0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 06:39 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
A sign of lack of time, a sign of weariness arguing the same things with you over and over again, a sign of disinterest.

If you think that terrorists and Nazis are the same, you are living in a fantasy world. They are not the same, and the response to them should not be the same.


Cycloptichorn


You seem to equate US military to forces to terrorists in the killing of civilians.

I find it difficult to believe you are either unwilling or unable to differentiate between the two.

Look at the affair in Haditha. Terrorists have killed so many civilians via suicide bombers/car-bombs/whatever else they can find to blow people up that it isn't even front page news anymore.

We have had a single incidence and it has brought shame on our entire country.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 06:43 pm
Quote:
You seem to equate US military to forces to terrorists in the killing of civilians.


I have? Really? I only compare attitudes that 'civilian lives in the same proximity as terrorists are equally guilty,' espoused by Ican, to be similar to terrorism.

I have consistently maintained that we must hold ourselves to the highest possible standard; our standards are the only thing that keeps us from being occupiers, illegal occupiers. They are by far the most important weapon we have.

You know I have professed this for years...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 May, 2006 08:55 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
You seem to equate US military to forces to terrorists in the killing of civilians.


I have? Really? I only compare attitudes that 'civilian lives in the same proximity as terrorists are equally guilty,' espoused by Ican, to be similar to terrorism.

I have consistently maintained that we must hold ourselves to the highest possible standard; our standards are the only thing that keeps us from being occupiers, illegal occupiers. They are by far the most important weapon we have.

You know I have professed this for years...

Cycloptichorn

You and others who think like you continually profess standards that if generally held, would be held at the expense of the lives of many many others. Your standards remain intact, while the lives of others you could otherwise help or at least encourage do not remain intact. What purposes are served by you holding to your standards, while because of you and others like you, so many of those around you cease being able to hold to any standards at all because they die unrescued? Why of course, you can delude yourself so long as you live thinking you are the possessor of your "higher standards," when actually your standards are lower standards because they serve no purpose other than to sustain what would otherwise be your impoverished ego that depends more on the approval of others than it does on actually doing the right thing.

You have an alternative that requires moral courage to choose. You can openly first root for those who need at least that help in rescuing the innocent from the despair of their existence. Then you can openly encourage these rescuers to take those actions that help save more innocent lives than those actions you have advocated that save fewer if any innocent lives.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 06:58 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
If you think that terrorists and Nazis are the same, you are living in a fantasy world. They are not the same, and the response to them should not be the same.
...
Cycloptichorn

The itm are committing genocide and the nazis did commit genocide.

How do you think the itm and the nazis differ?

How do you think the response to the itm should differ from the response to the nazis?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 07:17 pm
? Terrorists are most certainly not committing genocide. I have no idea where you got this notion from.

Web definitions for Genocide:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=define:Genocide&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Quote:
Deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.
library.thinkquest.org/13915/gather/glossary.htm

A systematic attempt to annihilate a racial group or nation. The word was first used in 1944.
www.bl.uk/services/learning/curriculum/voices/refglos.html

means an offence under Subdivision B of Division 268.
scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/686/1/PA005910.htm

The systematic, planned annihilation of an ethnic, racial or political group.
www.elissetche.org/dico/G.htm

is the deliberate destruction of an entire people or ethnic group.
dhrc.wright.edu/faces/glossary.htm


What people or ethnic group are terrorists trying to eradicate?

Terrorism has a goal above killing people, the same way as our actions as a military have a goal above killing people. The Nazis treatment of the Jews did not have a goal above killing people. You are making a false comparison which is merely convienent for your worldview, not accurate in the slightest.

You can't change the definitions of words to suit your argument, sigh

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 08:29 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
? Terrorists are most certainly not committing genocide. I have no idea where you got this notion from.

Web definitions for Genocide:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=define:Genocide&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Quote:
Deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.
library.thinkquest.org/13915/gather/glossary.htm

A systematic attempt to annihilate a racial group or nation. The word was first used in 1944.
www.bl.uk/services/learning/curriculum/voices/refglos.html

means an offence under Subdivision B of Division 268.
scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/686/1/PA005910.htm

The systematic, planned annihilation of an ethnic, racial or political group.
www.elissetche.org/dico/G.htm

is the deliberate destruction of an entire people or ethnic group.
dhrc.wright.edu/faces/glossary.htm


What people or ethnic group are terrorists trying to eradicate?
Shame on you! Your question should have been consistent with the definitions you provided. To be consistent with the definitions you provided, your question must be: What ethnic, racial or political group are the itm trying to eradicate/destroy/annihilate?
Answer: The political group the itm are trying to eradicate/destroy/annihilate consists of those in Iraq and Afghanistan who favor establishing democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who oppose the itm.


