cnn.com— Chilling scenes from a videotape made by insurgents show the work of snipers in Iraq, targeting and killing American troops, taking them down with a single bullet from a high-powered rifle.
Oct 19, 2006View in Crawl 4
Hey there VW. It's busy today so it took a while to reply.The Halabja poison gas attack was an incident on 15 March-19 March 1988 during a major battle in the Iran-Iraq War when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces to kill a number of people in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja (population 80,000). Estimates of casualties range from several hundred to 7,000 people. Halabja is located about 150 miles northeast of Baghdad and 8-10 miles from the Iranian border.<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack</a>"Where is the proof that the U.S. approved him gassing these people?"The proof is that we did not care. In March of 1988 this atrocity did not recieve any press whatsoever. This was because Saddam was supported by our Administration as he was a secular leader who was more reasonable than Jihadist bat-s**ts. There has been a history of the whitehouse not reporting atrocities caused by US allies -- and I can give you examples of this if you like.In fact, that is Bush Sr. did not remove him from power and stopped the tanks shot of Bagdad. Bush Sr. was a very intelligent president, and knew what occuping a foreign country in that region would be a losing proposition.As far for the supporting of Saddam's dictators, I oversimplified. After Saddam came back into power after the first gulf war, he asked the Bush administration if they minded if he stopped the revolt that had started in his land. The Bush Sr. administration did not expect him to use jet fighters to bomb them. (Chomsky 2005)"you justify his actions but condem the actions of the U.S.?"I am not justifying his actions, only explaining them. The murder of 7,000 innocent civillians is never allowable, and that is why Saddam is on trail. I think we can both agree on that.I you might find this ironic, but I am very patriotic, and I think that America is the greatest country on the earth. In order to keep it being so, I critique the harmful actions for my country just as I compliment the great things that we do. =)
@HMTKSteve"Bush Sr did not "go to Baghdad" because the coalition was against it."It's possible that Bush Sr wanted to invade Baghdad and caved into the pressures of the United Nations. It is also possible that he wanted stability in the region. Do you know if he wrote a biography?"Inaction in regards to the gassing of the Kurds does not equal support."You are correct. The US did not support the gassing of the Kurds directly. Saddam himself was supported while he commited this massacure, and when he invaded Kuwait those secrets came out of the closet.
Wiki is a more creditable source than most web pages. Studies have shown that Wiki has a higher degree of accuracy than college textbooks -- due to the extreme number of editors on the subject.While its not infallable, its more creditable than thinkprogess or malkins blogs.
Most armed forces have snipers even the US.Part of US propaganda is to call our snipers. Sharpshooters. So they won't sound like terrorist, but that is a sniper's job. To strike fear into the enemy.Snipers are intelligence, and go through extensive training. The down side to being a sniper is that the geneva convictions doesn't matter to you.You'll get killed when caught mainly because you knew who you killed..Thus why most successful snipers are highly intelligent.
I got a HI-Point 9MM Rifle ( Columbine Special ) and all I got to say is that I will shoot at anyone on my property who I don't want there...( after a warning shot of course ).
Wiki may have numerous editors, but it is still easy to move the bias to either side. With that said, most websites sources are biased. Hell whats the f**king point then? LOL. The .50 is legal and valid in use in war. No different from 30MM cannons etc. That is if I understand the statement. The digging down is pretty much par for the course when people don't understand and read. ;-)
labmouse42Oct 20, 2006
Hey there VW. It's busy today so it took a while to reply.The Halabja poison gas attack was an incident on 15 March-19 March 1988 during a major battle in the Iran-Iraq War when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces to kill a number of people in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja (population 80,000). Estimates of casualties range from several hundred to 7,000 people. Halabja is located about 150 miles northeast of Baghdad and 8-10 miles from the Iranian border.<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack</a>"Where is the proof that the U.S. approved him gassing these people?"The proof is that we did not care. In March of 1988 this atrocity did not recieve any press whatsoever. This was because Saddam was supported by our Administration as he was a secular leader who was more reasonable than Jihadist bat-s**ts. There has been a history of the whitehouse not reporting atrocities caused by US allies -- and I can give you examples of this if you like.In fact, that is Bush Sr. did not remove him from power and stopped the tanks shot of Bagdad. Bush Sr. was a very intelligent president, and knew what occuping a foreign country in that region would be a losing proposition.As far for the supporting of Saddam's dictators, I oversimplified. After Saddam came back into power after the first gulf war, he asked the Bush administration if they minded if he stopped the revolt that had started in his land. The Bush Sr. administration did not expect him to use jet fighters to bomb them. (Chomsky 2005)"you justify his actions but condem the actions of the U.S.?"I am not justifying his actions, only explaining them. The murder of 7,000 innocent civillians is never allowable, and that is why Saddam is on trail. I think we can both agree on that.I you might find this ironic, but I am very patriotic, and I think that America is the greatest country on the earth. In order to keep it being so, I critique the harmful actions for my country just as I compliment the great things that we do. =)
theinfidelOct 20, 2006
Thanks Captain Obvious!
labmouse42Oct 20, 2006
@HMTKSteve"Bush Sr did not "go to Baghdad" because the coalition was against it."It's possible that Bush Sr wanted to invade Baghdad and caved into the pressures of the United Nations. It is also possible that he wanted stability in the region. Do you know if he wrote a biography?"Inaction in regards to the gassing of the Kurds does not equal support."You are correct. The US did not support the gassing of the Kurds directly. Saddam himself was supported while he commited this massacure, and when he invaded Kuwait those secrets came out of the closet.
labmouse42Oct 20, 2006
Wiki is a more creditable source than most web pages. Studies have shown that Wiki has a higher degree of accuracy than college textbooks -- due to the extreme number of editors on the subject.While its not infallable, its more creditable than thinkprogess or malkins blogs.
kuzotzOct 20, 2006
Most armed forces have snipers even the US.Part of US propaganda is to call our snipers. Sharpshooters. So they won't sound like terrorist, but that is a sniper's job. To strike fear into the enemy.Snipers are intelligence, and go through extensive training. The down side to being a sniper is that the geneva convictions doesn't matter to you.You'll get killed when caught mainly because you knew who you killed..Thus why most successful snipers are highly intelligent.
youknowhimOct 20, 2006
I got a HI-Point 9MM Rifle ( Columbine Special ) and all I got to say is that I will shoot at anyone on my property who I don't want there...( after a warning shot of course ).
mishima8Oct 21, 2006
Wiki may have numerous editors, but it is still easy to move the bias to either side. With that said, most websites sources are biased. Hell whats the f**king point then? LOL. The .50 is legal and valid in use in war. No different from 30MM cannons etc. That is if I understand the statement. The digging down is pretty much par for the course when people don't understand and read. ;-)