| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
I thought
It's incredible and sad. I just saw the replay when the marine shot the
unarmed, wounded guy... I don't blame the marine. I blame BushCo. Of ours, 38 dead, 320 wounded so far with no end in sight. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com OzOne wrote in message ... I thought US soldiers never committed war crimes! Joe told me thay are salt of the earth and would never do such a thing. Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
OzOne wrote in message ...
I thought US soldiers never committed war crimes! Joe told me thay are salt of the earth and would never do such a thing. Based on his own experience in our military, he's honestly correct. I doubt that any sailor on any noncombatant US support ship ever committed a war crime. So, in his 'world' they do not and men like Kerry who say they do are damn liars. Also much depends on definitions. If a suicide bomber blows up a school he's a terrorist and his act an atrocious war crime but if a 500 lb bomb hits a school and kills the same number of kids then 'that's war' and the dead are 'collateral damage'. The outgunned use that attitude to their advantage. One of them can fire on a powerful opponant from a neutral or even pro-american crowd causing their well armed opponant to machine gun the crowd, thus creating 1000s of new terrorists. And the beat goes on ..... |
"Jonathan Gayz" wrote in message ...
It's incredible and sad. I just saw the replay when the marine shot the unarmed, wounded guy... I don't blame the marine. I blame BushCo. Of ours, 38 dead, 320 wounded so far with no end in sight. Did you know that marine was shot the day before? And since you were not there... you do not know what or why. Maybe the insurgent terrorist had a gernade in his hand, or a pistol. you say unarmed but I saw many weapons all over the place. If the Marine did something wrong then he will pay for it. Unlike the guy who chopp off heads our troops will be held accountable. So stuff it in back in your mangina gayboy. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailcrapnow.com OzOne wrote in message ... I thought US soldiers never committed war crimes! What.... your now judge and jury? Joe told me thay are salt of the earth and would never do such a thing. I did.. Your a Liar. Even John Kerry admits jumping off his boat and chasing down a kid and shooting him in the back in the heat of a firefight. And he's a highly decorated war hero. Sometimes it's kill or be killed. And until your in a heated battle where you may die any second then you have no opinion worth listening to. Joe Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
Hey fag boy, I did know. That's still no excuse for shooting someone who is
injured and isn't a threat. You must be one heck of a war hero. I don't think the marine should pay. BushCo should pay, since he put the marine in harms way for no good reason. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Joe" wrote in message om... "Jonathan Gayz" wrote in message ... It's incredible and sad. I just saw the replay when the marine shot the unarmed, wounded guy... I don't blame the marine. I blame BushCo. Of ours, 38 dead, 320 wounded so far with no end in sight. Did you know that marine was shot the day before? And since you were not there... you do not know what or why. Maybe the insurgent terrorist had a gernade in his hand, or a pistol. you say unarmed but I saw many weapons all over the place. If the Marine did something wrong then he will pay for it. Unlike the guy who chopp off heads our troops will be held accountable. So stuff it in back in your mangina gayboy. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailcrapnow.com OzOne wrote in message ... I thought US soldiers never committed war crimes! What.... your now judge and jury? Joe told me thay are salt of the earth and would never do such a thing. I did.. Your a Liar. Even John Kerry admits jumping off his boat and chasing down a kid and shooting him in the back in the heat of a firefight. And he's a highly decorated war hero. Sometimes it's kill or be killed. And until your in a heated battle where you may die any second then you have no opinion worth listening to. Joe Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
OzOne wrote in message ... I thought US soldiers never committed war crimes! Joe told me thay are salt of the earth and would never do such a thing. Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. Not making excuses for these guys, but it's to be expected. Under the circumstances, they're exercising a lot of restraint, for the most part. John Cairns |
