U.S. Troops Discover And Rescue Orphan Boys Left Starving, Chained To Beds

If under the age of 12 and is not a sociopath I condemn it. Anything above 13? Depends on the crime. Above 16? Depends on how annoying they are.

 

So does ever body else is what your saying supposed to revolutionary?

 

Why don't you ask your friend Gtech to condemn the killing of ALL children under age of 10 who suffer no mental illnesses?

Why don't you ask Gtech since he still refuses to condemn the killing of ALL children?

 

I don't need to

 

It seems you already know that your friends Gtech doesn't condemn the killing of Children and only sees the children as a propaganda tool.

 

You support the killing of children. You made that clear when in an abortion related thread where you supported the wholesale slaughter of babies. Of course, we noted that you prefer to keep murderers and pedophiles alive (at all cost), but no problems murdering babies.

Your problem is, you are not honest...with yourself, or in your posting here.

If I recall correctly, you are upset that terrorists were using children as human shields (again) and were killed? Not much I can do about your buds hiding behind women and children. That's what they do. I suspect you would probably do the same.

 

Blah, blah, blah, abortion, opposition to death penalty, let's mix anything and everything, so you can hide the fact that you see the children ONLY as a propaganda tool and in reality you have no objection to killing children and you refuse to condemn such acts.

Come on Gtech, is not so hard to be HUMAN. Repeat after me:

" I CONDEMN ALL KILLING OF CHILDREN "

 

Have you thought about this very hard or are you just saying it because it sounds nice?

Let's put forth some situations that actually happened. You are confronted with a child suicide bomber who wants to get onto a bus and blow people up. You have a choice of killing this child or letting him complete his task. Your stance "I condemn the killing of all children" forces you to allow him to blow up that bus, correct? Read the link for other examples and see what a silly line of thinking this is.

If you continue along that line of thought, you actually encourage people who will use children as shields (who Hamas/Fatah/etal) to do it more often, because in your high mindedness, it gives them the victory they desire. Congratulations.

It's actually very sad that you are comparing two distinct activities:

Children who are sick and dying through no fault of their own, simply being orphans. And they were rescued. And you have yet to say "man, I'm glad those US soldiers got there in time" (feel free to copy/paste again).

And, somehow, you think is similar to children kill at a terrorist training camp along with their leaders, who are being trained for the next generation of people who want to blow themselves up.

 

That's the most intelligent thing you've come up with so far.

See Lorien's post. His analogy and words say it far better than I could.

 

Don't try to hide behind this type of argument, I make it even easier for you, so you can ask Gtech to repeat after me:

" I CONDEMN ALL KILLING OF CHILDREN WHO ARE NOT SUICIDE BOMBERS AND POSE NO THREAT TO THE MILITARY"

 

So you are admitting you are wrong in your original analogy that compared the killing of those kids in the terrorist camp to the kids found by the US Soldiers, correct? That -is- what you've started this sidetrack to begin with, after all.

I'm surprised you keep asking gtech to answer, when you haven't even congratulated the US soldiers for their saving of the orphans. Are you willing to do that yet?

 

What am I wrong about? I am just making it easier for you and Gtech to be HUMAN by taking away all the excuses that you come up with for not condemning the killing of children.

I am glad if any child is saved and I have posted that here in this same thread.

Now you and Gtech can at least pretend to be human and repeat after me:

" I CONDEMN ALL KILLING OF CHILDREN WHO ARE NOT SUICIDE BOMBERS AND POSE NO THREAT TO THE MILITARY"

 

They are waiting for Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity to give them the go-ahead on that one.

 

You are violating your own high-moraled stance:

By claiming that the military was wrong to attack the terrorist training camp. Clearly those kids were either suicide bombers (in training, at the very last) and they posed a threat.

So your answer is, yes, that military strike was a valid option. Correct?

 

Did you check your "Rosie O'Donnell pocketbook" to come up with that?

Or did you use the "Alex Jones pocketbook" this time?

 

AGS stopped mentioning "pocketbook" when I brought up his strange fascination with what may or not be in BO's pants.

 

Wow, I thought ya were talking about the Katrina farce for a minute, but honestly, while that's a good point, I'm sure the US Govt. has no intention of turning a blind eye to these sorts of conditions when found, nor do they (we) condone it.

 

How do you know this? Did U.S. military claimed it or are you just making up BS?

According to U.S military those children were not guilty of anything except being in the same area as someone that Army wanted to kill. May be you think that it is OK to kill foreign children since they are going to grow up and become a terrorist anyway.

If it is acceptable to you to kill civilians and children in order to achieve your military goals then what is really the difference between you and a terrorist since they also think and act the same way?

 

In full eye rolling mode are we? Does this mean any serious conversation with you is over? Gworld's indignation!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19318805/

All you have to do, is do a little reading on the province of Waziristan to learn this. No curiosity?

All I'm asking you is, if this was a training camp and if those kids were training to be terrorists, are they legitimate targets? Yes or no.

You already agreed with the concept, remember?

" I CONDEMN ALL KILLING OF CHILDREN WHO ARE NOT SUICIDE BOMBERS AND POSE NO THREAT TO THE MILITARY"

Are you backing off this now? Are you saying it's not okay, now, to kill suicide bombers? When does their civilian status end, in your eyes? During training, when they strap on the bombs, after they enter the bus and ignite themselves?

Secondly, you are re-enforcing the concept I brought up earlier. Which you clearly think is a legitimate strategy:

In your mind, you must agree with the concept that if, say, OBL surrounds himself with kids all the time, he cannot be eliminated right? Killing kids takes precedence right? That's the point I'm making. You weigh cost of it.

And you must also agree with the concept that if Hamas/Fatah etc duck behind kids to kill Israeli soldiers, then Israel cannot fire back, correct. Israel is to blame if the kids are harmed right? This is another tactic that you are legitimizing, because you are preteding to protect the children.

 

If i said there's no difference then would you stick up for the UK/USA governments when they kill kids too?