
04-22-2004, 09:43 AM
Saying that One is a member of HAMAS or the insurgents in Faluja?