General discussion


US Soldier Murders Injured and Unarmed

By Bucky Kaufman (MCSD) ·
Did y'all see the video of that US soldier murdering an unarmed, injured freedom fighter?

Knowing that he was most likely NOT al Quaeda, and knowing that he definitely didn't have any nuclear missiles - can ya really keep supporting the US war against the people of Iraq?

I mean, it's just not right to have US kids getting their minds so shattered, and their morality so compromised that they're murdering unarmed, injured people.

What did he do to deserve being shot? According to the soldier who shot him, his crime was "playing dead".

What choice do we leave these people, if playing dead is a capital crime, but to become suicide bombers, and to band together with Americas enemies like al Quaeda?

Is this really the way to spread Democracy - American style?

"If you wanna leave, take good care.
I hope you find a lot of nice friends out there.
Just remember there's a lot of bad and beware"
- Cat Stevens (banned from the US as a terrorist)

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

78 total posts (Page 5 of 8)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

by silvioandpauly In reply to US Soldier Murders Injure ...

Why not shoot 'em all and let Allah sort them out. Isn't that what Radical ISlam is all about?

It's war - just like the bombs we dropped in Japan that killed almost everyone.

Collapse -

Now that's what I call a REALLY profound comment ...

by jardinier In reply to

For a start, it is not a war. It was a pre-emptive strike on Iraq.

It has been argued at this website that it "is a war" because it is merely a continuation of "Desert Storm."

Now that the original stated reasons for the invasion have been proven false (No WMDs, no link between Hussein and bin Laden) and Hussein has been captured and his two sons killed, why IS America still in Iraq?

Because the US Administration has this totally unrealistic agenda of establishing a democracy in the Middle East, allegedly for the benefit of the ignorant "sand-niggers" (an extremely objectionable term) but actually of course to facilitate access to Middle East oil.

As Bush has surrounded himself with "friends" in the reshuffle of the administration, the attitude of the US will become even more hawkish than it has been up to date.

As for the soldier shooting the unarmed, wounded Iraqi, it was stated on the Australian news last night that an American serviceman had been killed by a booby-trapped body. Well if I was in the situation of the American soldier, I am pretty sure that my emotions would at least for the moment override any reservations I might have about correct military procedure.

I would hope that, when the soldier faces a court-martial, the specifics of the situation would be taken into consideration when choosing an appropriate punishment.

Collapse -

You fail to understand certain issues

by Garion11 In reply to Now that's what I call a ...

Based on the previous situation faced by the soldier(s) these people were booby trapping the dead bodies or faking that they are dead (which the soldier actually uttered here) based on that scenario if any soldier would be a fool not to do what he did. They are not out there to play nice, they are there to win a war.

Collapse -

We Won Already

They are not out there to play nice, they are there to win a war.
----- ----- ----- ----- -----

The war was won over a year ago. By continuing to slaughter injured, unarmed Iraqi freedom fighters indicates that *winning the war* is not the goal here. Killing Iraqis is the goal.

Collapse -

Iraqis are not al Quaeda

by Bucky Kaufman (MCSD) In reply to

Isn't that what Radical ISlam is all about?
----- ----- ----- ----- -----

The Iraqi people are not Radical Islamists. They're left-wing liberals. Religious nuts hate them for their moderate stance.

Saddam's Vice President was a Christian for God's sake.

Collapse -

A little confused

by JamesRL In reply to Iraqis are not al Quaeda

Its just too easy and simple to call the Iraqi people one thing or another.

Saddam's regime was "liberal" in no way I understand the term. They were not religious - not radical Islamic - but most of them belonged to one religious faction - the Sunnis. They were more tribal than religious. But, the regime did not represent the majority of Iraqi citizens, the majority of whom were Shia. It was only through brutal repression that Saddam and his regime kept power.


Collapse -

Talk about nuts!

by CorTech In reply to Iraqis are not al Quaeda

Yeah, I hear they are all card carrying republicans too.


Collapse -

Tell that to Zarqawi

by Packet Spoofer In reply to Iraqis are not al Quaeda
Collapse -

Creating New Enemies

by Bucky Kaufman (MCSD) In reply to Tell that to Zarqawi

It's a real failure of the Bush Regime that so MANY people throughout the world have joined up with al Quaeda. Not just radicals islamists, but more moderate folks as well.

Bush Republicans have been very successful to INCREASE the threat from terrorism - too bad the goal was to decrease it.

Collapse -

Terrorism has increased during every administration

by Packet Spoofer In reply to Creating New Enemies

over the past thirty years dude. Wake up and smell the car bomb! You just do not have the stomach to face what must be done, because you are a spineless weasel and I pity you!

Back to Community Forum
78 total posts (Page 5 of 8)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums