Author Topic: obama about to give a speech at 10:30pm 05/01/2011, wut is it about??  (Read 6555 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

anonymous

  • Guest
0
funniest part is that the courier who gave away osamas location was only known so much because of enhanced interrogation, maybe even water boarding oh no

anonymous

  • Guest
0
how can you have any respect for Osama? His whole game plan is to kill innocent civilians and terrorize western nations.  This is not collateral damage, which is a by product of any war. This is intentional killing of innocent civilians.  He even condones the usage of his own people as human shields and such- children and women in particular, and even him/his men used a woman in his final fire fight.  On top of that, he really does wish death upon those "infidels". This is not some leader who took over his country and guided it in the right direction, this is a radical murderer.  Believing in a cause does not justify murdering innocent civilians.

how many innocent civilians have been killed in the iraq/afghanistan wars? oh ok..

if you put yourself in his shoes, and you look at the kill-stats, let me just make some up:

dead us civilians due to terror attacks 5,000 vs dead afghan/iraqi civilians from us attacks 100,000

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

just because usa doesn't specifically target citizens, doesn't justify it one bit.. usa levels entire villages in afghanistan, and entire buildings/sky scrapers in iraq, just to kill a few targets..




"His whole game plan is to kill innocent civilians and terrorize western nations."

"terrorize" ? he's at war with usa, it's not "terror", that's his version of warfare.. he doesn't have tanks, military, bombers, and air craft carriers.. he goes after military targets (embassy's, air craft carriers), but it's alot easier to kill citizens, and given what he has access to militarily, that's pretty much the only way he can strike back.

like i said, i'm not in favor of anyone killing civilians, at all, during war.. if people want to goto war they should just attack the military units, sounds like the best way to do it.. but when you are GREATLY outgunned, such as bin laden is, you adapt and do what you can.. humans are animals, his strategies for warfare are a direct result of what he has access to militarily, and that is suicide bombers/ied's/bombs/assassins, unfortunately those means are used mostly to target citizens, because targeting military compounds is far more difficult obviously.....

so, before you just call him a "terrorist", just look at the death tolls... US citizens killed, at home, or abroad throughout the world, is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much less than muslim civilians killed in a variety of US wars/operations....

anonymous

  • Guest
0
they release sadam's death pics, pics of his dead sons etc, but not bin laden?

come on now..

anonymous

  • Guest
0
how can you have any respect for Osama? His whole game plan is to kill innocent civilians and terrorize western nations.  This is not collateral damage, which is a by product of any war. This is intentional killing of innocent civilians.  He even condones the usage of his own people as human shields and such- children and women in particular, and even him/his men used a woman in his final fire fight.  On top of that, he really does wish death upon those "infidels". This is not some leader who took over his country and guided it in the right direction, this is a radical murderer.  Believing in a cause does not justify murdering innocent civilians.

how many innocent civilians have been killed in the iraq/afghanistan wars? oh ok..

if you put yourself in his shoes, and you look at the kill-stats, let me just make some up:

dead us civilians due to terror attacks 5,000 vs dead afghan/iraqi civilians from us attacks 100,000

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

just because usa doesn't specifically target citizens, doesn't justify it one bit.. usa levels entire villages in afghanistan, and entire buildings/sky scrapers in iraq, just to kill a few targets..




"His whole game plan is to kill innocent civilians and terrorize western nations."

"terrorize" ? he's at war with usa, it's not "terror", that's his version of warfare.. he doesn't have tanks, military, bombers, and air craft carriers.. he goes after military targets (embassy's, air craft carriers), but it's alot easier to kill citizens, and given what he has access to militarily, that's pretty much the only way he can strike back.

like i said, i'm not in favor of anyone killing civilians, at all, during war.. if people want to goto war they should just attack the military units, sounds like the best way to do it.. but when you are GREATLY outgunned, such as bin laden is, you adapt and do what you can.. humans are animals, his strategies for warfare are a direct result of what he has access to militarily, and that is suicide bombers/ied's/bombs/assassins, unfortunately those means are used mostly to target citizens, because targeting military compounds is far more difficult obviously.....

so, before you just call him a "terrorist", just look at the death tolls... US citizens killed, at home, or abroad throughout the world, is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much less than muslim civilians killed in a variety of US wars/operations....


edit: change citizens to civilians for the majority of those sentences..

anonymous

  • Guest
0
numbers lie because it can never be said the amount killed were friend and who were foe.

AL Queida attacked us first, America responded. Without this targeting of innocent lives US is not even in middle east last 10 year. Al Queida wants to kill people because they have a different way of life and different religion; America kills these low lives
Saddam killed millions of his own people, and refused to partake in UN demands, America responded.


but Obama is a wimp not showing the pics

anonymous

  • Guest
0
Saddam killed millions of his own people, and refused to partake in UN demands, America responded.

