Here you have it - murdered American

The Golden Ring "evidence" is BS..
I know/seen a lot of muslims that use golden rings.

And what about the shoes?
Can't an Al Qaida "warrior" get himself some new shoes??


There are unfortunately several (many) individuals in the world that see conspiracies behind every corner....
 
For those of you that do not know, Aztlan (your first source there, patonki) is an extremist latino group that advocates the violent overthrow of the United States government and the return of the lands captures in the Mexican-American War (which my several-times-great Grand daddy Zachary Taylor had a bit of a hand in capturing hooah :lol: ) to Mexico and the removal of the European influence from the area (apparently they forgot where Spain is, but cest la vie).

Not exactly my first choice for a valid source, to say the least.
 
Redleg said:
The Golden Ring "evidence" is BS..
I know/seen a lot of muslims that use golden rings.

And what about the shoes?
Can't an Al Qaida "warrior" get himself some new shoes??


There are unfortunately several (many) individuals in the world that see conspiracies behind every corner....
Click to expand...

I have also seen muslims who are drunk as a :cen: but that doesnt mean anything, because these guys (if they are muslims) are fundamentalists and do everything by the book (koran). What I mean it takes a lot of fait to do for example an suicide just because it is right by your religion, so if you are ready to kill yourself and other people because your religion says it is good thing, propably you woudnt broke any rules of this same religion.
And the shoes, would you buy shoes when the money would go to your biggest enemy?
Unfortunately there are also people who believes everything what mainstream news say, and who dont have their own opinion :?
(I didnt mean anyone personally)
 
Redneck said:
For those of you that do not know, Aztlan (your first source there, patonki) is an extremist latino group that advocates the violent overthrow of the United States government and the return of the lands captures in the Mexican-American War (which my several-times-great Grand daddy Zachary Taylor had a bit of a hand in capturing hooah :lol: ) to Mexico and the removal of the European influence from the area (apparently they forgot where Spain is, but cest la vie).

Not exactly my first choice for a valid source, to say the least.
Click to expand...

Actually I have to admit that I didnt myself know that :lol: .
 
hc^patonki said:
Unfortunately there are also people who believes everything what mainstream news say, and who dont have their own opinion :?
(I didnt mean anyone personally)
Click to expand...

Unfortunately there are many people who have become so entranced with counter-culture movements that they are willing to believe that anything bad they hear about certain countries (say, America) is true, and therefore fail to build their own opinions as well.
(I don't mean anyone in particular. ;) )
 
hmmm

I rekcon what hapened was a bloody teriible thing but not surprising, considering that the us ,brits aussies and others invaded ther country, if i my country was invaded, and my friends and family might be caught in the crossfire so to speak, why would you follow rules of war (geneva convention and all that).
you would want a war in your country over and done with as soon as possible i think that might of had something to do with what happend, and the fact that they had to know it would get a lot of coverage.
don't mean it right but a lot of things that aint right happen in war. the pacific in ww2 proved that.
 
Re: hmmm

bush musketeer said:
I rekcon what hapened was a bloody teriible thing but not surprising, considering that the us ,brits aussies and others invaded ther country, if i my country was invaded, and my friends and family might be caught in the crossfire so to speak, why would you follow rules of war (geneva convention and all that).
you would want a war in your country over and done with as soon as possible i think that might of had something to do with what happend, and the fact that they had to know it would get a lot of coverage.
don't mean it right but a lot of things that aint right happen in war. the pacific in ww2 proved that.
Click to expand...

Those that killed Nick Berg were not Iraqis. Would you like to attempt justification again?

Are you saying that Al'Queda has decided not to follow the GC because we invaded Iraq? What would you say about Daniel Pearle, then? Or the various other international members that have been murdered since oh, I don't know .. they were founded?
 
Re: hmmm

RnderSafe said:
bush musketeer said:
I rekcon what hapened was a bloody teriible thing but not surprising, considering that the us ,brits aussies and others invaded ther country, if i my country was invaded, and my friends and family might be caught in the crossfire so to speak, why would you follow rules of war (geneva convention and all that).
you would want a war in your country over and done with as soon as possible i think that might of had something to do with what happend, and the fact that they had to know it would get a lot of coverage.
don't mean it right but a lot of things that aint right happen in war. the pacific in ww2 proved that.
Click to expand...

Those that killed Nick Berg were not Iraqis. Would you like to attempt justification again?

