The abuse from British Soldiers [Archive] - The Lone Star Command Message Boards

2biT

Jan 20, 2005, @ 01:26 AM

pmsl.

Cuba anyone? guantanimo bay?

I don’t agree with what they did and action is/will be taken against defendants, but the states is just the worst country on the planet so look at yourselves, before looking at our armed forces..

As for attracting that type of person, well I think that type of person is in us all, (after all we are just evolved apes at the end of the day). It’s just at times it floats to the surface. (ahh civilisation don’t you love it). Some asshole once said/wrote.. The only person that can judge a combat solider is another combat solider. What happens during war happens mostly due to stress and what that person is feeling – at that time.
There was 2 cracking programs just on (that I taped and hope to watch) about Auswitz and rather than focus on the nazi’s that ran the camp it was on the men that built the railways, chamber, basically all the people ‘behind the scenes’ Look at that as a example as how far humans can sink and compare it to the pictures of the Iraq prisoners.

**btw edited my orriginal post was anti suas and anti american- i dint read his post right sry.

Karmashock

Jan 20, 2005, @ 02:42 AM

In all fairness, I don't know why some of these are crimes... I'm going to highlight the charges that I think are stupid and you can comment if you feel like it.
# Charge one: L/Cpl Cooley is charged with the "simulated punching", for a photograph, of an Iraqi detainee.

# Charge two: L/Cpl Cooley is charged with the "simulated kicking", for a photograph, of an Iraqi detainee.

# Charge three: L/Cpl Larkin is charged with beating an unknown Iraqi soldier. He has pleaded guilty to this assault. At the same time and place, Cpl Kenyon is charged with aiding and abetting L/Cpl Larkin to beat the detainee.

# Charge four: L/Cpl Cooley is also charged with placing an Iraqi detainee, whose hands were tied, on the forks of a forklift truck, raising the forks and driving the truck.

# Charge five: Cpl Kenyon is charged with failing to report that soldiers under his command had caused an Iraqi detainee to be raised on the forks of a forklift truck.

# Charge six: L/Cpl Larkin is charged with forcing two Iraqi detainees to undress in front of others. At the same time and place, Cpl Kenyon is charged with aiding and abetting L/Cpl Larkin to force the detainee to undress in front of others.

# Charge seven: Cpl Kenyon is charged with aiding and abetting an "unknown person or persons" to force two Iraqi detainees to simulate a sexual act.

# Charge eight: On a separate occasion "than that of the seventh charge", Cpl Kenyon is again charged with aiding and abetting an "unknown person or persons" to force two Iraqi detainees to simulate a sexual act.

# Charge nine: Cpl Kenyon is also charged with failing to report that soldiers under his command had forced two naked Iraqi detainees to simulate an "act of oral sex". Charge nine is offered by the court martial as "an alternative to charges six, seven and eight".

The ones that are obviously wrong I didn't mark... just the simulation and undressing doesn't strike me as something worthy of bitching about.

Undressing or dressing is something you get ordered to do in any prison system... I don't believe it says anywhere that you're entitled to privacy... I mean... you're in prison.

As to simulation... who gives a flying fuck? I'm disturbed by this stuff too... but bitching about simulation belittles the process.

JADezimar

Jan 20, 2005, @ 03:43 AM

Not to mention in our own bootcamps. Our Soldiers and Marines have to undress in front of eachother. Yet, we have to allow the foreign prisoners a higher respect?

Karmashock

Jan 20, 2005, @ 03:50 AM

well, the implication is that they were undressed to humiliate them... still... I don't see that as a violation. It's too light... like yelling at them for no good reason wouldn't be something I would bring up either... same sort of thing... undressing so long as nothing else happens is not something I'd get excited about.

DrunkenUno

Jan 20, 2005, @ 05:10 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4185661.stm

Disgraceful and shocking.

It wasn't apparently long term systematic abuse, but it's still appaling...However I wonder if this kind of thing will ever be gotten rid of.

The army is a magnet for people that enjoy fighting, and hurting. Of course there are many many great, loyal, trustworthy and honest people there - but it has always attracted nutters too... do you think it always will?

OMG lollerskates someone else besides the US did something wrong!??!?!?!??!??!!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Karmashock

Jan 20, 2005, @ 05:54 AM

it must be evil coodies that bush gave blair...

I wonder what swedish people would in this position... maybe make cheap furnature out of them...

I don't even want to know what the french version would be... I had visions of butter then went blind.

2biT

Jan 20, 2005, @ 07:11 PM

This all came to light when the soldiers brought their photo's in for development.. i mean who is stupid enough to that? On a slightly related topic i had photos today of a dude snorting a load of coke, so i called my boss and she called the cops. They came and looked at the picture and got me to blow it up ad print it and i tturned out to be a fag, not a straw and the substance on the table was weed.. boy did i get a ticking off for wasting police time....

Karmashock

Jan 20, 2005, @ 07:36 PM

That's why I document my murders with digital cameras.

stats

Jan 20, 2005, @ 07:40 PM

Soldiers are kids, kids that have been trained to be brutal and efficient - it's easy to hate someone when you caught them shooting at you. Especially when you believe that your risking your life to save them. Imagine.

Saying that, they should be made an example of because :

A. This is NOT the image we want to project of westernism on the islamic people
B. This is NOT the image of the coolition we want to project on the international community
C. Wrong is Wrong

D. Does bush have cooties?

Edit: saus, god yes - people who want to kill will always join the army for that reason. It's a shame - but then again, imagine them running around your home town where your kids or little sister plays.

2biT

Jan 20, 2005, @ 07:58 PM

Actually about 98% of soldiers aim to kill, its easy to be trained to kill but it goes against everything that you are taught from a early age.

JADezimar

Jan 20, 2005, @ 08:00 PM

Edit: saus, god yes - people who want to kill will always join the army for that reason. It's a shame - but then again, imagine them running around your home town where your kids or little sister plays.

This is true in a sense. Accept in the states, Most of the wannabe killers or people that have something they wanna prove go into the marine corps. It is our more trouble attractive branch. Yet I do not think gauntanimo was the corps? Anyhow point being not everyone that goes in wants to kill, In fact a smaller percentage of our armed forces want this. And you cannot also make this about age. Older people do not necessarily know or behave any better than a young person.

Final point I guess to make would be, that most people that go in are going in for education money or a career. This is do to lack of opportunities at there hometown, lack of opportunites education wise do to screwing around in HS, lack of opportunities do to Parents not being able to afford education.

Shackled Phoenix

Jan 20, 2005, @ 08:06 PM

I don’t agree with what they did and action is/will be taken against defendants, but the states is just the worst country on the planet so look at yourselves, before looking at our armed forces..

Unless i'm mistaken, Suas and BBC news are both english.

CELTIC_2X

Jan 20, 2005, @ 08:26 PM

Actually about 98% of soldiers aim to kill, its easy to be trained to kill but it goes against everything that you are taught from a early age.

