NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=T2IXST1Q5UYLUCRBAE0CFEY?type=topNews&storyID=7992292


KABUL (Reuters) - U.S.-led troops killed three Taliban militants in a firefight in which two children and a woman also died in southeast Afghanistan, the U.S. military said.

Another child died in a separate gunbattle east of the Afghan capital, Kabul.

Among the dead militants was a Taliban commander named Raz Mohammad, who was implicated in many of the attacks against coalition forces in southeastern Paktika province, according to a U.S. military statement issued late on Wednesday.

The military said fighting broke out on Tuesday and U.S.-led forces came under intense fire as they arrived in Mohammad's village in Paktika, which borders Pakistan.

The militants, children and woman died during the fighting. An Afghan soldier was also killed, the U.S. military said.

Taliban spokesman Abdul Latif Hakimi confirmed Raz Mohammad's death but had a different version of the encounter. He said the Taliban killed eight U.S. soldiers and that Mohammad and seven members of his family were killed in an attack from the air.

A U.S. warplane killed five militants on Tuesday in the southeastern province of Khost, close to the Pakistan border.

To the northeast, in Kunar province, a village boy was killed on Wednesday in a shootout involving U.S. troops and militants.

A U.S. military statement said the troops had opened fire after flushing out a suspected bombmaker and two other armed men in a village close to Kunar's provincial capital, Asadabad.

A Taliban-inspired insurgency has been most active in the south and east, but attacks dwindled after the failure to disrupt last October's presidential election.

The onset of spring was expected to herald an increase in Taliban activity, as the country prepares for parliamentary elections on Sept. 18.

NATO's top military commander, General James Jones of the U.S. Marines, noting how the threat from al Qaeda and Taliban fighters had faded in the past three years, said on Wednesday that security forces are not facing an organized insurgency.

Jones characterized the security situation as stable but that the country remained prone to random acts of violence as it moved toward democracy following the ousting of the Taliban militia in late 2001.

The Pakistan army's deployment in tribal areas close to the Afghan border has played a major role in stifling the insurgency, which had used those tribal lands as safe havens.

Close to 8,500 NATO-led peacekeepers are in Afghanistan along with around 18,000 U.S.-led forces hunting remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters, including Osama bin Laden.

:mad:

Ein Deutscher']http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=T2IXST1Q5UYLUCRBAE0CFEY?type=topNews&storyID=7992292


:mad:

Doesn't sound like murder. :)

This is what happens when you have civillians caught in the middle of a gun battle.

Doesn't sound like murder. :)

This is what happens when you have civillians caught in the middle of a gun battle.
It's still murder. :rolleyes:

I see. If some bombmaker decides to shoot it out with US forces, and he happens to have his children around him, we should have the US forces put their guns down and surrender.

Otherwise, we're murderers.

Did you know that in places like that, and in Somalia, women and children are often combatants themselves?

Should I not shoot a woman who is shooting at me? Just because she's a woman?

There were multiple cases in the Somalia campaign that were documented where women and children fired guns, rocket propelled grenades, and threw hand grenades. Women carrying baskets of fresh ammunition to fighters. Men holding their child in one arm and firing a gun with the other, using the child as a shield.

If you were on the ground there, being shot at, and in danger of imminent death if you did not immediately shoot back - what would you do?

Ein Deutscher']It's still murder. :rolleyes:

How so? Did those soldiers intentionally kill those people? How about those "freedom fighters" who bomb civillians? Do they murder women and children?

How so? Did those soldiers intentionally kill those people? How about those "freedom fighters" who bomb civillians? Do they murder women and children?
They also murder women and children. Thus why I condemn the US army just as much for their murder of over 100.000 Iraqi civilians as I condemn the "freedom fighters" who deliberately target civilians.

I see. If some bombmaker decides to shoot it out with US forces, and he happens to have his children around him, we should have the US forces put their guns down and surrender.

Otherwise, we're murderers.

Did you know that in places like that, and in Somalia, women and children are often combatants themselves?

Should I not shoot a woman who is shooting at me? Just because she's a woman?

There were multiple cases in the Somalia campaign that were documented where women and children fired guns, rocket propelled grenades, and threw hand grenades. Women carrying baskets of fresh ammunition to fighters. Men holding their child in one arm and firing a gun with the other, using the child as a shield.

If you were on the ground there, being shot at, and in danger of imminent death if you did not immediately shoot back - what would you do?

Did it say anywhere that these women and children were part of the fighting force? No. You're nothing more than a US-supremacist and a US-Army-apologist. :headbang:

Ein Deutscher']They also murder women and children. Thus why I condemn the US army just as much for their murder of over 100.000 Iraqi civilians as I condemn the "freedom fighters" who deliberately target civilians.

Will you make a thread then about how the militants are murdering women and children?

BTW your claim of 100,000 is kind of high. Care to back that one up?

Ein Deutscher']They also murder women and children. Thus why I condemn the US army just as much for their murder of over 100.000 Iraqi civilians as I condemn the "freedom fighters" who deliberately target civilians.

There's no proof for your repeated claim of 100,000 Iraqi civilians. None.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

And note that most of these are probably the result of insurgents killing their own people.

Ein Deutscher']It's still murder. :rolleyes:
How do you know the taliban troops didn't shoot the civilians? The article doesn't say who shot them. I'd wager the taliban, who are more likely to spray and pray, shot the civilians, and the Americans, who aim their shots, didn't account for any of the civilian casualties. Funny how you jump to the conclusion that those evil Americans are responsible when there's no evidence to indicate that they are, and there is some evidence showing that they're not.

Manslaughter. Not murder.

You can say manslaughter in the title, still have it be adequate flamebait, AND be accurate, you know.

Manslaughter. Not murder.

You can say manslaughter in the title, still have it be adequate flamebait, AND be accurate, you know.

If the woman or child is carrying ammunition to support the male fighter, it's not manslaughter.

If the man is using the woman or child as a human shield, it's not manslaughter.

If the woman or child is actually firing a weapon, or pointing a weapon, or carrying a weapon, it's not manslaughter.

Get your military law straight before you open your mouth.

Ein Deutscher']They also murder women and children. Thus why I condemn the US army just as much for their murder of over 100.000 Iraqi civilians as I condemn the "freedom fighters" who deliberately target civilians.

I see the discredited 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths figure is being bandied about again.... entire threads were spawned on this subject a few months ago and if I remember correctly, the Drs. study quoted was determined to be badly flawed and has since been discredited.

the title of this thread is misleading as well.... the story says that the children and women were killed in the course of a firefight. It doesn't say who actually shot them. But your headline is that US soldiers murdered them. A rather large assumption wouldn't you say? Most people would.

How do you know the taliban troops didn't shoot the civilians? The article doesn't say who shot them. I'd wager the taliban, who are more likely to spray and pray, shot the civilians, and the Americans, who aim their shots, didn't account for any of the civilian casualties. Funny how you jump to the conclusion that those evil Americans are responsible when there's no evidence to indicate that they are, and there is some evidence showing that they're not.
Well the original headline of this article is: "Woman, Children Die in U.S. Attack on Taliban"

This implies that they died due to the U.S. attacking the Taliban. Anyway, knowing the past 2 years of U.S. army conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd not be surprised if the U.S. army with it's trigger-happy teenage boys was responsible for the murders this time again.

If the woman or child is carrying ammunition to support the male fighter, it's not manslaughter.

If the man is using the woman or child as a human shield, it's not manslaughter.

If the woman or child is actually firing a weapon, or pointing a weapon, or carrying a weapon, it's not manslaughter.

Get your military law straight before you open your mouth.
Well there's no mention of how exactly the children and women died, so chances are high that the U.S. army killed them and it's just not being said so explicitly to avoid bad publicity for the U.S. army, who's already in deep shit due to Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo and other stuff that went awry.

Helping you out to not only the US army is getting killed also from Poland, Spain, and England

If the woman or child is carrying ammunition to support the male fighter, it's not manslaughter.

If the man is using the woman or child as a human shield, it's not manslaughter.

If the woman or child is actually firing a weapon, or pointing a weapon, or carrying a weapon, it's not manslaughter.

Get your military law straight before you open your mouth.

I didn't see that in the article, my apologies.
Laws and religions are irrelevant in morals and war, anyway.
I don't need a doctorate in guerilla warfare or counter-terrorism to voice an opinion, especially one attempting to reach a middle ground.

Ein Deutscher']Well the original headline of this article is: "Woman, Children Die in U.S. Attack on Taliban"

This implies that they died due to the U.S. attacking the Taliban. Anyway, knowing the past 2 years of U.S. army conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd not be surprised if the U.S. army with it's trigger-happy teenage boys was responsible for the murders this time again.

Having been one of those infantrymen before, overseas, killing the enemy, I can tell you that most of us weren't teenagers (the average age of the US infantryman is much higher than it was in Vietnam). 3 out of 4 of the enlisted infantrymen I served with had a college degree already, so we weren't there for the college money. And we weren't trigger happy.

I like generalizations and crap coming from someone who never served, never was in combat, never went to any of the countries in conflict, and generalizes from discredited studies and news stories that don't say what he thinks they say.

Muder my ass. I don't care if your a two year old or some 99 year old woman. If you pick up a gun and put it towrads me I'm gonna put a bullet in your head. Even if you don't shoot. As soon as you pick up that gun you're a threat to everyone. People have problems understanding war and will look for anything and everything to denounce it. These people, sadly, are morons.

