Troops Killed 2 families and 3 year old girl today...

Gworld's always ready to convinct the US on allegations, but never a terrorist with hard facts

 

Were you? Is the report an allegation? Nice assumptions you've made.

 

Ok, I'm being serious here...

Can you, GTech, show me where gworld or yo-yo have "supported terrorists"?

To what assumptions are you referring?

 

I have access to the reports, yes. Was I there? No. But neither was Time.

I believe if anyone commits murder they should be found guilty.

When its during war though, its a fine line between murder and protecting your own life. Thats just me, although you will never find yourself in a life threatening situation so you don't have to worry.

 

Sure, but you'll have to do the research. Gworld supports Jose Padilla, a known al qaida terrorist. Yo-yo has done so many times by giving credit for actions zarqawi has committed to the US.

Will I drudge through thousands of posts to find direct quotes? Nope, but you are welcome to do so.

The assumption of guilt.

 

What does that mean?

I do my best to keep myself safe. I'm not the toughest guy in the world like you must be!

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Please show me. This thread isn't that long...surely you can do that for me.

For someone who claims to love facts so much, you sure have a twisted way of showing it.

 

I work in the Intelligence Field. I have access to those sorts of reports.

I don't have to be tough to fight for my country Rob. I just use my good rational and heart. And I also do my best to stay safe, along with every other Marine.

 

Try not to think so hard, you skipped right over what I posted as examples. But I figured you probably would.

Read your posts. Unless you are editing them as you go along. What assumption do you feel you are trying to communicate?

 

So really this is based on an Iraqi report from Haditha (hey wasn't that the center of insurgent activity following the invasion of Iraq?) , which is based on Iraqi people and what they perceived happened that day?

Am I wrong?

 

These are your examples?

Geeze, you refer to gworld and yo-yo as terrorist supporters so often that you may have actually been able to justify your claims.

Thanks, I guess I know that you're just joking when you call them that.

No, you're not wrong....and I never said you were.

I am in no way trying to prove that the soldiers slaughtered the family.

I posted that BBC article to show GTech this:

Since he always likes to believe the official government claims for these things.

 

Yes, but not exclusively. The ones you skipped right over...those were just single examples.

Much the same way as when you refer to me as a Bush supporter. I take it as a compliment. I'm sure they do to.

 

Understandable. Although there isn't an official "approved" claim yet either. We could see this going back to the original explanation.

It's policy to investigate a claim of this nature. And during this type of investigation, the official claims are usually pulled until it can be sorted out.

 

Points well taken, but you have to remember that the war in Iraq was started by the US not Iraq. As far as the world at large is conserned the Iraq war is an ilegal war, and the US troops that are dying everyday are not dying as a result of the Iraqis but as a result of our politicians who sent them there under the pretext that there were weapons of mass destruction and terrorist threats.

 

Terrorist.

 

I fully agree.

What I don't understand is how people can't support us troops. We don't look at the War over there as being for anything else than trying to help. We (troops) have nothing to gain from this.

 

Thanks, but that one line doesn't say anything. It doesn't show anything disproved, who disproved, based on what...nothing.

Given the media's continued efforts to outright lie (New York Times, just last week..cough cough) for headlines, you can be sure I'll give the soldiers and our country the benefit of the doubt on an "allegation," especially given the history of terrorists using women and children as shields in Iraq. Sorry to disappoint you, but I won't just jump up and assume guilt on an allegation like some do.

 

True, but the word "support" is broad and being used very vaguely as propoganda in my opinion. Like the bumper stickers that say:
"Support our troops"
What does that mean? "support our troops" when they are being attacked? support them while they are commiting murder? Support them while they fight insurgents? The word support is a submliminal undefined word that is the same as saying "you are either with us or against us", leaving aside the posibilities that go in between. How would you like it if I said "Support George W. Bush", does that mean that even if he makes stupid mistakes you should support him because he is our president? There is a line to be drawn to everything, and we need to define that. The constitution defines a line that has been broken many times by our arrogant president.

 

I would hope everyone supports us in all our actions. We are trying to good over there. I doubt troops have personal missions of murdering Iraqi's on the side.

And I wouldn't ask anyone to support a murderer? Do I really need to explain that?

And yes, I support my Commander in Chiefs decisions. I hardly agree with everything, but its just one of those things that comes with the job. I understand everyone else isn't in the same position.

 

You don't need to. What he's trying to do is a classic liberal argument. By calling for a definition of a word (in this case, "support"), he wants to attempt to break the definition down into so many possible shades of grey to obscure it's overall meaning, that one can no longer clearly define the word "support" and therefore one could not "support" the troops.

Cloud an argument with shades of grey until you are left wondering what you were originally talking about.

 

ahhh thats how it works.