Botellines

If we are going to play what-if, we can play what-ifs both ways. What about if they were a group of inocent civilians (women and kids) fleeing a combat zone and they were sniped at by those contractors? Man, if you are going to look for excuses and make up the rest of teh story is not in video, anything is justified, from a pat in the back to a bullet in their head. I have no clue. Yeah, i agree, do you realize that you are doing precisely that. You are filling the gaps in the information with a story made up by yourself, just so those contractors do not look bad.

All i am saying is that anyone not currently holding a weapon may not be a criminal and therefore shouldn´t be sniped at without further checking. Gee, thanks dude, i was wondering who would be the first poster in this thread to bring up my spelling in the english language. Note to self: do not forget to write the post in spanish as well so kennedy doesn´t get lost in the spelling and grammar.

My point is that the only person in this thread who has seen the video literally sais: A man was shooting people running away from a building off in the distance. The people being shot did not have weapons and some of them were wearing white shirts. So it is not me who is assuming things or making up excuses to defend an agenda. Without watching the video for ourselves we will have to trust who saw it, don´t you think?

Well, you only have to look at all the threads about this subject. Right wingers will not admit the possibility of wrong doing. I think the posibility is real and it is worth to be investigated. Specially in the context of this war where no one really knows for sure what is going on there and what the goals this week are.

That is what i thought too. If you are afraid enough to pull a gun, you don´t get close to your assaultants, you just take the license plate number and tell the police.

In most democratic countries, such relationship (or past relationship) beetwen a big government contractor and the vice-president would raise suspicions and at the very least would be thoroughly investigated. It is not the case in the U.S, you will only be laughed at for even thinking about wrongdoing. Dick Cheney is lucky.

Funny how some people without watching the video jump to the conclusion that the guys running were armed and posed a threat. I mean funny in a sick distorted way. Like the U.S troops are not masacrating innocent civilians... http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

You just answered yourself... He should have completely emptied his magazine into that guy. If he was still moving after that, he should have picked up a bat and caved his head in. That guy threatened his life with a pistol. He deserved to die By the way, i think it is fake.

So so called atackers will be judge based on the level of paranoia of the so called victim.

I strongly disagree with that. The 2 nuclear bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaky were dropped to kill as many civilians as possible to shorten a war. Now, if you say that they saved American lives, with that i can agree, but not if you just say it saved lives in general. In any case, you are playing a big what if here, what if they also had nuclear bombs? what if they knew you had used up all of your bombs and decided to do a full scale kamikaze attack on your troops and mainland before you built more? What about if they had not surrendered? would that have saved lived? The intention is what counts, and the end does not justify the means. The U.S needs to pay more attention to the messages it is broadcasting to the world. 1) It is okay to attack a country if you fear that you may be attacked at some point. 2) It is okay to use WMD to shorten a war. If you really believe about those principles you will not be surprised when NK or Iran attack U.S troops on their frontiers and use WMD when you retaliate.

I think we are talking about the same book. They translated the title to apocalipsis in Spain and i thought they had left the title intact. Excelent book

Why? Al-Quaeda Human Resource Department is getting a performance bonus on a weekly basis since GWB is allowed to take decision.

You have to be kidding

Apocalipsis. Stephen King.

Yep, as GWB said, he has earned some political capital and he intends to use it. Well, he has spent all the political capital earned after 9/11

pre-emptive strike is just a term made up for the circumstances in Irak. I wouldn´t support my country attacking any other country in any way based on paranoia. Now, if they attacked first, that would be a diferent thing. But as it has been pointed out, that wouldn´t be pre-emptive.

On top of that, no one over 45 should have the right to bear arms according to the 2nd amendment...

I have wondered often what would happen if we all shared the same religion. It doesn´t matter which, just as long as we all had the same. I think that religion doesn´t focus on bringing people together, but bringing them apart. It focus on how we are right while theyare wrong. If we were all right, how right could we be without making the rest wrong? this is specially true for JW, but islamism and catholism are not far behind. I think the religion would branch into diferent ones so we could keep fighting eachother. Edited to fix some spelling because God told me to.

So why do you draw the line in the RPG, i am sure that the average infantry man have more equipment than that. Like explosives... wether it is a hand granade or C4 (not that the RPG is not, but it is a bit cumbersome). So why would you want to deprive your neighbour from such joy. Why only infantryman? If we are talking about defending your country from whoever, you would need a navy and an air force. What about WMD? I am just playing devil´s advocate, but it just shows how there is an agenda and some people uses the 2nd amendment to further it. If you read literally the 2nd amendment, i could, if i was an american citizen, own a figter jet with a nuke in the garage, and you wouldn´t like to be my neighbourgh or anyone else for that matter. We have the same opinion on the subject, there is some things that shouldn´t be freely available, you draw the line in WMD, i draw the line in guns. Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment does not justify why your "line" is better than mine. There is many individual rights granted by your constitution that are not recognized if some criteria are met, like being a suspect of terrorism. I think that is at least as important as your second amendment yet no one is giving it nearly as much attention. AFAIK there is not reference to that in the 2nd amendment. This is another case of having an agenda and trying it to further it with the 2nd. If the true reason for guns was to serve in a militia, your guns could be kept securely locked at home till the moment come, or do you think that you are going to be invaded by surprise while you are at the mall?

Very wise... Then we will not need to invade a middle east country to get it running...

Against what, Torero? I'll be at your side to defend against the rest of the world. If you only would have better equipment Whom to kill with a lawn mower..? Tell me, I follow you Against criminals with deadly lawn mowers... I guess that a powerful lawn mower would be the great equalizer for a gardener or anyone who is afraid to be attacked by a gardener. I am ordering over the net whatever and everything can be used against me as a weapon (but much bigger) so i will be properly protected.

Nahhh, we should give lawn mowers to everybody so we can better defend ourselves...

ChistelSabine´s post was educated, respectfull and was an answer to a direct question YOU asked. I am not sure if it is "cultural elitism" but i much prefer that than a disrespectful and uneducated post. Anyway... You know my position about guns, so you can bring up how untrustfull we spaniards are since the invasion of southamerica in 1492 and i will bring up your invasion of north america and killing of the natives. So what to say... I will concede that guns do not kill people, it is people who kills people with guns. The easy answer is that since you cannot regulate people, you should regulate guns. The kid was not a criminal, he was a perfect law abiding citizen but he was not mature enough to handle one of those guns responsibly. It is obvious that a 10 year old kid is not mature enough, but how many people are not mature enough or do not have the training although they meet the requirements including age? Those are the ones i personally worry about. This is what i personally would require anyone before he is allowed to have a gun: Proven record of being a law abiding citizen. Proof that he is mentally mature enough to have a gun. Proof of mental stability. High tolerance to frustration Responsability to keep his gun under strict control 24x7 Extensive initial training and training periodically to stay current. Plus some more that i could come up with. How many of those are currently enforced? You think that everybody should be in the selected group of people elegible for a gun till they prove they do not deserve it. By that time, it is usually too late. I prefer to put people in that group on a case by case basis. For example the police. It is as simple as this, and do note that no one is speaking here of taking away your guns.

Actually not, i have rethought about it and am terrified about the posibility that someone may try to steal my stereo, so i have gotten a hand granade to defend my house. My neighbour is quite happy about it, although he seems restless when we get together in the elevator. Now I am after a cowboy hat and some nuclear grade plutonium so i can defend the whole neighborhood from the government. Any idea where i can get some?

I think that to tell someone that his parents should not have conceived him is very poor taste. I, personally, would take offense at that.