shoot now, ask questions later...

[TRD2000]

"Witnesses said a U.S. helicopter fired at a group of Iraqis crowded round a burning Bradley. Reuters Television images showed Iraqis running for cover shortly before a blast felled Al Arabiya producer Mazen Tomeizi"

"The U.S. military said two of its helicopters opened fire after coming under attack from the crowd. Reuters television footage showed no evidence of shooting from the ground."

Kind of reminds me of that tank firing on the hotel full of western media in the occupation... whats with these guys? don't they realise that if they shoot at the media people can SEE that they are not being fired on? or do they just not care who they kill?

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.....

"Earlier, the U.S. military had said a helicopter destroyed the vehicle "to prevent looting and harm to the Iraqi people" after four U.S. soldiers were lightly wounded in the attack on the Bradley."

....and then the story changes.

[TRD2000]

oh i forgot....

"the military gave no immediate explanation for the steep rise in the death toll on Sunday."

well they wouldn't, would they.

[twospirits]

Yeah I just saw that on the news tonight, man, you see the explosion and the blood on the camera lens etc. So much for not killing innocent lives.

TS out

[2strokebloke]

When Idiots Ruled The World...

[taranaki]

These are not innocent people.These are the 'terrorists' that George is waging war against......


......well, you know and I know that that is untrue, but it's far easier to pretend that every single death in Iraq was a justified killing.

TAhose who support Bush need to look to their consciences next time they claim that the massive death toll in Iraq is a direct and neccesary result of the war on terrorism.It's a documented fact that Bush intended to attack Iraq long before AlQaueda attacked America.His attempts to link the two events are deceitful and shameful.The people of Iraq are dying in their thousands because George Bush beliebves he can install democracy there and benefit from its mineral resources.He is wrong,and the manner inwhich he has set out to achieve it is based on lies.

Why doesn't he put a bit more effort into finding Bin Laden?Maybe it's because Bin Laden isn't the head of state of a strategically important and oil rich nation.

[lazysmurff]

even if he finds bin laden, it wont matter, Richard Clark (remember him?) stated that Bin Laden now holds about as much power over Al-quieda as the queen has over austrailia.

he would merely be a symbol, and his death would more than likely rally new attacks

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

even if he finds bin laden, it wont matter, Richard Clark (remember him?) stated that Bin Laden now holds about as much power over Al-quieda as the queen has over austrailia.

he would merely be a symbol, and his death would more than likely rally new attacks

The White House propeganda machine puts such emphasis on actually finding and prosecuting these former leaders (See the famous Iraqi leader deck of cards) that they cannot just remove him from power.

They have set themselves the unrealistic goal of actually getting Osama, therefore they now must follow through or be perceived as a failure on this issue.

[taranaki]

If they wanted Osama,they could get him tomorrow.All they'd have to do is channel enough money into a reward,and one of those who are hiding him would give him up.Somehow I doubt that Bush wants him caught.Capturing Osama would only make the case for continuing oppression in the middle east even more flimsy.

[TRD2000]

I Tend To Agree, The Only Reason To Capture Osama Is To Punish Him, Not Stop Attacks. It May Show Terrorists That They Will Be Caught, But They Are Willing To Give Their Lives So That Wont Discourage Much. With Osama Free It "justifies" Going Into More Countries In The Name Of "the War On Terror".

IT'S JUST TOO CONVENIENT.