ok next issue............why did they only get spanked instead of getting the ever livin' shit beat outta them?Horseman 77 wrote:
Bad Boys get spanked. No Fatalities. No permanent damage. No problem. No issue. Next.
trust me.. a spanking like that is good enough
but seriously. u need the people u beast to be able to walk away so they can go and show their friends their injuries. believe me when those guys went away and showed people wot happens when u throw rocks at those british soldiers down the street, i think u'll find they went and threw rocks elsewhere from then on
the beasting is an extreme use of communication. unfortunately there are people in this world who only get the message this way. its a shame, but as we know. very true
but seriously. u need the people u beast to be able to walk away so they can go and show their friends their injuries. believe me when those guys went away and showed people wot happens when u throw rocks at those british soldiers down the street, i think u'll find they went and threw rocks elsewhere from then on
the beasting is an extreme use of communication. unfortunately there are people in this world who only get the message this way. its a shame, but as we know. very true
beacuse the soldiers knew they were being filmed ?
seriously though, although I reckognize that it is difficult to fight the insurgency using SOP only, I think it is rather questionable to let beatings like this go unsanctioned.
from a theoretical POV it is rather difficult to convince the locals that you are there to fight for freedom, justice, etc., but while doing so you violate the law yourself. You can not enforce the law by breaking it.
On a side note, the idea of human rights is that everyone has them, wether he throws rocks at soldiers in a warzone or not.
I realize though that these are merely ideals that are difficult - if not impossible - to hold up during times of war. It is always difficult for soldiers to perform effectively when they are operating in areas where police work conflicts with military operations. One second, the guy is throwing rocks at you, the next second he might grab an AK and become an armed insurgent. In those situations, it is nearly impossible to make the correct "call", if you will.
As has been said before, it is also difficult for most of us sitting in front of our computers to understand what the situation on the ground is really like. So I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions too much.
Were the human rights of these kids violated ? most likely. Were they tortured ? Absolutely not. Was anyone of them killed ? No.
The underlieing question is, how far are you prepared to go in your fight for freedom and democracy ?
There is a fine line here. Personally, I'd say beating someone who is sitting on the ground in handcuffs is stepping over that line. But that's just me. The soldiers could have chosen more violent action. We should be happy they didn't.
On a side note: Iraq isn't really the Hamptons atm. It is a warzone without effective policing and with little if any public order/safety. I wonder what responsible parent would say to his child: "sure, go out and play with your little friends, here's a rock to throw in case you meet a coalition patrol"
seriously though, although I reckognize that it is difficult to fight the insurgency using SOP only, I think it is rather questionable to let beatings like this go unsanctioned.
from a theoretical POV it is rather difficult to convince the locals that you are there to fight for freedom, justice, etc., but while doing so you violate the law yourself. You can not enforce the law by breaking it.
On a side note, the idea of human rights is that everyone has them, wether he throws rocks at soldiers in a warzone or not.
I realize though that these are merely ideals that are difficult - if not impossible - to hold up during times of war. It is always difficult for soldiers to perform effectively when they are operating in areas where police work conflicts with military operations. One second, the guy is throwing rocks at you, the next second he might grab an AK and become an armed insurgent. In those situations, it is nearly impossible to make the correct "call", if you will.
As has been said before, it is also difficult for most of us sitting in front of our computers to understand what the situation on the ground is really like. So I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions too much.
Were the human rights of these kids violated ? most likely. Were they tortured ? Absolutely not. Was anyone of them killed ? No.
The underlieing question is, how far are you prepared to go in your fight for freedom and democracy ?
There is a fine line here. Personally, I'd say beating someone who is sitting on the ground in handcuffs is stepping over that line. But that's just me. The soldiers could have chosen more violent action. We should be happy they didn't.
On a side note: Iraq isn't really the Hamptons atm. It is a warzone without effective policing and with little if any public order/safety. I wonder what responsible parent would say to his child: "sure, go out and play with your little friends, here's a rock to throw in case you meet a coalition patrol"
hmmm it is rong that they got beat up , but i gotta say when you are fuck knows how many miles away from home walking throuh places where you could be shot at any given second , thats gotta frig up your head so i think when they beat up those people they were not thinking about there actions.