98% of troops in ww2 aimed to miss, 1% were psychopaths and 1% had balls,

its very difficult to kill some one no matter who you or wat u do,

we all hav empathy (accept psychopaths) makeing it hard to do some one in,

as 4 the soliders well its wrong but ppl are ppl, ppl hate 4 no good reason, just b/c there soiders dosent change that fact, human beings are assholes no matter wat nation you are from or your prefesson its in our nature,

but thet will get wats comeing to them, good.

Karmashock

Jan 20, 2005, @ 08:46 PM

A. This is NOT the image we want to project of westernism on the islamic people
B. This is NOT the image of the coolition we want to project on the international community
C. Wrong is Wrong

D. Does bush have cooties?
A: showing us forcing people that tried to kill us make out with each other is fine so long as you don't go all allah achbar about it.

Seriously... we could have technically killed these guys. They're not wearing uniforms and are fighting so are NOT protected by the Geneva convention AT ALL. They're technically in the same legal position as spys...

So having them get into naked pyramids is very lenient.

B: That's the primary reason people are cracking down on it... bad press.

C: But this isn't really wrong... remember who these guys are.

D: yes.
98% of troops in ww2 aimed to miss, 1% were psychopaths and 1% had balls,
That's just bullshit... seriously... who the fuck do you think you're fooling with that?

JADezimar

Jan 20, 2005, @ 08:56 PM

I have a freind, was a sniper for recoinassance. He is not psycho -_-. Somtimes you have to do what you got to do for survival reasons. Same way people feel compassion for others and find it hard to kill, people will also react and do things they would never do in protection of themselves, loved ones and even just comrades over what would be called the enemy.

shutupandshave

Jan 20, 2005, @ 10:11 PM

This is true in a sense. Accept in the states, Most of the wannabe killers or people that have something they wanna prove go into the marine corps.
Perhaps I should have said armed services.

All these 98% statements? I dont think there are any accurate stats for that...

Karma - you cant take PoW's uniforms off whilst there in a camp, then claim that because they're not uniformed they are not covered by the Geneva convention.

You say that getting them to pretend to buttfuck each other whilst naked is lenient? So what do you think the prison guards should have done? Beaten them up for no reason (remember - we were not trying to get info from them)? Starve them? Kill them? Cut their heads off, video it and put it onto TV? what?

Larsson7

Jan 20, 2005, @ 10:14 PM

JADezimar

Jan 20, 2005, @ 10:48 PM

Karma - you cant take PoW's uniforms off whilst there in a camp, then claim that because they're not uniformed they are not covered by the Geneva convention.

Not that I feel that guantanimo bay was ok, but you retarded moron saus, do you realise Iraqi soldiers in most cases did not have uniforms before they were captured? Why do you think such large mistakes can be made in the combat feild?

shutupandshave

Jan 20, 2005, @ 11:10 PM

Jad, you completely missed the point "you retarded moron"

They were already in a prison camp. Uniforms or not, once they're their they're prisoners of war... and are protected under the Geneva convention. If Karma can prove that these soldiers did not have a uniform on whilst captured then he has about 1/4 of a point...either way, they are still prisoners of war and must be treated respectfully because of that.

Edit: next time you call me retarded, please at least spell my name correctly, it'll make you look less stupid.

JADezimar

Jan 20, 2005, @ 11:15 PM

Then yOU totally missed Karma's point. (if these men were never wearing a uniform, they are not a legal protected soldier under the geneva convention, whether in prison or not) Spelling your name correctly has nothing to do with the look of my intelligence. Maybe it was intentional Seus.

shutupandshave

Jan 20, 2005, @ 11:17 PM

It was me that made the point JAD, not Karma.

And if I missed Karma's point - then what was it?

And just in case you write before thinking, please check if I already wrote what you think Karma's point is - in my previous post.

JADezimar

Jan 20, 2005, @ 11:26 PM

Look at my posts I stated it. Its over your head. I have stated it in 2 posts now.

shutupandshave

Jan 20, 2005, @ 11:47 PM

if these men were never wearing a uniform, they are not a legal protected soldier under the geneva convention, whether in prison or not
This was the point I didn't get right?

From the post before you said I didn't understand his point:
If Karma can prove that these soldiers did not have a uniform on whilst captured then he has about 1/4 of a point...either way, they are still prisoners of war and must be treated respectfully because of that.

Idiot.

JADezimar

Jan 20, 2005, @ 11:54 PM

Ya I read that Suas. And again Ill state that if they did not wear a uniform before prison they are not protected by the geneva code. If these soldiers wanted to claim that they were protected under geneva code they along with the U.N would have to prove they were in uniform firsts. Sues.

Yawn. Wanna make more arbitrary statements that you think help you? But are really a challenge to the way the system actually works.

Yawn* You are starting to bore me.

shutupandshave

Jan 20, 2005, @ 11:59 PM

So you say they weren't wearing uniform? Where does it say that in my link... or did you make that up?

JADezimar

Jan 21, 2005, @ 12:26 AM

suas how much Iraq film have you seen, where the iraqi military were often wearing uniform?

Again now that the point has been made, You are shooting smoke in the air to divert and dilude the point.

Got to hand it to the weasel that never gives up.

Karmashock

Jan 21, 2005, @ 01:17 AM

So you say they weren't wearing uniform? Where does it say that in my link... or did you make that up?
I made the assumption that the British soldiers were doing the same thing the American soldiers were doing.

Iraqi soldiers captured in uniform are totally left alone. We ask their name, rank, and serial number. Then we given the nice quarters where they can do what they like...

most of those we just let go.

The ones that are taken to Gantanimo or abu grab are NOT in uniform and WERE fighting or caught with heavy weapons.

Via the Geneva Convention, they're not protected. The guys at abu grab that the US got in trouble for could have been legally tortured and then fed to dogs.

They had ZERO protection. We however, did nothing more then psychological torture. We made them feel small. We did the weird sexual stuff... a lot of harrassment... stuff to make them talk.

The british likely did the same thing. In both cases I don't think there was a violation of anything. It was just very bad press.

nothing more or less.

stats

Jan 21, 2005, @ 01:24 AM

Right karma dude, im drunk so i may retract some o' this later on. also page 2 is making it difficult ot re-read you post...

A: showing us, show respect to people we have captured would be better - during WW2 we showed those nazi fucks a hell of a lot more respect than they showed us... And omfg - dude, have you any idea what the japanese did to pow... fuck... it was sick.

B: So let us crack down on it, and lets do it HARD!

Wrong is wrong, coz while ur saying 'not wearing uniform so no different that spy's' your missing - Not wearing uniforms so no different that civilians defending against people who THEY BELIEVE are coming to try and take their lives and lively hood. They are wrong, but that isn't they're fault - they really dont know any better. AND NO! that is not the same as a psyco dont know any better. These guys really believe we are there to kill em..

