23 Comments
- dshPls, on 01/05/2008, -2/+10***** you, terrorist sympathizer. Why don't you feel any emotion to the innocent people being blown up as they try to buy food? Hundreds of people get killed, and you only care about the murderer.
- vault, on 01/05/2008, -0/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Synd ...
And why do you excuse all of these people:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml
Because then Democrats would have to share the blame? - dshPls, on 01/05/2008, -1/+7You're an idiot.... The democrats in congress voted for the war, too. George Bush ISN'T the only one responsible, and morons such as yourself will fall for the same trick again if you try and scapegoat a single person.
"They didn't ask for a foreign army to bomb their cities flat"
Yeah we bombed Baghdad alright... You do know where Baghdad is right? We're there for better or worse to protect them, and all you can do is slam the US and apologize for terrorists. "It's our fault extremist Muslims are killing thousands of innocents!"
Go eat Mcdonalds with Rosie. - vault, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5Suicide bombing is not resistance. It is a way of conning the poor and hopeless, eager to believe anything, into thinking they're becoming religious martyrs. How come the sheikhs and imams who present the scam as 'a sacrifice for Allah' never commit suicide themselves?
You just want to support an underdog, chic of araby. Suicide bombers will not drive the US out of Iraq, and they won't end centuries of Sunni-Shiite strife. The real underdogs here are the civilians killed by suicide bombers. People who committed no crime other than buying food at a market, riding on a bus, etc. who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. You can't criticize the US in Iraq for civilian casualties, and in the same breath give a free pass to suicide bombers killing civilians. - inactive, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5"The tightening noose - at least for now - appears to be prompting the militants to turn to women attackers, Rashwan said, noting that extremist Muslim groups use women only when they see no alternative.".......these "holy warriors" hiding behind their women's burkas are a shameful lot.
- vault, on 01/05/2008, -1/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_equivalence
- vault, on 01/05/2008, -0/+4chic, the Democrats have been complicit every step of the way...from authorizing it to funding it. You cannot blame this squarely on George Bush.
- DeskFlyer, on 01/05/2008, -0/+4Viet Cong?
- dshPls, on 01/05/2008, -1/+4Is English your second language?
- badwithcomputer, on 01/05/2008, -1/+4all they would need to do is give them some car keys
- inactive, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3Note that Chic endorses slaughtering the innocent to make political points. How much do you want to bet she's pro-abortion also?
- inactive, on 01/04/2008, -3/+6"Because of Muslim cultural sensitivities, women can be excellent candidates for suicide attacks when there are no female security guards. Most Iraqis are conservative Muslims who believe physical contact is forbidden between women and men not related by blood or marriage. As a result, women are often allowed to pass through male-guarded checkpoints without being searched. In October, the U.S. Army trained 20 women to work as security guards in a Baghdad suburb after a female suicide bomber entered a nearby building without being searched." (from the article)
- inactive, on 01/06/2008, -2/+2I agree. It's not morally equivalent. In Iraq, the women are defending their nation from an invading army. In the West, women volunteer to join armies that are invading other nations illegally.
The Iraq women are morally in the right. - inactive, on 01/06/2008, -3/+1Yes, I can. There is only one man who ordered troops into Iraq and only one man who can order them out.
He's the leader of the "party of personal responsibility." - inactive, on 01/05/2008, -3/+1"You can't criticize the US in Iraq for civilian casualties, and in the same breath give a free pass to suicide bombers killing civilians."
How many Iraqis were killed by suicide bombers before the USA invaded Iraq illegally in 2003? - SwissCamel, on 01/05/2008, -4/+2Wow, it turns out women are good for something then?
- inactive, on 01/05/2008, -4/+2Don't western governments have women in the services also? Let's not be hypocrites boys and girls; no matter how "taboo" it might be.
- Albionshores, on 01/05/2008, -4/+1Pro-war propagandist to propagate Gates-of-Vienna spam.
Minus diggs on such a thread, till it goes FP is badge, are to be worn with pride. To the bury stations!!! - inactive, on 01/05/2008, -5/+1Again, a majority of Democrats voted against the illegal invasion.
- Albionshores, on 01/05/2008, -6/+2The Admiral's armada has spoken. "terrorist sympathizer" - purrrrlease. He's just denouncing occupation. If that makes him a 'terrorist sympathiser' in your book then your Venn diagram is wrong.
- inactive, on 01/05/2008, -6/+1The majority of Democrats voted against the illegal invasion. It's a stone cold fact.
Invading Iraq and bombing their cities into rubble isn't "protecting" anything but BushCo's profits. Calling me names doesn't make killing innocent Iraqis right. George Bush ordered it. George Bush can stop it. - inactive, on 01/05/2008, -7/+2The Iraqis didn't start this war, the USA did. Remember? If someone is to blame for deaths in Iraq, it's George Bush. He is solely responsible for this. No one else ordered the illegal invasion of Iraq.
I DO sympathize with the Iraqis. They didn't ask for a foreign army to bomb their cities flat, kidnap their relatives and torture them or mow down their neighbors at a random checkpoint. So, yes, they DO have my sympathy. - inactive, on 01/05/2008, -11/+3Breaking News: Women hate having their nation occupied by foreign troops just like men do!
Next up, water is wet.

What is Digg?
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official