Ein Deutscher']Well the original headline of this article is: "Woman, Children Die in U.S. Attack on Taliban"

This implies that they died due to the U.S. attacking the Taliban. Anyway, knowing the past 2 years of U.S. army conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd not be surprised if the U.S. army with it's trigger-happy teenage boys was responsible for the murders this time again.
Oh, the guys who actually aim their shots are probably guilty, while the guys who spray and pray are most likely innocent. I see where you're going with this. Straight into the cesspool of illogical America bashing.

Ein Deutscher']Well there's no mention of how exactly the children and women died, so chances are high that the U.S. army killed them and it's just not being said so explicitly to avoid bad publicity for the U.S. army, who's already in deep shit due to Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo and other stuff that went awry.

by the Reuters news service? Which is a European newspaper and news service, that started in France?

Protecting the US Army?

Are you kidding??????

It is not "manslaughter" either. It is called "Justifiable Homicide" Having been in combat on numerous occasions with the USMC, in various places around the globe. I can tell you that under NO circumstances have I, or any of my Marines been asked to fire upon UNARMED citizens.

You don't like the fact that women and children were killed? Fine!! Pick up a rifle, take your sorry ass to ANY combat zone, and we'll just see how well you do when someone is trying to kill YOU. Otherwise, go hide under what ever blanket of protection I and the rest of my Marines provide, and keep your sensationalism to yourself.

It is not "manslaughter" either. It is called "Justifiable Homicide" Having been in combat on numerous occasions with the USMC, in various places around the globe. I can tell you that under NO circumstances have I, or any of my Marines been asked to fire upon UNARMED citizens.

You don't like the fact that women and children were killed? Fine!! Pick up a rifle, take your sorry ass to ANY combat zone, and we'll just see how well you do when someone is trying to kill YOU. Otherwise, go hide under what ever blanket of protection I and the rest of my Marines provide, and keep your sensationalism to yourself.

Amen. God bless you

It is one thing to line people up against the wall and gun them down, or poison their wells (as the Red Army did to the Afghanis), to wander from village to village picking out people as targets (several armies in World War II, Central America, elsewhere) or for a little sport, something completely other for a person to be shot in the crossfire. In the latter case, it's a war and innocent people die. There is no intent to kill those people. It's unfortunate, but that's life.

It's not even justifiable homicide, it's WAR FOR GODS SAKE!!!!!!!

Do you anti-Americans think that an American soldier would go out and kill civilians for the sake of killing civilians? Well, you're on the wrong side of the war, go and be a Taliban or an Iraqi insurgent and be a John Walker Lindh, see how our enemies are murdering their own people! And if you don't like American troops shooting at you because you're pointing a gun at them, too bad because it's your choice to say that Americans are trigger happy muderers and that our enemies have a right to kill us.

by the Reuters news service? Which is a European newspaper and news service, that started in France?

Protecting the US Army?

Are you kidding??????
You're wrong. Reuters is from the UK. Read before you lie.
http://about.reuters.com/aboutus/overview/facts/index.asp

And as we all know, the UK is in bed with the US. Blair is Bush's best buddy in war.

Do you anti-Americans think that an American soldier would go out and kill civilians for the sake of killing civilians?
Yes. Seen videos and photos of exactly this behaviour and attitude. Many US soldiers consider themselves superior to everyone else and act that way aswell.

Ein Deutscher']Yes. Seen videos and photos of exactly this behaviour and attitude. Many US soldiers consider themselves superior to everyone else and act that way aswell.

Show me a link to a video of a US soldier killing unarmed women and children. Photos, please. Links.

Right now.

Ein Deutscher']You're wrong. Reuters is from the UK. Read before you lie.

I believe the term that goes there "make a mistake."

Ein Deutscher']Yes. Seen videos and photos of exactly this behaviour and attitude. Many US soldiers consider themselves superior to everyone else and act that way aswell.
What videos? Platoon? US troops are highly trained and disciplined. While in any military force there will be a handfull of genuinely bad people, the vast majority of US troops aim to minimize civilian casualties. If I were a civilian in a wartorn country I'd much rather have US or British troops patroling my city than those from almost any other country. They're less likely to shoot me or steal from me.

Ein Deutscher']Yes. Seen videos and photos of exactly this behaviour and attitude. Many US soldiers consider themselves superior to everyone else and act that way aswell.
Soldiers from all countries act with bluster, including your own. That doesn't mean soldiers from all countries go out and kill civilians.

There's a whole museum in downtown Washington, D.C. devoted to the atrocities committed by German soldiers on unarmed men, women, and children.

There's a whole museum in downtown Washington, D.C. devoted to the atrocities committed by German soldiers on unarmed men, women, and children.
Most of which died or were sentenced to death by the allies. I see no death sentences against US soldiers. In fact, I see very lax punishments against all sorts of crimes that US soldiers commit.

Regarding Afghanistan, did you know that the production of drugs (i think it was opium?) has doubled (or even trippled, i'm not sure) since the fall of the Taliban regime. And US (and the other western countries) are happily tolerating this!

This stinks, if you ask me! :mad:

I hate to hear women and children dying anywhere. Even if they are holding a weapon. If they are a percieved threat to a US Soldier, then I would rather see them die. Its a bad stuation either way.

I'm still not sure why we are entertaining any sort of dialog with someone who faults the US as a whole-feeling we are arrogant and slaves under "Emperor Bush". If we were to apply the same absurd method of argument against him-a person from a country that precisely created and efficient war machine and had genocide worked out to a science, people would get upset.
Thats the difference- the US makes mistakes sometimes, but often based on good intentions. Everyone else has some self-serving scheme lurking beneath the surface-or right out in the open. Germany,France and Russia all had private deals with saddam and Iraq.

Ein Deutscher']Most of which died or were sentenced to death by the allies. I see no death sentences against US soldiers. In fact, I see very lax punishments against all sorts of crimes that US soldiers commit.

No, most of the soldiers who committed the atrocities went home after the war. Only a handful of the thousands of soldiers and bureaucrats involved were ever charged.

And if the US and UK and Russians had not stopped Germany - it would have continued without end. The Germans were not about to stop themselves.

Ein Deutscher']Most of which died or were sentenced to death by the allies. I see no death sentences against US soldiers. In fact, I see very lax punishments against all sorts of crimes that US soldiers commit.
That's probably because US troops aren't slaughtering civilians. When US troops act in a criminal fashion, like at Abu Graib, they are imprisoned for long periods of time and dishonorably discharged from the military. If US troops were killing civilians for no reason they would face even harsher punishment.

Deutscher has done an admirable job destroying his own credibility with exaggeration, lies, and incorrect word usage. The use of "murder" in his title is clearly at odds with almost all uses of that word (legal and moral), as are his preference for "facts" like 100,000 civilian casualties, obviously chosen for their support of his viewpoint ratther than for their relationship to reality. And I love his willingness to call others' "mistakes" as "lies". How about pointing that same flashlight on yourself, eh?

Keep it going, guy. With every post you give us more evidence that your views are so biased as to be divorced from reality, and that we shouldn't believe anything you say.

Ahhh..gotta love the Internet. Where else could someone so quickly render themselves harmless by destroying their own credibility...

It is not "manslaughter" either. It is called "Justifiable Homicide" Having been in combat on numerous occasions with the USMC, in various places around the globe. I can tell you that under NO circumstances have I, or any of my Marines been asked to fire upon UNARMED citizens.

You don't like the fact that women and children were killed? Fine!! Pick up a rifle, take your sorry ass to ANY combat zone, and we'll just see how well you do when someone is trying to kill YOU. Otherwise, go hide under what ever blanket of protection I and the rest of my Marines provide, and keep your sensationalism to yourself.


I was just going to bash the idiocy that started this thread, until I got to this post.

Instead, I'll just say thank you for your service.

Germany,France and Russia all had private deals with saddam and Iraq.
So did the US.

That's probably because US troops aren't slaughtering civilians. When US troops act in a criminal fashion, like at Abu Graib, they are imprisoned for long periods of time and dishonorably discharged from the military. If US troops were killing civilians for no reason they would face even harsher punishment.

Hey, there's currently a SEAL on trial for murdering a prisoner. We police our own soldiers.

Let's see. The last time Germany was officially in a war, they formalized the killing of prisoners on the Eastern Front. It was written policy to do so.

What a difference!

Ein Deutscher']So did the US.

And you'll notice that the US is cleaning up the mess.

It is not "manslaughter" either. It is called "Justifiable Homicide" Having been in combat on numerous occasions with the USMC, in various places around the globe. I can tell you that under NO circumstances have I, or any of my Marines been asked to fire upon UNARMED citizens.

You don't like the fact that women and children were killed? Fine!! Pick up a rifle, take your sorry ass to ANY combat zone, and we'll just see how well you do when someone is trying to kill YOU. Otherwise, go hide under what ever blanket of protection I and the rest of my Marines provide, and keep your sensationalism to yourself.


I agree. I have friends that were Army and Marines in the first Gulf war as well as this one-also Grenada. One was in Somalia. None went with the intentions of harming anyone other than combatants-none bragged of "kills" -all did their duty and prayed to get back home intact.
This impression of the US soldier as a trigger happy pshyco is rooted and propogated by ignorant self loathing turds, who more often than not, are actually protected by and enjoy freedoms protected by the same fighting force they try to smear.

The consequences of war are a painful reality.

I don't support the US World Police but I think you're being kind of a troll with so many fiercely patriotic Americans on General.

I agree. I have friends that were Army and Marines in the first Gulf war as well as this one-also Grenada. One was in Somalia. None went with the intentions of harming anyone other than combatants-none bragged of "kills" -all did their duty and prayed to get back home intact.
This impression of the US soldier as a trigger happy pshyco is rooted and propogated by ignorant self loathing turds, who more often than not, are actually protected by and enjoy freedoms protected by the same fighting force they try to smear.