And Cel, dude. I get what your saying - and dont worry, the first people to lose to lose their lives are the people that lose their heads (in general - plenty of decent soldiers lose it for no fault of their own)

And 2bit - I dont deal coke, i would NEVER recommend it to anyone, but i have taken it from time to time- hopefully ill stick to my resolution, but you never know. ratting on someone for hussling pushing is one thing - for someone doing what they want in their own time - your a cunt. My job is to help ppl qand save lives. What i do in my own time, my fucking problem - Fuck You!

Name is Murdoch Mackay and i live in St. Albans. I most likely the only person called Murdoch in Hertforshire - so rat away... MotherFucker. God that sort of thing pisses me off =[

Edit: I'm not going to pretend to know alot about it, but i dont like that 'Gantanimo bay' Thing one bit - especailly seen as, (as far as i know) america doesnt recognise the human rights or war crimes courts.. [might be wrong]

Karmashock

Jan 21, 2005, @ 01:45 AM

Right karma dude, im drunk so i may retract some o' this later on. also page 2 is making it difficult ot re-read you post...

A: showing us, show respect to people we have captured would be better - during WW2 we showed those nazi fucks a hell of a lot more respect than they showed us... And omfg - dude, have you any idea what the japanese did to pow... fuck... it was sick.
To POWs we are showing FULL respect and giving complete dignity.

During WWII we gave nazi POWs nice places to live that were the same as our own soldier's barracks. We allowed them gardens. We allowed them reading material. We gave them money so they could buy things outside the camp. We gave them beer. We gave them games. We played games with them.

When we saw how they were treating our POWs, that changed. We still held to the convention, but we gave them nothing more.

Similar experience with the Japanese… they were conducting medical experiments on Chinese POWs, so I can only imagine that the ones on Americans were just as bad if not worse.
B: So let us crack down on it, and lets do it HARD!

Wrong is wrong, coz while ur saying 'not wearing uniform so no different that spy's' your missing - Not wearing uniforms so no different that civilians defending against people who THEY BELIEVE are coming to try and take their lives and lively hood. They are wrong, but that isn't they're fault - they really dont know any better. AND NO! that is not the same as a psyco dont know any better. These guys really believe we are there to kill em..
All you have to do to be a POW is do SOMETHING that distinguishes you from the rest of the population. If you put on a red arm band or something, that would be enough. Or a hat... anything.

But they're trying to hide in the population and that disqualifies them.

Read the convention. If you fight and have no uniform, then you have no protections.

READ IT!

We're only doing more because we're not sadistic fuckers. But these people are not civilians and are not soldiers. They are 'enemy combatants' or terrorists.

Edit: I'm not going to pretend to know alot about it, but i dont like that 'Gantanimo bay' Thing one bit - especailly seen as, (as far as i know) america doesnt recognise the human rights or war crimes courts.. [might be wrong]
We don't recognize their right to judge. Who appoints them? Who writes the laws? Upon what do they claim authority to judge?

The UN reeks of tyranny.

Critta

Jan 21, 2005, @ 11:20 AM

Not gonna get involved in this one, however, just noticed something relating to what Karma was saying about bullshit charges:

# Charge six: L/Cpl Larkin is charged with forcing two Iraqi detainees to undress in front of others. At the same time and place, Cpl Kenyon is charged with aiding and abetting L/Cpl Larkin to force the detainee to undress in front of others.

# Charge seven: Cpl Kenyon is charged with aiding and abetting an "unknown person or persons" to force two Iraqi detainees to simulate a sexual act.

# Charge eight: On a separate occasion "than that of the seventh charge", Cpl Kenyon is again charged with aiding and abetting an "unknown person or persons" to force two Iraqi detainees to simulate a sexual act.

# Charge nine: Cpl Kenyon is also charged with failing to report that soldiers under his command had forced two naked Iraqi detainees to simulate an "act of oral sex". Charge nine is offered by the court martial as "an alternative to charges six, seven and eight".

The inclusion of this last clause of charge 9 suggests to me that charges 6,7 & 8 are linked with each other.

As such they were getting them to undress to simulate oral sex with each other.

As far as the first two charges go, I think the problem is less that they were simulating punching and kicking, and more that they were taking photographs of it.

Just my 2p.

EDIT: Apparently I can't spell to save my life, ho hum.

shutupandshave

Jan 21, 2005, @ 11:40 AM

*sighs*

How about this for proof JAD, if they were allowed to have anything done to them - then nobody would get into trouble doing anything wrong to them... and since people are getting into trouble for it - they are not allowed to do anything to them.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IS THE LAW.

JADezimar

Jan 21, 2005, @ 07:20 PM

How about this for proof JAD, if they were allowed to have anything done to them - then nobody would get into trouble doing anything wrong to them... and since people are getting into trouble for it - they are not allowed to do anything to them.

The law is often times written and there are loopholes. This is true for every nation, You suas cannot put your own interpretation on a law you have to read it firsts, do yourself a favor and go read it, posts it here if you need it to be shown to you where it states that? If it does then I will concurr, until then your argument is pointless. Your argument would be no good in the court of law on many cases, what you feel or think is fair is often times no usually the case, not important.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IS THE LAW.

Show me how that applies? They were found without a uniform, shooting a gun at a soldier? What is there too prove?

Karmashock

Jan 22, 2005, @ 03:25 AM

Not gonna get involved in this one, however, just noticed something relating to what Karma was saying about bullshit charges:

The inclusion of this last clause of charge 9 suggests to me that charges 6,7 & 8 are linked with each other.

As such they were getting them to undress to simulate oral sex with each other.

As far as the first two charges go, I think the problem is less that they were simulating punching and kicking, and more that they were taking photographs of it.

Just my 2p.

EDIT: Apparently I can't spell to save my life, ho hum.
Taking photos is illegal if they are civilians or soliders... as they are neither you can do ANYTHING you want to them 'legally'... You could inject them with something to paralize them, disect them while alive, cook the pieces you cut off them, and make them eat themselves while having a horse f'k them in the ass.

That's what international law allows... these guys were humiliated by US, British, and now Danish forces... I don't really care... what we've done to these people shows restraint considering what we could have done.

We're not monsters... we're just feeling alone and have a big job infront of us.

Besides the photos were for the personal use of hte soldiers and not for media publication... The Geveva convention only prohibits the photographing of enemy POWs when you're using them for propoganda. As the people in the pictures are neither POWs nor being used for propoganda, there is no violation.

Read up on the law.

Love and Peace, Karmashock.

Burned

Jan 22, 2005, @ 05:07 PM

Taking photos is illegal if they are civilians or soliders... as they are neither you can do ANYTHING you want to them 'legally'... You could inject them with something to paralize them, disect them while alive, cook the pieces you cut off them, and make them eat themselves while having a horse f'k them in the ass.

