FALLUJAH murder pictures...GRAPHIC(democrats and whiney-assed liberals beware)

[spillmind]

Iraq is so close to a civil war.

i totally agree.

Bush arrogance got us into a situation that has no end to it!

i also agree. there is NO END IN SIGHT. not sure if arrogance is the right word. the guy has problem just finishing one speech without sounding like a complete embarassment to our language, let alone our representation of our country. cheney is definitely the brains in this outfit. i doubt bush has a very good reason to be 'arrogant'. could be.

i CAN'T WAIT to see the 'transfer of power'. as much as i want this iraqi operation liberation thing to be a 'success', the situation gets farther from being just that every single day.

These killers are just waiting for us; we must rain down hell from above.

As a Christian it pains my heart and soul to suggest such horrible ideas,

contradiction, anyone? i've no use for false sympathy, when one sits behind a monitor and CONDONES death for the 'righteous cause'. someone may be in for a suprise sitting at the pearly gates last i heard 'He" wasn't too fond of ANY humans dealing out final judgement. god bless america, right? what a warped sense of idealism!

 

[kcmcdonald]

It is this idea that is going to get us through this time in our history. Why do we have to be the shinning example of morality while our enimies fight us knowing we will be a moral combatant. War by defintion is not a moral act. it is time we do the right thing and show the world the true horror of a war against the US. That is how we won WW2. We showed japan and germany the absoulute horor of war. This show was not alloted only to insurgents, combatants, or govt leaders. The whole population suffered and the whole population was defeated. We defeated the Iraqi regiem. Now we have to deffeat the Iraqi people.

 

[clumzgirl]

I strongly suggest that we perform a "semi-surgical strike" on the block these murderers hide (Fallujah and other hot spots), load up some B-52's with 2,000 pound dumb bombs and obliterate the whole area. I am not for "carpet bombing" but we must instill a bit of terror in these people. Yes, innocents will die; better them than us. Collateral damage is what makes war terrible; it should be... messy, brutal, ruthless, horrific.

Yay "Vigilant Resolve!" See below for details!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040405/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

 

[triggerfish]

Spillmind, may I ask you if any person in the military who plans or carries out orders that kill people a hypocrite or not going to heaven? Do you think that those who do such things may feel anguish, pain or suffer? I; for one do, and would not condemn them in any way. I do not, nor do I believe that anyone who has served in the military thinks that war or killing is trivial or meaningless. Most people I know do not ever want war again. This war must be fought for the good of all. Any action we take; even though tragic events will occur, is for the protection of everyone.
What do you suggest we do? These people hate us and want us dead no matter where we are, what we do or don't do. It's either fight or die. Oh, there's that issue at the pearly gates! Dag nab it anyway! Maybe the martyrs have something going, what do you think? All that wine and women..........

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Now we have to deffeat the Iraqi people.

So is that somehow a new part of bush's war on "terror"?

 

[spillmind]

Spillmind, may I ask you if any person in the military who plans or carries out orders that kill people a hypocrite or not going to heaven?

i am certainly not going to assume what judgement your God has for these people. but being a tool for administering DEATH cannot weigh very lightly on the scales of judgement.

I do not, nor do I believe that anyone who has served in the military thinks that war or killing is trivial or meaningless.

it doesn't matter what your 'meaning' is, there is a commandment that states SPECIFICALLY: THOU SHALL NOT KILL.
now i'm sure you've got some interpretation that supports your rendition of it that makes it ok in your mind. it's pretty clear to me. i'm sure cluster bombing will be forgiven by Him, right? you need to get real and ASK JESUS what he thinks before you start conding this kind of action against HUMANKIND.

Any action we take; even though tragic events will occur, is for the protection of everyone.

i'm sure He will love to hear it put like that. who said anyone is being protected? and did He give the go ahead on that one, too? your case gets weaker as it goes on.

What do you suggest we do? These people hate us and want us dead no matter where we are, what we do or don't do. It's either fight or die.

where do you get this from? FOX news? iraq was NOT about to invade the US, iraq was not actively being anymore murderous or was saddam being anymore of tyrant than dozens of other countries in the world. all fine and dandy, if you don't mind being INCONSISTENT. too bad you can't pick your battles whe you go with the 'moral' agrument, eh???

these people HATE US? why do you think that is??? maybe if you ever stopper to ask yourself that question, you might find a little insight. the answers are inside you, you just have to want to listen.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
So is that somehow a new part of bush's war on "terror"?

Why do you work so hard to lay everything on Bush's shoulders when you know damn well the Dems voted for war, made the same claims about WMD and spoke of removing Saddam in the same manner? Do you need the MANY quotes provided to you again?

The is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S war on terror, not just GWB.

