wallflour Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by Drunk Unless we become an isolationist state, terrorism is something we'll have to deal with. We were isolationist... then World Wars I and II happened Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by chrishaolin I understand that the US is part of UN, I was speaking of Bush's decision to go over the UN's head in order to take military action against Hussein's regime. And for someone so quick to point out the spelling errors of others, you might want to run the word disociate through your spell checker.. i don't use a spell checker...end ai no haow two wright...thenk u verry mutch...(i fixed it thanks...)and my point is still the same...u.s. gov't wants to go in alone (or dominate the war effort) so that they can secure points of interests with the troops...but for the non-profit work, they are ready to bring in the u.n....Originally posted by chrishaolin You might have misunderstood the point of my post. I agree that the oil belongs to the people of Iraq. I was pointing out that the UN's interest in the rebuilding of Iraq might have something to do with the chance to land contracts for their oil companies. i didn't misunderstand your post...it is very clear, and resonates perfectly with what the other pro-war (most of) are saying:the oil is the prize...it is there for the taking... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by frenchbread and it's funny how we choose the eggs we break:palestine hotel...all bombed on the same day...and all were mistakes... the hotel wasnt bombed...it was tank shell that was fired, AFTER our forces were taking fire from snipers...get ur facts straight!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by dnice35 you are talking out of your ass...... personally I dont see oil as a prize, on a personal level seing those people liberated is my prize, regardless of whatever non-sense I said in the past. but as far as france is concerned, their change of tune on the Iraq issue goes to prove their govt is ran by opportunist.the US liberates Iraq and all of a sudden France/Germany/Rusia want to go in and "help" the people..... where were they when these people were getting massacred, used as human shield, tortured, etc.... how am i talking out of my ass?...i'm repeating what you guys said...and you can't just dismiss what you said in the past...and it's not all of a sudden...regardless of all the "funny" jokes fox's idiots may throw at each other, france/germany/russia had the same stance all along...no u.s. alone...that goes for the war, and that goes for the reconstruction (especially the reconstruction)...and don't tell me "where were they...?"...where were the u.s.?...they were just as much part of the u.n. for those last 12 years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by mrmatas2277 the hotel wasnt bombed...it was tank shell that was fired, AFTER our forces were taking fire from snipers...get ur facts straight!! my facts straight...please...i don't care wether it was a bomb from a plane or a tank...and for your information:there was no sniper...so you get your facts straight... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by frenchbread international law says that the only time country A is allowed to pre-emptively strike against country B, is when country B poses an clear and immediate threat to the national security of country A... correct. Now, knowing this, consider our move towards Iraq as an invocation of said law. By constantly stalling their weapon disarmament programs for the past 12 years and failling to cooperate with inspectors [until the last minute], the Iraqis have proven themselves to be unreliable and shady. We do not like "unreliable" and "shady" to define someone who has used chemical weapons indiscriminately in the past, and is suspected to still posess them, as well as sympathize with known anti-american terrorist groups.(remember the cash bounty given to suicide bombers' families.)With that in mind, it is possible to consider said regime a threat to our national security, and the longer that they refuse to comply fully with the disarmament treaty that they signed, the higher the chance we would consider them a hostile state and therefore, a threat. Sure, it's not the strongest argument to invade a country, but it isn't too difficult to see how it can be used as an excuse.Originally posted by frenchbread we spilled more of our blood than they did (friendly fire and accidents)...see then you're not doing it for the best of the iraqi people(your neighbour's family), but for your own best...(like i've been saying all along)... I don't see how our friendly fire and accidents link to our intentions of "why we did this war in the first place." Actually, i don't understand the majority of your statement or where it's headed. If you could rephrase it, maybe i could give a reply.Originally posted by frenchbread isn't it that we killed more civilians than actual iraqi soldiers?...