That's what international law allows... these guys were humiliated by US, British, and now Danish forces... I don't really care... what we've done to these people shows restraint considering what we could have done.

We're not monsters... we're just feeling alone and have a big job infront of us.

Besides the photos were for the personal use of hte soldiers and not for media publication... The Geveva convention only prohibits the photographing of enemy POWs when you're using them for propoganda. As the people in the pictures are neither POWs nor being used for propoganda, there is no violation.

Read up on the law.

Love and Peace, Karmashock.

U do know they are human beings do u?How can u be so freaking sadic as to say that what the soldiers did wasnt bad.Even if they aint prisoners of wars, that doesnt give u the right to treat them like a shit.They are defending their country in whatever way they can.What i feel towards ur post cant be put into words.Ever heard of human rights? and u say ur there to fight tiranny so they can have human rights...

CELTIC_2X

Jan 22, 2005, @ 05:22 PM

That's just bullshit... seriously... who the fuck do you think you're fooling with that?

easy there i will try and find that article i didnt just make it up man easy.

Karmashock

Jan 22, 2005, @ 07:50 PM

U do know they are human beings do u?How can u be so freaking sadic as to say that what the soldiers did wasnt bad.Even if they aint prisoners of wars, that doesnt give u the right to treat them like a shit.They are defending their country in whatever way they can.What i feel towards ur post cant be put into words.Ever heard of human rights? and u say ur there to fight tiranny so they can have human rights...
The people we have are mostly foreigners (as in not Iraqis).

Review what you can do to different people during war.

Spies: anything you want.
Sappers (they sneak on to your side in civilian clothing and blow up bridges and stuff): anything you want.
Terrorists: anything you want.

All that was done to them was psychological. We didn't beat them, we didn't cut things off, we didn't in any way torture them physically.

We tried to break their pride. That's about it... we tried to humilate them into doing what we wanted.

Again, under international law, we can do ANYTHING to these people. They are not civilians whom are treated like human beings. These are ununiformed enemy agents and have ZERO rights.

If they want rights, all htey have to do is either wear something that distinquishes themselves at all times or stop fighting.

Choose. Either be a soldier, a civilian, or meat.
easy there i will try and find that article i didnt just make it up man easy.
There is no way what you said could be verified. How would anyone know whether that was true or not?

Furthermore, we hated the nazis and we really hated the imperial japanese.

I can assure that Americans aimed to kill. I doubt very much that the British aimed to miss with London in ruins. I doubt very much that the Nazis aimed to miss while being attacked from two sides at once. I doubt that the Russians aimed to miss when only one in three actually got to hold a rifle.

The only ones that I'm unsure about are the italians... but that's irrelevent to your claim.

Your claim is just wrong. Period.

allied56

Jan 22, 2005, @ 07:54 PM

you should see sdome of the things the iraqis do, if you think this is bad youve got another thing coming, imo they deserve all they get and if youve seen vwhat i have you will agree

CELTIC_2X

Jan 22, 2005, @ 08:25 PM

ur so dam agressive, more subconsciously i would imagin, and i am not claiming any thing, mearly stating a 'fact' as i bleaved it to be.

Karmashock

Jan 22, 2005, @ 09:53 PM

ur so dam agressive, more subconsciously i would imagin, and i am not claiming any thing, mearly stating a 'fact' as i bleaved it to be.
What ever you think of me is irrelevent.

You made a silly comment that was obviously wrong. I said it was wrong because it is.

That is all.

You were wrong, get over it.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

CELTIC_2X

Jan 22, 2005, @ 10:08 PM

social skills man learn some,

wernt a sily coment i read the fucking thing some were, was passing the info on,

dont start shit again.

stuff ur love and peace as well, celtic

Karmashock

Jan 22, 2005, @ 10:37 PM

Karmashock

Jan 22, 2005, @ 10:44 PM

Additional: Just to give you some flavor...
http://www.kilroywashere.org/003-Pages/03-0-HarmsWay.html
If you ever wondered what it was like to be a Marine in the battle on Saipan, this will make it clear. In one chilling paragraph, Bill Hoover puts you there and starts a series of unforgettable stories. Click on small pictures to get larger view.
-The Editor

About D Day plus 5 on Saipan, I was watching for Japanese soldiers along the beach that were sneaking in to give directions for artillery fire. I was sitting in the turret of a armored Amphib. About 2300 I saw the faint outline
of what appeared to be a Marine walking along the beach. There was no moon, and the only light was from a fire burning about a hundred yards away. Japanese soldiers had a habit of wearing U.S. Marine helmets and carrying a M1 when they could find them. In the dark they were hard to identify by a silhouette. When the guy got to about 50 feet of me, I asked the usual " Who goes there". The answer came back in perfect English. "ITS ME, GI JOE. A MARINE LIKE YOU". So I aimed about 8 inches below the outline of his helmet and shot him. The next morning there was one dead Japanese officer in the sand. I never heard of a Marine calling hiself G I Joe. I don't think I ever will.

Semper Fi
-Bill H.
aimed to miss :lol:

CELTIC_2X

Jan 22, 2005, @ 10:47 PM

Social skills? Think before you type. :lol:

If I said "lemmings invented the first tank", you'd say I was insane. You said something crazy, and I called you on it.

If you had just woken up at that point an realized it, then there would be no issue.

As before and always...

Love and Peace, Karmashock.

u called me on it in a rude way which was not nesisary and the fact that i read it some were and it was just out my head dosent meen u should act like i was,

was i rude b4? think b4 u type plz.

Karmashock

Jan 22, 2005, @ 10:52 PM

So if I said lemmings invented the first tank you'd respect that opinion?...

Seriously bro, we fought as hard as we could. Saying we aimed to miss is an insult to all sides.

CELTIC_2X

Jan 22, 2005, @ 10:58 PM

no its not man cool it,

u dont want to se a guys head explode do u?

not unless ur a pyschopath, which was the point i was makeing, i supose that 98% of soliders didnt want to ether, i wasnt saying that they were just shotting off in the air,

leave it man, god dam.

Karmashock

Jan 22, 2005, @ 11:04 PM

You're an american soldier fighting on a remote island against a merciless enemy. You've lost good friends to kamakazi fighters, booby traps, snipers, and several major attacks.

Your buddy is personally responsible for using the flame thrower on enemy tunnels and you're just a normal rifleman.

Do you aim to miss?

Get inside the head of a soldier. When the war is on you aim to kill... you do it because you were ordered to, because you're afraid, because it's expected of you by your friends... and after a while you do it out of anger.

Yes, you aim to kill.

CELTIC_2X

Jan 22, 2005, @ 11:12 PM

aye u do wat u have to do,

but in the back of ur head u dont want to blow his head off,

thats just human.

JADezimar

Jan 23, 2005, @ 01:38 AM

Looks like you guyz for the most part agree.

