War clouds gather - Another Xmas bombing

[peaccenicked]

Western Christianity seems to celebrate it's ''superiority'' by a show of mass murder. How many thousands of children will die "accidently" this time?
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/news5.html

[Anonymous]

Sooner the better.

[peaccenicked]

DC war mongering moron.

[Tkinter1]

A. That has little to do with western christiantiy.(There not concerned with religion right now)

b. Why did u put accidently in "" as if its the goal of the US troops to bomb children. Maybe I misunderstood the "", but if I didn't, that kind of urks me that you think that.

[Stormin Norman]

What kind of fool do you take me for. The United States military is not left to the mercy of the weather when it decides when to conduct missions. However, I do think we should have started on the first day of Ramadan just to convey a clear message to our enemies in that region. They want to bring us terror. I say we give the Psy-Ops.

Hell, we should use some of our perfected mind control devices to give the enemy force an overall sense of impending doom right before we cut them down like blades of grass under a John Deere. Perhaps we could save some of those lives you bleeding hearts are always talking about, by tweeking them so badly they all surrender before the fighting even begins. Oh yeah, that already happened during Gulf War I.

[suffianr]

Yes, the Iraqis surrendered before the fighting began. I suppose you're referring to the Ground War phase, by which, if I recall correctly, the Iraqis had been starved, carpet-bombed and pulverized - short of nuclear war - into submission.

The "fighting" was all done ages before Coalition troops (minus Spec. Ops teams) even set foot anywhere remotely near Baghdad.

SN, you make it sound so grand and majestic, like Hospitaliers marching into Jeruselum after a heroic battle across the plains of the desert. It clearly wasn't.

[Pete]

They want to bring us terror

Wow that is well thought out. Do you really think they want to bring us terror. We do a good enough job terrorizing them with displays of troops out side their border, a no-fly zone over most of there country, the occassional bombing of their country. We bring terror to them. They try to stand on their own feet. We kick them in the nuts. The Plutocracy of America is the true terrorist. History proves it. And the Dialectic demands their downfall.

[guerrillaradio]

Although I don't doubt the validity of Peace's claims, I am slightly worried that the News of the World is now considered a valid source for highly sensitive Pentagon information. Easy, Peace...

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 12:46 am on Nov. 26, 2002
Western Christianity seems to celebrate it's ''superiority'' by a show of mass murder. How many thousands of children will die "accidently" this time?
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/news5.html


probably not as many that will be intentionally killed by iraqi WMD's if we allow iraq to continue unchecked in the middle east

BTW, what does religion have to do with it?

[Moskitto]

weather does have an effect on an invasion, invading a desert country in the middle of summer when you live in a temperate climate is not a good idea, places round there are cold when it's 28 degrees, if you wait till the winter the climate is much more like europe and north america (snow on mount sinai,)

[Jaha]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 9:01 pm on Nov. 26, 2002

probably not as many that will be intentionally killed by iraqi WMD's if we allow iraq to continue unchecked in the middle east

ahh, yes. "unchecked." what a word. what a duty it puts on us. the great U$ must "check" the other nations to make sure they are "good" and "free" and all those things.

are we the world watch-dogs?

if yes, by whose authority? do we have the ability to determine justice?

if no, then why the hell do we fuck around with nations as if we were?

a person may have the authority, but do they have the right?

[YKTMX]

probably not as many that will be intentionally killed by iraqi WMD's if we allow iraq to continue unchecked in the middle east

[/b][/quote]

1.America gave Saddam his weapons
2.America has used WMD's more than any other country
3.Their would be no point in Saddam using his weapons unless he was attacked.
4.It was reported that the lest inspectors detroyed 98 % of Saddams weapons infrastructure
5.The only time Saddam has used WMD, he was supported by britain and America
6.Israel is the biggest military force in the ME, it has nuclear arms aimed at very major arab capital. America wants to raise one country to the ground for having these weapons, and then give 3 billion in aid to Israel.
7.The agrument that civilian deaths are accidental is pointless for two reasons

