• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Gadaffi captured or killed.

dafydd said:
And supporting a nutcase like Hitler.
Click to expand...

Hitler's sanity was coincidental to the fact that the Germans killed by RAF bombs were in fact part of the labor force which was producing war materials that were being employed to kill British soldiers and civilians both in the UK and on western European, north African and Mediterranean battlefields - in a war not started by the UK.

It's easy to cherry-pick and say, "Well Winston Churchill killed X number of innocent civilians" in order to peg him as being just as bad as Khadaffi out of context. Easy and abysmally dishonest (for the record I know nobody here has said that). For Churchill to have been like Khadaffi, he would have had to have refused to step down after losing his reelection campaign and then loosed the RAF and 7th Guards Armored on British civilians who protested his actions.
 
Polaris said:
Hitler's sanity was coincidental to the fact that the Germans killed by RAF bombs were in fact part of the labor force which was producing war materials that were being employed to kill British soldiers and civilians both in the UK and on western European, north African and Mediterranean battlefields - in a war not started by the UK.

It's easy to cherry-pick and say, "Well Winston Churchill killed X number of innocent civilians" in order to peg him as being just as bad as Khadaffi out of context. Easy and abysmally dishonest (for the record I know nobody here has said that). For Churchill to have been like Khadaffi, he would have had to have refused to step down after losing his reelection campaign and then loosed the RAF and 7th Guards Armored on British civilians who protested his actions.
Click to expand...

Psst: That was exactly the point.

Hans ;)
 
JihadJane said:
Obama, Bush and Cheney have killed lots of innocent people.
Click to expand...


Robrob said:
Of course you understand the difference between intent, right?
Click to expand...

Wherever the blundering US imperial war machine goes it kills innocent people.

Pakistan has demanded that the US stop killling innocent people with its remote controlled robots but the US carries on regardless.

dafydd said:
Did Winston Churchill kill lots of innocent people?
Click to expand...

Yes. Shall we crack a few jokes about how big his anus would have been if a pole had stuck been up it? The British fire-bombed entire cities under his regime
 
JihadJane said:
Yes. Shall we crack a few jokes about how big his anus would have been if a pole had stuck been up it? The British fire-bombed entire cities under his regime
Click to expand...

I have always admired pacifism. Here's to hoping it will one day become realistic.

Hans
 
JihadJane said:
Wherever the blundering US imperial war machine goes it kills innocent people.
Click to expand...
That, alas, is the nature of war. There's nothing special about the US except the methods they use. Collateral damage - casualties of war. It's been the same throughout history.

I take small comfort in the fact that now the civilian casualties are measured in the dozens or the hundreds rather than the tens of thousands of the past.
 
JihadJane said:
Yes. Shall we crack a few jokes about how big his anus would have been if a pole had stuck been up it?
Click to expand...
No.

The British fire-bombed entire cities under his regime
Click to expand...

Should Churchill have invited Hitler over for tea? My father's generation went through that war. You have no clue.
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
Wherever the blundering US imperial war machine goes it kills innocent people.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, what war ever has not resulted in the killing of "innocent people?"

Pakistan has demanded that the US stop killling innocent people with its remote controlled robots but the US carries on regardless.
Click to expand...
Was that before or after it sheltered Bin Laden for a decade? :rolleyes:
 
MRC_Hans said:
Psst: That was exactly the point.

Hans ;)
Click to expand...

I know that, and you know that. I was spelling it out as basically as I could for another unnamed poster who I have on ignore (but can see in quoted posts).

Seems I wasted my time, as it were.
 
arthwollipot said:
That, alas, is the nature of war. There's nothing special about the US except the methods they use. Collateral damage - casualties of war. It's been the same throughout history.'
Click to expand...

Yes, killing innocent people in war is regarded as a price worth paying for the political prize. This was Gaddafi's logic too.

I take small comfort in the fact that now the civilian casualties are measured in the dozens or the hundreds rather than the tens of thousands of the past.
Click to expand...

No, it's still thousands, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands.

'1 Million Dead in Iraq? 6 Reasons the Media Hide the True Human Toll of War -- And Why We Let Them
Most Americans turn a blind eye to the violent acts being carried out in their name.'


dafydd said:
No.

Should Churchill have invited Hitler over for tea? My father's generation went through that war. You have no clue.
Click to expand...

Have you got an argument you’d like to present?

Robrob said:
Out of curiosity, what war ever has not resulted in the killing of "innocent people?"
Click to expand...

None, probably. Killing civilians is an accepted way of advancing political power. Perhaps that's why so many other war criminals (e.g. Blair. Obama, Bush, Cheney) had no problem to doing business with and arming Gaddafi.


Was that before or after it sheltered Bin Laden for a decade? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Many of the civilians killed in Pakistan will never have even heard of Osama bin Laden.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom