Coincidences ?

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Re: RE: Coincidences ?

Adaś said:
well you cannot say that mr. bush is killing any, can you ?

His soldiers are, and as he is the Command in Chief, he is ultimately responsible...I wonder how many tears he's shed for the dead of Iraq...

Not only is he responsible for upwards of 100,000 civillian casualties, but he also ordered the torture of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo detainees...

So, I fail to see how you can think that he is anything but a war criminal...
 

Adaś

New Member
Feb 13, 2005
6
0
1
Warsaw - Poland
www.host.blog.pl
Well you cannot win a war without some losses ,
However i think that more people die in Iraq in result of the terrorist actions than of Us army . That mr bush is doing wrihgt showed the recent voting in Iraq . nearly 70 % people went to vote ( that's the number media informed in our country ) , what means people want change .
Well , you cannot say that terrorist in iraq are defending country . They are the ones to blame for all the people killed in the war till now .
 

Adaś

New Member
Feb 13, 2005
6
0
1
Warsaw - Poland
www.host.blog.pl
Well you cannot win a war without some losses ,
However i think that more people die in Iraq in result of the terrorist actions than of Us army . That mr bush is doing wrihgt showed the recent voting in Iraq . nearly 70 % people went to vote ( that's the number media informed in our country ) , what means people want change .
Well , you cannot say that terrorist in iraq are defending country . They are the ones to blame for all the people killed in the war till now .
 

Adaś

New Member
Feb 13, 2005
6
0
1
Warsaw - Poland
www.host.blog.pl
Well you cannot win a war without some losses ,
However i think that more people die in Iraq in result of the terrorist actions than of Us army . That mr bush is doing wrihgt showed the recent voting in Iraq . nearly 70 % people went to vote ( that's the number media informed in our country ) , what means people want change .
Well , you cannot say that terrorist in iraq are defending country . They are the ones to blame for all the people killed in the war till now .
 

Stretch

House Member
Feb 16, 2003
3,924
19
38
Australia
so, just where are these WMD that were an imminent threat to the US of G, shrub? (G= greed)

oops....I shouldnt have said that....it probably contravenes the " canadian freedom of speech" act
 

Stretch

House Member
Feb 16, 2003
3,924
19
38
Australia
so, just where are these WMD that were an imminent threat to the US of G, shrub? (G= greed)

oops....I shouldnt have said that....it probably contravenes the " canadian freedom of speech" act
 

Stretch

House Member
Feb 16, 2003
3,924
19
38
Australia
so, just where are these WMD that were an imminent threat to the US of G, shrub? (G= greed)

oops....I shouldnt have said that....it probably contravenes the " canadian freedom of speech" act
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
well you cannot say that mr. bush is killing any, can you ?

I can, I have, and I will continue to do so.

Well you cannot win a war without some losses ,

You can't win a war against insurgents by killing women and children, abusing the general populace, or torturing people. You cannot force democracy at the point of a gun. You cannot invade sovereign states to steal their oil.

However i think that more people die in Iraq in result of the terrorist actions than of Us army .

Car bombs vs. depleted uranium munitions raining down from the sky? The US is much more efficient at killing than the insurgents.

That mr bush is doing wrihgt showed the recent voting in Iraq .

That's registered voters. The number of people who could have voted that did so is likely closer to 45%. Of those only 14% voted for the man Bush wanted in office, the man the US was openly backing. The people they did vote for could well institute a theocracy and certainly aren't supporters of the US at any rate. Those most opposed to Bush, the Sunnis that make up most of the insurgents, never voted. They botcotted the election.

Well , you cannot say that terrorist in iraq are defending country . They are the ones to blame for all the people killed in the war till now .

That is, quite simply, incorrect. Both sides have killed but the US is better armed and has used banned weapons such as depleted uranium and napalm.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
well you cannot say that mr. bush is killing any, can you ?

I can, I have, and I will continue to do so.

Well you cannot win a war without some losses ,

You can't win a war against insurgents by killing women and children, abusing the general populace, or torturing people. You cannot force democracy at the point of a gun. You cannot invade sovereign states to steal their oil.

However i think that more people die in Iraq in result of the terrorist actions than of Us army .

Car bombs vs. depleted uranium munitions raining down from the sky? The US is much more efficient at killing than the insurgents.

That mr bush is doing wrihgt showed the recent voting in Iraq .

That's registered voters. The number of people who could have voted that did so is likely closer to 45%. Of those only 14% voted for the man Bush wanted in office, the man the US was openly backing. The people they did vote for could well institute a theocracy and certainly aren't supporters of the US at any rate. Those most opposed to Bush, the Sunnis that make up most of the insurgents, never voted. They botcotted the election.

Well , you cannot say that terrorist in iraq are defending country . They are the ones to blame for all the people killed in the war till now .

That is, quite simply, incorrect. Both sides have killed but the US is better armed and has used banned weapons such as depleted uranium and napalm.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
well you cannot say that mr. bush is killing any, can you ?

I can, I have, and I will continue to do so.

Well you cannot win a war without some losses ,

You can't win a war against insurgents by killing women and children, abusing the general populace, or torturing people. You cannot force democracy at the point of a gun. You cannot invade sovereign states to steal their oil.

However i think that more people die in Iraq in result of the terrorist actions than of Us army .

Car bombs vs. depleted uranium munitions raining down from the sky? The US is much more efficient at killing than the insurgents.

That mr bush is doing wrihgt showed the recent voting in Iraq .

That's registered voters. The number of people who could have voted that did so is likely closer to 45%. Of those only 14% voted for the man Bush wanted in office, the man the US was openly backing. The people they did vote for could well institute a theocracy and certainly aren't supporters of the US at any rate. Those most opposed to Bush, the Sunnis that make up most of the insurgents, never voted. They botcotted the election.

Well , you cannot say that terrorist in iraq are defending country . They are the ones to blame for all the people killed in the war till now .

That is, quite simply, incorrect. Both sides have killed but the US is better armed and has used banned weapons such as depleted uranium and napalm.
 

Paranoid Dot Calm

Council Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,142
0
36
Hide-Away Lane, Toronto
Hey! Adaś

I don't see much difference between George Bush or Slobodan Milosevic.

Milosevic claimed that he did not know that his troops were killing innocents and burning their houses.
He claimed he tried to stop it.

George Bush said the same when the prison abuse scandal happened and all the other atrocities committed in Iraq by US forces.

If you can explain the difference ..... I'd love to hear it.

If not .... George Bush must be a war criminal just like Milosevic.
George Bush should be held accountable at the Hague.

Calm