(or close to)...and it's funny how we choose the eggs we break:al-jazeera tvabu dhabi tvpalestine hotel...all bombed on the same day...and all were mistakes... It's pure speculation that we've killed more noncombatants than soldiers. If anything, preliminary battlefield estimates show THOUSANDS of combatants killed, whereas noncombatant deaths are considerably lower. Either way, it's sad that noncombatants have been killed but unfortunately they do get caught in the crossfire sometimes. additionally, the Iraqi combatants tend to favor hiding and fighting from areas where there are heavy concentrations of noncombatants, such that collateral damage that injures or kills them is sometimes unavoidable.Additionally, it seems the Iraqis favor the tactic of "provoking" US forces to fire at areas where noncombatans are, or purposefully directing noncombatants towards those areas.Two examples of which would be, the UN convoy that was recently bombed, had been given a "different" evacuation route by the Iraqis before they left. This route took them into an area where coalition planes had been briefed that no friendlies were present. Also, the firing upon journalists in hotels demonstrates something.It's my opinon that Iraqi snipers, knowing that US forces will open fire at a location where shots are originating from, managed to plant himself in an area where foreign journalists were, in order to precipitate retaliatory fire that could possibly strike noncombatants. Basically, they tried to get foreign journalists killed by american shells and let the americans take the blame. That to me, is fighting VERY dirty. It's difficult to avoid casualities when you have an enemy that fights that way.If i was an iraqi soldier and i knew that a tank would fire at me if i s hot a bullet at it, you can bet that i'd find a location where journalists or other high profile people were. I'd fire my shot, get the hell out of there and let the tank killl the journalists. Then i'd sit back and watch as the US took the blame for friendly-fire.It's very much like the little young kids in vietnam, carrying shoeshine boxes up to the soldiers. A bunch of those boxes would have grenades in them, set to go off when they opened the box.What do you do in a situation like that? Shoot the kid or take your chances? Sometimes situatons can't be helped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by frenchbread and don't tell me "where were they...?"...where were the u.s.?...they were just as much part of the u.n. for those last 12 years... ahhhhh....the Clinton years..thanks for the blast of from the past;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by frenchbread and for your information:there was no sniper...so you get your facts straight... it was a joke..but since u wanna play "hard ass"...i guess ALL the major News channels all got together that same day and decided to make it up (Fox, CNN, MSNNBC) ...let the conspiracy theories fly!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by frenchbread how am i talking out of my ass?...i'm repeating what you guys said...and you can't just dismiss what you said in the past...and it's not all of a sudden...regardless of all the "funny" jokes fox's idiots may throw at each other, france/germany/russia had the same stance all along...no u.s. alone...that goes for the war, and that goes for the reconstruction (especially the reconstruction)...and don't tell me "where were they...?"...where were the u.s.?...they were just as much part of the u.n. for those last 12 years... where was the US.... we were impossing sanctions, demanding the UN enforce their resolutions, but as usual the UN proved to be incompetent....by saying, "you are repeating what you guys said", that should reads "what SOME of you guys said".... and yes I can too dismiss what I said in the past, sometimes I say things I dont mean. I guess you can say, I talked out of my ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by cintron I'd fire my shot, get the hell out of there and let the tank killl the journalists. Then i'd sit back and watch as the US took the blame for friendly-fire. hey...that never happened...there was no sniper on the hotel, but there WAS a shooter on the grass noll... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by mrmatas2277 ahhhhh....the Clinton years..thanks for the blast of from the past;) yeah. 8 years of blow jobs, and letting our enemies grow stronger..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishaolin Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by frenchbread i don't use a spell checker...end ai no haow two wright...thenk u verry mutch...(i fixed it thanks...)and my point is still the same...u.s. gov't wants to go in alone (or dominate the war effort) so that they can secure points of interests with the troops...but for the non-profit work, they are ready to bring in the u.n.... and why shouldn't we dominate. it was the blood of american, british, and australian soldiers that was spilled, not the blood of any other country represented by the un. i didn't misunderstand your post...it is very clear, and resonates perfectly with what the other pro-war (most of) are saying:the oil is the prize...it is there for the taking... Twist my words around all you like. I was talking about the possible interests that other UN countries (including France) might have in the oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishaolin Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by cintron correct. Now, knowing this, consider our move towards Iraq as an invocation of said law. By constantly stalling their weapon disarmament programs for the past 12 years and failling to cooperate with inspectors [until the last minute], the Iraqis have proven themselves to be unreliable and shady. We do not like "unreliable" and "shady" to define someone who has used chemical weapons indiscriminately in the past, and is suspected to still posess them, as well as sympathize with known anti-american terrorist groups.