Muhammed, Aallah, Mufti etc SERVES YOU RIGHT!!
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
Prev: Incredibley stupid asking price for a 1st model Commy
Next: "KANGAROO TURD AUSTRALIA" YOU ARE REALLY PLAGUING aus.politics !
From: Atheist Chaplain on 11 Apr 2010 22:31 "D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message news:4bc1c43b$0$8833$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > On 11/04/2010 9:43 PM, Atheist Chaplain wrote: >> "D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message >> news:4bc19782$0$8828$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>> On 11/04/2010 2:30 PM, Dyna Soar wrote: >>>> D Walford wrote: >>>>> On 11/04/2010 11:39 AM, Clocky wrote: >>>> >>>>>> The videos showing the misconduct of American soldiers can be found >>>>>> using Google. >>>> >>>>> The only difference between current wars and previous wars is the >>>>> amount of video taken by almost everyone involved. >>>>> If I was a Commander over there the first thing I would do would be to >>>>> make it a very serious offence for any of my men to be caught owning >>>>> or using any sort of camera, posting a video on the net would be >>>>> treason with very serious punishment. >>>> >>>> Are you aware that the video we are discussing is an official video >>>> shot by >>>> the chopper's on board camera, not some private movie camera? Your >>>> comments >>>> indicate not. And this video has been "released" almost three years >>>> after >>>> the event, the chances it was released by an actual participant in >>>> the event >>>> is so remote, I suggest it's nil. >>> >>> I was aware of that but the fact that a video exists at all is the >>> difference between current and previous conflicts. >> >> you know they had gun cameras way back in WW2 don't you, as well as >> cameras in the bomb sights................. >> and they have been used ever since. >> > True but they were still camera's not high detail video and the chances of > them being released to embarrass the country that took them would be very > remote and if it did happen the person who did so would more than likely > end up being executed for treason which is very different to what happens > now. > > > > Daryl they were movie cameras you twonk, the US even used colour film and the detail was enough to see bits of blood and gore flying everywhere and if they were wearing a uniform or not when they did ground attack missions. On another note, do you think the US forces deserve to be embarrassed by the footage we are currently discussing ?? -- [This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International] "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi
From: Noddy on 12 Apr 2010 00:26 "D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message news:4bc29868$0$8827$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > You only have to read the story about the Japs sinking the hospital ship > the Centaur off Nth Qld in today's Herald Sun to see how ruthless they > were but if I was in their shoes and wanted to win at all costs I'd be > even worse. Wanting to win or not there was *no* excuse for the atrocities they inflicted on the Chinese, or on prisoners of war. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Jason James on 12 Apr 2010 02:16 "D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message news:4bc29a6d$0$27842$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > Dresden is a German city, Germany was the enemy so in the context of that > war every German man woman or child is an enemy which IMO is the reality > of war like it or not. > The war was almost over when Dresden was destroyed, it looks like the > Allies were dishing out a bit of revenge and under the circumstances > that's understandable, the Germans had extensively bombed London so its no > surprise the Poms wanted to get even, that may seem uncivilised today but > I doubt too many English people would have complained at the time. Arthur "Bomber" Harris made no bones about it "Germany sowed the wind, and they're about to reap the whirlwind" He was critisised afte the war in the '50s,..but to my mind the war-cabinet should have been the target,..not Harris. Jason
From: Shane on 13 Apr 2010 07:32 "Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message news:4bc122f9$0$27839$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > D Walford wrote: >> On 10/04/2010 8:38 PM, Clocky wrote: >>> Jason James wrote: >>>> "Dyna Soar"<dynasoar..REMOVE..THIS..(a)ozdebate.com> wrote in message <snip> >> > > That in no way excuses their unprofessional conduct in that video and > others that have leaked out and are only the tip of the iceberg. > When an atrocity is committed by the west it is usually the western media that brings them unstuck. This is usually met with condemnation by the West. When an atrocity is committed by the other side, it is usually rejoiced by the majority and even televised on Al Jazeera for all to enjoy. Even after taking into consideration the occupation of their land by others, the poverty, the oppression, the lack of opportunity and jealousy of the freedoms the west currently enjoys, these people are still living in the Bronze Age with Bronze Age values. Those Bronze Age texts that dictate how their lives will be lived don't allow them to feel compassion for anyone other than themselves it seems. So I find it hard to feel too much compassion when I see something like this occur when I know that should the tables have been turned and multiplied by a thousand times, the other side would be rejoicing. I believe the US does more than enough to limit collateral damage so much so that it costs the lives of their own on occasions. Sorry Clocky, I don't feel the same way you do in relation to this. I get the feeling I'm not alone.
From: Clocky on 13 Apr 2010 09:54
Dyna Soar wrote: > Jason James wrote: >> "Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message > >>> LOL, not on your life. You would be surprised how atrocities become >>> justifiable by the spin that is applied to them. > >> This whole argument is sooo stupid. What does the US have to gain by >> randomly shooting innocent Iraqis? Its *counter-productive* to their >> aim. If they were doing what dinisoar says, > > If by "dinisoar" you mean me, common courtesy would mean you'd be at > least close to writing my name correctly. > And be closer to the truth in commenting on what I have said. > I've never said it was deliberate policy, but the "justified spin" > placed on the incidents by the US military sure hints that they have > no problem with the murder of some of those they're allegedly > attempting to protect. >> they'd lose the support >> of those very people, they are accused of shooting, who can point to >> the real bad-guys. It makes no sense. > > Of course there is "no sense" in what they do. Why, therefore, do > they condone it? Simple, because they can get away with it. All you have to do is demonise a people and their culture in a viral propaganda campaign and then almost anything can be justified. Seems to have worked pretty well too, judging by the people condoning the US atrocities. |