Karmashock

Jan 23, 2005, @ 04:51 AM

Burned

Jan 23, 2005, @ 01:23 PM

I think you're more likely to stop thinking of the enemy as human... I could post lots of journals and first hand accounts. They had a hard time getting them to morally deal with shooting someone in boot camp... but in the field, fear alone gets you to shoot first and ask questions later.

He has a rifle, you have a rifle... the person that thinks longer about it is dead.

Choose quickly.

Ever heard of sub conscious, even if ur thinking that the guy shoting at u is a bastard, u dont really want to do what ur about to do.OR why do u think that some soldiers after wars get nuts.

About the way u treat those ppl, even though they dont have an uniform, they are still human beings, if u cant agree on that, then u really need help(psycho).

Karmashock

Jan 23, 2005, @ 07:39 PM

Burned,
Is there any thing I could show you that would change your mind about what soldiers do in combat? Personal journals? First hand accounts? Interviews?

As to these people, they're on a moral level with spies. However, what have we done to them that is inhumane? We haven't tortured them physically and we haven't killed them.

Either of those options are well within our rights.

CELTIC_2X

Jan 23, 2005, @ 08:54 PM

Ever heard of sub conscious, even if ur thinking that the guy shoting at u is a bastard, u dont really want to do what ur about to do.OR why do u think that some soldiers after wars get nuts.

About the way u treat those ppl, even though they dont have an uniform, they are still human beings, if u cant agree on that, then u really need help(psycho).

wat i ment.

JADezimar

Jan 23, 2005, @ 09:01 PM

why do u think that some soldiers after wars get nuts.

Your kidding right? I have had friends shoot people they have not come back nuts. Most do not want to talk about it is all. Most people that come back nuts from wars have been involved in or seen far more horrific things than the possibility that one of there bullets had killed someone. Most military when there on the battlefeild do not look at the enemy as another human being. They are seen as an evil out to kill them. You ever been in a fight? It is similiar thing, even if you do not like hurting people, but when you got someone beating on you, you are gonna fight back and put a beating on him if possible.

Not everyone is completely incapable of killing. There is no reason they have to be psycho. Or are you saying that every person that has killed someone for raping there wife, or everyone that has killed someone for raping a child of theres and/or killing a child of theres is psycho? You guyz are being belligerent on this subject. Many people have deliberately killed on a revenge or basis of trying to make something right. Does not make them psycho.

If you do not feel like killing someone, that has murdered your entire family or done some undoable wrong to your loved ones. I would say your the psycho.

CELTIC_2X

Jan 23, 2005, @ 09:05 PM

and u think murders are sane ppl?

JADezimar

Jan 23, 2005, @ 09:15 PM

Your trying to tell me you would not want to murder someone that, Put your mother or sister or father or wife through hours of pain, maybe breaking 1 part of them at a time, slowly cutting them, spitting on them, pissing on them? You think it is more sane to let that person live and walk this planet to do it again? Your trying to say it is insane to want to see this person put down? Yes I am saying that in cases someone who kills someone is a sane person. Or those that want to can be sane. Maybe you should explain to me the difference between murderer and someone that kills someone.

Sorry Celtic what you view as a murderer gives little room for those that have to pull the handle for the electric chair. Or those in war. Your condemning billions of people through-out earths history, by saying killing is never justified.

I guess the next time were invaded we all will have to just sit back and watch our families die, and lose our freedom and country, becuase it would be insane to want to kill these invaders.

CELTIC_2X

Jan 23, 2005, @ 09:25 PM

mate i could kill u if u gave me a good reason,

this isnt my arguement i no ppl can kill without being a psycho,

but all i am sayting it is very hard 4 you to kill somebody,

its never easy, ever. thats all i ment all this other stuff i wasnt mentioning

JADezimar

Jan 23, 2005, @ 09:27 PM

Then why did you reply to me the firsts time? As you notice I was quoting burn, which means my response and that posts was more targeted at that quote.

CELTIC_2X

Jan 23, 2005, @ 09:31 PM

was just wondering wat u thought on the matter.

JADezimar

Jan 23, 2005, @ 09:37 PM

Cool. Glad to know your interested in other peoples ideas too.

CELTIC_2X

Jan 23, 2005, @ 09:40 PM

yea man, try to be open minded and w/e,

expand ur horizons and shit, lol

JADezimar

Jan 23, 2005, @ 09:41 PM

lol, ya I agree.

Karmashock

Jan 23, 2005, @ 10:10 PM

Holy shit Celtic... it took two hours at the NSA before I could decypher your posts. :P

Anyway, I could tell you a story about how a guy lost his whole platoon to a vietcong granade and then killed 14 vietcong with a bayonette... but you'd probably say he was psycho... oh well...

CELTIC_2X

Jan 23, 2005, @ 11:04 PM

hahahhahha,

i would just like to point out i am not a tard and can type full english,

i am just do my posts in text speak,

sorry.

Karmashock

Jan 24, 2005, @ 12:23 AM

So do people really have a problem with us putting underwear on the heads of terrorists?

Seriously... we're just making them feel like asses...

we're not torturing them with bamboo shoots or electro shocks... that's what the chinese do and the egyptians do the same thing... only they use reeds...

All we did was make them walk around naked and laugh at them... we're allowed to shoot them in the head. They're terrorists.

JADezimar

Jan 24, 2005, @ 12:30 AM

Im not saying what our people did was ok, But do the people that torture in other nations even get punished? No not unless we get ahold of them ourselves. I mean we let the guy that stole our technology for china walk. Our own people would be in prison. I do not understand that we punish our own people by far more than someone elses. Where as the same courtesy is not shown from other countries. Like from 1989 the christians are still locked up in china. Michael mckvaye got cained. We probably would of turned the kid over to singapore if it had happened here.

shutupandshave

Jan 24, 2005, @ 02:52 AM

Karma, please consider why you piss off everyone you speak too.

Karmashock

Jan 24, 2005, @ 06:04 AM

I don't piss everyone off...

I'm dealing openly and honestly with you. Either contribute to hte conversation or just don't post. It's pointless. I'm doing my best to represent my side and all you're doing is flaming.

Just stop. I asked some questions and you can either respond or not.

No more flaming.

shutupandshave

Jan 24, 2005, @ 10:58 AM

But do the people that torture in other nations even get punished? No not unless we get ahold of them ourselves.
If you follow the link at the beginning of the thread, you will notice that some British Servicemen are on trial for torture... so to answer your question, yes people from other nations get punished.

P.S. txt speak is irritating.

P.P.S. So you are, sorry Karma.

Karmashock

Jan 24, 2005, @ 11:07 AM

I don't think he was referring to coalition forces...

And please stop being intentionally offensive. It impresses no one and is beyond boring…

shutupandshave

Jan 24, 2005, @ 11:08 AM

Apologising for having a go at you is intentionally offensive now?

