Osama Bin Laden Is Dead

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

8th May 2011, 09:01
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Isn't enough. As long as their are people who are willing to take up arms against the United States I will have no problem with a 1000 to one kill ratio or higher.

How does that make you different from them who think it's OK to knock down some towers and kill few thousand Americans for every Muslim the Americans kill in the Middle East?
8th May 2011, 15:06
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Isn't enough. As long as their are people who are willing to take up arms against the United States I will have no problem with a 1000 to one kill ratio or higher.

Given that, at what point would you deem the kill ratio to be too high? And where would you draw the line? Would you, for instance, advocate the killing of those who consider a '1000 to one' kill ratio unacceptable, on the grounds that their unduly liberal attitudes pose a threat to the security of the USA?
8th May 2011, 16:49
markabilly

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

America has already taken back "An eye for an eye" between sixteen and twenty times over. There doesn't need to be anymore blood payment. Getting that blood payment has cost ten years and driven the United States' economy and reputation into the ground.

The best thing at this point would be to declare the books closed on this forever and move on.

Not really. I actually feel sorry for the stupid *******s that go getting themselves killed, either by US bombs or by blowing themselves up.
One could say it is their own fault for being so stupid,........but.......

No I think leaders in a war should always be the first to die; that would do more to keep peace than anything else.

why do you think we did not have a thermonuke dance with the ole soviets????

Yeah, all those leaders were so worried over how many millions might die???? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

they knew they would be among the first to die and nobody would be left to go around singing hail to the chief.

well, making the leaders to be the first to die, would be a great step towards world peace.
8th May 2011, 20:19
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Given that, at what point would you deem the kill ratio to be too high? And where would you draw the line? Would you, for instance, advocate the killing of those who consider a '1000 to one' kill ratio unacceptable, on the grounds that their unduly liberal attitudes pose a threat to the security of the USA?

IF every known member of those considered to be THE enemy were dead, but one kills a few outsiders just to be sure, would be considered going too far; whereas to exterminate the enemy- would be ideal.
8th May 2011, 20:26
Bob Riebe

This article was published shortly before Sept. 11, 2001--http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/10/op...st-threat.html

Krauthammer's editorial today says that the same asinine attitude is being verbalized by many liberals again now that Osama is dead.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

At the same time with Osama dead- I wonder how proud this makes Obama of his meddling in the affairs of Muslim countries where he and his regime have no business interfering. http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/1...-in-west-cairo
8th May 2011, 20:28
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

IF every known member of those considered to be THE enemy were dead, but one kills a few outsiders just to be sure, would be considered going too far; whereas to exterminate the enemy- would be ideal.

In reality you create more enemies for every outsider killed.
9th May 2011, 04:32
Mark in Oshawa

Well I am not going to read 19 pages of you guys fighting. I am glad he is dead, I think the Pakistani's knew he was there the whole time and were harbouring him, and are smart enough to now look the other way. Was Obama right to do what he did? That one is thorny, but hey, you play the game of poking the bull, the bull will get even. If Obama didn't do it, someone would have in time figured him out. The US had the balls to say "yes it was us"...so right or wrong, at least they are not hiding behind some fiction they didn't do it.

Fair trail for a man who would have your throat slit for being a non Muslim? No...but he isn't into fair. He got what everyone of these mutts claims to want, a trip to paradise. Whether he did or not is for powers beyond this earth, but I suspect Hell just got more interesting...no virgins there with honey..
9th May 2011, 05:27
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

How does that make you different from them who think it's OK to knock down some towers and kill few thousand Americans for every Muslim the Americans kill in the Middle East?

Only you would make 3000 INNOCENT VICTIMS the same as those who actively attack the United States.
9th May 2011, 05:29
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Given that, at what point would you deem the kill ratio to be too high? And where would you draw the line? Would you, for instance, advocate the killing of those who consider a '1000 to one' kill ratio unacceptable, on the grounds that their unduly liberal attitudes pose a threat to the security of the USA?

If it would save the life of even 1 US citizen there is no number that is too high.
9th May 2011, 05:56
Rollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Only you would make 3000 INNOCENT VICTIMS the same as those who actively attack the United States.

Between 14,000-34,000 civilians have been killed because of attacks in Afghanistan. They're equally as innocent as the 3000 who died in New York.

But you are correct. Everyone who has died in Afghanistan deserved to die because they're scum. From the people just going about their daily business to the evil evil children who were going to school. Scum scum scum. Kill all of them, they deserve it, don't they.
9th May 2011, 07:52
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Between 14,000-34,000 civilians have been killed because of attacks in Afghanistan. They're equally as innocent as the 3000 who died in New York.

Only in your bigoted ignorant mind.

Karzai's cousin murdered in revenge for 'honour killing' of another of Afghan president's relatives 30 YEARS ago

A teenage relative of Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been murdered by another relative in revenge for another killing 30 years ago.
Waheed Karzai, 18, was shot in front of his 12-year old sister by a a distant relative taking revenge for the 'honour killing' of his father decades earlier.

