Reply With Quote
when ray has no real idea what to say he calls us younguns who have no sense of history.
just cause we didnt live it, doesnt mean we can't read/learn about it from an objective point of view that is free from confounding personal experience
Heh, guess I need to learn the people over here better, huh.
when ray has no real idea what to say he calls us younguns who have no sense of history.
just cause we didnt live it, doesnt mean we can't read/learn about it from an objective point of view that is free from confounding personal experience
And just where do you go for that "objective point of view?"
why here of course. You and Nbadan supply me with enough bull to know that I don't want to be on either of your sides.
GGA I am posting a video you really do need to watch.
I wonder why these fence sitters are where they are.
I warn you before hand, don't watch this if you are squeamish.
It is very graphic but it does show the foe we are facing.
Last edited by xrayzebra; 06-23-2007 at 09:03 AM.
XZ can claim he lived it, but he's really a tourist surfing superficially, "unexamining" life, and he's still as dumb and ignorant as a pair of old Army boots.
You are going to hurt my feelings one of these days if
you aren't careful......
Yeah, these people deserve Geneva Convention protections...
Nato accuses Taliban of using children in suicide missions
Children as young as six are being used by the Taliban in increasingly desperate suicide missions, coalition forces in Afghanistan claimed yesterday.
The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), to which Britain contributes 5,000 troops in southern Afghanistan, revealed that soldiers defused an explosive vest which had been placed on a six-year-old who had been told to attack Afghan army forces in the east of the country. ...
The boy had been ordered to target a check point in Miri, in the Andar district of Ghazni province.
“They placed explosives on a six-year-old boy and told him to walk up to the Afghan police or army and push the button,” said Captain Michael Cormier, the company commander who intercepted the child, in a statement. “Fortunately, the boy did not understand and asked patrolling officers why he had this vest on.”
Lieutenant Colonel David Accetta, ISAF eastern regional command spokesman, told the Guardian: “In the past we have not seen the Taliban sink that low, to use children as suicide bombers. The personnel secured the vest to make sure the child was safe.”
Lt Col Accetta said the procedure for dealing with an armed minor had so far been untested in Afghanistan. “It would have been difficult to know what to do considering it was a six-year-old boy and he was presumably going to push the button himself or someone was going to detonate it for him remotely,” Lt Col Accetta said.
The rules of military engagement are easily muddied when a child poses a direct threat, he explained. “What we do if we identify the fact that an adult is wearing a suicide vest is we use whatever force we deem necessary to protect the lives of our soldiers and any civilians. Of course it makes it more difficult - it’s a six year-old child.”
Well, they are home-schooled.Nato accuses Taliban of using children in suicide missions
Funny, none of the liberals want to comment on the execution.
I guess it is alright for them to kill those who support a
duly elected government. You know like the police.
And it is all the fault of the Bush and the U.S.
Does it bother anyone that these are YOUR enemies who are
doing this and would do it to you in a blink of an eye and
celebrate your death.
It probably violates photobucket's terms of service.
No.I guess it is alright for them to kill those who support a
duly elected government. You know like the police.
Inasmuch as he paid very little attention to the very serious consequnces of an invasion and occupation of Iraq, Bush absolutely bears a huge amount of responsibility for the current situation.And it is all the fault of the Bush and the U.S.
Not enough to abandon the principles and morals that make us better than those who would kill us.Does it bother anyone that these are YOUR enemies who are
doing this and would do it to you in a blink of an eye and
celebrate your death.
BTW, those convicted to death here were electrocuted, not hanged. The two that weren't comdemned were the ones that turned themselves and the others in to the FBI.
And we were actually at war with the nation of Germany, and the penalties for espionage were clear from the outset.
Your point being?
You like most liberals never tire of
defending those that do things like
were shown and blaming Bush.
Well ray Bush DID ORDER THE INVASION.
GGA I am posting a video you really do need to watch.
I wonder why these fence sitters are where they are.
I warn you before hand, don't watch this if you are squeamish.
It is very graphic but it does show the foe we are facing.
Ray we all realize people want to cut our heads off. It's just now there are more of them because we started the unecessary war..
With Congress backing and approval. Twice!
Your wrong again. There are not more of them, they are
just more visible. And they have always wanted to kill
us, they have told us so and continue to tell us so and
have shown through their acts they meant what they said.
Oh ok there just more visible ray..gotcha.
ray, it's Bush's fault he and his underlings didn't even think those types of executions were possible in postwar Iraq and didn't send in enough troops to actually secure the country. The US alone sent 575,000 troops to liberate tiny Kuwait (6880 square miles, 3 million population) and only go into part of Iraq which they did not occupy, not to mention the 300,000 coalition forces that helped us out then. For the 2003 invasion and occupation, the US sent in about 120,000-150,000 for the entire country (169,234 square miles, 26 million population).
Does that look like WWII to you, ray?
Live in your world. We didn't go on into Iraq because
the politicians insisted that it would create a vacuum
in that part of the world. See what politicians do?
They look at the political side of everything (read that
elections, keeping their power). Only when forced into
taking the hard road will they do it. WWII was one of
those times. The politicians had no choice but to
support it, the left in this country were for the war
because their Mother Land, the USSR, was also under
attack. Casualties were high and the news media
didn't keep a running box score of those killed or wounded.
our casualties now are small, although if it is one of
yours killed they are large.
I was looking at an article in the San Antonio E-N Sunday,
they were talking about the September deadline for
Petraus (sp) report. And they are were already telling
their readers how it was going to be a failure. And his
report wouldn't solve anything.
So much for un-biased reporting and supporting the
country.
That has nothing to do with the force level committed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The politicians had alrady approved the use of force. Bush just ended up not using very much at all, with the glaringly obvious consequences.
What does that have to do with the initial force level sent into Iraq?I was looking at an article in the San Antonio E-N Sunday,
they were talking about the September deadline for
Petraus (sp) report. And they are were already telling
their readers how it was going to be a failure. And his
report wouldn't solve anything.
So much for un-biased reporting and supporting the
country.
Nothing.
Bush didn't send in enough troops to do a proper job of occupying Iraq.
Period.
What part of politicians didn't you understand?
We didn't send in enough troops because of a politician -- George W. Bush.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