Are you saying that Al'Queda has decided not to follow the GC because we invaded Iraq? What would you say about Daniel Pearle, then? Or the various other international members that have been murdered since oh, I don't know .. they were founded?
Click to expand...

never said it was justified? :?

they way i look at it the Al'Queda blokes reckon they are fighting for there freedom from the west and some of its ideas that they dont agree with right? and the fanatics amonsgt em are going to do whatever they think it will take. and if that means going outside the geneva convention when it suits them then they will.
as im sure they will use the GC to go on about how bad they have been treated when taken prisoner and then try blameing the us and others and saying things like if the coalition dont play by the rules why should we , its there way of using public opinoin to influence the war.
just like they say that they main reason for this war is to get oil.

as as for other ppl who have been killed in terrorist acts i feel very sorry for them as well as this nick berg bloke( i lost my best mate in the bali bombing ) so its not like i'm totally bloody imune to the stupid bloody things that keep happening.
and i must admit that i find it strange that ppl have tried to make war sanatised by adding rules that they think make it more civillised like the gc (since when has war ever been civil)

just my opinion
cheers
 
Re: hmmm

bush musketeer said:
they way i look at it the Al'Queda blokes reckon they are fighting for there freedom from the west and some of its ideas that they dont agree with right? and the fanatics amonsgt em are going to do whatever they think it will take. and if that means going outside the geneva convention when it suits them then they will.
as im sure they will use the GC to go on about how bad they have been treated when taken prisoner and then try blameing the us and others and saying things like if the coalition dont play by the rules why should we , its there way of using public opinoin to influence the war.
just like they say that they main reason for this war is to get oil.
Click to expand...

Ok, so which is it? Is it because we invaded Iraq, or is it because they are fighting for freedom from the west?

Since when do terrorists organisations follow the GC to be able to go outside of it as it suits them?

I agree with some of what you are saying, but you are waivering on many points.
 
Re: hmmm

RnderSafe said:
bush musketeer said:
they way i look at it the Al'Queda blokes reckon they are fighting for there freedom from the west and some of its ideas that they dont agree with right? and the fanatics amonsgt em are going to do whatever they think it will take. and if that means going outside the geneva convention when it suits them then they will.
as im sure they will use the GC to go on about how bad they have been treated when taken prisoner and then try blameing the us and others and saying things like if the coalition dont play by the rules why should we , its there way of using public opinoin to influence the war.
just like they say that they main reason for this war is to get oil.
Click to expand...

Ok, so which is it? Is it because we invaded Iraq, or is it because they are fighting for freedom from the west?

Since when do terrorists organisations follow the GC to be able to go outside of it as it suits them?

I agree with some of what you are saying, but you are waivering on many points.
Click to expand...

From the coverage that i have seen ,much of which is australian media so it might not of been viewed by ppl in the us. and from the discussion's i have had with various ppl including ppl who have came to australia as a direct result of the afghanistan war. i would say it was both some of them think that because the coalition ivaded iraq that that is why they are fighting the way they are and using the tactics that they are using . while others think that they are fighting because they want to hold on to there traditional values ; such as what clothes women should or shouldn't wear which in many cases are quite different to views held in the west ,along with other so called fundementalists views which are too many to go into.

so depended on the soldier/terreorist they could be fighting for both of the afforementened reasons or completly different ones. in other words there are many and varied reasons.

it was my opinion that the fact that they are at least taking prisoners is about as close to gc as they were going to get and when the prisoner abuse thing came out it allowed them to use worse ways to treat coalition prisoners wether millitary or civilians ones by using the excuse if you like that it was revenge for what happened to there blokes that were captured. (even though they could of been doing stuff like on the video b4 the abuse stuff came into circulation).

i have also discussed this with my grand father and his brothers who fought in the pacific in ww2 and dealt with similar (and worse) things firsthand which i why i personally think that the taking of prisoners is not the number one concern in a war, winning the bloody war to stop all this crap happening would be my number one concern. crap as in 911, bali and other things which are things that should not of bloody happend to start with.
and this doe's not mean that i think that prisoners of war should be left to the mercy of the enemy whoever it might be at the time. i think that if you have even a tiny chance of rescuing prisoners it should be attempted.

cheers i hope this cleared something up and yes i do tend to waiver it has taken me years of practice to waiver this much ;)

:horsie:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top