Dave,
Call me on it if you must. I would like to point out a few thing that nobody has said anything about. The Marines had to invade a Mosque. The enemy that was shooting at them were in the Mosque. If you look at the film you will see weapons all over the floor. A very short time before the incident happened, these very same weapons were being used against these same Marines. They were taking cheap shot at the Marines from inside the Mosque, where they shouldn't have been with weapons.The Marine entered and were still actively looking for enemy. One marine was trigger happy and he shot an enemy laying with dead bodies. He may have made a mistake. The Marine are right now investigating. An rightfully so. However, let's not rush to judgement. I'm not sure, under the circumstance that I wouldn't have pulled off a shot, if I was looking for enemies and seen a supposedly dead body move. So, call me if you must, but call me after you look at all the evidence. You're a Lawyer, isn't that what you have been taught to do? Don't rush to judgement! Ole Thom |
Dave,
Call me on it if you must. I would like to point out a few thing that nobody has said anything about. The Marines had to invade a Mosque. The enemy that was shooting at them were in the Mosque. If you look at the film you will see weapons all over the floor. A very short time before the incident happened, these very same weapons were being used against these same Marines. They were taking cheap shot at the Marines from inside the Mosque, where they shouldn't have been with weapons.The Marine entered and were still actively looking for enemy. One marine was trigger happy and he shot an enemy laying with dead bodies. He may have made a mistake. The Marine are right now investigating. An rightfully so. However, let's not rush to judgement. I'm not sure, under the circumstance that I wouldn't have pulled off a shot, if I was looking for enemies and seen a supposedly dead body move. So, call me if you must, but call me after you look at all the evidence. You're a Lawyer, isn't that what you have been taught to do? Don't rush to judgement! Ole Thom |
I'm not talking about the acts, Dave, I'm talking about different
response to similar acts |
I'm not talking about the acts, Dave, I'm talking about different
response to similar acts |
John,
Thank God there are people like you who can look at the situation in a reasonable way. There may be hope for the group yet! Ole Thom |
Dave,
You condemn Ganz view,which I'll not defend, but you say nothing about Oz's who has already labelled the Marine a War Criminal. Do you consider that fair judgement? Dave, I wonder if we'll hear the same cries of indignation for the death of the Care worker who was killed by the Terrorist *******s! There was certainly no mistaking her status. Ole Thom |
In article ,
Dave wrote: On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:55:03 -0800, (Thom Stewart) said: So, call me if you must, but call me after you look at all the evidence. You're a Lawyer, isn't that what you have been taught to do? Don't rush to judgement! I didn't mean to suggest the contrary, Thom. Just noting the difference between relevant argument and the Ganz game of trying to change the subject in lieu of argument. Sort of like what you're attempting to do? Got it. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Dave wrote: On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:40:27 -0500, Capt. Neal® said: I wonder why you and the other pacifist ilk. You've been away too long, Neal. Hey Neal, looks like you've got another potential boyfriend... -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
Oz,
You're sure he was un-armed and injured? I've seen no conformation of what you are saying. If this is true there is no need for an investigation. Oz, so far everything is alligations but you have already made up your mind. Anything less is a lie, correct? Ole Thom |
Jon,
I have no idea how the death is being handled in the Islamic Press. Do you? Ole Thom |
Thom,I'm a realist
By whose definition? The popular vote in your Country? The vote in the USA? You will pardon me if I reserve my acceptance of your definition. Ole Thom |
OzOne wrote in message ... (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for." Oz, The Geneva Convention was not intended to protect non-Americans. Regards Donal -- |
If what you say is true they fall under the Geneva Convention and
responsible for their War Crimes |
"Donal" wrote in message ...