I'll remember not to apologise in future.

Karmashock

Jan 24, 2005, @ 11:13 AM

You know you're well beyond having 'a go' at me. If our relations improve for a time then perhaps we can exchange barbs. However, as it is now... just do you best to be polite as I will to you.

L&P, KS.

shutupandshave

Jan 24, 2005, @ 11:17 AM

Karma, how is our relationship going to improve when you attack me for apologising to you when I am in the wrong!?

BIack

Jan 24, 2005, @ 12:13 PM

Whoah....lots of intractable opinions here lol

About Celtic's original point, I think he may be referring to a recent study about warfare. The thoery goes that the majority of soldiers, altho they are consciously trying to survive, will subconsciously 'aim to miss'. The example used was not in WW2 or WW1, but Napoleonic Warfare. They took a group of men and armed them with the rifles of hte day and shot volley fire at some cutouts. The results were that against cutouts, the weapons were something like 25% more accurate then sources suggest.

Indeed, it has also been suggested by historians that had the Napoleonic era armies actually wanted to kill as many enemy as possible, they should have used Longbows, which were much more effective killers at that distance. Because of the 'indiscriminate' and 'non personal' method of firing up in a cloud, the subconsciene mind wouldnt figure. The rifles were used because of the sound and smoke to scare the enemy.

Im not venting an opinon on anything, just presenting this story as I read it for interest.

Burned

Jan 24, 2005, @ 06:06 PM

Of course that if u kill some1 ur not a psycho.I never said that.Look man, if ur in a war and there is some1 shoting at u, yes ur going to try to shot him, but in the back of ur head, u dont want to do this.

And Karma, a spy is a a human being, ive already stated my opinion on that and im not going to repeat it, ur country allows death penalty, in europe we dont, thats the main reason of why our opinions are different.If those soldiers tortured some1 even if they had a reason, by doing so, they are not much better than the ppl they are torturing.

JADezimar

Jan 24, 2005, @ 07:33 PM

But do the people that torture in other nations even get punished? No not unless we get ahold of them ourselves.

If you follow the link at the beginning of the thread, you will notice that some British Servicemen are on trial for torture... so to answer your question, yes people from other nations get punished.

Suas do I always have to be 100% clear so you cannot get a cheap shot in? Do you think I was complainig about brittain?

Karmashock

Jan 24, 2005, @ 09:18 PM

Im not venting an opinon on anything, just presenting this story as I read it for interest.
In volleys muskets are more accurate and likely to kill then long bows.

this is just a fact.

Furthermore, I don't know that you can psychoanalyize soldiers in a war so long ago.
=========================
And Karma, a spy is a a human being, ive already stated my opinion on that and im not going to repeat it, ur country allows death penalty, in europe we dont, thats the main reason of why our opinions are different.If those soldiers tortured some1 even if they had a reason, by doing so, they are not much better than the ppl they are torturing.
Spies have always been excuted... You forget that we are 'of' you. We are european in far more ways then we are not.

The Genvea convention specifically grants NO rights to spies, sappers, or terrorists. Why do you think that is? They give rights to ship wrecked sailors... they give rights to just about everyone... except those groups.

Furthermore, we are not treating them like less then human. We're putting underwear on their heads. Get over it.

Burned

Jan 24, 2005, @ 10:22 PM

JADezimar

Jan 24, 2005, @ 10:47 PM

I do not get all the sympathy for a person that rapes your mother. Then could turn around and do it too you too. Just does not make sense.

MightyDWC

Jan 24, 2005, @ 10:48 PM

http://www.strangeland.com/asp/show.asp?id=7610&seq=3&page=1&cat=8&gal=2&sort=&searchfor=&FType=
http://www.strangeland.com/asp/show.asp?id=7164&seq=16&page=1&cat=8&gal=2&sort=&searchfor=&FType=
http://www.strangeland.com/asp/show.asp?id=7145&seq=19&page=1&cat=8&gal=2&sort=&searchfor=&FType=
http://www.strangeland.com/asp/show.asp?id=7128&seq=20&page=1&cat=8&gal=2&sort=&searchfor=&FType=

The above 4 links are just a taste of the terrorist doing the same thing the the gaurds at Abu Grad and the brits are getting flak about. It's not alright for us to do it, but it's okay for them to do it, and us NOT get pissed off? Then i provide you with the following last link that will, in my feelings, show what should be done with those who use a religion as a shield to comment terrorist acts.

Apache 4TW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (http://www.strangeland.com/asp/show.asp?id=7178&seq=15&page=1&cat=8&gal=2&sort=&searchfor=&FType=)

JADezimar

Jan 24, 2005, @ 10:51 PM

I think the beheaders should get the same treatment they gave so many people.

Why do you think certain countries have so low of crime? Its fear of retaliation in a harsh way, or fear that the public at large will be able to retaliate.

For instance a Dutch country I cannot remember its name a large population of the country or its a mandate cannot remember which, are suppose to be carrying guns. They have low crime cuase a criminal fears for his life if he were to pull one out on someone.

Now I know that kinda wandered off the direct point I am trying to make, but my point is if all were gonna do is slap peoples wrists and tell them no. They will do what they have done again. If people have very little to lose for what they see right by there god they will have no problem carrying out cruel disgusting things. They dishearten our people with things like the images above. When you do such cruel acts to people in the name of allah that most human beings would not do. What makes you have the right to be treated like a human?

Burned

Jan 24, 2005, @ 11:00 PM

JADezimar

Jan 24, 2005, @ 11:03 PM

And Jad, sympathy?I dont aprove any sympathy for those ppl.Dont u get it that if u do what theyve done to u, ur dropping to their level and ur not better than him

So your saying that the mild shit our soliers and english soldiers did is comparable to what the sick fucks did in those videos?

And I will repeat its not dropping to there level, it is punishment. If you want to carry on with that kinda thinking we might as well not send anyone to prison, put anyone to death, or ever punish anyone.

Burned

Jan 24, 2005, @ 11:06 PM

So your saying that the mild shit our soliers and english soldiers did is comparable to what the sick fucks did in those videos?

And I will repeat its not dropping to there level, it is punishment. If you want to carry on with that kinda thinking we might as well not send anyone to prison, put anyone to death, or ever punish anyone.

Now with the last comparison ur making urself look stupid.Killing some1 is far worse than puting some1 into prison.There are different kind of punishments

JADezimar

Jan 24, 2005, @ 11:22 PM

Exactly.

So are you still comparing what our soldiers and the brittish soldiers did to what these people have been doing?

I said i think every human being should have those rights, no matter what they do(maybe with some extreme exceptions).IF u dont think this way, fine, but dont try to impose ur way of thinking to everyone else.

What is an extreme acception? These terrorists must not qualify?

