«

[gregor]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Geezer @ Apr 18 2007, 02:49 PM) [snapback]287367[/snapback]</div>

It is true that the Weapons of Mass Destruction accusation proved to be false. However not only was Saddam guilty of attempted genocide against the Kurds and mass murder against many Shiites, lets not forget that there were Al Qaida training camps operating in Iraq with impunity. The same Al Qaida that is responsible for attacking the US and killing over 3,500 of our innocent citizens in one dreadful morning.

[/b]

the attempted genocide was max 7000 deaths right? US war in Iraq costed over 70.000 lives

this is interesting:

The only verified Kurdish civilian deaths from chemical weapons occurred in the Iraqi village of Halabja, near the Iran border, where at least several hundred people died from gas poisoning in mid-March, 1988. We know that Iran overran the village and its small garrison of Iraqi troops; what is contested is who was responsible for the deaths--Iran or Iraq--and how large the death toll was.

The best evidence is a 1990 report by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College.[2] It concluded that Iran, not Iraq, was the culprit in Halabja. Lead author Stephen Pelletiere, who was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq throughout the Iran-Iraq war, has described his group's findings:

"The great majority of the victims seen by reporters and other observers who attended the scene were blue in their extremities. That means that they were killed by a blood agent, probably either cyanogens chloride or hydrogen cyanide. Iraq never used and lacked any capacity to produce these chemicals. But the Iranians did deploy them. Therefore the Iranians killed the Kurds."[3]

http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller10.html
[/b]

in the end i think he was trialed for arround 148 deaths if i am not mistaking....

EDIT: according to some human right groups there should be 180.000 victims. bodies were not fund and also because of USA campaign in Iraq they are approaching that number fast. again...

anyway, still terrible figure... but hey today 170 people were killed in Baghdad with tightened security: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6567329.stm

anyone cares? who will express schock and condolences to the families? will Bush attend the memorial ceremonies?

Ok so here is what i dont' udnerstand. i get ti that you are allowed to carry a gun. well you have lot's of houses in middle of nowhere... but why does a mental patient, a person who was already at the police because of his strange behaviour get's to carry a gun? : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6568781.stm

ok M. Moore (as much as his documentaries need some more clear background info) you saw that recruit guy... he was for real, right? i mean he didnt' really care what kind of person they take in the army. and it is well known that drug adicts were cheated into getting in. i mean isn't that strange? a country that let's mental patients handle weapons... i dont' think you can increase personal security like that...

a little background check would suffice before giving a licence to cary the gun. or how about proof of no criminal record?!?! or no mental illness??? ut's easy. you give them the proof you can get the gun. i think it would be better that way...

[Himmler]

second amendament in the US..sucks
they "need" to "protect" themselves, riiiight!

[Mighty Midget]

Problem with "the right to protect oneself" is:

We
Are
Right

Now.... Who is right? I don't think "we" is a wholly valid answer here, or that "they" are always wrong. But I digress.

About the shooting, or rather, the ones who got shot: There are no words that will make any sense here I think, let alone be of any comfort to the ones left. The saddest thing however, is it will happen over and over again. NRA or not... I firmly believe the reason can be tracked down to our society which is not meant for human beings (I'm kind of a "simpleton" you see). Some cope with it, some don't. They flip it. It has next to nothing to do with games, books, movies or music, it has to do with the factors in society that makes it possible for us to recognize what we see in games/movies a.s.o. We recognize it because we have seen it before, in real life. Now, real life did come first, then we got the games (then we got people who insist it was the other way around). I also believe real life makes more of an impact than any game or movie could possibly do. Unfortunately, real life is a sacred cow here and can not be discussed without someone else bringing out the "stake, firewood and plenty of gasoline", and so we are dumbed down to think games are to blame.

[Geezer]

EDIT: according to some human right groups there should be 180.000 victims. bodies were not fund and also because of USA campaign in Iraq they are approaching that number fast. again...

anyway, still terrible figure... but hey today 170 people were killed in Baghdad with tightened security: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6567329.stm

anyone cares? who will express schock and condolences to the families? will Bush attend the memorial ceremonies?
[/b]

I am not a supporter of Bush but the US/Iraq war is over and has been ever since Saddam was toppled. The casualities of late have been a result of the war that the Iraqis are waging on themselves due to their apparent inability to govern themselves. Your post seems to infer that the massive casualities lately are a direct result of the US campaign when it is Iraqis killing Iraqis.



I suppose you could argue that had we never took down Saddam that none of this would be happening but there was no way the US could afford to wait for any kind of diplomacy or sanctions that a hapless and ineffective UN could impose.

[Himmler]

what does Saddam and bush got to do with this? stay on-topic, please...