Terrorism has a goal above killing people, the same way as our actions as a military have a goal above killing people. The Nazis treatment of the Jews did not have a goal above killing people. You are making a false comparison which is merely convienent for your worldview, not accurate in the slightest.
Nonsense! You make an artificial distinction based on what you call "a goal above", when your definitions of genocide make no distinctions whatsoever based on "a goal above". The goal of the itm and the goal of the nazis is the same goal: murdering civilians to gain and sustain their power.

You can't change the definitions of words to suit your argument, sigh
Rolling Eyes I didn't change the definition of genocide! But you ignored a key word (i.e., political) included in the definitions you provided, to suit your argument.
Cycloptichorn

I previously posted:
ican711nm wrote:
The itm are systematically mass murdering civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Quote:
www.m-w.com
Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
- geno·cid·al /"je-n&-'sI-d&l/ adjective

Systematic mass murder of civilians is genocide.

The itm have repeatedly declared they will perpetrate genocide: that is the destruction of political (e.g., advocates of democratic government) and cultural groups (e.g., Americans, British, Spanish, Iraqis, Afganistanis) that reject itm beliefs.

The itm are guilty of deciding to perpetrate genocide.

The itm are guilty of perpetrating genocide.

Those who claim America is responsible for the genocide being perpetrated by the itm are liars.

Those who claim President Bush or any other President of the USA is responsible for the genocide being perpetrated by the itm are liars.

Those who claim they love America, while they blame America for the genocide being perpetrated by the itm, are liars.


Note: itm = inhuman terrorist murderers = murderers of civilians, and those who abet the murder of civilians, and those who advocate the murder of civilians, and those who are silent witnesses of those who murder civilians.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jun, 2006 08:40 pm
Quote:
Answer: The political group the itm are trying to eradicate/destroy/annihilate consists of those in Iraq and Afghanistan who favor establishing democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who oppose the itm.


Guess OBL isn't part of the ITM, then? Or other terrorists who committed terrorist acts prior to the iraq and afghan wars?

Your defintions are nothing but bullsh*t. They are so open-ended as to defy real-world application. By your standards, anyone who is against America and fights against america is committing Genocide. This obviously is not the case.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 01:23 am
Cont here

This week, two Iraqi women, one of whom was about to give birth, were shot and killed in Samarra by American troops who said their car failed to stop at a checkpoint.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 09:01 am
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 09:09 am
In An 'Atrocity-Producing Situation' Who Is to Blame?
Haditha Massacre: In An 'Atrocity-Producing Situation' Who Is to Blame?
By Robert Jay Lifton
June 01, 2006
E & P

Is it enough for the media to accept that incidents such as the apparent massacre at Haditha are inevitably a part of war? The type of war we are waging in Iraq makes atrocities more likely, and responsibility for the crimes at Haditha extends to top commanders, the secretary of defense, and the White House.

My Lai is very much with us again. Its name was first invoked, in the context of the current war in Iraq, at the time of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, by Colin Powell among others. He cited the My Lai incident -- as many as 500 civilians were slaughtered in the Vietnamese village by American soldiers in March 1968 -- as the kind of thing that can happen in wars. Now we have the alleged massacre of Iraqi civilians in Haditha, followed by Wednesday's bulletin that U.S. troops shot and killed two women in a car near Samara -- one of the women, about to give birth, was apparently being rushed to a hospital.

Is it enough for the media to accept that such tragic incidents are inevitably a part of war?

Both of these Iraqi events, like My Lai, are examples of what I call an atrocity-producing situation -- one so structured, psychologically and militarily, that ordinary people, men or women no better or worse than you or I, can commit atrocities. A major factor in all of these events was the emotional state of U.S. soldiers as they struggled with angry grief over buddies killed by invisible adversaries, with a desperate need to identify an "enemy."

The military environment in Iraq, once so different from that of Vietnam, now holds striking parallels. Iraq is also a counterinsurgency war in which U.S. soldiers, despite their extraordinary firepower, feel extremely vulnerable in a hostile environment, and in which high-ranking officers and war planners are frustrated by the great difficulty of tracking down or even recognizing the enemy. What ultimately drives the dynamic is an ideological vision that equates Iraqi resisters with "terrorists" and seeks to further justify almost any action against them.

