Me thinkz substitooting '1's for '!'s be extremely "l33t".

Yes, and the rest of the post is completely normal for me, huh?

Hahahaha, oh jeeze. That's probably the first and last time I'll see Mr Creosote use LOL. Either that or your Amiga hasn't been working and you're going crazy.



Yeah, yeah. I knew I was going to get that comment when I typed it, but it was late and the backspace key is far, far away.


[edited to make the first paragraph comprehensible; here is what Tuss wrote originally: "HAHAHAHA O JEZ311!!!!! WTF TAHTS PROBABLY TEH FIRST AND LAST TIEM IL SE MR CREOSOT3 USE LOL!1!1!! OMG WTF EITHAR TAHT OR UR MIGA HASNT B3N WORKNG AND UR GONG CRAZY!!!!! WTF"]

Edited by Mr Creosote at 23:15 on March, 24th 2003

First they shoot down a British plane killing the 2 people onboard, then they shoot at their own plane, which is only saved by it's own anti-missle air-to-air missles.
How can the American army be so utterly incompetent and do these kinds of things, what happened to the radio beacons attached to all allied units and hardware identifying them as allied units.
It amazes me

Hey bud, it's a [i][b]war[/i][/b] out there... You remember, right?

Back in the medieval time, they were raping the women plainly for fun. And you come asking us how come someone made a very little mistake with a toy that can't be stopped as soon as you press a button?

In contrast to today's rapes...

[quote][b]Posted by Eagle of Fire at 12:56 on March, 26th 2003:[/b]

Hey bud, it's a [i][b]war[/i][/b] out there... You remember, right?

Back in the medieval time, they were raping the women plainly for fun. And you come asking us how come someone made a very little mistake with a toy that can't be stopped as soon as you press a button? [/quote]


What did that have to do with anything?
Raping and pillaging was then this is now, the kind of mistake as to shoot your own troops should not be done.

By the way the Brits had one of their tanks bshoot and destroy another of their tanks yesterday killing 2 and wounding 2, the farce continues.

Sigh....

Oh, so now it is a 'farce' to murder people? I'm sure the ones who died will be glad to know.

It is ridiculous that they manage to shoot at their own troops even when said troops have radio devices that send out a singnal saying we are allied troops don't shoot at us.
Mr. C when you kill more of your own troops then the so called 'enemy' does then yes it's a farce.

I just think it's sad you're apparantely so worried about British and American people being killed, but you don't seem to care about Iraqi people dying. You haven't lost a word about how many of their soldiers have died. You haven't even mentioned the bombs which fell on residental areas of Baghdad yesterday. It's war and people are dying. There is no 'clean war' as you apparantely deem possible. What did you think would happen when the 'allies' (my top candidate for the "Unwort des Jahres" ) invaded the country? Them marching marching unharmed through Iraq to Saddam Hussein's residence where he awaits being executed?

Of course people are going to die, it is a war as you say, but in a war you don't expect to be killed you your own 'side'. People are going to die in any war, since world war 1 you have more chance of dieing as a civillian than as a soilder.
I haven't said anyhting about the Iraqi deaths because, I haven't seen any figures on Iraqui soilder deaths the media dosen't tell us here and I haven't heard about the iraqui's shooting each other.
Also in any war there is going to be civillian casualties, thats why theres smart weaponary to try and minimize that number, but when the regime your fighting light fires to confuse the laser guided missles and the Russians sell them GPS scrambling devices to put the satelite missles off track more civilians are going to die, it's all part of Saddam's plan the more he shows the world images of civilians suposedly hit by Allied missles the more the world are suposed to turn against America. It's impossible to get a reasoned view from the Americans comes American propaganda and from Iraq we get Iraqui Propaganda and with the lack of western media in Baghdad the job of giving the world that Iraq Propaganda becomes a whole lot easier. Likewise with the Americans theres plenty they don't tell us.