Well said, I concur

Regarding Afghanistan, did you know that the production of drugs (i think it was opium?) has doubled (or even trippled, i'm not sure) since the fall of the Taliban regime. And US (and the other western countries) are happily tolerating this!

This stinks, if you ask me! :mad:
Since poppies (from which we get opium, morphine, heroin and all that other fun stuff) are about about the only thing that for certain grows in Afghanistan, one can't really blame the locals for doing what works: it kept them alive through the Soviets, after all, and paid for all of their weapons. For the most part, however, it's a question of the right hand not exactly knowing what the left hand is doing. Pakistan also has a fairly large stake in this, much to the annoyance of its chief anti-drug officer.

Ein Deutscher']You're wrong. Reuters is from the UK. Read before you lie.
http://about.reuters.com/aboutus/overview/facts/index.asp


Huh. So, someone makes a mistake (and it's obviously a mistake) about the point of origin of a news service, and you automatically label him a liar? Tell me, if your butcher makes a mistake and get ham out instead of Capicola, do you accuse him of trying to cheat you?

How do you actually function in the real world, check that, do you actually function in the real world?

Ein Deutscher']
And as we all know, the UK is in bed with the US. Blair is Bush's best buddy in war.

So? Are you trying to use this 'point' to prove that the news story is biased towards the US? Is that actually what you're trying to say?

I thought Deutch schools were better at teaching critical thought than that.

You're a sad, sad little man; so intent on your blind hatred that you'll use anything (no matter how ridiculous it makes you look) in your campaign to slam America.

Jealousy's a cast iron bitch, ain't it?

The consequences of war are a painful reality.

I don't support the US World Police but I think you're being kind of a troll with so many fiercely patriotic Americans on General.


I guess they arent used to being outnumbered. And I love how demeaning "fiercely patriotic Americans" sounds. I guess it isnt in style to love your country and try to rationally express facts.

That's probably because US troops aren't slaughtering civilians. When US troops act in a criminal fashion, like at Abu Graib, they are imprisoned for long periods of time and dishonorably discharged from the military. If US troops were killing civilians for no reason they would face even harsher punishment.
How about this? http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=3716
http://www.counterpunch.org/guerrin04162003.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011005C.shtml
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/APA401A.html

And more. Oh and that Italian secret service agent that died recently in the checkpoint-quagmire was an illusion.

The consequences of war are a painful reality.

I don't support the US World Police but I think you're being kind of a troll with so many fiercely patriotic Americans on General.

I'm not fiercely patriotic. I believe in realpolitik, and I believe that people get killed in war. I also believe that if you're a civilian, and I'm a soldier, and you pick up a gun to shoot me, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.

I guess they arent used to being outnumbered. And I love how demeaning "fiercely patriotic Americans" sounds. I guess it isnt in style to love your country and try to rationally express facts.


I love being 'fiercely patriotic'. Who here is a "fiercely patriotic Amierca"?

::Raises hand::

I'm not fiercely patriotic. I believe in realpolitik, and I believe that people get killed in war. I also believe that if you're a civilian, and I'm a soldier, and you pick up a gun to shoot me, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.
Again there was no indication of the women or childen being armed. You're simply imagining things to apologize for the US army - as usual.

I'm thinking Ein Deutscher is like, WL's puppet or something. Just to give him something to do.

America should be the world police. The 21st Century is an American Century. It is an American New World Order.

::loves it::

Ein Deutscher']Again there was no indication of the women or childen being armed. You're simply imagining things to apologize for the US army - as usual.

Again there was no indication of US soldiers shooting those civilians. You're simply assuming things to justify your hatred of the US - as usual.

Ein Deutscher']Again there was no indication of the women or childen being armed. You're simply imagining things to apologize for the US army - as usual.

And there's no indication the US army did anything wrong, either. You're simply imagining things to apologize for murdering terrorists who use children and women as human shields or ammo carts.

1 Americans make bombs as well
2 The Americans were in their country
3 How do you know who started firing at who
4 Is it okay if suspect in a murder case in america has a gun in a busy street for the police to just shoot everyone in order to kill the murder - no. there would be uproar if a cop killed innocent kids and women just because he was being shot. so why are their different rules if an american is in another country.

I love being 'fiercely patriotic'. Who here is a "fiercely patriotic Amierca"?

::Raises hand::


I'm a patriotic American, but it doesnt blind me. I still keep an open mind as to what is right and what is wrong. I respect my military and government and enjoy the fact that if I am critical of either, they both still protect my right to do so.

Again there was no indication of US soldiers shooting those civilians. You're simply assuming things to justify your hatred of the US - as usual.
At least it has the basis of knowing how the US acted in Afghanistan and Iraq, so this would not surprise me at all.

1 Americans make bombs as well
2 The Americans were in their country
3 How do you know who started firing at who
4 Is it okay if suspect in a murder case in america has a gun in a busy street for the police to just shoot everyone in order to kill the murder - no. there would be uproar if a cop killed innocent kids and women just because he was being shot. so why are their different rules if an american is in another country.

This post of yours is so retarded I'm not going to argue with it.

1 Americans make bombs as well
2 The Americans were in their country
3 How do you know who started firing at who
4 Is it okay if suspect in a murder case in america has a gun in a busy street for the police to just shoot everyone in order to kill the murder - no. there would be uproar if a cop killed innocent kids and women just because he was being shot. so why are their different rules if an american is in another country.
Because the Americans think of themselves as eternally right, lead by god, supreme to everyone else on the planet and unable to do wrong. It's in their nature and they've been indoctrinated since their childhood to think and act that way. It is our obligation to feel pity for them - at least those this applies to, which is a significant amount.

Ein Deutscher']How about this? http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=3716
http://www.counterpunch.org/guerrin04162003.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011005C.shtml
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/APA401A.html

And more. Oh and that Italian secret service agent that died recently in the checkpoint-quagmire was an illusion.
1 They were insurgents moving through falujiah. Just because they're not in uniform doesn't make them civilians.

2 The reporter said that warning shots were fired at civilian vehicles. If they dont' take that as a hint to stay away, the soldiers are supposedto shoot them. They can't take the chance that a truck bomb will kill them.

3 A mistake took the lives of some civilians. It happens in war. It happens alot less when US troops are involved, as opposed to Russians, or many other nations.

4 Actually it's a video of Iraqi insurgents transfering weapons from one vehicle to another in the middle of the desert at night. The Apache was right to open fire.

I'm a patriotic American, but it doesnt blind me. I still keep an open mind as to what is right and what is wrong. I respect my military and government and enjoy the fact that if I am critical of either, they both still protect my right to do so.

Just because I say I am fiercely patriotic doesn't mean I don't do any of those things. You say you aren't blind but you obviously assumed that I don't do any of those-which in fact makes you blind.

[NS]Ein Deutscher, where are you from?

Ein Deutscher']Again there was no indication of the women or childen being armed. You're simply imagining things to apologize for the US army - as usual.
Until you show that US troops shot them there's nothing to appologize for. It's much more likely that the taliban's tactic of spraying unaimed shots killed the civilians.

Ein Deutscher']At least it has the basis of knowing how the US acted in Afghanistan and Iraq, so this would not surprise me at all.

So, based on your logic, the next time I see a story about a death in Germany can I just assume that your people threw the person in a gas chamber?

Just asking....

So, based on your logic, the next time I see a story about a death in Germany can I just assume that your people threw the person in a gas chamber?

Just asking....
Nope, the Nazi germany was eradicated. Germany today is not Nazi Germany that ended 1945. We don't have this mentality.

The US army however has repeatedly shown that it acts immoral and illegally.

Ein Deutscher']Because the Americans think of themselves as eternally right, lead by god, supreme to everyone else on the planet and unable to do wrong. It's in their nature and they've been indoctrinated since their childhood to think and act that way. It is our obligation to feel pity for them - at least those this applies to, which is a significant amount.
Not really. I and most other Americans have a realistic view of America. You people seem to see us as the source of all that is evil, inferior to everyone else, and unable to do right. You pride yourself on having a realistic view of the world, but you still beleive in the boogeyman, you just call him USA.

I'm often depressed by the simpleminded idiocy that many of my fellow liberals show.

Ein Deutscher']Nope, the Nazi germany was eradicated. Germany today is not Nazi Germany that ended 1945. We don't have this mentality.

The US army however has repeatedly shown that it acts immoral and illegally.

How terribly convienient.

You must be a wonderful person to talk to at parties. :rolleyes:

Tell me, does this level of hypocrisy come naturally to you, or do you have to work at it?

Not really. I and most other Americans have a realistic view of America. You people seem to see us as the source of all that is evil, inferior to everyone else, and unable to do right. You pride yourself on having a realistic view of the world, but you still beleive in the boogeyman, you just call him USA.

I'm often depressed by the simpleminded idiocy that many of my fellow liberals show.
If I had reason to praise the US, I'd gladly do so. But since Bush has taken over the throne of the US empire, I have little reason to do so.

How terribly convienient.

You must be a wonderful person to talk to at parties. :rolleyes:

Tell me, does this level of hypocrisy come naturally to you, or do you have to work at it?
There's a difference betwen the two - the US army has not been eradicated and the actions of the US army are very recent.

Ein Deutscher']Nope, the Nazi germany was eradicated. Germany today is not Nazi Germany that ended 1945. We don't have this mentality.