(i jst confused myself )
(i jst confused myself )
i say good on em beat the crap out of them sand rats. all they grow up to be is retarded bombers any way. plus the little cunts shoot at ya throw bottles stones you fucking name it they will throw it. all i can say is sit behind your screen and go on about it when you in a place like that you dont fuck about its you or them. they are getting a slap for being little cunts thats not a good kicking given them. tell the truth i would have shot the fuckers.
<Lumberg voice>I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there.</Lumberg voice>B.Schuss wrote:
On a side note, the idea of human rights is that everyone has them, wether he throws rocks at soldiers in a warzone or not.
To keep one's own human rights, one MUST respect those of others. If one demonstates a lack of respect for the basic rights of others, one loses the claim to their own. This is institutional logic in every country I can name. If you violate the human rights of others, you get your own violated in return - that is the basis of punishment under the law. Example: You kill someone, thereby violating their right to live (a fundamental human right), in turn your human right to freedom is taken from you. Simple.
In the case in the film, the Iraqis assualted the soldiers, and were assaulted in turn by the soldiers. Justice was served, just not through the courts. There is really only one problem one can logically have with the outcome: That it did not happen through official channels. BUT, as I noted earlier, official channels in Iraq are a little too sparse, and a little too busy to deal with rock throwing incidents; so being a stickler for procedure isn't going to get one too far in a place like Iraq. As a result, the soldiers took action. I happen to believe that action was quick and fair - which it needed to be. Those kids had no doubt as to WHY they got a beating. The human rights of the kids who got beaten were violated no worse than those of the soldiers who got rocks thrown at them.
If you disagree, take a rock in the melon, and then tell me what you think.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-04-12 11:44:35)
I can find no fault with this argument.whittsend wrote:
<Lumberg voice>I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there.</Lumberg voice>B.Schuss wrote:
On a side note, the idea of human rights is that everyone has them, wether he throws rocks at soldiers in a warzone or not.
To keep one's own human rights, one MUST respect those of others. If one demonstates a lack of respect for the basic rights of others, one loses the claim to their own. This is institutional logic in every country I can name. If you violate the human rights of others, you get your own violated in return - that is the basis of punishment under the law. Example: You kill someone, thereby violating their right to live (a fundamental human right), in turn your human right to freedom is taken from you. Simple.
In the case in the film, the Iraqis assualted the soldiers, and were assaulted in turn by the soldiers. Justice was served, just not through the courts. There is really only one problem one can logically have with the outcome: That it did not happen through official channels. BUT, as I noted earlier, official channels in Iraq are a little too sparse, and a little too busy to deal with rock throwing incidents; so being a stickler for procedure isn't going to get one too far in a place like Iraq. As a result, the soldiers took action. I happen to believe that action was quick and fair - which it needed to be. Those kids had no doubt as to WHY they got a beating. The human rights of the kids who got beaten were violated no worse than those of the soldiers who got rocks thrown at them.
If you disagree, take a rock in the melon, and then tell me what you think.
racism for the win, right? all middle easterns are suicide bombers, now, are they?A=10 wrote:
i say good on em beat the crap out of them sand rats. all they grow up to be is retarded bombers any way. plus the little cunts shoot at ya throw bottles stones you fucking name it they will throw it. all i can say is sit behind your screen and go on about it when you in a place like that you dont fuck about its you or them. they are getting a slap for being little cunts thats not a good kicking given them. tell the truth i would have shot the fuckers.
exactly what i said..stevo1971 wrote:
trust me.. a spanking like that is good enough
but seriously. u need the people u beast to be able to walk away so they can go and show their friends their injuries. believe me when those guys went away and showed people wot happens when u throw rocks at those british soldiers down the street, i think u'll find they went and threw rocks elsewhere from then on
the beasting is an extreme use of communication. unfortunately there are people in this world who only get the message this way. its a shame, but as we know. very true
^^
nope me either..( and you all know I was lookin' for one hehehehehehe )Darth_Fleder wrote:
I can find no fault with this argument.whittsend wrote:
<Lumberg voice>I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there.</Lumberg voice>B.Schuss wrote:
On a side note, the idea of human rights is that everyone has them, wether he throws rocks at soldiers in a warzone or not.