MightyDWC

Jan 24, 2005, @ 11:38 PM

Burned, i never said "YOU", i said in essence "for those who think". I didn't say anyone's name. I was not singling one person out, so chill dude.

Karmashock

Jan 25, 2005, @ 12:59 AM

Ur not reading what im saying.Why do u keep bringing up the geneva convention?I said i think every human being should have those rights, no matter what they do(maybe with some extreme exceptions).IF u dont think this way, fine, but dont try to impose ur way of thinking to everyone else.

I'm not telling you how to do anything. You're telling "US" that WE"RE not supposed to do it! Stop pushing YOUR values on US. We are well within the Geneva convention so you can't legally bitch at us. If you want something else done, then put it up for a vote and see who signs.

Until then, accept that I'm going to put underwear on the heads of terrorists... it's what I do.

if i'm extra pissed off then I might get them to simulate oral sex with other terrorists.

Is that inhumane?... dude... any other nation would just straight shoot these fools in the head and pee on their miserable graves. :)

Karmashock

Jan 25, 2005, @ 01:35 AM

it just feels so right...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/Karmashock/Political/osama-underwear.jpg

MightyDWC

Jan 25, 2005, @ 02:32 AM

LMFAO

Karmashock

Jan 25, 2005, @ 04:19 AM

seriously... admit it... you'd do it too...

If that's wrong, I don't want to be right. :D

JADezimar

Jan 25, 2005, @ 04:29 AM

LOL

shutupandshave

Jan 25, 2005, @ 10:14 AM

You treat people like shit, they'll fly planes into your buildings, or explode dirty bombs in your cities.

We'll see how much you enjoy being within your rights then.

Karmashock

Jan 25, 2005, @ 10:26 AM

So the only way we can be safe is by bowing to Osama?

That kind of logic has NEVER worked... ever. Which makes sense considering you used circular logic to get there. It's a type of argument that's been invalid since Greeks wore togas...

You defeat your enemies or they eat you alive... That's a rule that rings true.

An example of where your logic goes if you just keep going with it:

Aif putting underwear on a guys head gets a plane flown into your financial district, then getting a plane flown into your financial district should get the enemy at least a nuke. And if you get a nuke dropped on you, then you can return that with not only genocide... but slow torturous genocide... I'd continue but the other side just died as painfully as humanly possible.

Circular logic is an example of what I'd call a dishonest argument... there are several that just dishonest... moral relativism among them.

shutupandshave

Jan 25, 2005, @ 10:30 AM

Okay...

Whatever, you carry on then. We'll see what happens shall we?

Karmashock

Jan 25, 2005, @ 10:38 AM

Yeah we will... there will be an election on Saturday or Sunday I believe...

The democrats get more and more bitter in the US as all their little predictions of doom just never happen... they cling on to smaller and smaller scraps and get louder instead of clearer.

I should hope you don't go the same way. Should the US triumph and bring freedom to that dark corner of the world, what would your reaction be?

if the US never took these great blows you keep alluding to, what then of your theory?

Will you repent?... will you take your ideas back and admit that you were wrong?

Under what conditions will you admit fault? I can name my conditions.

shutupandshave

Jan 25, 2005, @ 10:47 AM

I should hope you don't go the same way. Should the US triumph and bring freedom to that dark corner of the world, what would your reaction be?
I think the US will eventually triumph, but at what cost?

My predictions are turning out pretty well at the moment. No WMD, EU developing ties with China, Allies in Iraq for a long time. Even to the point where I say things like "people in Europe think the US are becoming fascists" and I am told it's not true, then a week later some German minister says the same thing...

In fact, I have been right too often, I should be wrong pretty soon - so lets say that the election is a dismal failure and people think the whole thing was a farce, and fighting breaks out some more. The Allies have to stay.

I am not at all convinced this is going to happen, but I would quite like it to NOT happen, and it's about time I was wrong - so lets hope I am, and everyone can live happily ever after :)

Karmashock

Jan 25, 2005, @ 10:54 AM

Repeat: Under what conditions would you admit that you were wrong?

shutupandshave

Jan 25, 2005, @ 11:05 AM

If the US fails completely in Iraq over the next 5 years... then I will be wrong.

If there are no more major terrorist attacks on the US in the next 10 years then I will be wrong.

Karmashock

Jan 25, 2005, @ 11:19 AM

No predictions about hatred towards the US?

What about this alliance with china? I doubt it will go anywhere... only the French have the blind stupidity to make a deal like that... and they're not the EU despite their best efforts.

shutupandshave

Jan 25, 2005, @ 12:19 PM

About hatred towards the US?
What do you mean?

I am not sure the alliance with China will amount to anything either... I think there is going to be some dirty shit coming out of China in the next few years - some evidence of some really nasty goings on. I think that'll cause the EU to take a step back.

MightyDWC

Jan 25, 2005, @ 02:40 PM

Exactly, look at the people they are arresting in boston and texas who are plotting to explode a dirty bomb in Boston. Chinese guys. But to be correct they are "supposedlly" working for Al-Queda

shutupandshave

Jan 25, 2005, @ 02:44 PM

And so the US has a new enemy - and Chinese people will turn up in all kinds of places being the ones that planted the bomb, or pulled the trigger. I wonder if the Chinese government is going to be in league with Al-Q?

Nobody will stop to think "hang on, why are the Chinese people doing this, and why weren't they doing it 2 years ago"

MVB

Jan 25, 2005, @ 02:51 PM

Chinese individuals have been engaging in terrorist attacks on a number of nations for a number of years, since pre-ww2 times, so I don't know what you are talking about saying they weren't doing it 2 years ago.

shutupandshave

Jan 25, 2005, @ 03:12 PM

I keep deleting things because it's all incredibly sarcastic.

http://www.sundayherald.com/43523
Scary stuff

Exactly what terrorism did the Chinese partake in two years ago?

Karmashock

Jan 26, 2005, @ 01:26 AM

As to the chinese using up power... they have to pay for it... just like everyone else... our oil reserves are pretty good at this point... we're making a point of draining the middle east first... which leaves russia as the primary oil source out of western control... not a big problem... the europeans have more barganing chips to trade with teh russians and the US can put some interesting types of pressure on them if we need to...

world energy costs will continue to rise with demand... but not hte end of the world.

People that can't think in large numbers shouldn't worry about it... large numbers just confuse some people. The trick is not to think in whole numbers but in proportions. In that sense it becomes very clear how secure our position is.

MVB

Jan 26, 2005, @ 03:38 AM

Turns out it was a false alarm. There were no Chinese terrorists planning anything, working for Al-Qaeda, etc.

shutupandshave

Jan 26, 2005, @ 03:49 AM

I dont doubt there has been Chinese terrorism in the last 50 years, but I do object to the implication that there has been proportionately more than in any other country.

I was merely pointing out that I worry the Chinese are going to get scapegoated... a worry which you managed to confirm pretty quickly.