OzOne wrote in message ... (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for." Oz, The Geneva Convention was not intended to protect non-Americans. Hey you non-American losers, The Geneva convention was not intended to protect terrorist. The purpose of the Geneva convention was to protect innocent civilians by distingushing clearly between combatants and non-combatants. This is why the convention requires soldiers to wear uniforms that distinquish them from the civilain population. The insurgent terrorist fighting from inside the mosque did not wear distinctive signs, insignias, symbols or uniforms. They were just plain out murdering thugs who deserve what they got. Regards, Joe Regards Donal -- |
"Joe" wrote in message . .. "Donal" wrote in message ... OzOne wrote in message ... (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for." Oz, The Geneva Convention was not intended to protect non-Americans. Hey you non-American losers, The Geneva convention was not intended to protect terrorist. The purpose of the Geneva convention was to protect innocent civilians by distingushing clearly between combatants and non-combatants. How do you distinguish between combatants and non-combatants when you are dropping bombs onto a residential area? This is why the convention requires soldiers to wear uniforms that distinquish them from the civilain population. The insurgent terrorist fighting from inside the mosque did not wear distinctive signs, insignias, symbols or uniforms. They were just plain out murdering thugs who deserve what they got. Nobody is worrying about the insurgent terrorists. In fact, we are applauding the deaths of terrorists. We are worried that killing young children creates more terrorists. I suspect that you get 10 new terrorists for every innocent civilian killed. If the innocent civilian is under 10 years old, then you probably get 100 new terrorists. regards Donal -- |
Oz,
Have you ever fired up close to an enemy? What the hell kind of a stupid question was that? Does a Sonar operator on a Sub ever get a chance to even see the enemy he locates, does a Helo Gunner ever see the enemy up close, does a driver of a Bradley ever get to see the ******* Suicide Bomber that kills him. What the hell kind of war do you think they are fighting over there? If they didn't hide in Mosque, shooting at them they wouldn't have the fight them out. If they didn't hide with dead bodies they wouldn't have to be shot at when they move, by a solder that was shot in the face just the day before. Get real; Realist. Open your eyes and mind. Ole Thom ****, I give up Oz. It has truly sunk in that you DON'T WANT TO UNDERSTAND. I won't try anymore. |
In article , Donal
wrote: "Joe" wrote in message . .. "Donal" wrote in message ... OzOne wrote in message ... (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for." Oz, The Geneva Convention was not intended to protect non-Americans. Hey you non-American losers, The Geneva convention was not intended to protect terrorist. The purpose of the Geneva convention was to protect innocent civilians by distingushing clearly between combatants and non-combatants. How do you distinguish between combatants and non-combatants when you are dropping bombs onto a residential area? Same way the British & Germans did in WW2. Or the Irish......... PDW |
Forget it, Thom. Oz is clueless. He's never heard of survival of the
fittest. He'd rather side with a terrorist than with a patriot. He is a pathetic mental midget worthy of nothing but scorn. CN "Thom Stewart" wrote in message ... Oz, Have you ever fired up close to an enemy? What the hell kind of a stupid question was that? Does a Sonar operator on a Sub ever get a chance to even see the enemy he locates, does a Helo Gunner ever see the enemy up close, does a driver of a Bradley ever get to see the ******* Suicide Bomber that kills him. What the hell kind of war do you think they are fighting over there? If they didn't hide in Mosque, shooting at them they wouldn't have the fight them out. If they didn't hide with dead bodies they wouldn't have to be shot at when they move, by a solder that was shot in the face just the day before. Get real; Realist. Open your eyes and mind. Ole Thom ****, I give up Oz. It has truly sunk in that you DON'T WANT TO UNDERSTAND. I won't try anymore. |
In article ,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Capt._Neal=AE?= wrote: Forget it, Thom. Oz is clueless. He's never heard of survival of the fittest. He'd rather side with a terrorist than with a patriot. He is a pathetic mental midget worthy of nothing but scorn. CN Thom, you should listen to Neal. He knows a lot about being a mental midget. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