In the case of My Lai, there were deaths of many buddies, and then on the day before the massacre a much-loved sergeant was blown up by a booby trap. In the case of those responsible for the atrocity at Haditha, there was the death of 20 marines from a different unit three months earlier, which the new unit undoubtedly experienced as a legacy. Then, three days before the killings, the first death in the unit occurred, and on the day of the massacre, Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas was killed when a bomb exploded near his Humvee. As at My Lai, the combination of angry grief and military vulnerability led to the slaughter.

At My Lai, the night before the killings there was a ceremony, consisting of a memorial for the dead sergeant and a military briefing in which the men were encouraged to kill randomly. We don't have any such information about Haditha. There will undoubtedly be more to learn about the relationship between the sergeant who led the Haditha killings and higher-ranking officers and military policy.

My Lai was covered up for about a year and then was revealed through a grapevine of soldiers and reporters. Haditha remained hidden for several months before being reported by Time magazine, although several more months passed until the recent, much fuller, emergence of the story. Significantly, the Haditha atrocity was made known through interviews with Iraqi civilians, with the help of human rights workers and American journalists.

This access to Iraqi civilians, and growing awareness of the climate for wrongdoing, is likely to uncover other atrocities. Already today the BBC is reporting another alleged massacre of 11 Iraqi civilians.

Recognizing that atrocity is a group activity, one must ask how individual soldiers can so readily join in? I believe they undergo a type of dissociation that I call doubling -- the formation of a second self. The individual psyche can adapt to an atrocity-producing environment by means of a sub-self that behaves as if it is autonomous and thereby joins in activities that would otherwise seem repugnant.

In environments where sanctioned brutality becomes the norm, sadistic impulses, dormant in all of us, are likely to be expressed. The group's violent energy becomes such that an individual soldier who questions it could be turned upon. (A Vietnam veteran who had been at My Lai told me he had felt himself in some danger when he not only refused to fire but pointedly lowered the barrel of his gun to the ground.) To resist such intense group pressure requires an unusual combination of conscience and courage.

This kind of atrocity-producing situation can exist, with most of the characteristics I have described, in some degree in all wars, including World War II, our last "good war." But a counterinsurgency war against a nonwhite population in a hostile setting, especially when driven by profound ideological distortions, is particularly prone to sustained atrocity -- all the more so when it becomes an occupation.

To attribute the likely massacre at Haditha to "a few bad apples" or to "individual failures" is poor psychology and self-serving moralism. To be sure, individual soldiers and civilians who participated in it are accountable for their behavior, even under such pressured conditions. But the greater responsibility lies with those who planned and executed the war in Iraq and the "war on terrorism" of which it is a part, and who created, in policy and attitude, the accompanying denial of the rights of captives (at Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo) and of the humanity of civilians (at Haditha).

Iraq antiwar veterans to whom I have spoken have felt an immediate connection with their Vietnam predecessors. When an organizer of one group of Iraq veterans declared, "We were lost -- we had no idea what we were doing," he sounded very much like many of the Vietnam veterans I once worked with. He and others have described an atrocity-producing situation all too reminiscent of Vietnam.

Psychologically and ethically, responsibility for the crimes at Haditha extends to top commanders, the secretary of defense, and the White House. Those crimes are a direct expression of the kind of war we are waging in Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Jay Lifton ([email protected]) is an esteemed psychiatrist and author of several landmark books, including "Death in Life" and "The Nazi Doctors." In 1973 he wrote the book, "Home from the War: Vietnam Veteran -- Neither Victims nor Executioners." He has co-authored two books with E&P Editor Greg Mitchell, "Hiroshima in America" and "Who Owns Death?" His current book, which he co-edited, is "Crimes of War," a collection of essays on the Iraq war.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 10:55 am
Quote:
A third set of allegations that U.S. troops have deliberately killed civilians is fueling a furor in Iraq and drawing strong condemnations from government and human rights officials.

"It looks like the killing of Iraqi civilians is becoming a daily phenomenon," the chairman of the Iraqi Human Rights Association, Muayed al-Anbaki, said Friday after video ran on television of children and adults slain in a raid in Ishaqi in March.

Al-Anbaki's comments came a day after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki upbraided the U.S. military over allegations that Marines killed two dozen unarmed civilians in Haditha, calling it "a horrible crime." They were his strongest public comments on the subject since his government was sworn in last month.


I wonder what in the world is going on?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 11:04 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Answer: The political group the itm are trying to eradicate/destroy/annihilate consists of those in Iraq and Afghanistan who favor establishing democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who oppose the itm.