The US army however has repeatedly shown that it acts immoral and illegally.
Like almost every country on earth? Nations rarely act because it's the morally correct thing to do. Most nations are guilty of violating treaties and international law with regard to trade etc. Your kind only see the US' violations though, never those of any other nation. In addition, you never recognize the good the US does.

Ein Deutscher']If I had reason to praise the US, I'd gladly do so. But since Bush has taken over the throne of the US empire, I have little reason to do so.

Out of curiosity (or maybe I'm just masochistic), do you have any particular reasons for your evident hatred of Bush?

Please, enumerate, I really do not want generalities here.

Ein Deutscher']Nope, the Nazi germany was eradicated. Germany today is not Nazi Germany that ended 1945. We don't have this mentality.

The US army however has repeatedly shown that it acts immoral and illegally.

I was in a US military vehicle (Hummer) with the windows down and the doors off in the summer of 1990 in southern Germany.

A friend was driving, and as we approached a large vegetable garden being worked by several Germans, I told my friend, "watch this..."

I then gave the kind of hand salute that you normally see a German officer in a staff car give - not the extended right arm, but raising the open hand to the level of the shoulder.

The people in the field rose and started to raise their right arms in the old style Nazi salute - and then they caught themselves.

There are also innumerable monuments in most small towns with little swastikas on them, and hooks for wreaths. At certain times of the year, people come out in the middle of the night and put flowers on them. There were also large torchlit rallies in Bettringen that I saw that were secret meetings of Nazis.

Don't tell me it's gone, because I saw it.

Ein Deutscher']If I had reason to praise the US, I'd gladly do so. But since Bush has taken over the throne of the US empire, I have little reason to do so.
US empire? Man, I hate people like you. You're a bullshit salesman with a mouthfull of free samples for everyone. The US isn't an empire. Of course you'll just redefine "empire" so it fits your world view. So I'll save you some time. Don't bother. I've heard that crap before.

Just because I say I am fiercely patriotic doesn't mean I don't do any of those things. You say you aren't blind but you obviously assumed that I don't do any of those-which in fact makes you blind.


No-you misunderstood me- I'm not critical of you at all and dont assume you are blind. Its clear so far that you and I agree-its hard to make a point in here sometimes because its just typed words. I wanted to make it clear to the opposition that I evaluate available facts before forming an opinion, I dont just make a "knee-jerk' reaction. I'm not speaking on your behalf, just my own. I wish there were more patriotic Americans like you on our side of the debates in here.

Out of curiosity (or maybe I'm just masochistic), do you have any particular reasons for your evident hatred of Bush?

Please, enumerate, I really do not want generalities here.
He's the worst US president I've ever seen in my lifetime. He lied to the world and abused the WTC tragedy for his own agenda and that of the PNAC. And he got re-elected - a shame for the US. But that's democracy in an ignorant and largely bigotted country...

I was in a US military vehicle (Hummer) with the windows down and the doors off in the summer of 1990 in southern Germany.

A friend was driving, and as we approached a large vegetable garden being worked by several Germans, I told my friend, "watch this..."

I then gave the kind of hand salute that you normally see a German officer in a staff car give - not the extended right arm, but raising the open hand to the level of the shoulder.

The people in the field rose and started to raise their right arms in the old style Nazi salute - and then they caught themselves.

There are also innumerable monuments in most small towns with little swastikas on them, and hooks for wreaths. At certain times of the year, people come out in the middle of the night and put flowers on them. There were also large torchlit rallies in Bettringen that I saw that were secret meetings of Nazis.

Don't tell me it's gone, because I saw it.
Lol what a joke. Keep up the propaganda, it's entertaining.

Ein Deutscher']He's the worst US president I've ever seen in my lifetime. He lied to the world and abused the WTC tragedy for his own agenda and that of the PNAC. And he got re-elected - a shame for the US. But that's democracy in an ignorant and largely bigotted country...
How are we bigoted? We have every ethnicity and religion in the US, and they are all guaranteed equal rights under US law.

How are we bigoted? We have every ethnicity and religion in the US, and they are all guaranteed equal rights under US law.
I guess that's why there are crosses in every public school classroom in Bavaria. Even if the atheists might be offended by them.

Ein Deutscher']He's the worst US president I've ever seen in my lifetime. He lied to the world and abused the WTC tragedy for his own agenda and that of the PNAC. And he got re-elected - a shame for the US. But that's democracy in an ignorant and largely bigotted country...

I asked for specifics, but obviously that's something that you're incapable of providing.

If you want to have a prayer of winning this little discussion (look I made a joke), you're going to have to do much better than that.

So let's try it again, why exactly (and I expect examples here) do you hate George Bush?

Ein Deutscher']He's the worst US president I've ever seen in my lifetime. He lied to the world and abused the WTC tragedy for his own agenda and that of the PNAC. And he got re-elected - a shame for the US. But that's democracy in an ignorant and largely bigotted country...


Ignorant and Bigotted? I'm glad its someone like you accusing our country as a whole. Otherwise, I would care.
Maybe you're right-if we had elected Kerry, he would likely personally ask your opinion before we did anything outside our borders. Hell-he would probably consult you for the internal decisions too. And you would have loved us all then. And I wouldnt feel so ashamed then. (sarcastic)

I'm sorry, but as a recruit in the US Army the title and content of this thread is personally insulting and misleading. I will ask the author of this topic to appologize for the obvious slander and libel that he has painted the US Army, its soldiers, and recruits with before I take this to the mods to be reviewed for flamebaiting/flaming.

I'm sorry, but as a recruit in the US Army the title and content of this thread is personally insulting and misleading. I will ask the author of this topic to appologize for the obvious slander and libel that he has painted the US Army, its soldiers, and recruits with before I take this to the mods to be reviewed for flamebaiting/flaming.
As if I had to do anything to discredit the US military. It does so all on it's own perfectly fine.

How terribly convienient.

You must be a wonderful person to talk to at parties. :rolleyes:

Tell me, does this level of hypocrisy come naturally to you, or do you have to work at it?


They dont have parties in Germany. They ALL just sit around chain smoking and bitching about how they have to tolerate all of us unwashed and ignorant heathens. Exept when they come to the US as tourists-in droves. You cant get near the Grand Canyon these days without having some fat, sausage stinking, red faced german in a cowboy hat, standing in the way.

Ein Deutscher']As if I had to do anything to discredit the US military. It does so all on it's own perfectly fine.

You know, have you ever considered trying to be less of a troll?

You can still hold your opinions, but you might actually sway people to your point of view.

Right now, all I really feel like doing is pointing up the idiocy of your behavior and posts.

*warms up the ad hominem generator*

BTW, you didn't answer my previous question.

Very well Mr. NS German, consider yourself reported.

CL: Jesus, that's just as insulting and inflammatory, if not more so, than anything [NS]Ein Deutscher has said about my service. Frankly I hope you go the way of Kahta.

You know, have you ever considered trying to be less of a troll?

You can still hold your opinions, but you might actually sway people to your point of view.

Right now, all I really feel like doing is pointing up the idiocy of your behavior and posts.

*warms up the ad hominem generator*

BTW, you didn't answer my previous question.
Well it's the truth, is it not? The US Army has completely discredited it's mission in front of the eyes of many people in the world. There's no way around what happened in Abu Ghraib or what happens in Guantanamo or the countless civilian casualties which are being accepted as "collateral damage" and a shrug of the shoulders. If you refuse to acknowledge that all of this paints a very dark picture of the US military, then I don't know what else is needed to convince you.

Besides this, I'll not answer your other question again. I think I did so in a sufficient manner. If you don't like it - not my problem.

Ein Deutscher']Well it's the truth, is it not? The US Army has completely discredited it's mission in front of the eyes of many people in the world. There's no way around what happened in Abu Ghraib or what happens in Guantanamo or the countless civilian casualties which are being accepted as "collateral damage" and a shrug of the shoulders. If you refuse to acknowledge that all of this paints a very dark picture of the US military, then I don't know what else is needed to convince you.

Besides this, I'll not answer your other question again. I think I did so in a sufficient manner. If you don't like it - not my problem.
How about the fact that the US has changed warfare to the point where a nation can be conquered and it's cities and civilian populations left intact? Does that discredit them?

Maybe they're discredited by responding with restraint and compassion for the Afghan people after their regime sponsored and protected terrorists who massacred many of our civilians.

I think what really discredits them in your eyes is that they have the gall to actually do their jobs well.

How about the fact that the US has changed warfare to the point where a nation can be conquered and it's cities and civilian populations left intact? Does that discredit them?

Maybe they're discredited by responding with restraint and compassion for the Afghan people after their regime sponsored and protected terrorists who massacred many of our civilians.

I think what really discredits them in your eyes is that they have the gall to actually do their jobs well.
The side effects of them doing their jobs "well" is what angers me. The US military doesn't do their job without hurting the civilians. Did you already forget operation "Shock and Awe" which largely destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure?

How about Fallujah? That city had to be deserted so that the US military could flatten it. How's that for leaving cities intact?

I completely disagree with you on this aspect, because the US military is not as compassionate and careful as you make it out to be.

Ein Deutscher']Did it say anywhere that these women and children were part of the fighting force? No. You're nothing more than a US-supremacist and a US-Army-apologist. :headbang:

And you sir are nothing more than a troll. Don't feed him ladies and gentlemen.

[QUOTE=Drunk commies reborn]How about the fact that the US has changed warfare to the point where a nation can be conquered and it's cities and civilian populations left intact? Does that discredit them?



This is a great point. Sort of undermines the "trigger-happy" image of the US military so many want to hold near and dear to their hearts.

Ein Deutscher']The side effects of them doing their jobs "well" is what angers me. The US military doesn't do their job without hurting the civilians. Did you already forget operation "Shock and Awe" which largely destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure?