"Donal" wrote in message ... We are worried that killing young children creates more terrorists. I suspect that you get 10 new terrorists for every innocent civilian killed. If the innocent civilian is under 10 years old, then you probably get 100 new terrorists. Every war has collateral damage. So what. We go out of our way to minimize it. So what if 100 new terrorists are created? They will serve a good purpose and will give our brave soldiers something to destroy. I'd say the odds are pretty bad for the terrorists so far. We lost a couple dozen fighting men (may these heroes rest in peace) while the terrorist rabble lost thousands (may they rot in Hell with the rest of the swine). Remember, peace only comes about after the utter and total defeat of the enemy. I could care less if we wiped out millions of terrorist. It is our sacred duty If I weren't so darned old I'd be doing the shooting myself. To quote the worthy Democrat presidential candidate. "Bring it on!" To quote our beloved President. "Let's roll!" To quote the typical liberal, pacifist weenie, "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, MaaaaMa". CN |
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:41:13 -0000, "Donal"
wrote this crap: How do you distinguish between combatants and non-combatants when you are dropping bombs onto a residential area? That's easy. The combatants are shooting at you. Remember, when shooting at running civilians, don't lead them too much. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
"Donal" wrote in message How do you distinguish between combatants and non-combatants when you are dropping bombs onto a residential area? You must have been a real fan of WWII. Max |
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message In article , Donal vomited: How do you distinguish between combatants and non-combatants when you are dropping bombs onto a residential area? Same way the British & Germans did in WW2. Or the Irish......... In short, they didn't. No one ever claimed war was neat or pretty. Max |
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:19:26 +1100, OzOne wrote this crap:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:06:35 -0500, Horvath scribbled thusly: On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:41:13 -0000, "Donal" wrote this crap: How do you distinguish between combatants and non-combatants when you are dropping bombs onto a residential area? That's easy. The combatants are shooting at you. Remember, when shooting at running civilians, don't lead them too much. But be careful here, the unarmed ones run just a little faster. There's no need to lead them when you're shooting them in the back. Just ask John Kerry. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Correct me if I'm wrong... but wasn't the "American" army in plain civilian
clothing during the revolution? Didn't the British refer to them as rebels and possibly terrorists. Weren't the British easier to target due to their uniforms? Didn't the American soldiers hide among the population? Now I might be all wrong about this.... but in case I'm not.... maybe the Arabs have studied your own successful revolt against an oppressive regime in an attempt to attain their goals. BTW - regarding "coalitions"... didn't the British get other countries to aid in it's war on the Americans? Just askin'... CM "Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... Forget it, Thom. Oz is clueless. He's never heard of survival of the fittest. He'd rather side with a terrorist than with a patriot. He is a pathetic mental midget worthy of nothing but scorn. CN "Thom Stewart" wrote in message ... Oz, Have you ever fired up close to an enemy? What the hell kind of a stupid question was that? Does a Sonar operator on a Sub ever get a chance to even see the enemy he locates, does a Helo Gunner ever see the enemy up close, does a driver of a Bradley ever get to see the ******* Suicide Bomber that kills him. What the hell kind of war do you think they are fighting over there? If they didn't hide in Mosque, shooting at them they wouldn't have the fight them out. If they didn't hide with dead bodies they wouldn't have to be shot at when they move, by a solder that was shot in the face just the day before. Get real; Realist. Open your eyes and mind. Ole Thom ****, I give up Oz. It has truly sunk in that you DON'T WANT TO UNDERSTAND. I won't try anymore. |
"Donal" wrote in message How do you distinguish between combatants and non-combatants when you are dropping bombs onto a residential area? Now look here Donal... they aren't called "Smart Bombs" for nothing you know! CM |
"Capt. Mooron" wrote
Correct me if I'm wrong... but wasn't the "American" army in plain civilian clothing during the revolution? Didn't the British refer to them as rebels and possibly terrorists. Weren't the British easier to target due to their uniforms? Didn't the American soldiers hide among the population? Yup! And the Brits responded by burning towns and plantations, firing into crowds and hanging suspects - adding to rebel strength every time. Them who forget history are indeed doomed to relive it. BTW - regarding "coalitions"... didn't the British get other countries to aid in it's war on the Americans? Naw, just the Indians .... (c: |