Guess OBL isn't part of the ITM, then? Or other terrorists who committed terrorist acts prior to the iraq and afghan wars?

... Cycloptichorn


Osama bin Laden (assuming he is still alive) and his lieutenants, Zawahiri and Zarqawi, are obviously all among those who have tried and are trying to eradicate/destroy/annihilate those in Iraq and Afghanistan who have favored and are favoring establishing democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who have opposed and are opposing the itm. Osama made that plain to all except perhaps the likes of you in his 1992, 1996, and 1998 fatwahs.

It's hard to believe that you are for real.

Suppose group X didn't qualify as itm until after October 20, 2001. Do you truly reason that therefore X do not qualify as itm after October 20, 2001?

More relevant to the point I am making, and the point you are suddenly avoiding, is whether Osama can qualify as a genocidal maniac after 01/01/2006, even though he may not have qualified as such before 01/01/2006.

Surely you realize that a person begins to qualify as a genocidal maniac the moment he begins acting like a genocidal maniac.

Clearly you qualify as an "O'Brien" today even though you may not have qualified as an "O'Brien" yesterday. Crying or Very sad

..... More about "O'Brien" later.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 11:33 am
George Orwell's NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR constituted a prescient warning to humanity. It was published in June 1949. He time-labeled his warning 1984, but his warning is a perpetual and timeless warning of humanity's propensity to contain and even court personalities in its midst that are dangerous to humanity's existence.

George Orwell died January 21, 1950.

Now think 2084 and note it is now June 2006, 57 years after 1949 and 78 years before 2084.

George Orwell -- born Eric Arthur Blair in 1903 wrote:
PART III, Chapter III, pages 274-283.

'The rule of the Party is forever. Make that the starting point of your thoughts.'

He [O'Brien] came closer to the bed. 'For ever!' he repeated. 'And now let us get back to the question of "how" and "why". You understand well enough how the Party maintains itself in power. Now tell me why we cling to power. What is our motive? Why should we want power? Go on, speak,' he added as Winston remained silent.
...

STANDBY! MORE LATER!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 11:34 am
Your definitions are loose. OBL didn't attack us on 9/11 in order to stop the spread of democracy. And he certainly didn't attack Iraq with the intent to commit genocide Rolling Eyes

Zarqawi was never a member of Al Qaeda until far after we attacked Iraq. To say that he was connected to or taking orders from OBL is farcical.

I'm sorry if you find it neccessary to demean me by assigning some sort of name to me, just like you do others you disagree with, but your sort of extremism - advocating the killing of innocents on a regular basis - will never be anything different than the extremism of those you call your enemies.

I haven't seen any evidence at all that any sort of Genocide is taking place by terrorists anywhere. Genocide represents a real effort to stamp out a group of people, not through intimidation, but through killing. Terrorists work through intimidation, not mass killing; the response to their attacks should naturally differ from those who kill en masse.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 11:52 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Your definitions are loose. OBL didn't attack us on 9/11 in order to stop the spread of democracy. And he certainly didn't attack Iraq with the intent to commit genocide Rolling Eyes
...
Cycloptichorn

"O'Brien" you are making up a definition of genocide that depends on intent or motivation. But you cannot define away the problem of the maniacal genocide being performed by the itm in Iraq. It is maniacal genocide regardless of the motives (good, bad, benign, holy, or evil) of those that perform it or promote it.

Quote:
www.m-w.com
Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
- geno·cid·al /"je-n&-'sI-d&l/ adjective


itm = inhuman terrorist murderers = murderers of civilians, and those who abet the murder of civilians, and those who advocate the murder of civilians, and those who are silent witnesses of those who murder civilians.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 12:08 pm
Then you are 'itm,' for you advocate the murder of civilians who have done nothing wrong.

You do realize that you did exactly that a few pages back?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 12:41 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Then you are 'itm,' for you advocate the murder of civilians who have done nothing wrong.

You do realize that you did exactly that a few pages back?

Cycloptichorn

"O'Brien", that is your lunatic translation of what I wrote.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 12:44 pm
George Orwell's NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR constituted a prescient warning to humanity. It was published in June 1949. He time-labeled his warning 1984, but his warning is a perpetual and timeless warning of humanity's propensity to contain and even court personalities in its midst that are dangerous to humanity's existence.

George Orwell died January 21, 1950.

Now think 2084 and note it is now June 2006, 57 years after 1949 and 78 years before 2084.

George Orwell -- born Eric Arthur Blair in 1903 wrote:
PART III, Chapter III, pages 274-283.