1.We can assume that the deaths are either accidental or caused by gross incompetence. Either of these is enough of a reason for the bombing to be stopped
2.Even if the deaths are genuine erros, the people are still dead. Collateral damage is genocide by another name

Peace

[tocayo]

hey dudes.....sorry to butt in you guys' debate, but i couldn't help notice how two or three of you (SN, CI, etc.) seem to think it's RIGHT to kill innocent people. I mean, since "they brought terror" to the US, then it's all right to kill the children, and it seems that they even encourage it. SN even suggested they should be tortured before being killed. That goes to show the lack respect that they have for human life. Weather you call it murder or colateral damage, the fact is that people are KILLED. How would you feel if it was one of your loved ones? Sorry, again.......just pisses me off to see such disregard for human life.
Another thing....it does have to do with religion. When Bush says "God Save America", or that it's their God-given right to defend (which includes mass killing) Freedom, he is using religion as his ally. The archbishop of wherever can't say anything now because bush said god was on their side...

[Panamarisen]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 11:49 pm on Nov. 25, 2002
Sooner the better.


Dark Capitalist, you are as ridiculous as your name after writing such a nonsense, such a criminal nonsense.
(Wish you were the one under critical situations: then, maybe, you´ll be able to understand the less "fortunate" ones.)

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[Stormin Norman]

"America gave Saddam his weapons"
-Care to back that assertion up with facts?

"America has used WMD's more than any other country"
-If you are talking about nuclear arsenol this may or may not be true (these numbers are highly classified by those nations who have nuclear programs, and the reported numbers might be misinformation), but if you are talking about chemical and biological agents you are mistaken.

"Their would be no point in Saddam using his weapons unless he was attacked"
-Speculation. Not only that but it errs on the side of Saddam Hussien. How foolish, seeing as how he has used them before on unsuspecting populations in Northern Iraq and border towns in Iran.

"It was reported that the lest inspectors detroyed 98 % of Saddams weapons infrastructure"
-Where is this documented? In order to know what percentage you have destroyed you must first know the full extent of the program, something that all reports I have seen concluded that UNSCOM failed to assess.

"The only time Saddam has used WMD, he was supported by britain and America"
-Are you saying the U.S. and Britain condoned his decision to use these weapons?

"Israel is the biggest military force in the ME, it has nuclear arms aimed at very major arab capital. America wants to raise one country to the ground for having these weapons, and then give 3 billion in aid to Israel."
-One is a rouge nation that attacked its neighbors, threatened the world's oil supply, and signed a cease-fire agreement, the other is an ally.

"We can assume that the deaths are either accidental or caused by gross incompetence. Either of these is enough of a reason for the bombing to be stopped."
-At the expense of our own population?

"Even if the deaths are genuine erros, the people are still dead. Collateral damage is genocide by another name"
-Genocide: the deliberate extermination of a race of people. This definition is not consistent with accidental deaths incurred by military operations.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 2:13 am on Nov. 28, 2002)

[YKTMX]

-At the expense of our own population?

Anyone who says that western citizens are under any sort of threat from Saddam is either A) lying or B) trying to scaremonger. Even if he had the capability (which he doesn't), it would make no sense for him to attack any neighbouring countries nevermind a wetsern country. Oh and I think you'll find the Americans and the Brits did support Iraq in the war against the ayatollah.

[Stormin Norman]

"Oh and I think you'll find the Americans and the Brits did support Iraq in the war against the ayatollah."

That isn't what I asked. I did ask; "are you saying the U.S. and Britain condoned his decision to use these weapons?" I ahrdly think you will find anything that would lead you conclude that the U.S. or Britain were staunch supporters of Saddam Hussien gassing civilian populations. In fact, the 1988 incident may have been the catalysts in changing U.S. Iraqi relations preceeding the 1991 war, among other things. Even when we did provide him with aid to back his war with Iran, our relations were extremely shaky. One cabinet member can was even quoted as saying, "too bad they both can't lose".