How about Fallujah? That city had to be deserted so that the US military could flatten it. How's that for leaving cities intact?

I completely disagree with you on this aspect, because the US military is not as compassionate and careful as you make it out to be.

Fallujah was not "flattened". Nor was it carpet bombed. Nor were its civilians massacred. Civilians were asked to leave so that they would not become casualties during fighting with insurgents.

During the OIF shock and awe, the primary infrastructure targets were military, not civilian. And we used new non-lethal weapons to shut down the power stations (graphite fibers to short out power transformers).

For a nation that has, overall, taken a maximum estimated 19000 civilian casulaties, most of which were committed by insurgents killing people with bombs or executing them, the US has been exemplary - compared to any other nation in history.

Ein Deutscher']The side effects of them doing their jobs "well" is what angers me. The US military doesn't do their job without hurting the civilians. Did you already forget operation "Shock and Awe" which largely destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure?

How about Fallujah? That city had to be deserted so that the US military could flatten it. How's that for leaving cities intact?

I completely disagree with you on this aspect, because the US military is not as compassionate and careful as you make it out to be.
1 The US is rebuilding everything it damaged. The insurgents you America haters seem to root for are the ones standing in the way.

2 Remember WWII? Remember the level of damage necessary to invade a country back then? The US military has been the main force for developing technology that has reduced that level of damage.

3 Fallujah was basically enemy territory. The US allowed the civilians to leave before wiping out the enemies who remained. They did this even though they knew many insurgents would leave the city disguised as civilians. That's compassion. They cared so much for the civilians that they endangered their mission in order to protect them.

4 If the US military wasn't compassionate Afghanistan would glow in the dark.

Ein Deutscher']You're wrong. Reuters is from the UK. Read before you lie.
http://about.reuters.com/aboutus/overview/facts/index.asp

And as we all know, the UK is in bed with the US. Blair is Bush's best buddy in war.

I will accept I was mistaken... point is that it wasn't an American news service, and the British Press is hardly a mouthpiece for the US Army or even the Labor Government of the UK

you are always willing to pick a fight Ein Deutscher... instead of calling someone a liar, you can always just ask them to check their facts. I will accept the fact check... but you are so close to flaming... watch it buddy

I guess they arent used to being outnumbered. And I love how demeaning "fiercely patriotic Americans" sounds. I guess it isnt in style to love your country and try to rationally express facts.
I wasn't trying to show any disrespect. I meant it in a positive way...

I have just finished reading all of the posts on this thread. I would love to make a few comments, but I cannot bring myself to even acknowledge the complete rubish that the author of this thread is spouting.

I have to doubt that he has ever visited the US, let alone met an American. His views on the US seem to be straight out of every conspiracy theroy I have read.

I will concede that some atrocities have been commited by some US Soldiers. Those soldiers shall and will be punished.

Ein Deutscher']Well it's the truth, is it not? The US Army has completely discredited it's mission in front of the eyes of many people in the world.

I assume that this is that same old tired argument about Abu Ghraib. We've prosecuted the troops involved, what more do you honestly want? Public executions?

What would it take to make you happy?

Ein Deutscher']
There's no way around what happened in Abu Ghraib or what happens in Guantanamo or the countless civilian casualties which are being accepted as "collateral damage" and a shrug of the shoulders.

Collateral damage is part of war. It happens, deal with it. Honestly, there would probably be a lot less 'collateral damage" if the insurgents weren't hiding in Mosques and what not.

Are you incapable of understanding that most of what you call collateral damage is a result of the terrorists hiding behind their own families?

Or, do you actually believe that it is the policy of the US government to target civilians for destruction.

If it's the latter, please let me know as that means you're a loon incapable of rational thought.

Ein Deutscher']
If you refuse to acknowledge that all of this paints a very dark picture of the US military, then I don't know what else is needed to convince you.

I'm a pragmatist. What I see is a picture of an army.

Armies exist to kill people and break things. The Armed Forces of the United States is very good at it's job. I will not apologize for that, it's what they're supposed to do.

BTW, it's really cool of you to sit there and criticize the very forces that ensure your security. I think they'd probably prefer it if you just said "thank you," and went about your business. It's not like they protected you against Soviet aggression for fifty years or anything.

Ein Deutscher']
Besides this, I'll not answer your other question again.

I'd like it noted that since my opponent has ceded this ground in this debate, the point should flow to my side.

Ein Deutscher']
I think I did so in a sufficient manner. If you don't like it - not my problem.

So, you're incapable of doing anything besides making emotionally charged accusations without any support?

I want to make certain I'm clear on this point.

Ahhh..gotta love the Internet. Where else could someone so quickly render themselves harmless by destroying their own credibility...
Three words: Crazy street preachers.

Ein Deutscher']Because the Americans think of themselves as eternally right, lead by god, supreme to everyone else on the planet and unable to do wrong. It's in their nature and they've been indoctrinated since their childhood to think and act that way. It is our obligation to feel pity for them - at least those this applies to, which is a significant amount.

ahh.. now its clear

you are just a bigot

Ein Deutscher']The side effects of them doing their jobs "well" is what angers me. The US military doesn't do their job without hurting the civilians. Did you already forget operation "Shock and Awe" which largely destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure?

How about Fallujah? That city had to be deserted so that the US military could flatten it. How's that for leaving cities intact?

I completely disagree with you on this aspect, because the US military is not as compassionate and careful as you make it out to be.
Lets compare this to, oh, WWII.

Bombing then: Bomb accuracy was horrible, the average missing by hundreds of meters (into a few kilometers) One would have to drop hundreds of bombs to hit a single target, causing inumerable civilian casualties. Not to mention the doctrine of strategic bombing that had the civilian populace as a valid target.

Bombing now: Bomb accuracy can be measured in meters, targets of importance of in areas of civilian presence, needing only one or two bombs. Civilians may be killed from the size of the blast and the occasional miss, but it's far better than carpetbombing entire districts to hit a single building. Not to mention that the strategic bombing of the civilian population is no longer and accepted idea.
Targeting of infrastructure is far more surgical allowing the country to bounce back faster (plus the use of things like graphite bombs to disable powerstations)

Soldiers: On average recieve better training along with far more restrictive ROE's to operate under.

Improved communications enable better command and control, allowing for a more judicial application of force in the field.

Presence of the news media. Granted I think it's rather much, but it does provide improved accountability. WWII had worse shit than Abu Ghraib, but no one heard about it, and the level of accountability was far less.

I could go on, but as someone pointed, it's rather useless to argue with you.

The technical improvements since WW2 do not justify the Iraq war, nor does it make the Iraq war a just war. Since the war was against the will of the UN and unnecessary too, every civilian that dies is exactly one civilian too much.

I missed this little gem earlier.

Ein Deutscher']Because the Americans think of themselves as eternally right, lead by god

It's a historical fact. God tends to be on the side with the biggest guns.

Ein Deutscher'], supreme to everyone else on the planet and unable to do wrong.

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Ein Deutscher']
It's in their nature and they've been indoctrinated since their childhood to think and act that way.

Hail to the king, baby. [/Ash]

Ein Deutscher']
It is our obligation to feel pity for them - at least those this applies to, which is a significant amount.

And you accuse me and mine of arrogance? :eek:

I missed this little gem earlier.



It's a historical fact. God tends to be on the side with the biggest guns.



The truth hurts, doesn't it?



Hail to the king, baby. [/Ash]



And you accuse me and mine of arrogance? :eek:
With your post you just proved my point.

How are we bigoted? We have every ethnicity and religion in the US, and they are all guaranteed equal rights under US law.

Even though the president of said country has openly used "Amen" in many of his speeches...

As I've mentioned before, I'm a minister and I take offense at Bush calling himself christian. A true christian wouldn't send innocent young men off to slaughter thousands of "Infidels." That sort of thing happened 1000 years ago, and it's ridiculous that it's still happening. And to top it off, he has the nerve to claim that what he did was just, and that he was not wrong. Even though the facts say otherwise. Any christian would have admitted his wrongs and appealed for forgiveness from those he wronged.
In a U.S. court with that kind of evidence he'd be locked up for perjury. But hey, he's the president. He can do no wrong.

And I seem to recall a quote from a sergeant after his platoon gunned down several freedom fighters. "It's like a video game! What a rush!" (I apologize for any discrepancies, if someone has the full quote please post it as I don't have the time to look it up :) )

We are guests in their country, "liberating" their people. That means if anything we should treat them BETTER than we would American cities. And here you are, justifying the friendlyfire manslaughter of women and children. If a cop accidentally kills ONE us citizen while in a firefight with a suspect then not only has he lost his job, he'll probably be sued by the family of the deceased and be brought up on criminal charges.

Ein Deutscher']The technical improvements since WW2 do not justify the Iraq war, nor does it make the Iraq war a just war. Since the war was against the will of the UN and unnecessary too, every civilian that dies is exactly one civilian too much.
Nobody's using it as justification for the Iraq war. I was against the Iraq war, but a political decision was made by the bush administration, not the military, to go ahead with it. Just evidence that the US military takes care not to harm civilians unnecessarily. That's a fact you seem unwilling to accept.

BTW, the UN is not a good moral arbiter and has no authority to decide what is necessary and unnecessary.

Ein Deutscher']The technical improvements since WW2 do not justify the Iraq war, nor does it make the Iraq war a just war. Since the war was against the will of the UN and unnecessary too, every civilian that dies is exactly one civilian too much.


But allowing Hussein to continue murdering hundreds of thousands of his own people was just?