'The rule of the Party is forever. Make that the starting point of your thoughts.'

He [O'Brien] came closer to the bed. 'For ever!' he repeated. 'And now let us get back to the question of "how" and "why". You understand well enough how the Party maintains itself in power. Now tell me why we cling
to power. What is out motive? Why should we want power? Go on, speak,' he added as Winston remained silent.

^^^^^^^

Nevertheless Winston did not speak for another moment or two. A feeling of weariness had overwhelmed him. The faint, mad gleam of enthusiasm had come back into O'Brien's face. He knew in advance what O'brien would say. That the Party did not seek power for its own ends, but only for the good of the majority. That it sought power because men in the mass were frail cowardly creatures who could not endure liberty or face truth, and must be ruled over and systematically deceived by others who were stronger than themselves. That the choice for mankind lay between freedom and happiness, and that for the great bulk of mankind, happiness was better. That the Party was the eternal guardian of the weak, a dedicated sect doing evil that good might come, sacrificing its own happiness to that of others. The terrible thing, thought Winston, the terrible thing was that when O'brien said this he would believe it. You could see it in his face. O'brien knew everything. A thousand times better than Winston he knew what the world was really like, in what degradation the mass of human beings lived and by what lies and barbarities the Party kept them there. He had understood it all, weighed it all, and it made no difference: all was justified by the ultimate purpose. What can you do, thought Winston, against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing, and then simply persists in his lunacy?

'You are ruling over us for our own good,' he said feebly. 'You believe that human beings are not fit to govern themselves, and therefore--------'

He started and almost cried out. A pang of pain had shot through his body. O'Brien had pushed the lever of the dial up to thirty-five.

'That was stupid, Winston, stupid!' He said. 'You should know better than to say a thing like that. '

He pulled the lever back and continued: 'Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. …'


STANDBY! MORE LATER!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 01:03 pm
Quote:
Are they cohabiting with, co-locating with, travelling with, or walking with people for whom the answer to anyone of the previous questions is YES?


Advocating the killing of people walking down the street, or living in the same apartment building as someone who they don't even know is a terrorist/insurgent, is advocating the regular killing of innocents. There is no other possible interpretation, as much as you would like there to be, extremist.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 04:14 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Are they cohabiting with, co-locating with, travelling with, or walking with people for whom the answer to anyone of the previous questions is YES?


Advocating the killing of people walking down the street, or living in the same apartment building as someone who they don't even know is a terrorist/insurgent, is advocating the regular killing of innocents. There is no other possible interpretation, as much as you would like there to be, extremist.

Cycloptichorn

As usual, "O'Brien", your excerpt is so selectively narrow as to falsely appear to support your distortions of what I actually post.
ican711nm wrote:
I advocate:

Murder genocidal maniacs = murder itm = murder inhuman terrorist murderers = murder murderers of civilians, and those who abet the murder of civilians, and those who advocate the murder of civilians, and those who are silent witnesses of those who murder civilians.


A Simple Rule and a Simple Test for genocidal maniacs

Simple Rule:
Dramatically, repeatedly, and publicly announce the Simple Rule and Simple Test for genocidal maniacs.

Require that only trained military people in uniform to perform the Simple Test.

Simple Test for genocidal maniacs
Are they non-uniformed persons in possession of ordnance?
Did they shoot at soldiers
Did they shoot at civilians?
Did they behead prisoners?
Are they shooting at soldiers?
Are they shooting at civilians?
Are they beheading prisoners?
Are they inserting ordnance in holes alongside roads?
Are they inserting ordnance in vehicles?
Are they abetting people to do any of the above?
Are they advocating that people do any of the above?
Are they silent witnesses of people doing any of the above?
Are they training people to do any of the above?
Are they cohabiting with, co-locating with, travelling with, or walking with people that did or are doing any of the above?

If the answer to any of these questions about any person is yes, then that person is part of genocidal maniacs and must be murdered (i.e., exterminated).


After dramatically, repeatedly, and publicly announcing to the Iraqi and Afghanistani people the Simple Rule and Simple Test for genocidal maniacs, no civilian will cohabit with, co-locate with, travel with, or walk with people that did or are doing any of the above (i.e., are genocidal maniacs). "Word will travel fast."

All the genocidal maniacs need do to get all USA military personnel to leave the middle east, and to stop the murder of civilians in the middle east, is for them to renounce and denounce the killing of civilians, and for them to stop murdering civilians.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/16/2025 at 12:31:20