"Vito" wrote in message ... "Capt. Mooron" wrote BTW - regarding "coalitions"... didn't the British get other countries to aid in it's war on the Americans? Naw, just the Indians .... (c: H-m-m-m... thanks for correcting me. I was under the impression they had some German forces aiding them. Didn't those damned Frenchies help the Americans back then? CM |
In article ,
Horvath wrote: There's no need to lead them when you're shooting them in the ass. Just ask my boyfriend. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
"Capt. Mooron" wrote
Correct me if I'm wrong... but wasn't the "American" army in plain civilian clothing during the revolution? Nope. The colonies went to some trouble & expense to get uniforms for their militia, and so did the Continental Congress. Of course, contracting to uniform suppliers was one way of tossing a profitable bone to the politicians buddies. http://www2.powercom.net/~rokats/contarmy.html ... Didn't the British refer to them as rebels and possibly terrorists. Yes. There was a good deal of what we would call 'terrorism' on both sides. By this I mean deliberately killing unarmed civilians, partially to steal food & military supplies. and partially to deprive the enemy of support. Also, there was a fair bit of private revenge killing. If you want to read a really hair-raising story, check out the biography of David Fanning, from right near here. He was not much interested in politics which got him labelled a Tory (loyalist). Some revolutionaries killed his family and burned his house. So he went on a long series of reprisal raids, eventually recruiting a regiment of Americans loyal to the crown and fighting to the bitter end. ... Weren't the British easier to target due to their uniforms? Umm, yeah, prob'ly. Somebody should have told them that bright red is not good camoflage. ... Didn't the American soldiers hide among the population? Not to any significant extent that I know of, unless you mean militia men going home to their families after their service was up. Vito wrote: Yup! Sigh... ... And the Brits responded by burning towns and plantations, firing into crowds and hanging suspects - adding to rebel strength every time. That wasn't a "response" that was British policy from the git-go. There was a low-level insurgency (ie resistance to paying taxes) in many parts of the British Empire at all times, often flaring up. The British burned most of the towns in coastal NC, and did a few more during the War of 1812. ... Them who forget history are indeed doomed to relive it. Indeed. BTW - regarding "coalitions"... didn't the British get other countries to aid in it's war on the Americans? Naw, just the Indians .... (c: Kind of depends on how you classify "allies." None on the scale that France helped the U.S. though. DSK |
"Joe" wrote in message Well several ways Donal. Most of todays bombs used in urban areas are either Laser guided or GPS guided. Some are still wire guided. Yeah!!! I love those precion laser guided Cluster Bombs!! We have airplanes circling over the battle field that can see the flea on a camel jockey. .... yet can't make out an entire company of Canadian Allies on live practice despite being told as much by HQ! Then there are space borne optics just as capable including IR and UV and Lidar. That can pin point non existant WMDs... with astonhising inaccuracy! We have other ways.. buts thats secret and if I told you.. Id have to kill you. That's okay Joe... the cat is out of the bag... we already know damn well that the "Missle Shield System" couldn't hit a Hot Air Balloon even if guided in by a GPS let alone any missle that might be fired. You guys want us to agree to that POS in our Arctic... Bwahahahahahahahahahaaa!!! High Tech Weapons in U.S. hands............ it's like giving a loaded gun to a Monkey! CM |
"Capt. Mooron" wrote
... yet can't make out an entire company of Canadian Allies on live practice despite being told as much by HQ! There's a lot of hockey fans in the military,eh. ;) |
ALLAH IS GREAT, ALLAH IS GOOD! Death to the INFIDELS! The US troops are
the Devils! Oz has converted me! Ole Thom |
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... "Capt. Mooron" wrote ... yet can't make out an entire company of Canadian Allies on live practice despite being told as much by HQ! There's a lot of hockey fans in the military,eh. ;) Must be..... but considering the aim of most pilots it was a fluke shot. Didn't they get medals for that or sumthin'?? CM |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:46 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com