I wonder why people are surprised that people actually die in a war, the one or the other way. Yes, before any war the governments claim that it is going to be a "clean" war this time, but it has never been and it never will. People are there with things in their hands that were made for killing and nothing else, so how can anyone serioulsy believe that there won't be any killing???

The most stupid thing is that pictures of dead people are not shown mostly. Of course they are cruel. However I don't understand why it seems to be alright to kill an "enemy", but it's bad to show it, although the killing itself is by far worse indeed. If people want the mass murder, they have to stand the pictures of what they caused. The same as the US soldiers who were imprisoned by Iraqi military and were filmed - US TV stations don't show it. As if such cruelty wouldn't happen in any war. The reality doesn't change just because they don't show it. IT doesn't make this war any "cleaner".

By the way, there's a site that focuses on the civilians killed in this war, called "Iraq Body Count". Of course their numbers are based on the victims that have been officially confirmed, so one can imagine what the real numbers are (plus the "non-civilian" victims who are even more).

If you're dead, it doesn't matter to you anymore who killed you, because you're dead. It's the war who killed those people - no matter from where the bullet came.

Again, this 'clean war' crap! Mixed with really bad conspiracy theory. Next, you'll claim the Iraqi soldiers are killing their own people to make the USA look bad. Yeah, right. Face it: there will never be a 'clean war', because nobody would gain anything from it - it wouldn't be in anyone's interest! Both sides need this for their propaganda. And then this stupid distinction between 'soldiers' (who are apparantely ok to kill) and 'civilians' (who are a big no-no - especially if they're femals or children). What a load of crap! These are humans we're talking about, no matter what their occupation is, what they think, how they look and so on!

Of course the media are dominated by stupid propaganda. It's always like that. From the USA, you get some pretty pictures which should make you think this is some kind of computer game. From the Iraqi, you get masses cheering over some wrecks which once were war machinery. You are wrong that there are no 'western' journalists left in Baghdad however. There are many in fact! Just that those won't make it to the news of any involved country of course, because they don't always tell what people are supposed to hear. And the reports I read from them show very well how it is.

Completely agreed. I've never understood this distinction because it doesn't matter in fact (not only in wars, but in any other situation when there are any victims). The only "reason" could be because the death of "defenceless" victims can be used for propadanda issues even better because many people think their death is worse than the death of a soldier.

About this distinction between military and civilian casualties: you're of course right that any human life should count equally... However, if you are in the military because of your own choice, and - more importantly - you support the decision to go to war, that means you are willing to put your life on the line. Personally, I'd rather avoid a war but if anyone has to die in a war, those dumb enough to fit the above description should go first. That's my opinion... sorry.

Edit: I'd like to emphasize that I know that a huge amount of the troops currently involved in the conflict probably don't fit that description, so don't get me wrong: I'm talking about exceptions here.

Edited by The Mole at 13:40 on March, 28th 2003

I understand your point, but I think nobody should be killed because of his ideology. That includes the willingness to kill and be killed. It's just the childish nature of these people, they shouldn't be punished for that.

Sure, nobody should be killed because of their ideology. I was just saying that in the case it does happen, these self-proclaimed 'heroes' should be the first to go. Your original words were so harsh that I had to comment.This makes perfect sense in a time of peace... But given the fact there is a war, this sounds like it would make no difference to you if from now on soldiers started firing exclusively at children and women, as long as the death count is the same. I can't agree with that.

Yes, it doesn't make any difference to me.

Hmmm... I can't see how killing the people that are not carrying weapons or not trying to harm you is going to help to stop the fighting (and thus to keep the killing to a minimum). Of course we'd all prefer to see no-one harmed, but if the war is taking place already, shouldn't we try to stop/end it as soon as possible and with the least possible casualties? Sure, there is no clean war, but does that mean one war can't be 'worse' than the other? It's not 'ok' to kill a soldier, but wouldn't his death serve more purpose? Sure he won't be around to give a damn about that - but the rest of us will.

You really have a [b][i]lot[/b][/i] to learn about war, little Padawan.