A hero amongst us... ***graphic***

[Tombo]

Jason, i sincerely apologize to you for a comment i had made previously, you are no longer just some handle to me but a superior to me in many ways. Respect.

[Matt C]

 

This is a very factual report of the true reason for war, although I would not say that the matter was urgent at the time:

Actually it's a little more than that.  He did fight to maintain our way of life and standard of living in the long term.  I don't think anyone has a clue what happens if the supply of oil gets interrupted, even a little, even briefly.  I do, and it ain't pretty.  Your safe little middle-class lifestyle can collapse into something resembling Bosnia inside of a week or two...  it doesn't take much.

The world is past peak oil, and China is growing more and more thirsty for a larger portion of what's left.  Until we can transition to other energy sources, we must ensure our supply keeps flowing uninterrupted.  Was Iraq about WMD or "freedom"?  Of course not... that's the cover story for the great unwashed.  But make no mistake about it, it IS all about maintaining our way of life.  So how 'bout saying "thank you" to Jason, or shutting the fucck up?

[Beener]

LOL!  Absolutely true.

War IS terror.  And a war which resulted in the deaths of (very conservatively) 76,000 innocent people IS TERRORISM.  The problem is, people believe the official story.  If I went out to kill thousands of innocent people and got a major injury, would you call me a hero?  Would you call me a hero if I believed in my heart that I was fighting a good cause?

It doesn't matter what the soldiers BELIEVE, it's what can be proven to be true, and they are no better than baby killers when you look at the actual FACTS.  How ridiculous to justify their immoral actions by saying they believe in their hearts that what they are doing is right.  No doubt many tyrants felt the same way.  Some say they don't support the war, but they support the troops.  Well the troops support the war, so it logically follows that to support the troops means to support the war.

So the arabs who kill other arabs in roadside bombings, or bomb churches n coffee shops, they're not terrorists? Yeah i guess you're right, i find when i kill innocent people havin tea in a coffee shop i'd like to be called a freedom fighter.

hey matt c you're a fag grow some balls

[MisterMagoo]

Fucking Canadian liberal ( and liberals in general) I swear you pacifists are completely useless and clueless................ .I have nothing, this post is so blatantly fucked up it leaves me speechless

fortunately for us, you being speechless is a good thing. you're one of those idiots that listens to savage or limbaugh and actually takes their opinions seriously instead of as the comedy they are. probably a fan of ann coulter as well.

there's a big bold line between being anti-war in the abstract and realizing that THIS war was a big heaping serving of bullshit. i supported the war in afghanistan but if you don't recognize that iraq was both a fraud and a failure then you're an idiot, plain and simple.

[Matt C]

So the arabs who kill other arabs in roadside bombings, or bomb churches n coffee shops, they're not terrorists? Yeah i guess you're right, i find when i kill innocent people havin tea in a coffee shop i'd like to be called a freedom fighter.

hey matt c you're a fag grow some balls

Sure, they are terrorists.  How about the US soldiers who go overseas and end up killing innocent children, whether intentional or not?

[no one]

lol.
 
the Americans have gone around the globe for the better part of half a century, bulling nations and poking their noses in affairs that do not concern them, sacrificing its own citizenry for monetary gain.

but the minute one person speaks up and says take a look around you and at what your gov't is doing, you all cry 'ban him!"

lol.

if you only could hear how ignorant you all sound.

the land of the free, huh?

nice work guys.

nothing like keeping the stereotype of the way your nation is perceived thru the rest of the world'ds eyes alive.

you are your own worst enemy.

[benz]

lol.
 
the Americans have gone around the globe for the better part of half a century, bulling nations and poking their noses in affairs that do not concern them, sacrificing its own citizenry for monetary gain.

but the minute one person speaks up and says take a look around you and at what your gov't is doing, you all cry 'ban him!"

lol.

if you only could hear how ignorant you all sound.

the land of the free, huh?

nice work guys.

nothing like keeping the stereotype of the way your nation is perceived thru the rest of the world'ds eyes alive.

you are your own worst enemy.

shut up commie bastard

[MisterMagoo]

So the arabs who kill other arabs in roadside bombings, or bomb churches n coffee shops, they're not terrorists? Yeah i guess you're right, i find when i kill innocent people havin tea in a coffee shop i'd like to be called a freedom fighter.

hey matt c you're a fag grow some balls

matt's a little... out there for me, but you have to define a terrorist versus a soldier. it strikes me as odd that so many of the people speaking out against "terrorists" think the solution would be to have our military kill all the men, women, and children of the area. from that perspective, terrorists are just soldiers without a concrete hierarchy.

on the other hand, if you realize that our military is intended for more noble purposes, then you realize why jason's situation is such a fucking tragedy.

[Matt C]

on the other hand, if you realize that our military is intended for more noble purposes, then you realize why jason's situation is such a fucking tragedy.

Zach_G85,

All countries say that about their armies!  The exact same brainwashing exists all over the world.  What facts do you have to prove that the American military is indeed more noble?

lol.
 
the Americans have gone around the globe for the better part of half a century, bulling nations and poking their noses in affairs that do not concern them, sacrificing its own citizenry for monetary gain.

but the minute one person speaks up and says take a look around you and at what your gov't is doing, you all cry 'ban him!"

lol.

if you only could hear how ignorant you all sound.

the land of the free, huh?

nice work guys.

nothing like keeping the stereotype of the way your nation is perceived thru the rest of the world'ds eyes alive.

you are your own worst enemy.

What's sad is that getbig is a liberal board!  I find the series of responses here very frightening.  That said, those who agree with me are for the most part just not chiming in.  It's not that this point of view doesn't have numerous supporters.

[G o a t b o y]

I can't believe the idiots calling soldiers "terrorists".  No, the difference is NOT the "lack of a hierarchy".    The difference is that terrorists intentionally target civilian noncombatants. Soldiers do everything they can to try and avoid hitting civilians.  In any war zone, civilians are going to become casualties, but there's a HUGE difference between accidentally hitting them (soldiers) and intentionally trying to hit them (terrorists). 


Hope this helps. 

[no one]

shut up commie bastard

around the world you are regarded as fat, beer- drinking, unintelliigent, trailer-park dwellers.

this response is typical and only strengthens the why others feel so poorly about you as a nation.

[benz]

around the world you are regarded as fat, beer- drinking, unintelliigent, trailer-park dwellers.

this response is typical and only strengthens the why others feel so poorly about you as a nation.

hahaha hello "sleeping cell" bastard

[G o a t b o y]

around the world you are regarded as fat, beer- drinking, unintelliigent, trailer-park dwellers.

this response is typical and only strengthens the why others feel so poorly about you as a nation.

Benz lives in Chile.  You're saying the world regards Chileans as "fat, beer- drinking, unintelliigent, trailer-park dwellers"?

I had no idea! 

[chaos]

around the world you are regarded as fat, beer- drinking, unintelliigent, trailer-park dwellers.

this response is typical and only strengthens the why others feel so poorly about you as a nation.

Brutal ignorance on who you are talking to......

[MisterMagoo]

I can't believe the idiots calling soldiers "terrorists".  No, the difference is NOT the "lack of a hierarchy".    The difference is that terrorists intentionally target civilian noncombatants. Soldiers do everything they can to try and avoid hitting civilians.  In any war zone, civilians are going to become casualties, but there's a HUGE difference between accidentally hitting them (soldiers) and intentionally trying to hit them (terrorists). 


Hope this helps. 

oh please. the firebombing of germany and the nukes in japan weren't intentionally targeting civilians? i agree with you that ideally war should remain amongst the soldiers, but to act like militaries have never attempted to use mass civilian casualties in order to horrify the leaders into surrender is just ridiculous, ignoring still the vast number of war supporters who have proposed the "total war" mindset.

by and large the military doesn't "accidentally" hit civilians any more than you "accidentally" hit a tree while trying to shoot at a paint can. you may not have been aiming at it but you sure don't give a shit if you do.

[Matt C]

I can't believe the idiots calling soldiers "terrorists".  No, the difference is NOT the "lack of a hierarchy".    The difference is that terrorists intentionally target civilian noncombatants. Soldiers do everything they can to try and avoid hitting civilians.  In any war zone, civilians are going to become casualties, but there's a HUGE difference between accidentally hitting them (soldiers) and intentionally trying to hit them (terrorists). 


Hope this helps. 

Got it.  So 3,000 dead Americans "on purpose" is more of a terrorist act than 76,000+ dead Iraqis "by accident".  Thanks for clarifying that, goatboy.

[stormshadow]

Why should I support someone who is doing something immoral?  Just because those immoral actions are under the guise of something good doesn't make it justified.

It is painfully obvious that you haven't the slightest fucking clue as to what you are talking about.

Now go run along kid...

[MisterMagoo]

i'd also like to ask what it means, then, when someone plants a roadside bomb that blows up underneath a US military humvee. does that mean that WASN'T a terrorist, because the target was military?

so if an al-qaeda maniac sets off a bomb in a bus, he's a terrorist, but if he sets off a bomb on a street under a marine's truck, he isn't? gotta admit, that doesn't make much sense to me.

[G o a t b o y]

Got it.  So 3,000 dead Americans "on purpose" is more of a terrorist act than 76,000+ dead Iraqis "by accident".  Thanks for clarifying that, goatboy.

How many of them were combatants vs. noncombatants?  How many were directly killed by Americans?  You're just tossing that figure out there without really explaining what's behind it.  Something tells me if we drill down on that you're intended argument is going to evaporate.

[Matt C]

It is painfully obvious that you haven't the slightest fucking clue as to what you are talking about.

Now go run along kid...

The complete lack of any facts present in rebuttals of my posts never cease to amaze me.  Are people so oblivious to the actual politics behind this war that they can't come back and refute anything I say with anything at all of substance?  Again, these are very scary thoughts.

[no one]

Benz lives in Chile.  You're saying the world regards Chileans as "fat, beer- drinking, unintelliigent, trailer-park dwellers"?

I had no idea! 

no, just benz.

[MisterMagoo]

How many of them were combatants vs. noncombatants?  How many were directly killed by Americans?  You're just tossing that figure out there without really explaining what's behind it.  Something tells me if we drill down on that you're intended argument is going to evaporate.

here's a few situations, tell me who the terrorists are and who aren't:

1) soldier who kills a soldier on purpose.

2) soldier who attempts to kill soldiers but accidentally kills a house full of civilians.

3) soldier who kills a house full of civilians on purpose.

4) non-soldier who kills a soldier on purpose.

5) non-soldier who attempts to kill soldiers but accidentally kills civilians.

6) non-soldier who kills civilians on purpose.

by your definition, only #6 is truly a terrorist, and possibly #3. however, we're calling all the people who did this to jason "terrorists". on what grounds?

[chaos]

I remember when 240 was going through the phase "MattC" and mistermangoo are going through now....then he "got it" one day....whether or not you agree with it or like it....it's happening and not a fucking thing you Canadian cybabies or mistermangoo can do about it. ha

[stormshadow]

To MattC,

I am 100% against the war, but never in a million years would I disrespect a Unites States war veteran the way you just did.

[G o a t b o y]

here's a few situations, tell me who the terrorists are and who aren't:

1) soldier who kills a soldier on purpose.

2) soldier who attempts to kill soldiers but accidentally kills a house full of civilians.

3) soldier who kills a house full of civilians on purpose.

4) non-soldier who kills a soldier on purpose.

5) non-soldier who attempts to kill soldiers but accidentally kills civilians.

6) non-soldier who kills civilians on purpose.

by your definition, only #6 is truly a terrorist, and possibly #3. however, we're calling all the people who did this to jason "terrorists". on what grounds?

I would say #3 and #6, since the intentional targeting of civilians is my qualifying definition.

I would call the people who did this to jason "enemy combatants", not terrorists.  However, if those same people intentionally targeted civilians, then they would be terrorists.  Either way they are the enemy... who cares what we call them?