This is often the empty argument of those who don't want to admit to what's going on TODAY.

Goodnight UNO, hope your job is going well.

you are a fucking disgrace to humanity

even if their had been 18,000 acts of terrorism by muslims what sort of idiot would ascribe such actions to an entire group of people

you want the link to the story about US soldiers killing women and children ? all americans are scum ? child killers ?

see where we are going here dopey ?

I think you missed my point, which is not surprising.

Thank you for your passive aggressive reply. That was. indeed, an awesome backhanded compliment response.

I'm still not going to take you to Le Cirque.

LOL @ 18,000 deadly attacks since 9/11/2001. The USA has killed over 150,000 civilians in that period in Iraq and Afghanistan. 150,000 civilians. 150,000 cilivilians.

And that is a low ball number derived from US government document leaks. Most independent body counts are higher. So it is easy for you to generalize a whole religion based on 18,000 attacks, many of which can be marginalized as crime-related, but how will you address the 150,00 dead, innocent people, killed DIRECTLY by the USA.

You don't think the relatives of these innocents thirst for revenge? You don't think that is a motivation for terrorism? Or maybe not, because it wasn't "on purpose." It was an accident, we bombed the wrong people. So it doesn't count????

Do you realize how ridiculous that argument is? It's like you're expecting people to react like "Well, this misguided drone strike killed my mom... But I'm going to let it slide because it wasn't on purpose... it was collateral damage... not America's fault, just part of war."

Is that what you honestly believe???:321GFY

Don't wear tin foil. I let em scan my brain.
Where do you think they come up with the lies they feed you?

goodmorning silly kid. when you come home from flipping burgers, you can reply.
this thread is about the idiot notion that muslims hate is because of our actions. I've pointed out that since 9/11, muslim scum have perpetrated over 18,000 terrorist murders against non-Americans all over the world.
Its a simple argument for even an idiot like you to follow.
here, I'll dumb it down further.
what did all of these non-Americans do to muslims that justified the muslim terrorist acts?

you see, its ok to hate America, most idiots do. Pretending that we brought it upon ourselves means you have to pretend that the non-US victims of those more than 18,000 terrorist attacks also brought it upon themselves.
Once you are forced to stop pretending, you have to admit the truth of the matter. Muslim scum try to kill anyone not them.
I'll await your shift change for your reply.

no, I got the childish point you wanted to make.
Its simply not relevant to adult conversation.

Oh lord you're such a moron with your idiotic statements... How many deaths have been caused by the christian religion against others over the centuries... How many americans have supported and cheered the death of so many innocent people in recent history? But then I shouldn't expect real intelligence from you given your past posts on here.

That vid isn't even as retarded as the other one... :1orglaugh

God, I hope you didn't rush home from your dead end job just to spout this nonsense.:1orglaugh

Great posts Sticky Green. Of course 9/11 didn't happen for no reason. It's just that there were a lot of camera's that made it different to all the horrible things the US and Israel did in the Arab world. Much more people died of US/Israel agression in Lebanon alone, than in New York on 9/11. Doesn't mean that it wasn't a horrible act, but it could have been prevented. Killing Bin Laden isn't going to prevent it from happening again in the future.

It's just ridiculous. Basically all of his "facts" are not true. Where do they get this from?
It's even more retarded that you can find the real facts using Google for 30 seconds...
But this guy most likely has been crying this nonsense for 10 years now.

150,000 dead civilians you tool. 150,000 dead innocent civilians (men, women, children) killed directly by US military during the same time frame you discuss, 2001-present. Way to ignore the inconvenient facts. Easy to spout off statistics when they are in favor of your brainwashed ideology, but don't want to address them when they're inconvenient ??:321GFY

dear nobody from nowhere, Are you talking about the war with iraq that was started by iraq where we defended the muslims in Kuwait? Or are you talking about the war in Afghanistan, started by Afghanistan?
which is it, chump from nowhere?

If my country starts a war and loses, I expect to die. The US should have killed way more of those scum. When you go to war, you kill and you subjugate. THAT is how peace is achieved. Not by trying to figure out why savages from the stone age don't like us.:thumbsup

now run into the other room and tell your mom I noticed you.

What war did Iraq start against the USA exactly in 2003? Please explain :1orglaugh

oops, couldn't take the truth, could you, little boy?:1orglaugh

Can't answer a direct question buddy? What war did Iraq start with the USA in 2003? Because according to you the hundreds of thousands of dead civilians are justified because Iraq started a war with us.

they attacked kuwait. we, as an ally of kuwait, defended them. Iraq signed an unconditional surrender. (you know what an unconditional surrender is, right son?) Iraq did not live up to their unconditional surrender and needed to be attacked again.
you see, if we would have killed more of them the first time, we wouldn't have had to go in a second time. You muslim scum should be happy that only 150k died. In a real war, a mil or so should have been killed.