Jack (behind) Thompson![/b]

he's just a stupid baby... he should not be mentioned. it's like taking into consideration my grandmother's oppinion, when the only thing she knows is to sew...
now, i'm sorry about the koreeans that are gonna get bashed cause of this guy... i guess irakians had enough being alone in the circus :P

[rlbell]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Geezer @ Apr 18 2007, 02:49 PM) [snapback]287367[/snapback]</div>

Sounds to me like the Virginia shootings were an act of a very mentally ill and unstable person. I suppose people will be analyzing this for some time. The gun laws here are very ridiculous. The "Right To Bear Arms" in our constitution has made it difficult for gun opponents to battle the pro gun wackos. Time to make some modifications if you ask me.

It is true that the Weapons of Mass Destruction accusation proved to be false. However not only was Saddam guilty of attempted genocide against the Kurds and mass murder against many Shiites, lets not forget that there were Al Qaida training camps operating in Iraq with impunity. The same Al Qaida that is responsible for attacking the US and killing over 3,500 of our innocent citizens in one dreadful morning.


[/b]

Mass murderers tend to actually be sane people who arrive at their decision through logically assessing their situation after making some tragically flawed assumptions.

Al Qaida did not operate in Iraq with impunity before the american invasion. Saddam was less of a muslim than Bush. Bush is at least a person of The Book. Saddam was an avowed secularist who persecuted the shiites with nearly as much vigor as he persecuted the kurds. Worse, he would pretend to be muslim when it suited him. The only reason that he did not have as much trouble with islamic fundamentalists as those governing Pakistan and Egypt was that he was much more ruthless about keeping them under control.

The ongoing carnage in Iraq is due to the over zealousness of the americans in expunging all vestiges of Baathist rule. Instead of differentiating between those that were baathist members to gain power from those that became baathists to keep their jobs, all baathists were removed from office. The predictable result of this american policy was the removal of the entire civil service and police forces, leaving no one in a position to exercise any sort of civil authority.

[moogle]

Hmmm...

Yea, talked about this in English class a tad, and read up on it on multiple other forums...

Really sad =\

Although, wtf is up with all the US bashing...

[Geezer]

Al Qaida did not operate in Iraq with impunity before the american invasion. Saddam was less of a muslim than Bush. Bush is at least a person of The Book. Saddam was an avowed secularist who persecuted the shiites with nearly as much vigor as he persecuted the kurds. Worse, he would pretend to be muslim when it suited him. The only reason that he did not have as much trouble with islamic fundamentalists as those governing Pakistan and Egypt was that he was much more ruthless about keeping them under control.
[/b]

Not sure what you are saying here. Are you denying that there were terrorist training camps being conducted in Iraq or that active and open recruitment of terrorists was taking place? Or even that known and wanted terrorists were traveling freely within Iraq? Evidence suggests otherwise. What does that have to do with Saddams religious beliefs? I am not suggesting that Saddam was involved in 9/11 only that his regime helped foster (as did the Taliban in Afghanistan) the environment in which the terrorist cells could grow and become so organized.

Enough about this, though. The debate could go on forever.

[Tulac]

Getting us back to topic. This is the killers manifest:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0b5_1176937612&p=1

[gregor]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Geezer @ Apr 18 2007, 09:24 PM) [snapback]287410[/snapback]</div>

I am not a supporter of Bush but the US/Iraq war is over and has been ever since Saddam was toppled. The casualities of late have been a result of the war that the Iraqis are waging on themselves due to their apparent inability to govern themselves. Your post seems to infer that the massive casualities lately are a direct result of the US campaign when it is Iraqis killing Iraqis.

I suppose you could argue that had we never took down Saddam that none of this would be happening but there was no way the US could afford to wait for any kind of diplomacy or sanctions that a hapless and ineffective UN could impose.
[/b]

hmm let's see... US installed a government in Iraq. that government had these security forces who were actually death squads and were killing civilians with certian familly names. the other side then retailietaed. on the top of that there is still bombing of US forces, heavy fighting in some cities etc... if war is over why are US troops still there? if they are just to monitor the peace shouldn't they be wearing blue helmets?!?
ergo war is not over. fighting is over ocupation begins. cause what you are saying is that WW2 was over for example for Poland in 1939. after that it was just something else...

Al Quaida in Iraq? well reports from agencies showed there was no WMD and no Al Quaida there before the war.

but that was not the purpose of the post. it was to show that many people die and no one is shocked and no one appologizes to the families. take for example the incident in Iraq where US soldiers raped and murdered the whole familly. ok they were convicted, but did Bush ever give his appologies to the living members of that familly? did he visit the grave of th emurdered ones? is there a big difference in that senceless act with this one? sure it is. this one is on home field :-)

anyway if anyone is following they have the tape from this guy. i wonder what they did to him to make him so upset?