Haha, how pathetic. You really believe what you say? "We are the US, and we hold human right above anything else!!! Yup, we're that moral".

Hahahahahahaha

Let me translate:

"We are the US, and we keep Saddam there with our support until he's no longer good for our interests. Then we act like he has chemical weapons hidden, go in, kill him, and don't even bother to plant some in there for the reason to be justified, we just say we haven't found any and go with "ah well... tough luck"".

Meanwhile, in countries less rich in oil, where wars and civil wars rage for decades, we don't give a fuck. Yup, we're that moral.

anonymous

  • Guest
0
America was not the only country to invade Iraq.  I agree that it shouldnt have even went down like that. Should have been a quiet assassination. Hindsight is 20/20 though as most of the American public and allies agreed with it, just like most of the top intelligence agency believed Saddam had WMD.

I dont think America or any country will step in if it does not have something to gain, whether thats messed up or not its the truth. I dont know what constitutes unbearable genocide or whatever but id like to think America would step in when its that clear cut.

The real problem really comes back to the "defense industry". So much power there.  It is more like the department of war and not the department of defense.  Intelligence should be a much bigger focus rather than having the largest and most wasteful military for decades in a row.

anonymous

  • Guest
0
numbers lie because it can never be said the amount killed were friend and who were foe.

no, numbers do not lie, you know who lies though? The united states of america. Wikileaks proved it numerous times. USA has been hiding the actual stats about the iraq war since it started. Numerous cases of usa saying allies were killed by taliban/IED/terrorists when it was instead friendly fire by the USA, etc.

the civilian death toll in iraq/afghanistan absolutely shits on the civilian death toll of USA, it's not even close.

every single innocent civilian USA kills in the middle east, results in 10+ people being radicalized and hating the US of A.






Quote
AL Queida attacked us first, America responded. Without this targeting of innocent lives US is not even in middle east last 10 year. Al Queida wants to kill people because they have a different way of life and different religion; America kills these low lives
Saddam killed millions of his own people, and refused to partake in UN demands, America responded.


but Obama is a wimp not showing the pics

Al Qaeda attacked us first? You do know that Al Qaeda was formed as a response to the USA's involvement in the middle east right? Where US backed puppet governments/leaders slaughter civilians or keep the quality of life very low, not to mention usa's direct participation in bombing's/air raids which have killed thousands of innocent civilians, also including USA's complete support of israel which commits war crimes every day against the palestinian people, and let's not forget USA's addiction to middle eastern oil which again results in all of this hate from terrorist organizations.. The addiction USA has to foreign oil causes USA to use incomprehensible tactics to supply it's demand for oil, which includes going to motherfucking war.

In case you forgot, there was evidence that bush Jr was planning on going to war with Iraq prior to the 9/11 incident, just go look it up, there's documents that were leaked showing his proposal for going into iraq because of the "WMD's which didn't exist" etc..

Bottom line, afghanistan/iraq are strategic locations/resources in the middle east, it has absolutely nothing to do with bin laden, that's why we have yet to invade pakistan for example.

anonymous

  • Guest
0
al-jazeera english, wikileaks, cryptome.org

^^ pay attention to that.

anonymous

  • Guest
0
America was not the only country to invade Iraq.  I agree that it shouldnt have even went down like that. Should have been a quiet assassination. Hindsight is 20/20 though as most of the American public and allies agreed with it, just like most of the top intelligence agency believed Saddam had WMD.

I dont think America or any country will step in if it does not have something to gain, whether thats messed up or not its the truth. I dont know what constitutes unbearable genocide or whatever but id like to think America would step in when its that clear cut.

The real problem really comes back to the "defense industry". So much power there.  It is more like the department of war and not the department of defense.  Intelligence should be a much bigger focus rather than having the largest and most wasteful military for decades in a row.

Well USA still threw 1 million dollar a piece tomahawks into rocks in Afghanistan. Bombarding rocks is actually very profitable for the defense industry.

anonymous

  • Guest
0

anonymous

  • Guest
0
yum, terrorist brainsteak.

anonymous

  • Guest
+1
Big majority of the "civilian" deaths were not caused by US at all, rather the IED, suicide bombings, and uncivilized barbaric forms of attack by Bin Laden or the taliban or whoever.

anonymous

  • Guest
0
Big majority of the "civilian" deaths were not caused by US at all, rather the IED, suicide bombings, and uncivilized barbaric forms of attack by Bin Laden or the taliban or whoever.

Even if that were true, which it isn't, the US wars in iraq/afghanistan are unjust, thus any civilian deaths as a result, from either side, still comes back to bite USA in the ass, nobody else.

anonymous

  • Guest
0
we won