(remember the cash bounty given to suicide bombers' families.)With that in mind, it is possible to consider said regime a threat to our national security, and the longer that they refuse to comply fully with the disarmament treaty that they signed, the higher the chance we would consider them a hostile state and therefore, a threat. Sure, it's not the strongest argument to invade a country, but it isn't too difficult to see how it can be used as an excuse.I don't see how our friendly fire and accidents link to our intentions of "why we did this war in the first place." Actually, i don't understand the majority of your statement or where it's headed. If you could rephrase it, maybe i could give a reply.It's pure speculation that we've killed more noncombatants than soldiers. If anything, preliminary battlefield estimates show THOUSANDS of combatants killed, whereas noncombatant deaths are considerably lower. Either way, it's sad that noncombatants have been killed but unfortunately they do get caught in the crossfire sometimes. additionally, the Iraqi combatants tend to favor hiding and fighting from areas where there are heavy concentrations of noncombatants, such that collateral damage that injures or kills them is sometimes unavoidable.Additionally, it seems the Iraqis favor the tactic of "provoking" US forces to fire at areas where noncombatans are, or purposefully directing noncombatants towards those areas.Two examples of which would be, the UN convoy that was recently bombed, had been given a "different" evacuation route by the Iraqis before they left. This route took them into an area where coalition planes had been briefed that no friendlies were present. Also, the firing upon journalists in hotels demonstrates something.It's my opinon that Iraqi snipers, knowing that US forces will open fire at a location where shots are originating from, managed to plant himself in an area where foreign journalists were, in order to precipitate retaliatory fire that could possibly strike noncombatants. Basically, they tried to get foreign journalists killed by american shells and let the americans take the blame. That to me, is fighting VERY dirty. It's difficult to avoid casualities when you have an enemy that fights that way.If i was an iraqi soldier and i knew that a tank would fire at me if i s hot a bullet at it, you can bet that i'd find a location where journalists or other high profile people were. I'd fire my shot, get the hell out of there and let the tank killl the journalists. Then i'd sit back and watch as the US took the blame for friendly-fire.It's very much like the little young kids in vietnam, carrying shoeshine boxes up to the soldiers. A bunch of those boxes would have grenades in them, set to go off when they opened the box.What do you do in a situation like that? Shoot the kid or take your chances? Sometimes situatons can't be helped. well said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by mrmatas2277 hey...that never happened...there was no sniper on the hotel, but there WAS a shooter on the grass noll... i know the journalists didn't get killed there, but others did elsewhere. They DID get fired upon by tanks and then they DID spend a few hours yesterday on Fox news, debating whether or not the United States was intentionally targeting journalists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishaolin Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by frenchbread how am i talking out of my ass?...i'm repeating what you guys said...and you can't just dismiss what you said in the past...and it's not all of a sudden...regardless of all the "funny" jokes fox's idiots may throw at each other, france/germany/russia had the same stance all along...no u.s. alone...that goes for the war, and that goes for the reconstruction (especially the reconstruction)...and don't tell me "where were they...?"...where were the u.s.?...they were just as much part of the u.n. for those last 12 years... I think he was trying to say, and what I've been trying to say is that bottom line.. the US stepped up to the plate when the UN couldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underwater Posted April 9 Author Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by frenchbread i'm waiting for underwater's reply or maybe yours... i have a bad habit of mixing up letters when i type...but thanks for pointing out my spelling errors....anyways....you are way off on the claim that more civilians have died then soldiers...go to iraqbodycount.net and you will see that between 900-1100 civilians have been killed....we killed 1000 troops in a 3 hour fight for the airport....in fact....i have heard that the CIA is giving a conservative estimate that we have killed between 40,000 - 50,000 iraqi troops.....the reason there are no hard #'s on soldiers killed is for the publicity war....they don't want to ignite the arab street....as for the reconstruction....why would we share profits when we risked our soldiers lives and bear 100% of the costs....you are smart enough to know that nothing in life comes for free...nothing...and you can be sure that france, germany, russia, and china will be receiving zilch....and they deserve that for their actions and contributions....as for the oil....i put that in my things to do because it is an unknown outcome.....people such as yourself have used that as a huge factor of being anti-bush.....it is a reality that he could have a hidden agenda....so yes, i am saying that we have to live up to what we said and let iraq keep control....as it stands now we could rob their country of their resources....government - i hope that we will install a government that is good for the people of iraq....and you are right when you say that they will be in our pocket....we just fought a war to free them and they do owe us some form of gratitude.