The president's powerful relatives are now protecting the killer - Hazmat Karzai - from the authorities, it was claimed.
The blood feud could cast a shadow over Karzai's promise to clean up the corrupt government, spurred on by complaints from Western countries that provide the cash and troops that keep him in power.
9th May 2011, 07:55
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Only in your bigoted ignorant mind.

Karzai's cousin murdered in revenge for 'honour killing' of another of Afghan president's relatives 30 YEARS ago

A teenage relative of Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been murdered by another relative in revenge for another killing 30 years ago.
Waheed Karzai, 18, was shot in front of his 12-year old sister by a a distant relative taking revenge for the 'honour killing' of his father decades earlier.

The president's powerful relatives are now protecting the killer - Hazmat Karzai - from the authorities, it was claimed.
The blood feud could cast a shadow over Karzai's promise to clean up the corrupt government, spurred on by complaints from Western countries that provide the cash and troops that keep him in power.

The Afghanistan populace has supported this kind of butchery for centuries, they are not even CLOSE to being innocent.
9th May 2011, 13:08
Brown, Jon Brow

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

But you are correct. Everyone who has died in Afghanistan deserved to die because they're scum. From the people just going about their daily business to the evil evil children who were going to school. Scum scum scum. Kill all of them, they deserve it, don't they.

I agree. They (Afgans) are just as evil as those Jews that were living in Germany in the 1930's.
9th May 2011, 13:37
Rollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

I agree. They (Afgans) are just as evil as those Jews that were living in Germany in the 1930's.

Don't forget the horrid horrid Zimbabweans who are secretly plotting to destory the world with hyperinflation.
9th May 2011, 13:56
cali

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Don't forget the horrid horrid Zimbabweans who are secretly plotting to destory the world with hyperinflation.

Yes, kill em' all .... yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay....
9th May 2011, 14:04
Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Isn't enough. As long as their are people who are willing to take up arms against the United States I will have no problem with a 1000 to one kill ratio or higher.

http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/o...r/headdesk.gif

Is all I can say to that statement.
9th May 2011, 15:01
Dave B

"One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" - erm, probably Martin Luther King or someone.
9th May 2011, 15:08
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Between 14,000-34,000 civilians have been killed because of attacks in Afghanistan. They're equally as innocent as the 3000 who died in New York.

But you are correct. Everyone who has died in Afghanistan deserved to die because they're scum. From the people just going about their daily business to the evil evil children who were going to school. Scum scum scum. Kill all of them, they deserve it, don't they.

And even more innocent civilians have been killed in Iraq and in Lebanon and Palestine.
9th May 2011, 15:45
F1boat

So, Eki, the Americans are supposed to do nothing when terrorists hit them and kill thousands of their citizens?
9th May 2011, 16:11
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1boat

So, Eki, the Americans are supposed to do nothing when terrorists hit them and kill thousands of their citizens?

Sure they are. They are supposed to improve their counter-terrorism intelligence and border security, and check their policies if there's something they could do that so many people weren't so pissed off by their actions.

If in your country the police is looking for a murderer, do they blow up apartment buildings and schools full of innocent bystanders where the suspect might or might not be hiding? Or should they wait until they get him without killing any innocent bystanders?
9th May 2011, 16:17
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

Sure they are. They are supposed to improve their counter-terrorism intelligence and border security, and check their policies if there's something they could do that so many people weren't so pissed off by their actions.

And apparently it's not just Muslims who are pissed off. I just read that in Helsinki, a Finnish middle-aged woman attacked a Canadian woman and her daughter yelling she hates Americans.
9th May 2011, 16:29
donKey jote

Quote:

Originally Posted by henners88

Its quite amusing to see the arrogance on both sides of this identical stance. Laughable.

:up:
just caught up on a couple of documentaries, back to back:
"Louis Theroux - America's Most Hated Family In Crisis", on the Phelps Bible-bashing cult nutters, and
"My Brother the Islamist", on a "white brother" British nutter converted to a radical Islam movement in the UK.

Mind boggling.
... and united in their passionate hatred of Obama ;) :p
9th May 2011, 16:56
Bagwan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Don't forget the horrid horrid Zimbabweans who are secretly plotting to destory the world with hyperinflation.

Mugabe had a rep at the royal wedding recently , and attended the beautification of John Paul , despite cries of genocide in his country .

They'll turn him into the "villian" when they need a new one .
9th May 2011, 17:06
Bagwan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

And apparently it's not just Muslims who are pissed off. I just read that in Helsinki, a Finnish middle-aged woman attacked a Canadian woman and her daughter yelling she hates Americans.

Back in time , when I was back-packing Europe , I met many who were surprised to find out I was really Canadian .
They had expected me to be an American , simply because I had a Canadian flag on my pack .
9th May 2011, 17:27
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Between 14,000-34,000 civilians have been killed because of attacks in Afghanistan. They're equally as innocent as the 3000 who died in New York.