You do realize that there is a logical fallacy there in your argument don't you?

Or do you even care?

Nobody's using it as justification for the Iraq war. I was against the Iraq war, but a political decision was made by the bush administration, not the military, to go ahead with it. Just evidence that the US military takes care not to harm civilians unnecessarily. That's a fact you seem unwilling to accept.

BTW, the UN is not a good moral arbiter and has no authority to decide what is necessary and unnecessary.
The UN is the sole authority when it comes to deciding which wars are necessary under international law and which are not. The Iraq war was not necessary.

Even though the president of said country has openly used "Amen" in many of his speeches...

As I've mentioned before, I'm a minister and I take offense at Bush calling himself christian. A true christian wouldn't send innocent young men off to slaughter thousands of "Infidels." That sort of thing happened 1000 years ago, and it's ridiculous that it's still happening. And to top it off, he has the nerve to claim that what he did was just, and that he was not wrong. Even though the facts say otherwise. Any christian would have admitted his wrongs and appealed for forgiveness from those he wronged.
In a U.S. court with that kind of evidence he'd be locked up for perjury. But hey, he's the president. He can do no wrong.

And I seem to recall a quote from a sergeant after his platoon gunned down several freedom fighters. "It's like a video game! What a rush!" (I apologize for any discrepancies, if someone has the full quote please post it as I don't have the time to look it up :) )

We are guests in their country, "liberating" their people. That means if anything we should treat them BETTER than we would American cities. And here you are, justifying the friendlyfire manslaughter of women and children. If a cop accidentally kills ONE us citizen while in a firefight with a suspect then not only has he lost his job, he'll probably be sued by the family of the deceased and be brought up on criminal charges.
I'm not defending bush. I'm defending the USA. The US constitution gives everyone equal protection. Also, the insurgents aren't freedom fighters. Some are fighting to re-install a dictatorial regime, some are fighting to install a sunni theocracy. Freedom is what they're fighting against. Anyone who kills them is ok in my book, even if they compare it to a video game.

Ein Deutscher']With your post you just proved my point.

You missed the obvious humour there, didn't you?

But allowing Hussein to continue murdering hundreds of thousands of his own people was just?

You do realize that there is a logical fallacy there in your argument don't you?

Or do you even care?
Hussein didn't murder "hundreds of thousands of his own people". And he did so the last time during the Iran/Iraq war - as far as I know. If he was responsible for Halabdja at all.

The US military however has killed millions since 1945 - in wars that it had no business in.

Ein Deutscher']The UN is the sole authority when it comes to deciding which wars are necessary under international law and which are not. The Iraq war was not necessary.
The UN is crap. They have decided that peacekeeping in Sudan is unnecessary while a genocide is going on. Why? Because at least three permanent members of the security council do business with the Sudanese govenrment.

Ein Deutscher']The UN is the sole authority when it comes to deciding which wars are necessary under international law and which are not. The Iraq war was not necessary.

I guess that's why everyone else in the world was listening to it.

IIRC, there have only been two UN authorized "wars". Korea (which is still ongoing), explicitly under US command under Resolution 90, and the Gulf War, also under US command.

I guess the rest of the world fought their wars illegally that whole time.

I love you, Ignore List.

Unfortunately, quotes jack it all up.

P.S. Look up the definiton of "murder" there J. Edgar.

Ein Deutscher']Hussein didn't murder "hundreds of thousands of his own people". And he did so the last time during the Iran/Iraq war - as far as I know. If he was responsible for Halabdja at all.

The US military however has killed millions since 1945 - in wars that it had no business in.

Yes, and the Germans still hold the record...

Ein Deutscher']The UN is the sole authority when it comes to deciding which wars are necessary under international law and which are not.

Since when?

I don't recall America ever subordinating her sovereign rights to the UN.

Ein Deutscher']
The Iraq war was not necessary.

Technically, your continued breathing is not necessary. That doesn't neam I'm going to claim you do not have a right to do so.

America is a sovereign nation, and it's time you remembered that international law is a meaningless social construct. Each and every nation in this world is going to do what it sees as being in its own best interest.

Yes, and the Germans still hold the record...


.. And the USA just cant stop until it breaks the record?

I guess that's why everyone else in the world was listening to it.

IIRC, there have only been two UN authorized "wars". Korea (which is still ongoing), explicitly under US command under Resolution 90, and the Gulf War, also under US command.

I guess the rest of the world fought their wars illegally that whole time.
That is correct. If there's no enabling resolution by the security council, then the war is illegal. I guess, this also applies to the majority of wars the US had it's hands in, since 1945.

.. And the USA just cant stop until it breaks the record?

Well, let's see.

Say there are about 200 countries in the world. Say that Iraq is average. We have an official tally of 19,000 civilian dead in Iraq, of which we'll be generous and say that 3 out of 4 were killed by insurgents, not by US forces. Make it a nice round 5000 that the US is responsible for.

200 x 5000 = 1000000

We could take over the whole world, and not kill a fraction of the people who were killed by the Germans.

Ein Deutscher']Hussein didn't murder "hundreds of thousands of his own people". And he did so the last time during the Iran/Iraq war - as far as I know. If he was responsible for Halabdja at all.

So, where did all those mass graves in Iraq come from? Enlighten me you delightful little troll.

Ein Deutscher']
The US military however has killed millions since 1945 - in wars that it had no business in.

Links please. If you're going to make a cliam like this, I'd like a little bit more to work with than vague generalities.

Since when?

I don't recall America ever subordinating her sovereign rights to the UN.



Technically, your continued breathing is not necessary. That doesn't neam I'm going to claim you do not have a right to do so.

America is a sovereign nation, and it's time you remembered that international law is a meaningless social construct. Each and every nation in this world is going to do what it sees as being in its own best interest.
You are incorrect. As a signatory of the UN charter and foudning member of the UN, the US does not have the sovereign "right" to attack and plunder other sovereign nations. Although I know, that most Americans would happily jump to do exactly that.

Ein Deutscher']Hussein didn't murder "hundreds of thousands of his own people". And he did so the last time during the Iran/Iraq war - as far as I know. If he was responsible for Halabdja at all.

The US military however has killed millions since 1945 - in wars that it had no business in.


I love this-its seems to indicate his frustration that the US played a major role in defeating his country in WWI and WWII. I think we are getting to the heart of the matter here.

I love this-its seems to indicate his frustration that the US played a major role in defeating his country in WWI and WWII. I think we are getting to the heart of the matter here.
Hehe... that reminds of a Simpsons episode.

Homer: "So you're British, huh? You know, we saved your ass in World War II!"

Lisa's Fiancé: "Yeah well, we saved your ass in World War III!"

I'm not defending bush. I'm defending the USA. The US constitution gives everyone equal protection. Also, the insurgents aren't freedom fighters. Some are fighting to re-install a dictatorial regime, some are fighting to install a sunni theocracy. Freedom is what they're fighting against. Anyone who kills them is ok in my book, even if they compare it to a video game.

And what about the dictatorial regime in the U.S., that Al Qaeda was attempting to oust? You're really putting their acts on the same level as the U.S.? We're supposed to be better than that. By that argument we should be applauding every U.S. soldier that's killed, since they're fighting to install a hostile regime globally. Atleast the Sunni have stuck to their own part of the globe (for the most part).

So, where did all those mass graves in Iraq come from? Enlighten me you delightful little troll.



Links please. If you're going to make a cliam like this, I'd like a little bit more to work with than vague generalities.


And if he is going to provide any proof to the millions the US killed, he cannot include those killed that were wearing a swastika at the time.

Ein Deutscher']You are incorrect. As a signatory of the UN charter and foudning member of the UN, the US does not have the sovereign "right" to attack and plunder other sovereign nations.

When did I claim that we had the right to "attack and plunder other sovereign nations?"

In reviewing my posts in this thread I've only made the claim that America has a right to protect her interests, and did not forfeit her sovereignty.


Ein Deutscher']
Although I know, that most Americans would happily jump to do exactly that.

Do you actually believe this?

Are you that blindingly stupid?

Well, let's see.

Say there are about 200 countries in the world. Say that Iraq is average. We have an official tally of 19,000 civilian dead in Iraq, of which we'll be generous and say that 3 out of 4 were killed by insurgents, not by US forces. Make it a nice round 5000 that the US is responsible for.

200 x 5000 = 1000000

We could take over the whole world, and not kill a fraction of the people who were killed by the Germans.


There is no official tally of the body count in Iraq, your country doesnt keep a body count.. the iraqbodycount.com isnt official.

Plus, only god knows how many soldiers were killed in the Iraq army, they were wiped out.

Then we have assorted bombardments in Iraq, throught the Nineties. You have Kosovo. Somalia.

Assorted bombardments in the eighties; Lybia, Iran, South America.

Plus the Vietnam War, Korean war.

Offcourse, im holding responsible the USA of every single death in those wars, as you are holding responsible Germany of every single death in WW2.


So, If you havent still beaten the German record, you must be close to it.

I dont care what nation your from, what army you fight for. but the U.S. led coalition against terrorism. is the only thing keeping this world safe. and when you say there isnt any progress being made in the world on terrorism because of all the attacks. think strategically, ever since 9/11 the only attacks that have been made on our allies have been small, and the train explosion in spain right before the elections was the only major attack, which served the world well in showing how week the spanish were in giving into terrorism. but back to my point about the amount of attacks not that many right? why do you suppose that is? could it be because were doing our jobs. terrorists should have made at the least a dozen major attacks on the world but there really hasnt been that many has there.

on behalf of the U.S. army, which i proudly serve, id like to thank all of you who have responded to this post. you prove to us that there are people out there who beleive in what were doing. and im glad to see that you have come to terms with the facts of war, and still support us, and help us to make collateral damage almost non-existent compared to earlier wars.

im afraid this thread has lost the sight of the major discusion, if U.S. soldiers are as much murders as the taliban or Hamas, or any other terrorists organization. ill admit that U.S. soldiers have killed civlians, but when they do they feel remorse over it why do you think so many soldiers are being sent to counselors. but insurgents do it without regret, they bomb school buses, schools, market places, and public facilities that supply power and running water to middle east homes, and none of them think twice about it, if i had my way i'd kill everyone of them with a gut shot, using a fragmentation bullet.

and as for you soldier bashers out there you can go to hell. an American soldier woul take a bullet for you even though you continually persecute us, for keeping you safe, while you sleep on matresses and wonder to yourself if you should buy a sleep number bed. many of us are out there sleeping on cots or dirt, lucky to get a hot meal. show some respect for the people who would give up everything for you.

And what about the dictatorial regime in the U.S., that Al Qaeda was attempting to oust? You're really putting their acts on the same level as the U.S.? We're supposed to be better than that. By that argument we should be applauding every U.S. soldier that's killed, since they're fighting to install a hostile regime globally. Atleast the Sunni have stuck to their own part of the globe (for the most part).
There is no dictatorial regime in the US. Bush's power is limited, and he can't stay in power after the next four years are up.

Al Quaeda was acting out of a desire to weaken the US' support for sovereign nations in the middle east including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Quatar, and Egypt so that islamofascists could overthrow those governments and establish a sharia-ruled sunni theocracy that would use it's power to spread a violent and repressive form of Islam to the rest of the world.

US troops are not fighting to establish any global regime, hosile or otherwise.

Sunni terrorists have struck in central asia, europe, africa, north america, east asia and have cells in australia, south america, east asia, europe, north america, and elsewhere. I'd hardly call that "sticking to their own area".

There is no official tally of the body count in Iraq, your country doesnt keep a body count.. the iraqbodycount.com isnt official.

Plus, only god knows how many soldiers were killed in the Iraq army, they were wiped out.

Then we have assorted bombardments in Iraq, throught the Nineties. You have Kosovo. Somalia.

Assorted bombardments in the eighties; Lybia, Iran, South America.

Plus the Vietnam War, Korean war.

Offcourse, im holding responsible the USA of every single death in those wars, as you are holding responsible Germany of every single death in WW2.


So, If you havent still beaten the German record, you must be close to it.
There is no official tally of any body count in any war. Everything is just a reasonable guess. Six million subhumans in furnances is the most reasonable estimate of Germany's atrocities. 20,000 civilians is the highest reasonable estimate of dead Iraqi civilians, maybe by the U.S.'s hand, maybe not. But the difference was that it was official, governmental, Germany policy to chuck the Jews into the furnance. The dead civilians in the U.S.'s wars are incidental, not intentional.

I would like to officially invoke Godwin's law at this time.

Why doesn't [NS]Ein Deutscher just stop attacking the American military? He's really getting on my nerves.

It's called collateral damage. And well, if it was an urban situation, tough shit. I'd never take the risk and not shoot in an urban warfare situation. I rather be sure and pull the trigger, sorry. It could be an enemy. I prefer staying alive. No platoon leader, no squad leader, no soldier would take that risk in a hostile environment. And well, if they're unlucky to get into the salvo of a machine gun, well, bad luck, but eh, shit happens.


Also, if you go by killed civilians, seems the Russians hold the record, or better said the Soviet Union *points at Stalin and his gulags*

As for the UN, it's absolutely no authority in deciding which wars are necessary and which not. How'd the UN know about this anyway? How'd they do anything about it? Point at someone and pout? Let's say the USA would fight a war which the UN would declare as wrong and illegal. What would happen? Nothing.

The UN would pout a few days, maybe do some half-assed sanctions nobody will care for and go back to normal business. Basically the UN's somewhat of a joke. Heck, it can't even protect it's own forces (take Somalia for example, it took the USMC to get food distributed, once the USMC was pulled out, UN got their ass kicked and the Rangers had to appear on the scene), and driving around in a white tank and a blue helmet is like wearing a "shoot me please" sign.

And finally...

I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country. Patton - The movie

Why doesn't [NS]Ein Deutscher just stop attacking the American military? He's really getting on my nerves.


Why do trolls do anything?

There is no official tally of any body count in any war. Everything is just a reasonable guess. Six million subhumans in furnances is the most reasonable estimate of Germany's atrocities. 20,000 civilians is the highest reasonable estimate of dead Iraqi civilians, maybe by the U.S.'s hand, maybe not. But the difference was that it was official, governmental, Germany policy to chuck the Jews into the furnance. The dead civilians in the U.S.'s wars are incidental, not intentional.


Nazi Germany started a war over a lie, all deaths of that war are responsibility of Germany.

The USA started two wars over a lie (Vietnam gulf of tonkin attacks, that were fake, and Iraq), all deaths of that war are responsibility of the USA.

Yes, you have a far lower body count, but your entire foreign policy seems to be striving to break the german "record"

Nazi Germany started a war over a lie, all deaths of that war are responsibility of Germany.

The USA started two wars over a lie (Vietnam gulf of tonkin attacks, that were fake, and Iraq), all deaths of that war are responsibility of the USA.

Yes, you have a far lower body count, but your entire foreign policy seems to be striving to break the german "record"
So in 60 years we've almost accidentally done what the Germans did in 4?

Why do trolls do anything?

For that matter, why does he repeatedly attack the US? Honestly, if [NS]Ein Deutscher is in some sort of "I Hate America" club then he can go have fun there. Or he could see a psychologist.

So in 60 years we've almost accidentally done what the Germans did in 4?

Vietnam was an accident? Iraq was an accident? The shelling of Lebanon was an accident? I don't think so.

Besides, your country was commiting Genocide against the Indians way before ww1... but if it makes you feel better, there isnt one country in the world that hasnt done that. The scale just varies.

Vietnam was an accident? Iraq was an accident? The shelling of Lebanon was an accident? I don't think so.

Besides, your country was commiting Genocide against the Indians way before ww1... but if it makes you feel better, there isnt one country in the world that hasnt done that. The scale just varies.
Civilians weren't deliberately exterminated in Vietnam. Not by official U.S. policy.

Vietnam was an accident? Iraq was an accident? The shelling of Lebanon was an accident? I don't think so.

Besides, your country was commiting Genocide against the Indians way before ww1... but if it makes you feel better, there isnt one country in the world that hasnt done that. The scale just varies.
The Vietnam war was already in progress when the US joined in. So was the Lebanese civil war. You have a funny definition of "starting a war". I guess a war only starts when the US joins in.

There is no dictatorial regime in the US. Bush's power is limited, and he can't stay in power after the next four years are up.

Al Quaeda was acting out of a desire to weaken the US' support for sovereign nations in the middle east including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Quatar, and Egypt so that islamofascists could overthrow those governments and establish a sharia-ruled sunni theocracy that would use it's power to spread a violent and repressive form of Islam to the rest of the world.

US troops are not fighting to establish any global regime, hosile or otherwise.

Sunni terrorists have struck in central asia, europe, africa, north america, east asia and have cells in australia, south america, east asia, europe, north america, and elsewhere. I'd hardly call that "sticking to their own area".

And what is the current death count for the Sunni outside of the middle east?
When compared to the tens of thousands of "incidental" deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's statistically insignificant.

And who's to say their form of Islam is violent and repressive? You're just spouting bush propaganda.

"Bush's power is limited"
Didn't stop him from invading another country, defying the united nations and much of the population he was elected by.

Next you'll reveal you're one of these "America is a Democracy" nuts. :rolleyes:

How do we know the civvies dident have firearms :mp5: ??? My mate shot a kid who picked up a rifle and his dad (this is back in the 1990's) shot a women with a baby becasue she was holding a handgun..I give my respects to famillies who have lost servicemen but civvies, they might have had weapons, relying on the U.S. and British laws of not shooting civvies. They could have waited until we dropped our guard then struck..i'm not sure, but i give my respects to those people. :confused:

Obviously he has some kind of fixation, which means we need Freud. Unfortunately Freud is dead, so why don't we just call it a fixation and leave it at that?

Javea: The UN isn't in the US constitution and we aren't bound to obey them. And once an official is elected s/he no longer answers to the public but to the branch or office designated as his/her watchdog.

And in regards to your no-dictatorial-regime argument:

M-W (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dictatorial)

Main Entry: dic·ta·to·ri·al
Pronunciation: "dik-t&-'tOr-E-&l, -'tor-
Function: adjective
1 a : of, relating to, or befitting a dictator <dictatorial power> b : ruled by a dictator
2 : oppressive to or arrogantly overbearing toward others

M-W (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=regime&x=0&y=0)

Main Entry: re·gime
Variant(s): also ré·gime /rA-'zhEm, ri- also ri-'jEm/
Function: noun
Etymology: French régime, from Latin regimin-, regimen
a : mode of rule or management b : a form of government <a socialist regime> c : a government in power <predicted that the new regime would fall> d : a period of rule

And what is the current death count for the Sunni outside of the middle east?
When compared to the tens of thousands of "incidental" deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's statistically insignificant.

And who's to say their form of Islam is violent and repressive? You're just spouting bush propaganda.

"Bush's power is limited"
Didn't stop him from invading another country, defying the united nations and much of the population he was elected by.