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by underwater government - i hope that we will install a government that is good for the people of iraq....and you are right when you say that they will be in our pocket....we just fought a war to free them and they do owe us some form of gratitude.... not to mention that helping to erect a non-friendly government would basically defeat the point of removing it in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesseh49 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by frenchbread my facts straight...please...i don't care wether it was a bomb from a plane or a tank...and for your information:there was no sniper...so you get your facts straight... How do you know there was no sniper? Were you out on the battlefield with those soliders who felt they were being shot at? Now your speculating. You have zero proof to back up your argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by cintron correct. Now, knowing this, consider our move towards Iraq as an invocation of said law. By constantly stalling their weapon disarmament programs for the past 12 years and failling to cooperate with inspectors [until the last minute], the Iraqis have proven themselves to be unreliable and shady. We do not like "unreliable" and "shady" to define someone who has used chemical weapons indiscriminately in the past, and is suspected to still posess them, as well as sympathize with known anti-american terrorist groups.(remember the cash bounty given to suicide bombers' families.)With that in mind, it is possible to consider said regime a threat to our national security, and the longer that they refuse to comply fully with the disarmament treaty that they signed, the higher the chance we would consider them a hostile state and therefore, a threat. Sure, it's not the strongest argument to invade a country, but it isn't too difficult to see how it can be used as an excuse. it's not a strong argument...it's no argument at all, because iraq did not pose a clear and immediate threat to us...and your words not mine: "see how it can be used as an excuseOriginally posted by cintron I don't see how our friendly fire and accidents link to our intentions of "why we did this war in the first place." Actually, i don't understand the majority of your statement or where it's headed. If you could rephrase it, maybe i could give a reply.i never said they linked to our intentions......i'm just pointing out to all those shouting "effective war!" that more of our spilled blood was our fault, than the enemy's...and that if one of my friends or family member had been killed in one of those stupid accident, i'd be pissed...Originally posted by cintron It's pure speculation that we've killed more noncombatants than soldiers. If anything, preliminary battlefield estimates show THOUSANDS of combatants killed, whereas noncombatant deaths are considerably lowerit might be speculation it might not...in any case when you drop bombs that kill everything in a 120 meters radius in a city like baghdad you know you're killing innocent civilians before you even drop the bomb...Originally posted by cintron Also, the firing upon journalists in hotels demonstrates something.It's my opinon that Iraqi snipers, knowing that US forces will open fire at a location where shots are originating from, managed to plant himself in an area where foreign journalists were, in order to precipitate retaliatory fire that could possibly strike noncombatants. Basically, they tried to get foreign journalists killed by american shells and let the americans take the blame. meanwhile, all journalists that survived all reported that there were no sniper...and all this happens on the same day that 2 tv stations get bombed...Originally posted by mrmatas2277 it was a joke..but since u wanna play "hard ass"...i guess ALL the major News channels all got together that same day and decided to make it up (Fox, CNN, MSNNBC) ...let the conspiracy theories fly!!! i'm not playing "hard ass"...nobody said they were making it up...i'm telling you that they jump the gun with explanations like these...but then all keep quiet when it's proven wrong...it's just that they are all too eager to report explanations like these, and when the explanation is refuted, none of those major "channels" (or almost none), retract the explanation...and for sure none of those channels make a big story to tell the masses that there were no sniper...see the 2 previous "chemical weapons" finds...everybody (on tv and on this board) was saying "see...we told ya..wmd's...out the wazoo"...then the next day, military officials retract, and confirm that it was pesticide...