To keep one's own human rights, one MUST respect those of others. If one demonstates a lack of respect for the basic rights of others, one loses the claim to their own. This is institutional logic in every country I can name. If you violate the human rights of others, you get your own violated in return - that is the basis of punishment under the law. Example: You kill someone, thereby violating their right to live (a fundamental human right), in turn your human right to freedom is taken from you. Simple.
In the case in the film, the Iraqis assualted the soldiers, and were assaulted in turn by the soldiers. Justice was served, just not through the courts. There is really only one problem one can logically have with the outcome: That it did not happen through official channels. BUT, as I noted earlier, official channels in Iraq are a little too sparse, and a little too busy to deal with rock throwing incidents; so being a stickler for procedure isn't going to get one too far in a place like Iraq. As a result, the soldiers took action. I happen to believe that action was quick and fair - which it needed to be. Those kids had no doubt as to WHY they got a beating. The human rights of the kids who got beaten were violated no worse than those of the soldiers who got rocks thrown at them.
If you disagree, take a rock in the melon, and then tell me what you think.
whittsend knows what the fuck hes talking about.
about time the politicians,
who put the armed forces over there, took responsibility.
politicians put the forces in situations of danger.
so as the head of the armed forces,
they should face manslaughter charges, if any of their forces are taken to court for the same,
and be taken to court if they fail to provide adequate protection, kit....for the troops.
who put the armed forces over there, took responsibility.
politicians put the forces in situations of danger.
so as the head of the armed forces,
they should face manslaughter charges, if any of their forces are taken to court for the same,
and be taken to court if they fail to provide adequate protection, kit....for the troops.
o
Oh Puh-lease, give me a break. Do you have cotton between your ears????infernalzen wrote:
about time the politicians,
who put the armed forces over there, took responsibility.
politicians put the forces in situations of danger.
so as the head of the armed forces,
they should face manslaughter charges, if any of their forces are taken to court for the same,
and be taken to court if they fail to provide adequate protection, kit....for the troops.
Last edited by Darth_Fleder (2006-04-12 22:33:52)
well, what goes around, comes around. Personally, I don't think throwing rocks at someone is violating that person's human rights. It is a crime and must be dealt with accordingly. Beating a handcuffed detainee however, and denying that person their right to due process, is a violation of human rights in my opinion.whittsend wrote:
<Lumberg voice>I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there.</Lumberg voice>B.Schuss wrote:
On a side note, the idea of human rights is that everyone has them, wether he throws rocks at soldiers in a warzone or not.
To keep one's own human rights, one MUST respect those of others. If one demonstates a lack of respect for the basic rights of others, one loses the claim to their own. This is institutional logic in every country I can name. If you violate the human rights of others, you get your own violated in return - that is the basis of punishment under the law. Example: You kill someone, thereby violating their right to live (a fundamental human right), in turn your human right to freedom is taken from you. Simple.
In the case in the film, the Iraqis assualted the soldiers, and were assaulted in turn by the soldiers. Justice was served, just not through the courts. There is really only one problem one can logically have with the outcome: That it did not happen through official channels. BUT, as I noted earlier, official channels in Iraq are a little too sparse, and a little too busy to deal with rock throwing incidents; so being a stickler for procedure isn't going to get one too far in a place like Iraq. As a result, the soldiers took action. I happen to believe that action was quick and fair - which it needed to be. Those kids had no doubt as to WHY they got a beating. The human rights of the kids who got beaten were violated no worse than those of the soldiers who got rocks thrown at them.
If you disagree, take a rock in the melon, and then tell me what you think.
As you have said, you cannot claim for yourself what you'd deny others. The coalition forces are supposed to be those fighting for freedom and democracy, those with higher moral standards, the "good guys", as GWB is putting it.
I am sorry, but if you need to violate someone's human rights to "serve justice" ( your words ), then you are not really keeping to the higher moral standards I would expect from those on the "good side".
In other words, you don't enforce the law by breaking it. It is a principle, I know, and difficult to stick to, especially under those circumstances, but I have always believed that those who fight to uphold the law must be held to higher moral / ethical standards than those who break it.
that is, in my opinion, the fundamental difference between the two groups. At least it should be....
That is exactly what I would say to the kids who threw stones.B.Schuss wrote:
well, what goes around, comes around.
I guess you see what you want to see then. Throwing rocks is assault with a deadly weapon. If you get hit in the head with a rock, it is entirely possible for you to be killed. Having been on the receiving end of groups throwing rocks in Iraq, I can assure you that they are not intended to tickle. They are thrown with the intent of causing property damage, and bodily harm; they throw them as hard as they can. The beatings depicted were, at worst, aggravated assault and battery. It is clear the blows were not full force and were not intended for stomach, head, ribs or kidnes. In short, they were clearly not intended to inflict grevious bodily injury. I doubt any of those kids suffered anything more serious than a few bruises.B.Schuss wrote:
Personally, I don't think throwing rocks at someone is violating that person's human rights. It is a crime and must be dealt with accordingly. Beating a handcuffed detainee however, and denying that person their right to due process, is a violation of human rights in my opinion.
As far as 'due process' goes, I think you either failed to read what I wrote, or are deliberately ignoring it because it doesn't fit with your understanding of the facts. There is no due process for this type of action over there. Any crime short of murder or theft of government property (or that of a government official) simply doesn't warrant official attention. THERE IS NO DUE PROCESS. If there were a working system of crime and punishment, I have no doubt in my mind that those soldiers would have handed those kids over to it. As there is not, they administered a lesson, and let them go.
As I have said before, it is very easy to sit here and talk about the horrifying actions of the soldiers; but to do so in this case demonstrates a lack of understanding of their position. Sadly, most of the people here criticising the soldiers, don't even attempt to understand the circumstances. It has been said several times that to ignore a stoning like this is to encourage a larger attack later. Given the lack of proper authorities, and their lack of resourses to act AS the proper authorities, how would you have then deal with this?
Darth_Fleder [Artillery] whittsend
well, for once, I wasn't there. I have no idea how I would have reacted in that situation.whittsend wrote:
That is exactly what I would say to the kids who threw stones.B.Schuss wrote:
well, what goes around, comes around.I guess you see what you want to see then. Throwing rocks is assault with a deadly weapon. If you get hit in the head with a rock, it is entirely possible for you to be killed. Having been on the receiving end of groups throwing rocks in Iraq, I can assure you that they are not intended to tickle. They are thrown with the intent of causing property damage, and bodily harm; they throw them as hard as they can. The beatings depicted were, at worst, aggravated assault and battery. It is clear the blows were not full force and were not intended for stomach, head, ribs or kidnes. In short, they were clearly not intended to inflict grevious bodily injury. I doubt any of those kids suffered anything more serious than a few bruises.B.Schuss wrote:
Personally, I don't think throwing rocks at someone is violating that person's human rights. It is a crime and must be dealt with accordingly. Beating a handcuffed detainee however, and denying that person their right to due process, is a violation of human rights in my opinion.
As far as 'due process' goes, I think you either failed to read what I wrote, or are deliberately ignoring it because it doesn't fit with your understanding of the facts. There is no due process for this type of action over there. Any crime short of murder or theft of government property (or that of a government official) simply doesn't warrant official attention. THERE IS NO DUE PROCESS. If there were a working system of crime and punishment, I have no doubt in my mind that those soldiers would have handed those kids over to it. As there is not, they administered a lesson, and let them go.
As I have said before, it is very easy to sit here and talk about the horrifying actions of the soldiers; but to do so in this case demonstrates a lack of understanding of their position. Sadly, most of the people here criticising the soldiers, don't even attempt to understand the circumstances. It has been said several times that to ignore a stoning like this is to encourage a larger attack later. Given the lack of proper authorities, and their lack of resourses to act AS the proper authorities, how would you have then deal with this?
We all see what we want to see. You have your perspective, I have mine.
I believe I have acknowledged sufficiently enough, that I do agree that this is a difficult situation. I have no perfect solution for the issue. If there really is no due process for such an incident ( which I doubt, since such a situation should be covered by the RoE for that area ), then I would probably agree that the attack on coalition forces should be met with respective force, relative to the force of the attack. Then again, I just don't think that beating handcuffed detainees with a stick was just that. Opinions may vary here, of course.
As far as violence goes, I am afraid we are coming to a vicious circle here. If every side steps over the line to "serve justice", the conflict is never going to end. And since the coalition forces are those who are supposed to be the "good ones" in this conflict, I simply hold them to a higher standard of morals than their opponents.
Or is that wrong ?
no you are not wrong......but our soldiers are still human beings who are in a desperate situation fighting for life and limb, I would expect alittle latitude if not down right compassion from those of us sitting back in our air conditioning drinking margaritas in our lazy boy recliners watchin' this on TV or the internet as the case may be.B.Schuss wrote:
well, for once, I wasn't there. I have no idea how I would have reacted in that situation.whittsend wrote:
That is exactly what I would say to the kids who threw stones.B.Schuss wrote:
well, what goes around, comes around.I guess you see what you want to see then. Throwing rocks is assault with a deadly weapon. If you get hit in the head with a rock, it is entirely possible for you to be killed. Having been on the receiving end of groups throwing rocks in Iraq, I can assure you that they are not intended to tickle. They are thrown with the intent of causing property damage, and bodily harm; they throw them as hard as they can. The beatings depicted were, at worst, aggravated assault and battery. It is clear the blows were not full force and were not intended for stomach, head, ribs or kidnes. In short, they were clearly not intended to inflict grevious bodily injury. I doubt any of those kids suffered anything more serious than a few bruises.B.Schuss wrote:
Personally, I don't think throwing rocks at someone is violating that person's human rights. It is a crime and must be dealt with accordingly. Beating a handcuffed detainee however, and denying that person their right to due process, is a violation of human rights in my opinion.
As far as 'due process' goes, I think you either failed to read what I wrote, or are deliberately ignoring it because it doesn't fit with your understanding of the facts. There is no due process for this type of action over there. Any crime short of murder or theft of government property (or that of a government official) simply doesn't warrant official attention. THERE IS NO DUE PROCESS. If there were a working system of crime and punishment, I have no doubt in my mind that those soldiers would have handed those kids over to it. As there is not, they administered a lesson, and let them go.
As I have said before, it is very easy to sit here and talk about the horrifying actions of the soldiers; but to do so in this case demonstrates a lack of understanding of their position. Sadly, most of the people here criticising the soldiers, don't even attempt to understand the circumstances. It has been said several times that to ignore a stoning like this is to encourage a larger attack later. Given the lack of proper authorities, and their lack of resourses to act AS the proper authorities, how would you have then deal with this?
We all see what we want to see. You have your perspective, I have mine.
I believe I have acknowledged sufficiently enough, that I do agree that this is a difficult situation. I have no perfect solution for the issue. If there really is no due process for such an incident ( which I doubt, since such a situation should be covered by the RoE for that area ), then I would probably agree that the attack on coalition forces should be met with respective force, relative to the force of the attack. Then again, I just don't think that beating handcuffed detainees with a stick was just that. Opinions may vary here, of course.
As far as violence goes, I am afraid we are coming to a vicious circle here. If every side steps over the line to "serve justice", the conflict is never going to end. And since the coalition forces are those who are supposed to be the "good ones" in this conflict, I simply hold them to a higher standard of morals than their opponents.
Or is that wrong ?
At the risk of blowing this wayyyyyyyy off topic......I am curious as to your position on the Rodney King ass whippin'.
Last edited by lowing (2006-04-13 13:35:07)
some of the guys on here will never know wtf goes through your head while out in sand rat land you play a bf2 video game. real war now you sat on guard and you get a load of little want to be bombers when they older. they throw all types of crap at ya and some little fucks even shoot at ya end of the day we dont know the full story to this. but they seem to think its ok to take our guys and cut off heads and bomb our citys i say fuck the lot of them. and all the cry baby posts about they still humans i dont give a crap sure some are ok guys but if you in a Situation like most of our lads and girls are over in that hell hole of a place. trust me you would think very different about it all you change your state of mind if not your 1 dead fucker simple as. and yes flame away at my post see if i give a toss end of the day its war. i would love to see some of the fuckers off here in iraq war see how they change off a few days there never mind months. end of the day you sat at home with ya kids and ya little jobs getting ya food in a warm house while some fucker is stuck in the desert getting shot at every other night sitting thinking will i see my kids will i see my wife will i drive my new car again all that crap. think about it ffs before you flame some guys for slapping about some cunt that would love to kill ya.
Oh, I served in the armed forces myself ( although during different times, when the german army wasn't allowed to serve abroad at all, for obvious reasons ), so I can relate to their situation a little. As you may have noticed, I didn't demand court-marshalling or anything like that. I was merely asking some questions that came to my mind with regard to the issue. If the british army didn't find anything fishy about this incident, how could I ?lowing wrote:
no you are not wrong......but our soldiers are still human beings who are in a desperate situation fighting for life and limb, I would expect alittle latitude if not down right compassion from those of us sitting back in our air conditioning drinking margaritas in our lazy boy recliners watchin' this on TV or the internet as the case may be.B.Schuss wrote:
well, for once, I wasn't there. I have no idea how I would have reacted in that situation.whittsend wrote:
That is exactly what I would say to the kids who threw stones.B.Schuss wrote:
well, what goes around, comes around.
I guess you see what you want to see then. Throwing rocks is assault with a deadly weapon. If you get hit in the head with a rock, it is entirely possible for you to be killed. Having been on the receiving end of groups throwing rocks in Iraq, I can assure you that they are not intended to tickle. They are thrown with the intent of causing property damage, and bodily harm; they throw them as hard as they can. The beatings depicted were, at worst, aggravated assault and battery. It is clear the blows were not full force and were not intended for stomach, head, ribs or kidnes. In short, they were clearly not intended to inflict grevious bodily injury. I doubt any of those kids suffered anything more serious than a few bruises.
As far as 'due process' goes, I think you either failed to read what I wrote, or are deliberately ignoring it because it doesn't fit with your understanding of the facts. There is no due process for this type of action over there. Any crime short of murder or theft of government property (or that of a government official) simply doesn't warrant official attention. THERE IS NO DUE PROCESS. If there were a working system of crime and punishment, I have no doubt in my mind that those soldiers would have handed those kids over to it. As there is not, they administered a lesson, and let them go.
As I have said before, it is very easy to sit here and talk about the horrifying actions of the soldiers; but to do so in this case demonstrates a lack of understanding of their position. Sadly, most of the people here criticising the soldiers, don't even attempt to understand the circumstances. It has been said several times that to ignore a stoning like this is to encourage a larger attack later. Given the lack of proper authorities, and their lack of resourses to act AS the proper authorities, how would you have then deal with this?
We all see what we want to see. You have your perspective, I have mine.
I believe I have acknowledged sufficiently enough, that I do agree that this is a difficult situation. I have no perfect solution for the issue. If there really is no due process for such an incident ( which I doubt, since such a situation should be covered by the RoE for that area ), then I would probably agree that the attack on coalition forces should be met with respective force, relative to the force of the attack. Then again, I just don't think that beating handcuffed detainees with a stick was just that. Opinions may vary here, of course.
As far as violence goes, I am afraid we are coming to a vicious circle here. If every side steps over the line to "serve justice", the conflict is never going to end. And since the coalition forces are those who are supposed to be the "good ones" in this conflict, I simply hold them to a higher standard of morals than their opponents.
Or is that wrong ?
At the risk of blowing this wayyyyyyyy off topic......I am curious as to your position on the Rodney King ass whippin'.
Then again, with regard to A=10's accusation of me flaming coalition troops ( which I didn't do, in my opinion ), I would like to add that these are not my fellow countrymen. So maybe - just maybe - I am a little less biased towards their "work" in Iraq. It is natural for the american and english members here to defend "their" troops.
German troops serve in afghanistan and other places round the world in the WoT. They have been subject to attacks ( suicide bombers, mortar attacks, etc. ) and believe me, when these attacks happen I'll be the first to demand full retaliation. No mercy for those who attack our soldiers.
Then again, I do realize there are rules to every conflict, especially in modern days, with every move ever so closely watched by the media. And if you want to uphold the integrity of your armed forces, you need to enforce the rules and make sure those who step over the line are brought to justice.
But there is a grey area between the black and the white, and I have nothing against a little latitude here and there, if the rules don't state otherwise.
As far as the rodney king incident is concerned, I really would have to go back and read up on this before saying anything here. That was ten years ago, wasn't it ?
all I would like to say now is that the two situations cannot be compared. LA wasn't a warzone that day, and the cops didn't have to fear suicide attacks or fire from AK's. If I remember correctly, four cops beat the crap out of rodney with their sticks. police operations are subject to very strict rules, and there is nothing worse than police brutality.