Next you'll reveal you're one of these "America is a Democracy" nuts. :rolleyes:Total death count since when? Since they invaded Europe and dismantled the Byzantine empire? Since they conquered India and massacred many hindus? Just in the 20th century when they commited a genocide in Southern Sudan and another in Darfur while intermittently using terrorism against more formidable nations? The numbers rank in the millions in the 20th century alone considering the Sudan situation.

Al Quaeda's form of Islam is similar to the Talibans. Burquas, stonings, attacks on non-islamic civilians, that's all OK in bin laden's islam. I'm not spouting bush propaganda. I don't like bush. I have just read several books on militant islam and islamic terrorism and formed opinions based on them and current events.

Yeah, bush's power is limited. Limited by the US constitution, and by the power of courts and congress. You're the ignorant [edit for the sake of not flaming] who claimed the US is a dictatorship, which it clearly is not.

Total death count since when? Since they invaded Europe and dismantled the Byzantine empire? Since they conquered India and massacred many hindus? Just in the 20th century when they commited a genocide in Southern Sudan and another in Darfur while intermittently using terrorism against more formidable nations? The numbers rank in the millions in the 20th century alone considering the Sudan situation.

These areas are almost entirely SUNNI. You referenced the terrorist activities of the sunni. The christian %age is less than 3% in Iraq, while sunni make up almost a third of the population. An extreme minority is imposing its will over the majority.

Al Quaeda's form of Islam is similar to the Talibans. Burquas, stonings, attacks on non-islamic civilians, that's all OK in bin laden's islam. I'm not spouting bush propaganda. I don't like bush. I have just read several books on militant islam and islamic terrorism and formed opinions based on them and current events

And I studied islam and many religions to get where I am. What's your point? Burquas have been around for a long time, it's part of their culture. What they're doing to women (aside from previously mentioned burquas) is no different than what's happening to gays and those of middle eastern descent in the united states. We just like to point out the flaws in others, rather than looking inward.



Yeah, bush's power is limited. Limited by the US constitution, and by the power of courts and congress. You're the ignorant SOB who claimed the US is a dictatorship, which it clearly is not.

Read the post above yours, buddy. And could you please point out where I called the us a dictatorship? I'll just write that off as another fabrication on your part.

Since they invaded Europe and dismantled the Byzantine empire?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire#End_of_empire

Since they conquered India and massacred many hindus?

The initial entry of Islam into South Asia came in the first century after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. The Umayyad caliph in Damascus sent an expedition to Balochistan and Sindh in 711 led by Muhammad bin Qasim (for whom Karachi's second port is named). The expedition went as far north as Multan but was not able to retain that region and was not successful in expanding Islamic rule to other parts of India. Coastal trade and the presence of a Muslim colony in Sindh, however, permitted significant cultural exchanges and the introduction into the subcontinent of saintly teachers. Muslim influence grew with conversions.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Empires_in_India#The_rise_of_Islam_in_South_Asia

Ein Deutscher']Well the original headline of this article is: "Woman, Children Die in U.S. Attack on Taliban"

This implies that they died due to the U.S. attacking the Taliban. Anyway, knowing the past 2 years of U.S. army conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd not be surprised if the U.S. army with it's trigger-happy teenage boys was responsible for the murders this time again.


Trigger happy boys? I am more than happy to point out that I have a brother who was both in Afghanistan and Iraq. They only fire their weapons if they have to. American soldiers take great care not to injure or kill civilians. Accidents happen in a war zone. Are you one of those people that insist that homicide bombers never kill innocent people?

These areas are almost entirely SUNNI. You referenced the terrorist activities of the sunni. The christian %age is less than 3% in Iraq, while sunni make up almost a third of the population. An extreme minority is imposing its will over the majority.



And I studied islam and many religions to get where I am. What's your point? Burquas have been around for a long time, it's part of their culture. What they're doing to women (aside from previously mentioned burquas) is no different than what's happening to gays and those of middle eastern descent in the united states. We just like to point out the flaws in others, rather than looking inward.





Read the post above yours, buddy. And could you please point out where I called the us a dictatorship? I'll just write that off as another fabrication on your part.
1 Which areas are almost entirely sunni? The areas I gave as historical examples of sunni aggression? They have lots of sunnis now, but the sunnis are there through conquest and slaughter. Sudan? Southern Sudan is primarily Christian and Animist. The slaughter there was in keeping with the islamofascist idiology of Osamma's good pals in the Khartoum regime. I never mentioned Iraq in this post.

2 Nope, gays and people of middle eastern descent in the USA aren't being stoned to death, which is what the Taliban with help from Al Quaeda used to do to gays, women who refuse the burqua, etc.

3 Ok, you said dictatorial. I stand corrected on that count. Still, I disagree that the US is a dictatorial regime. We are no more arrogant or oppressive than any nation, and much less oppressive than most.

So, If you havent still beaten the German record, you must be close to it.
That's okay, we're still not anywhere near the communists' record.

Jamil forgets Tamerlane, and his sacking of Delhi, because they weren't Islamic enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire#End_of_empire





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Empires_in_India#The_rise_of_Islam_in_South_Asia
The first URL you provide shows that the turks, militarliy aggressive sunni muslims, were a major factor in dismantling the empire.

The second URL, well, you should have read further into it. It mentions the incursions and military conquests. Unfortunately it doesn't mention the plight of hindus under muslim rule. It doesn't mention the slaughter of brahmins, and the sacking and destruction of temples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire#End_of_empire





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Empires_in_India#The_rise_of_Islam_in_South_Asia
Jamil, did you fail to read the rest of the wiki articles you posted?


Three Byzantine successor states were left - the Empire of Nicaea, the Empire of Trebizond, and the Despotate of Epirus. The first, controlled by the Palaeologan dynasty, managed to reclaim Constantinople in 1261 and defeat Epirus, reviving the empire but giving too much attention to Europe when the Asian provinces were the primary concern. For a while the empire survived simply because the Muslims were too divided to attack, but eventually the Ottomans overran all but a handful of port cities.

The empire appealed to the west for help, but they would only consider sending aid in return for reuniting the churches. Church unity was considered, and occasionally accomplished by law, but the Orthodox citizens would not accept Roman Catholicism. Some western mercenaries arrived to help, but many preferred to let the empire die, and did nothing as the Ottomans picked apart the remaining territories.
The Byzantine Empire around year 1400.
Enlarge
The Byzantine Empire around year 1400.

Constantinople was initially not considered worth the effort of conquest, but with the advent of cannons, the walls, which had been impenetrable except by the Crusaders for over 1000 years, no longer offered adequate protection from the Ottomans. The Fall of Constantinople finally came after a two-month siege by Mehmed II on May 29, 1453. Mehmed II also conquered Mistra in 1460 and Trebizond in 1461. Mehmed styled himself the proper successor to the Eastern Roman Emperors and by the end of the century the Ottoman Empire had established its firm rule over Asia Minor and most of the Balkan peninsula.

And

Almost three centuries later, the Turkics, Persians and the Afghans spearheaded the Islamic conquest in India through the traditional invasion routes of the northwest. Mahmud of Ghazni (979-1030) led a series of raids against Rajput kingdoms and rich Hindu temples and established a base in Punjab for future incursions.

Obviously he has some kind of fixation, which means we need Freud. Unfortunately Freud is dead, so why don't we just call it a fixation and leave it at that?

Javea: The UN isn't in the US constitution and we aren't bound to obey them. And once an official is elected s/he no longer answers to the public but to the branch or office designated as his/her watchdog.
What? Do i have a fixation or..what???!!!!

There are other cases of mass killing that are beyond belief, but for which specific numbers are unrecorded. For example, it is written that in the 12th and 13th centuries the Sultan of Delhi, Kutb-d Din Aibak, slaughtered his subjects by the hundreds of thousands,8 which at least gives us an order of magnitude. But one can only guess at the many thousands murdered by Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlak, who, according to a Moslem historian, slaughtered Hindus such that "there was constantly in front of his royal pavilion and his Civil Court a mound of dead bodies and a heap of corpses, while the sweepers and executioners were wearied out by their work of dragging" the poor souls "and putting them to death in crowds."

There are other cases of mass killing that are beyond belief, but for which specific numbers are unrecorded. For example, it is written that in the 12th and 13th centuries the Sultan of Delhi, Kutb-d Din Aibak, slaughtered his subjects by the hundreds of thousands,8 which at least gives us an order of magnitude. But one can only guess at the many thousands murdered by Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlak, who, according to a Moslem historian, slaughtered Hindus such that "there was constantly in front of his royal pavilion and his Civil Court a mound of dead bodies and a heap of corpses, while the sweepers and executioners were wearied out by their work of dragging" the poor souls "and putting them to death in crowds."
That's what Osama and his pals want Islam to return to. Hell, he has made reference to reconquering Al Andalus in his videos. One has to wonder what those poor Spanish atheists and catholics will endure if Al Quaeda or some other islamofascist organization manages to do it.

Tamerlane (or Timur Lenk), a Turk, razed Isfarã'in to the ground in A.D. 1381; built 2,000 prisoners into a living mound and then bricked them over at Sabsawãr in 1383; piled 5,000 human heads into minarets at Zirih in the same year; cast his Luri prisoners alive over precipices in 1386; massacred 70,000 people and piled the heads of the slain into minarets at Isfahan in 1387; ....buried alive 4,000 Christian soldiers of the garrison of Sivas after their capitulation in 1400; and built twenty towers of skulls in Syria in 1400 and 1401. And he massacred the people of Delhi and razed the city to the ground - because the Muslim Sultan of Delhi was not Islamic enough. Like Bin Laden today, he was a Muslim who killed other Muslims he saw as not being Islamic.