 

[zarquiekia]

Bush had every intension of invading Iraq even before being elected president. This was confirmed by the Actor,Sean Astin who is a republican and worked closely with Bush during his 2000 campaign. Astin, on the HBO Bill Maher, said anyone close to Bush knew what that a war with Iraq was priority with the Bush administration.

Worldnews, reported that 9 days after 9/11, Bush met with Tony Blair and asked for his help in removing Saddam.

O'Neill in his book wrote, "How obsess Bush and his administration was with Iraq." And Clarke testified and wrote in his book that the Bush administration held 100 meeting a day to discuss Iraq and not one meeting was held on Al Qaeda or terrorism. Hours after 9/11, Bush ordered Clarke to find out that Iraq did it.

There is plenty of public information about the priorities of the Bush administration and war on terrorism was not one of them. Bush held one meeting in August 2001 on terrorism and nothing was done.

What is so funny is FBI/CIA knew an attack was imminent and prepared for it by protecting Americans overseas and military bases around America but the American people was never told and left vulnerable.

 

[preemptingyou03]

Bush wanted to confront Saddam before 9/11.

So?

Of course. The guy was shooting at our planes. He was violating international law. He was violating cease fires. He was violating war treaties. He was funding terrorism. He was sheltering people who commited the 1993 WTC attack, (Abdul Yassin). He was making WMD, (or so the entire world thought). He was voicing his opinion on how he would "destroy America" and he was killing his own people.

Of course Bush wanted to confront Saddam pre-9/11.

Would he have gotten away with a preemptive war against Iraq pre-9/11? No. Then again, had Bush tried to do a preemptive war against Afghanistan pre-9/11, every Democrat would be complaining.

 

[zarquiekia]

Iraq has nothing to do with war on terrorism! Afghanistan is war on terrorism and Bush put military soldiers in Afghanistan, in harms way when he removed many of the military weapons from Afghanistan to be shipped to fight in Iraq! The Taliban came back stronger in Afghanistan! Today the fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is a furious battle.

 

[preemptingyou03]

>>>Iraq has nothing to do with war on terrorism! Afghanistan is war on terrorism and Bush put military soldiers in Afghanistan, in harms way when he removed many of the military weapons from Afghanistan to be shipped to fight in Iraq! The Taliban came back stronger in Afghanistan! Today the fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is a furious battle.<<<

After 9/11, Tommy Franks wanted to blanket Afghanistan with soldiers. Rumsfeld said no, fighting terror networks is like fighting a non-geographical force. Thus, we put in a light, quick, fast fighting force in Afghanistan.

The Northern Alliance did most of the ground work. We did the air work. With just a few thousand soldiers, we did in a few weeks, what the Soviet Union couldn't do in 10 years.

There's no "furious battle" in Afghanistan. What furious battle? Do you hear about anything in Afghanistan much anymore? How many Americans have died in Afghanistan?

Fighting Osama bin Laden can be done with 1,000 forces the same as it can be done with 500,000 forces. You cannot INVADE A MAN.

Iraq is a HUGE part of the War on Terror and I guess we forever will agree to disagree there.

We hear Saddam didn't support terrorism...

- He funded Hamas.
- He funded Islamic Jihad.
- He funded Abu-Sayyaf, a group with ties to al-Qaeda.
- He funded Hezbollah (the world's 2nd largest terrorist group).
- He funded Ansar al-Islam, (a group with direct ties to al-Qaeda).
- He sponsored the MEK, the ANO, the PLF, and the PKK.
- He sheltered Abu Nidal, a man who killed over 900 people in 90 attacks in 25 countries.
- He sponsored the ANO.
- He sponsored the PLO.
- He sheltered Abdul Yassin, one of the terrorists in the 1993 WTC attack.
- He sheltered one of the world's most wanted terrorists, and leader of the PLF, Abu Abbas.
- He sheltered al-Qaeda/Ansar operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
- According to Germany, Iraqi officials met al-Qaeda operatives in 1998.
- The man killed 750,000 of his own people at the least and 2 million at the most.
- Ayman al-Zawahiri met with Iraqi officials in 1991.

To me, that's part of the War on Terror. If Iraq isn't part of the War on Terror, what is? If we attacked Iran instead of Iraq, would that be part of the War on Terror?

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Why do you work so hard to lay everything on Bush's shoulders when you know damn well the Dems voted for war, made the same claims about WMD and spoke of removing Saddam in the same manner? Do you need the MANY quotes provided to you again?

Bush is the one that made the case for the war. If he hadn't brought it up, we wouldn't be there. I've heard what the dems have said many times and it sums up to pure partisanship.

Its also my opinion that Bush mislead the country with handpicked intelligence and I also believe that the CIA knew there weren't any WMD in Iraq especially when they know there were WMD in Libya.