And yes, I know the difference between a riot and a war...
its a shame, they are supose to be the good guys they should act in a proper maner. 6 or 8 well armed trained soldiers pawned 2 teenagers hidden in their HQ, well aint see no heros there.
Last edited by IronFerret (2006-04-14 02:00:31)
Any comment on it if was the other way around?
i remember those soldiers who,s dead bodies where towed around by some kids in Apefrica one day....
...those soldiers urnt theire right too beat up anyone who comes in theire way
they get viciously and randomly with no regrets...car-bombed and roadside-mined,
sniped and tricked in to a "war that has lost its value when they bombed theire own brothers mosque".
..how infantile... how rotten can u be...and not get corrected at all...
So Go SQUAD GO..and
Hail to all Soldiers who use a stick to correct those snipin murderes and not a torchblower...
proceed as ordered soldiers ur fine...
so i say...so let it be written..so let it be done..
and a massage to honourable Mr.T.Blair who rather play cricket then wicket..
they do theire job very well...so givum credit for >using sticks< ...and not stones...or bolders.
From nits come teecs... exterminate them all... Q...Gen.Custer.
i remember those soldiers who,s dead bodies where towed around by some kids in Apefrica one day....
...those soldiers urnt theire right too beat up anyone who comes in theire way
they get viciously and randomly with no regrets...car-bombed and roadside-mined,
sniped and tricked in to a "war that has lost its value when they bombed theire own brothers mosque".
..how infantile... how rotten can u be...and not get corrected at all...
So Go SQUAD GO..and
Hail to all Soldiers who use a stick to correct those snipin murderes and not a torchblower...
proceed as ordered soldiers ur fine...
so i say...so let it be written..so let it be done..
and a massage to honourable Mr.T.Blair who rather play cricket then wicket..
they do theire job very well...so givum credit for >using sticks< ...and not stones...or bolders.
From nits come teecs... exterminate them all... Q...Gen.Custer.
Last edited by TheMajorBummer (2006-04-14 02:25:42)
Soldiers are soldiers because they want. they supose to stand for honor, sacrifice, values etc.. if a soldier start to act like that.. no matter how hard or tense is a situation. well then in my opinion he got no balls.
-I mean let put this straigh your a hero, you stand for liberty, values and justice.
-your a whiling to dead for defend this values isnt?
-true heros no lose their mind in a tense situation, aint saying that all soldiers in irak arent heroes.. but those of the video....
then some teenegers make a riot and sudendly that hero crawmbles in fear, next thing they do. you forgot all your fucking values and act like a coward terrorist pawning some rebel unarmed teenagers.
great you got a medal!!
And i dont feel any kind fo simpaty for terrorist, but soldiers are supose to be better than them.
-I mean let put this straigh your a hero, you stand for liberty, values and justice.
-your a whiling to dead for defend this values isnt?
-true heros no lose their mind in a tense situation, aint saying that all soldiers in irak arent heroes.. but those of the video....
then some teenegers make a riot and sudendly that hero crawmbles in fear, next thing they do. you forgot all your fucking values and act like a coward terrorist pawning some rebel unarmed teenagers.
great you got a medal!!
And i dont feel any kind fo simpaty for terrorist, but soldiers are supose to be better than them.
Last edited by IronFerret (2006-04-14 02:18:20)
where in the world is mexico...? viva Zappata are u still makin VW automobiles from empty bean-cans drink-tins..IronFerret wrote:
Soldiers are soldiers because they want. they supose to stand for honor, sacrifice, values etc.. if a soldier start to act like that.. no matter how hard or tense is a situation. well then in my opinion he got no balls.
-I mean let put this straigh your a hero, you stand for liberty, values and justice.
-your a whiling to dead for defend this values isnt?
-true heros no lose their mind in a tense situation, aint saying that all soldiers in irak arent heroes.. but those of the video....
then some teenegers make a riot and sudendly that hero crawmbles in fear, next thing they do. you forgot all your fucking values and act like a coward terrorist pawning some rebel unarmed teenagers.
great you got a medal!!
And i dont feel any kind fo simpaty for terrorist, but soldiers are supose to be better than them.
Last edited by TheMajorBummer (2006-04-14 02:56:28)
we still do that, foreing people seems to love it.