Karmashock

Jan 26, 2005, @ 04:13 AM

... how much english or french terrorism has there been?

are the swiss prone to terrorism?

Why do you think the chinese are on that SHORT list of people prone to terrorism?

shutupandshave

Jan 26, 2005, @ 04:16 AM

There are English terrorists, the swiss, probably...

It's just the fact that you get some nasty people in a country - and they move off, wear another badge and use it as an excuse to hurt people. It's not state sponsored terrorism, it's just people from that country being nasty.

I also think we were talking about people that commit terrorism, not those on the receiving end.

Karmashock

Jan 26, 2005, @ 04:52 AM

"some" or "one" terrorist(ism) doesn't mean all are equal...

You have to note that some cultures seem unusally prone to terrorism.

shutupandshave

Jan 26, 2005, @ 11:52 AM

prone to producing terrorists, or being terrorised?

I agree though - the middle east has always been a hot bed for terrorism.

edit:
Actually, I would say that it is not so much countries that have the trend, but cultures. There is a lot of terrorism in part of Africa too, and almost always it's because there is some half-baked religious/fascist nut in charge.

Karmashock

Jan 26, 2005, @ 01:18 PM

Both prone and to... China is not prone to terrorism... it kills that sort of thing... but it does generate such people... same deal iwth the more oppressive regemes in hte mid east... their whole villege would be slaughtered if they did it in their own country... but they can do it all day in freer countries.

shutupandshave

Jan 26, 2005, @ 04:41 PM

Hmm, I think terrorists are just murderers with a cause.

Your oklahoma guy was a terrorist, and if he lived in Afghanistan would have been a full blown Jihad AK weilding nutjob... point being that all countries produce people like that - they just tend to congregate where the fighting is. There's been numerous British people found having changed their name to Muhammed or something, and taken up arms. I am sure there are Americans that have done similar.

Karmashock

Jan 26, 2005, @ 04:55 PM

Most of our muslims are not radical...

if there is a problem then we have old but effective methods of dealing with the threat... we won't be proud of ourselves... but if it comes down to survival, then it will happen.

JADezimar

Jan 26, 2005, @ 08:08 PM

Yes all nations, have a few nutjobs. Yes that oklahoma guy id consider a terrrorists, but I think the point is in proportions who is creating the mosts?

shutupandshave

Jan 27, 2005, @ 11:40 AM

Who knows who is creating the most.

We know where most of them hang out, but we dont know who is producing the most terrorists. I dont think it's something you can know.

Karmashock

Jan 27, 2005, @ 12:30 PM

... Give me a break... seriously... The Swiss aren't known for it because they produce damn near zero.

The sauds are known for it because they produce tons.

shutupandshave

Jan 27, 2005, @ 01:19 PM

So the saudi's produce the most? Not the Iranians? Not the Columbians? Not the Nigerians?

Yeah we can point some fingers at some countries that seem to be producing more than others - but we're making assumptions.

Jad asked which country produces the most terrorists, I was just trying to explain to him that we cant know for sure... if you have evidence to the contrary then go for it.

Karmashock

Jan 27, 2005, @ 01:33 PM

Nope... I am not making assumptions. I'm making generalizations.

If I put two people next to each other and say "one is taller then the other", then I'm not making an assumption. I'm just not being specific... he could be therefore a tiny bit taller... or a great deal taller.

To bring this back to the context we're talking about.

Some nations, whos names are known and noted for this, produce a LOT of terrorists and destabilize most of their neighbors and in some cases teh whole world.

Other nations, whos names are known and noted for this, cause basically no problems and are generally left to themselves the world over.

shutupandshave

Jan 27, 2005, @ 03:51 PM

Yes you can, but Jad asked "which country produces the most", not "are there countries that produce more".

I agree, there ARE countries that produce more, but going back to the original post - which country produces the most.

you're welcome to answer if you can back it up, but if not, we'll go back to the "we dont know who is producing the most terrorists" theory I had.

Karmashock

Jan 27, 2005, @ 04:23 PM

I don't really care which one specific country produces the most.

I want to identify a group of countries that produce way more then anyone else.

Said nations are known to all. I will not waste my time going through it all... we know which culture are producing them. They must be nullified.

shutupandshave

Jan 27, 2005, @ 04:30 PM

I am just objecting to the fact I said "you cant tell which country produces the most terrorists" and you said "give me a break - bleh bleh bleh".

You agree now, you cant tell which country produces the most terrorists? (emphasis on country, not countries)

Karmashock

Jan 27, 2005, @ 05:18 PM

it's not a competition... you don't win an award...

However, if I cared, I could easily generate one nation that produced the most.

Would you accept that?... 50/50 on that... but I'm sure there is one nation that produces significantly more from one year to the next.

The point is, WHICH nations have a problem? The US has a problem as a target, not a generator.

We can respond to that two ways... we can either make ourselves not a target by retreating or placating the enemy as europe would have us do.

or we can annihilate the threat.

Option two is the only one we can accept. We hate retreat... we really really really hate it. And it would be bad for the world if we did it anyway.

we are not backing down to these thugs... They wanted to get rough, and now they're seeing how professionals do it. No, not hurt people… they think they can intimidate us into submission… we’re responding by taking their will to fight away… and in the nicest way possible.

shutupandshave

Jan 27, 2005, @ 06:09 PM

As I said, there is no country that is the definite generator of the most terrorists.

I dont think you can EVER completely annihilate terrorism. EVER.

The fact you say you are not going to rest until you do, means to me - you wont rest.

There will always be terrorists, the US will just reclassify what it means to be a terrorist if it has too.

Karmashock

Jan 27, 2005, @ 06:49 PM

I don't consider the odd nut bar to be what we're fighting. We're fighting 'organized' radical islamic terrorism.

the organization can be destroyed in the same way that the IRA is dying. England doesn't get attacked by Ireland anymore... and in time the terrorist groups will grow old and die.

you might still get some jack ass now and again... but he'll be a loner with no friends and a degree in chemistry.

JADezimar

Jan 27, 2005, @ 09:35 PM

My posts above that said mosts, was the wrong word. I really did mean to leave it at proportion.

shutupandshave

Jan 28, 2005, @ 12:40 PM

and in time the terrorist groups will grow old and die.
No, they move on to other causes. Train up new terrorists in different region. There Irish terrorists may be dying out, but they're legacy is going to live on in different causes.

Karmashock

Jan 28, 2005, @ 01:32 PM

The people they are training would be terrorists anyway. All the Irish are doing is making them slightly better at it... I don't consider that a problem and neither do you.

Kill the culture of terrorism and terrorism dies in that region. If it crops up somewhere else, then it would have anyway, and you have to kill it there too.

By allowing Ireland to go independent and have a democratic government, the problem is solved.

The US is NOT the force of tyranny in the Middle east. The local leaders are...

L&P, KS.