(two seperate occasions)...yet no "big" story on the news...no noise made about that...it all just dies down...Originally posted by dnice35 where was the US.... we were impossing sanctions, demanding the UN enforce their resolutions, but as usual the UN proved to be incompetent....imposing sanctions that translated in death of civilians and did nothing to hussein...Originally posted by dnice35 by saying, "you are repeating what you guys said", that should reads "what SOME of you guys said"....you're right...my appologies...correction: "what a lot of you guys said"Originally posted by dnice35 and yes I can too dismiss what I said in the past, sometimes I say things I dont mean. I guess you can say, I talked out of my ass. more than once...Originally posted by chrishaolin and why shouldn't we dominate. it was the blood of american, british, and australian soldiers that was spilled, not the blood of any other country represented by the un. dominate alright...don't tell then that i twist your words...that's obviously not for the good of the iraqi people, but the profit of our gov't...(first gulf war...u.s. gov't admitted to profiting by $30Bil)...tell me that's not immoral...and my point again...u.s. takes over what makes money, but calls in u.n. for what doesn't because can't be bothered...Originally posted by chrishaolin Twist my words around all you like. I was talking about the possible interests that other UN countries (including France) might have in the oil. i didn't twist your words...here are you words:"if point 2. happens, who else would take [the oil]?"so your words are indeed that the oil is there for the taking...Originally posted by jesseh49 How do you know there was no sniper? Were you out on the battlefield with those soliders who felt they were being shot at? Now your speculating. You have zero proof to back up your argument. because the journalists that were in the hotel, and in front of the hotel have reported that...so i do have proof... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesseh49 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by frenchbread because the journalists that were in the hotel, and in front of the hotel have reported that...so i do have proof... Our soliders reported that they were being shot at from the hotel. So I have proof that they were. Get the point I'm trying to make. You are still speculating. You are choosing to believe what the journalists have to say. I am choosing to believe what the troops have to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishaolin Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by frenchbread i didn't twist your words...here are you words:"if point 2. happens, who else would take [the oil]?"so your words are indeed that the oil is there for the taking... I was actually quoting you.. "who else would take the oil" but anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by jesseh49 Our soliders reported that they were being shot at from the hotel. So I have proof that they were. Get the point I'm trying to make. You are still speculating. You are choosing to believe what the journalists have to say. I am choosing to believe what the troops have to say. there is proof...FOOTAGE filmed by France 3 television of a strike on a hotel which killed two journalists in Baghdad today shows a US tank targeting the journalists' hotel and waiting at least two minutes before firing.and then they claim that they were under rocket and other fire...do you wait 2 minutes before firing back when you're under rocket fire?...yea and our gov't still maintains that oswald killed jfk...so you believe that too?...Reporters Without Borders called today on US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld to provide evidence that the offices of the pan-Arab TV station Al-Jazeera and the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad were not deliberately fired at by US forces earlier in the day in attacks that killed three journalists."We are appalled at what happened because it was known that both places contained journalists," said the organisation's secretary-general Robert Ménard. "Film shot by the French TV station France 3 and descriptions by journalists show the neighbourhood was very quiet at that hour and that the US tank crew took their time, waiting for a couple of minutes and adjusting its gun before opening fire.""This evidence does not match the US version of an attack in self-defence and we can only conclude that the US Army deliberately and without warning targeted journalists. US forces must prove that the incident was not a deliberate attack to dissuade or prevent journalists from continuing to report on what is happening in Baghdad," he said."We are concerned at the US army's increasingly hostile attitude towards journalists, especially those non-embedded in its military units. Army officials have also remained deplorably silent and refused to give any details about what happened when a British ITN TV crew was fired on near Basra on 22 March, killing one journalist and leaving two others missing."Very many non-embedded journalists have complained about being refused entry to Iraq from Kuwait, threatened with withdrawal of accreditation and being held and interrogated for several hours. One group of non-embedded journalists was held in secret for two days and roughed up by US military police," Ménard said. Ukrainian cameraman Taras Protsyuk (35), normally attached to Reuters office in Warsaw, and José Couso, a Spanish cameraman for the Spanish TV station Telecinco, were killed in today's attack on the Palestine Hotel. Three other journalists were wounded when their rooms were hit by a shell fired by the US tank.Gen. Buford Blount, commander of the US Third Infantry Division, admitted that the tank had fired a shell at the hotel. He claimed it was in response to rocket fire and other shooting from the hotel.Al-Jazeera cameraman Tarek Ayoub was also killed today in US bombing of the pan-Arab TV station's offices elsewhere in the city. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesseh49 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by frenchbread there is proof...FOOTAGE filmed by France 3 television of a strike on a hotel which killed two journalists in Baghdad today shows a US tank targeting the journalists' hotel and waiting at least two minutes before firing.and then they claim that they were under rocket and other fire...do you wait 2 minutes before firing back when you're under rocket fire?...yea and our gov't still maintains that oswald killed jfk...so you believe that too?... First of all how do you know how long they are supposed to wait before firing? Maybe they were trying to pinpoint the location of the person firing since they know civilans are around? Again your not out onn the battlefield. You aren't taking direct orders from your tank commander. Oswald argument is stupid... How do I know that France didn't manipulate the footage so the Americans look bad? How do I know that the other reporters aren't conspiring to make the US look bad? They are angry at the US for the embedded reporters. You believe in way too many conspiracy theorys? I bet you don't think we landed on the moon... :laugh:Your argument is still speculation untill the firing is investigated further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by jesseh49 First of all how do you know how long they are supposed to wait before firing? Maybe they were trying to pinpoint the location of the person firing since they know civilans are around? Again your not out onn the battlefield. You aren't taking direct orders from your tank commander. Oswald argument is stupid... How do I know that France didn't manipulate the footage so the Americans look bad? How do I know that the other reporters aren't conspiring to make the US look bad? They are angry at the US for the embedded reporters. You believe in way too many conspiracy theorys? I bet you don't think we landed on the moon... :laugh:Your argument is still speculation untill the firing is investigated further. whatever...1. the footage was shown not long after the attacks...so i don't know how they could have manipulated it...2. you have all the journalists that were in the hotel and in front of it corroborating the same story...3. you tell me how long u.s. troops wait after acquiring aim at a target that supposedly is firing rockets at them...2 minutes?...please...try 2 seconds...4. but that's probably how you fight too right?...somebody punches you...you aim to punch them back in the face, but wait 2 minutes...just for the hell of it...and the oswald argument is not stupid...it shows you that our gov't will insist that "official stories" are true as long as they can...even when everybody knows it's false...sure investigated by the one that fired...i wonder what they're going to say... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesseh49 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by frenchbread whatever...1. the footage was shown not long after the attacks...so i don't know how they could have manipulated it...It is not hard to manipulate footage. With todays editing equipment you could loop some footage in very quickly.2. you have all the journalists that were in the hotel and in front of it corroborating the same story...3. you tell me how long u.s. troops waiting after acquiring aim at a target that supposedly is firing rockets at them...2 minutes?...please...try 2 seconds...4. but that's probably how you fight too right?...somebody punches you...you aim to punch back them in the face, but wait 2 minutes...just for the hell of it...There is quite a difference of throwing a punch back at someone that is standing right in front of you and launching a missle at someone who is hiding firing a gun at you. First off its a punch you aren't going to kill anybody by punching them back...most of the time.The person shooting didn't shoot at them then stand up and yell "hey over here" They had to figure out the direction of fire. Make sure they were correct because they were about to fire at a hotel. Contrary to what you believe our troops are trying to minimize civilian casualties. Then position themselves to hit the spot they felt the person was at. So yea that could take 2 minutes.and the oswald argument is not stupid...it shows you that our gov't will insist that "official stories" are true as long as they can...even when everybody knows it's false... Everybody doesn't believe it's false. Many people believe Oswald did kill JFK. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean everyone has the same feelings. sure investigated by the one that fired...i wonder what they're going to say... Your producing evidence by our biggest opponent to this war(France). They would love to see nothing more than us fail. So how am I to believe anything they show or say. The reporters who are also claiming we shot at them aren't Pro US. How do I know they aren't in on this whole thing to make the US look bad? Do you get what I'm saying? You need to let this be investigated before reaching a conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.