While I dispute those numbers I will point out one simple fact that you seem to have missed.

The 3000 people murdered on 9/11 were targeted. Any innocent civilian that maybe was killed in Afghanistan weren't. Collateral damage is the ugly side of war but no country has done more to prevent it than the USA.....NOBODY!!!
9th May 2011, 17:32
F1boat

It's shocking, but I have to side with antony here...
9th May 2011, 18:17
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

While I dispute those numbers I will point out one simple fact that you seem to have missed.

The 3000 people murdered on 9/11 were targeted. Any innocent civilian that maybe was killed in Afghanistan weren't. Collateral damage is the ugly side of war but no country has done more to prevent it than the USA.....NOBODY!!!

Actually, the target was the towers. So in a way, the people who happened to be in the towers were collateral damage.

http://www.allgreatquotes.com/osama_...n_quotes.shtml

Quote:

God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed -- when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women.

It took Bin Laden 19 years to get the towers, so he was more patient than the US was in trying to get Bin Laden.
9th May 2011, 19:50
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

Actually, the target was the towers. So in a way, the people who happened to be in the towers were collateral damage.

Are you serious? Really? Are you actually being serious by that statement?
Please tell me it is some kind of weird, quirky, Finnish humor that I don't get.
9th May 2011, 19:53
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

I agree. They (Afgans) are just as evil as those Jews that were living in Germany in the 1930's.

Oh yes all those honor and revenge killings among the Jews.
Your rhetoric is moronic.
9th May 2011, 19:55
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by henners88

In terms of ethics there doesn't seem to be a vast difference between you and a terrorist who also feels his people are dying as a result of the United States taking up arms against his people in the Middle East. Its quite amusing to see the arrogance on both sides of this identical stance. Laughable.

Lets see we unfortunately helped them against the Soviets; therefore they murder apprx. 3,000 people in New York City.

Your analogy is foolish.
9th May 2011, 19:57
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

And even more innocent civilians have been killed in Iraq and in Lebanon and Palestine.

Well Saddam is gone and so is Arafat, so it is not nearly so bad now.
9th May 2011, 19:59
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave B

"One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist".

Yes they fight for what they believe in unlike the pantywaist liberals in the U.S. so one must respect them for honoring their faith, and absolutely kill them first.
9th May 2011, 20:01
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

Sure they are. They are supposed to improve their counter-terrorism intelligence and border security, and check their policies if there's something they could do that so many people weren't so pissed off by their actions.

If in your country the police is looking for a murderer, do they blow up apartment buildings and schools full of innocent bystanders where the suspect might or might not be hiding? Or should they wait until they get him without killing any innocent bystanders?

Your bogus trolling analogies are still asinine and numerous.
9th May 2011, 20:18
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Are you serious? Really? Are you actually being serious by that statement?
Please tell me it is some kind of weird, quirky, Finnish humor that I don't get.

The US didn't care there were innocent bystanders in the towers in Lebanon, Bin Laden didn't care there were innocent bystanders in the WTC towers. Where's the difference?
9th May 2011, 21:39
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

The US didn't care there were innocent bystanders in the towers in Lebanon, Bin Laden didn't care there were innocent bystanders in the WTC towers. Where's the difference?

You are sick.
9th May 2011, 21:52
JackSparrow

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

While I dispute those numbers I will point out one simple fact that you seem to have missed.

The 3000 people murdered on 9/11 were targeted. Any innocent civilian that maybe was killed in Afghanistan weren't. Collateral damage is the ugly side of war but no country has done more to prevent it than the USA.....NOBODY!!!

Are you being serious? You're not any better than Bin Laden with that thinking.
If they wanted to kill people there are simpler ways to do so.Timothy McVeigh killed 400 with a cargo van.
9th May 2011, 21:58
JackSparrow

The US is the only country that has dropped atom bombs on cities :( I'm sure there was no collateral damage done :rolleyes:
9th May 2011, 22:05
Daniel

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackSparrow

The US is the only country that has dropped atom bombs on cities :( I'm sure there was no collateral damage done :rolleyes:

Call a waaaaaahmbulance. Anyone with half a braincell knows why they did that rather than attempt to invade.
9th May 2011, 22:45
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by henners88

I think theres a little more to it than that, and before we start insinuating each other have foolish judgements it might be worth analysing events with a little more depth. Your opinion of me makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

Nor does it make your analogy any less silly at face value. (Foolish is a bit too harsh)
There is nothing to relate the two.
Some here roll out the same trolling topics, not related to the thread topic, always attacking others opinions never rarely if ever defending their own.

Standard operating mode for trolling.
9th May 2011, 22:47
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackSparrow

The US is the only country that has dropped atom bombs on cities.

So what is your point, if you have one?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:51.