Here you have it - murdered American - Page 3




 
--
 
May 28th, 2004  
Redleg
 
 
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....
May 28th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
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 ) 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.
May 28th, 2004  
hc^patonki
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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....
I have also seen muslims who are drunk as a 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)
--
May 28th, 2004  
hc^patonki
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck
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 ) 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.
Actually I have to admit that I didnt myself know that .
May 28th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hc^patonki
Unfortunately there are also people who believes everything what mainstream news say, and who dont have their own opinion
(I didnt mean anyone personally)
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. )
May 28th, 2004  
hc^patonki
 
Youre right in that, it is hard to build really objective view.
June 1st, 2004  
bush musketeer
 
 

Topic: 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.
June 1st, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 

Topic: Re: hmmm


Quote:
Originally Posted by bush musketeer
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.
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?
June 2nd, 2004  
bush musketeer
 
 

Topic: Re: hmmm


Quote:
Originally Posted by RnderSafe
Quote:
Originally Posted by bush musketeer
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.
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?
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
June 2nd, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 

Topic: Re: hmmm


Quote:
Originally Posted by bush musketeer
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.
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.