Where are the weapons of mass destruction fuckhead? Where are the Al Qaeda ties??

This guy '12clicks' is one sick puppy...

You're just mad because he's a cultist of a different stripe.

He would've preferred millions of dead civilians, 150,000 wasn't enough. And then you wonder why they hate us and want retaliation. It's mind-boggling.

He probably can't wait for us to invade some more countries and kill some more Muslims.

He's probably running around in his living room right now chanting "Death to Allah! Death to Middle East!" lol

this thread is chock full of entertainment

off to the mcdonalds thread now for more entertainment

Every action has a reaction. If we expect no retaliation for killing 150,000 civilians, then we're not naive, but delusional. It's truly patriotic to advocate illegal/immoral wars, that result in thousands of our troops dying, and result in further violence against American civilians. That's the American way, according to 12 clicks.

lol, wtf was that bitch Albright thinking?

The more Coups the better I say. :D

She probably wasn't expecting such a fact-based, reality-based, question from the American mainstream media. It is highly unusual to discuss the number of civilian casualties in US media. Thus, her slip-up.

In the words of George Carlin:

"The limits of debate in this country are established before the debate even begins, and everyone else is marginalized and made to be seen either as communist or some sort of disloyal person... a "kook," there's a word, and now it's "conspiracy theorist." They made that something that should not even be entertained for a minute, that powerful people might get together and have a plan. Doesn't happen! You're a kook! You're a conspiracy buff!"

lmao

Being anti-war is generally a pretty radical stance. Also, stating statistics that have been corroborated by all sides involved, is a show of bad taste.

The media can spend 100s of hours discussing the death of Anna Nicole Smith or Casey Anthony's daughter, but not a word on the 10s of thousands of murdered Iraqi children. Not a single mention. It's OK though because we know all people are not created equal. Muslim civilians don't count. Even our constitution says so. :thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

Bullshit, Iraq didn't start a war in 2003. They were having internal problems and the US decided to go in (without permission of UN) and only made things worse.

The U.S. and no other country has to have permission from the U.N. to engage its military...in addition the U.S. had defacto permission from the UN...because of the way they worded the last resolution before the U.S. engaged its forces. Also the UN never presented a resolution then...or to this day...in condemnation of U.S.forces entering Iraq.

Why doesn't anyone quote the original post and disagree with something or say why it's incorrect? It's like no one will even touch it.

The congress is supposed to officially declare war. That never happened.

Question: "Did congress ever declare war on Iraq and if not is it true that we are not in a war?"

Answer: "No. There are 5 wars in which the United States formally declared war against a foreign nation, namely, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II.

Using this strict definition of a declaration of war, the United States has not formally declared war with Iraq."

It has some logic to it but certainly is not the "truth...the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Seldom...if ever...is something black or white...but consists of many shades of gray.

Ok, so what is not true, or "gray?"

Conress is the only branch of our government that can declare war...but it does not have to declare war...for our troops to be engaged. Many people do not understand the difference.

I am busy and I do not feel the need nor do I have an interest in doing a detailed critique of the article you posted and in addition I certainly do not hold "the truth...the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

BTW...I like Dr. Scheuer...but anything that he has to say becomes just one man's viewpoint...and I don't always agree with his viewpoint...nor do some of his former colleagues.

When are you going to change your shtick? The whole "everyone that doesn't agree with me works a dead end job, lives at home with mom and I'm their better" is getting really old... but I guess trolls don't change what works for them now do they.

Because most people understand, even if they don't want to admit it, that for the most part it's correct... However, Ron Paul's policy of not running operations etc in other countries is naive... The US did not want to get involved in WW2. It built it's defenses etc but tried to stay out of it. The result? It emboldened the Japanese to strike. All the countries at the time didn't want to intervene with Germany, did pretty much nothing but talk, despite seeing what they were doing. The result? WW2. I'm overly simplifying but the lesson is simple. You can't sit back, isolate yourself and just hope nothing will happen. Yeah it's messy when you get involved in other countries but there is always someone out there that wants to fuck with you and you can't stick your head in the sand. If you're not going to be a world power, then that means you're willing to let some other country take on that mantle and are ready for the consequences of it. Which inevitably leads to war as history has proven time and again.

Then I suggest you get a better job.
You certainly aren't smart enough to work full time in THIS easy business

:1orglaugh
Fucking French.
:1orglaugh

goodmorning, shitstain. they used chemical weapons on the kurds and I suggest you google "abu abbas iraq" and "abu nidal iraq"

and then look up "Iraq pays families of terrorists"

how many people did we kill in Germany to end WWII?
how many people did we kill in japan to end WWII?


get back to me when you finish high school.

ooooooo.... burn!!!! lol.. you're good for a laugh that's for sure...