 

[zarquiekia]

Democracts were afraid of the American people, who were demanding bloodshed revenge for 9/11. We were so blinded by rage and hate. Bush rallied and fed into that hate. Our taste for blood made it easy for Bush to take advantage of U.S. citizens and target Saddam, whom was on Bush's agenda! The Democracts knew they were defenseless against billions of hateful grieving U.S. citizens, who are voters.

610 dead U.S. soldiers later and America is finally waking up! War on Iraq has sealed America's fate that terrorism is here to stay and America for ever will be hit by terrorism. You can thank Bush for that.

 

[preemptingyou03]

>>>Its also my opinion that Bush mislead the country with handpicked intelligence and I also believe that the CIA knew there weren't any WMD in Iraq especially when they know there were WMD in Libya.<<<

Handpicked intelligence from the same intelligence Congress sees first? lol

Oh... so Tenet knew there weren't WMD in Iraq? Question: What happened to the ones Saddam admitted to having? Why didn't he account for them? Why didn't he open up his country so he can retain the billions he was losing? Why did he detain UN inspectors and blindfold them? Why wouldn't he let us interview Iraqi scientists?

Why did he violate 17 resolutions concerning his WMD 333 times? Did you see that? 333. Not once, which would have justified force... but 333.

Were France and Germany lying when their intelligence agencies said Saddam had WMD and would have nukes by 2005?

 

[preemptingyou03]

And I do thank Bush for sealing our fate, because our fate is a good one: triump over radicalism.

Bush is to the War on Terror what Truman was to the Cold War. When will people get on board?

If Bush was "thriving off of our bloodlust," why did he wait a month to attack the Taliban? Why? You know why? He was working with Pakistan, in one of the best, yet most over-looked diplomatic negotiations ever.

Pakistan could have been hit for 9/11, yet we avoided a war with them and instead they're on our side.

 

[kcmcdonald]

Originally posted by zarquiekia
Democracts were afraid of the American people, who were demanding bloodshed revenge for 9/11. We were so blinded by rage and hate. Bush rallied and fed into that hate. Our taste for blood made it easy for Bush to take advantage of U.S. citizens and target Saddam, whom was on Bush's agenda! The Democracts knew they were defenseless against billions of hateful grieving U.S. citizens, who are voters.

610 dead U.S. soldiers later and America is finally waking up! War on Iraq has sealed America's fate that terrorism is here to stay and America for ever will be hit by terrorism. You can thank Bush for that.

We were in this war long before Bush was in office and we'll be in this war long after Bush leaves office(in 2008 ). This problam is not a republican or democrate problem. This is a Clash of civilizations, West vs. Radical Islam. There is no middle ground, no truce that could stop the killing. There is no peace without victory, and there is no victory without fighting. War is hell gentelmen, our enemy welcomes dealth. His life is horribal anyway dealth frees him from his missery. I on the other hand love life, I love it so much i have no problem helping that son of a ***** along in his quest to kill himself. You'ld better be willing to do the same!!!

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Handpicked intelligence from the same intelligence Congress sees first? lol

Last time I checked, the public doesn't get the same intelligence, and its the public that makes the congress do what it wants.

so Tenet knew there weren't WMD in Iraq?

Thats correct. Unless you are willing to say that Tenet was not telling the truth about the CIA knowing there were WMD in Libya and that Libya was giving up its rogue state ways.

What happened to the ones Saddam admitted to having? Why didn't he account for them? Why didn't he open up his country so he can retain the billions he was losing? Why did he detain UN inspectors and blindfold them? Why wouldn't he let us interview Iraqi scientists?

You act like Saddam had control over his country. Iraq was and still is a mess. Saddam had a huge ego and didn't want the world pushing him around. simple as that.

Why did he violate 17 resolutions concerning his WMD 333 times? Did you see that? 333. Not once, which would have justified force... but 333.

And did you see how the UN voted that action didn't need to be taken against Iraq? I think the UN is a waste of time and I don't care at all what they say.

Where France and Germany lying when their intelligence agencies said Saddam had WMD and would have nukes by 2005?

So now we have to go off of what France and Germany's intelligence says when we have the best intelligence agency in the world? Yeah, he could probably have nukes in 2005 by buying one from a threat we totally ignored b/c of Iraq, North Korea.

 

[preemptingyou03]

You're from San Fran and like Bush?

Holy God.

 

[zarquiekia]

It is no secret that Saddam hates Israel. He support any one fighting Israel and Saddam himself have sent bombs to destroy Israel but Saddam was no threat to the United States nor did Saddam support any terrorist groups that were no afraid to strike America.

All the evidence have been proven that Saddam had no WMD-no link to Al Qeada, and no link to 9/11!

 

[kcmcdonald]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03
You're from San Fran and like Bush?

Holy God.

I assume you mean me, and no. I'm from Minneapolis and i am going to school at the university of Montana in Missoula. The San Fran part is because this town is so liberal that it belongs in the city of San Francisco.