Haditha slaughter not worth convictions

[Exhumed]

Oh yes, I like bells theory that these guys had every intention to go on a murderous rampage. Yes, that sounds perfectly logical. Clearly, bells and SAM, of course, have served in the military and know exactly what it's like to go into combat. They're sage advice in this regard should be considered perfectly valid.

What are you getting at here (or with any of your posts in the thread)? I can't tell if you are excusing them, or what your reasons are. It would be helpful if you laid out what you specifically think about all of this.

 

[(Q)]

What are you getting at here (or with any of your posts in the thread)? I can't tell if you are excusing them, or what your reasons are. It would be helpful if you laid out what you specifically think about all of this.

It's irrelevant what I think about it. I wasn't there.

Bells and SAM however, appear to be the combat professionals and claim to know the difference between terrorists and 1 year old babies. We should all follow their sage JUDGEMENTS.

 

[S.A.M.]

It's irrelevant what I think about it. I wasn't there.

Bells and SAM however, appear to be the combat professionals and claim to know the difference between terrorists and 1 year old babies. We should all follow their sage JUDGEMENTS.

If you cannot tell the difference between a terrorist and a one year old baby, yes.

Can you?

 

[Exhumed]

It's irrelevant what I think about it. I wasn't there.

Their appears to be ample evidence, including the testimonies of the marines themselves.

 

[Bells]

It's irrelevant what I think about it. I wasn't there.

So you do not believe the evidence presented by the survivors and the soldiers? How can what you think be irrelevant? If what you think on this subject is irrelevant, why are you even in this thread?

Bells and SAM however, appear to be the combat professionals and claim to know the difference between terrorists and 1 year old babies. We should all follow their sage JUDGEMENTS.

I would imagine any sane individual would be able to tell the difference between a terrorist and a one year old girl. If a person is unable to tell the difference, they should not be in the armed forces. They should also not be allowed to have a weapon. Hell, they should be locked up in a mental institution. If a person decides to walk into a room full of children and open fire, knowing full well that room contained children (he had been told there were only women and children in that room), they should not be allowed in the armed forces, but should be in jail for the rest of their miserable lives.

If thinking such makes me supposedly insane, then so be it. I'd rather be insane and believe killing children in cold blood is wrong, than be sane and defend their actions.

 

[(Q)]

So you do not believe the evidence presented by the survivors and the soldiers? How can what you think be irrelevant? If what you think on this subject is irrelevant, why are you even in this thread?

It is you and your idiotic drivel that is irrelevant, Bells.

I'd rather be insane...

 

[(Q)]

Their appears to be ample evidence, including the testimonies of the marines themselves.

So what?

 

[S.A.M.]

So what?

IOW, if you see this:

you require evidence that this is NOT a terrorist.

I'm beginning to see what atheists mean about not blindly accepting anything as fact.

 

[(Q)]

you require evidence that this is NOT a terrorist.

Will that be one or two heaping spoons of reality in your cup of idiocy?

 

[S.A.M.]

Will that be one or two heaping spoons of reality in your cup of idiocy?

Whatever it takes to make you eat crow.

 

[Bells]

*Feels a bite on my ankle*

*Look down*

It is you and your idiotic drivel that is irrelevant, Bells.

Awweee look!

It's our resident religiously atheist troll.

*Pinches Q's cheeks*

*Wipes Q's drool off my fingers*

Still can't answer the question Q?

you require evidence that this is NOT a terrorist.

You never know Sam. He could have an uzi under that beanie.

I'm beginning to see what atheists mean about not blindly accepting anything as fact.

Some atheists are just so religious about it they fail to recognise reality. It is a blight on the rest of us atheists to be honest. Quite embarrassing. A bit like having one of those relatives you always pretend to not be home when they knock on the front door. Imagine Marie (the mother) in 'Everybody Loves Raymond'...

*Points to Q*

 

[(Q)]

You never know Sam. He could have an uzi under that beanie.

 

[Exhumed]

So what?

So, this has as more than enough information than you should require to judge it, even though you weren't there. Unless you don't judge anything at all without having been there.

The evidence including marine testimony has indicated that they had children basically captured, identified as non-threats, and then murdered them anyway. There should be enough evidence to judge for this part of the incident, at the least.

 

[James R]

Not much useful discussion happening here.

 

[(Q)]

So, this has as more than enough information than you should require to judge it, even though you weren't there. Unless you don't judge anything at all without having been there.

The evidence including marine testimony has indicated that they had children basically captured, identified as non-threats, and then murdered them anyway. There should be enough evidence to judge for this part of the incident, at the least.

Sorry, but I never judge incidents in which people have been placed in combat positions, you simply cannot. Whoever does simply hasn't a clue. The fact that Bells, SAM and others have been doing so is more a reflection on their lack of understanding of combat situations.

Of course, the point of the thread was merely another excuse for SAM to rant her hatred of the US, which brought the other clueless ranters out of the woods.

 

[S.A.M.]

Unbelievable.

Killing unarmed women and children (even those that can barely walk) is apparently justified under (Q)'s definition of rationality.

If you are unable to think rationally, should you be holding a gun?

 

[(Q)]

Unbelievable.

Killing unarmed women and children (even those that can barely walk) is apparently justified under (Q)'s definition of rationality.

If you are unable to think rationally, should you be holding a gun?

See what I mean? Clueless. Rants. :crazy:

 

[S.A.M.]

I suppose you consider the mass murder by Stalin's army as incidental war casualties.

Sick.

 

[(Q)]

I suppose you consider the mass murder by Stalin's army as incidental war casualties.

Sick.

Wow, you brought in the despot argument rather quickly, off-topically, predictably, and idiotically.

Congratulations! You're up to your usual standards. :thumbsup:

 

[S.A.M.]

Wow, you brought in the despot argument rather quickly, off-topically, predictably, and idiotically.

Congratulations! You're up to your usual standards. :thumbsup:

I'm merely assuming that you have personally been in combat and felt inclined to shoot babies.