Its called war. you capture you enemies during war and hold them in camps. its how military's work. and the peopel they captured are terrorist.

 

they should consider thereselves lucky. they arent treaty that badly there.

 

You didn't just say that.......

There's a whole bunch of things I normally would say to you right now.....and they aren't very pleasant. You are bordering on sub-human scum at times.

Its called war. you capture you enemies during war and hold them in camps. its how military's work. and the peopel they captured are terrorist.

 

 

They are not terrorists and they didn't captured at the war,some of them proffesors at university and the others very normal pople and no one of them charged:rolleyes:

 

There are many prisoner set free without any charge after they stayed years:confused:

they should consider thereselves lucky. they arent treaty that badly there.

 

 

I think you must know something called [ The Knights Morals ]

 

We didn't live in a jungle

 

When you have the power or ability to someone you must show him your mercy

You didn't just say that.......

There's a whole bunch of things I normally would say to you right now.....and they aren't very pleasant. You are bordering on sub-human scum at times.

 

you just described the terrorist. they are lucky they arent treated like they treat their prisoners. they arent badly treated at the prison camp. sorry but it doesnt make someone scum to wish them in a prison where they belong.... i'd consider someone scum who defends these terrorist.

I think you must know something called [ The Knights Morals ]

 

We didn't live in a jungle

 

When you have the power or ability to someone you must show him your mercy

 

and we do. alot of it, like i said the camp isnt that bad, and they are treated better then they treat our people when captured....you're defending terrorist who arent being treated badly.

Its called war. you capture you enemies during war and hold them in camps. its how military's work. and the peopel they captured are terrorist.

 

 

Are you consider the scorn of religions part of it?

Are you consider the scorn of religions part of it?

 

this isnt about religion so no.

and we do. alot of it' date=' like i said the camp isnt that bad, and they are treated better then they treat our people when captured....you're defending terrorist who arent being treated badly.[/quote']

 

 

So the scorn of religions not bad thing for you

So the scorn of religions not bad thing for you

 

i have no clue what you're talking about. no offence its just its hard sometimes to understand you.

this isnt about religion so no.

 

 

Do you know that the Amircan soldires scorn the Holy Qur'an,the holy book of Islam?

Do you know that the Amircan soldires scorn the Holy Qur'an' date='the holy book of Islam?[/quote']

 

first of all you cant say american soldiers and blame all of them for a few....just like i cant blame every muslim and arab for terrorism and label them as terrorist. its not common practice, and we have muslims in the army too.

 

the radical muslims have many convinced this is a war of religion, when its a war of muslim leaders using religion to do their political dirty work and to gain power.

first of all you cant say american soldiers and blame all of them for a few....just like i cant blame every muslim and arab for terrorism and label them as terrorist. its not common practice, and we have muslims in the army too.

 

the radical muslims have many convinced this is a war of religion, when its a war of muslim leaders using religion to do their political dirty work and to gain power.

 

 

I didn't say all American soldiers,and what happen to this few groups of soldiers did they get punish,did they get punished? we also have a christians in the Egyptian Army

 

 

I remember Bush when he said it's a crusade war [ about the war on terror ]

and he support Israel on a religion base.Now you come and say the muslim leaders do that

I didn't say all American soldiers,and what happen to this few groups of soldiers did they get punish,did they get punished? we also have a christians in the Egyptian Army

 

 

I remember Bush when he said it's a crusade war [ about the war on terror ]

and he support Israel on a religion base.Now you come and say the muslim leaders do that

 

 

bush does not support religious wars, or fighting because of religion. he is a christian but this war is not about our religion. its not really about religion. its about a few extremist muslims who hijacked the religion to use it for their own political goals. it happens all the time, happened in rome with christianity and in the middle ages too. bush being a christian has nothing to do with the war, because we have not waged a religous war on anyone. their are no religious motives behind bush and this war. unlike on the extremist muslim side.

 

if it were simply military people who were muslim i would say the same for them. but they ACTUALLY use the religion fora reason to fight and a way to control and lie to people and get them to fight. theres a major difference between being religious and using it as a tool for war.

 

 

you see the difference is one side is fighting because of religion and using it to convince people to fight, america and bush is not. there may be RARE cases where some soldiers consider it a war on islam because they are extremist chirstians BUT its rare and not the reason of our goverment or military.

bush does not support religious wars, or fighting because of religion. he is a christian but this war is not about our religion. its not really about religion. its about a few extremist muslims who hijacked the religion to use it for their own political goals. it happens all the time, happened in rome with christianity and in the middle ages too. bush being a christian has nothing to do with the war, because we have not waged a religous war on anyone. their are no religious motives behind bush and this war. unlike on the extremist muslim side.

 

if it were simply military people who were muslim i would say the same for them. but they ACTUALLY use the religion fora reason to fight and a way to control and lie to people and get them to fight. theres a major difference between being religious and using it as a tool for war.

 

 

you see the difference is one side is fighting because of religion and using it to convince people to fight, america and bush is not. there may be RARE cases where some soldiers consider it a war on islam because they are extremist chirstians BUT its rare and not the reason of our goverment or military.

 

 

 

But Bush said that and if he fighting the terror,so why he attack Iraq

 

What you feel when he said he will attack Iraq because there are a weapons of mass destructions then all people of the world discovered his lies and there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

But Bush said that and if he fighting the terror,so why he attack Iraq

 

What you feel when he said he will attack Iraq because there are a weapons of mass destructions then all people of the world discovered his lies and there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

 

well i now see it was a bad idea. his motivation for that was saddams wmd's or so he thought he had some, saddams ties to terrorist and the fact that bush thought saddam had wmd's and IS friends with many terrorist it was worried that he could sell or give them to terrorist. that is why.

well i now see it was a bad idea. his motivation for that was saddams wmd's or so he thought he had some' date=' saddams ties to terrorist and the fact that bush thought saddam had wmd's and IS friends with many terrorist it was worried that he could sell or give them to terrorist. that is why.[/quote']

 

 

 

What you say, he thought Saddam had some,you are talking about war and you say [ HE THOUGHT ]

 

 

USA made Saddam when he fight with Iran,do you remember?

What you say' date=' he thought Saddam had some,you are talking about war and you say [ HE THOUGHT ']

 

 

USA made Saddam when he fight with Iran,do you remember?

 

no one made anyone do anything. they were going to fight either way. BUT he didnt just think he knew for a fact saddam had wmd's. remember he depends on intel from his goverment and many other and when most of them showed alot of evidence of saddam having wmd's he acted on that, AS ANY good leader should. after you've just been attacked once and your best intelligence tells you one of your biggest enemies have wmd's he'd be a fool not to do something. you have to understand he was acting in defence for america, and we cant let terrorist get ahold of wmd's. after its done we now know there were none or atleast he hid them well, but we know it was a mistake.

no one made anyone do anything. they were going to fight either way. BUT he didnt just think he knew for a fact saddam had wmd's. remember he depends on intel from his goverment and many other and when most of them showed alot of evidence of saddam having wmd's he acted on that' date=' AS ANY good leader should. after you've just been attacked once and your best intelligence tells you one of your biggest enemies have wmd's he'd be a fool not to do something. you have to understand he was acting in defence for america, and we cant let terrorist get ahold of wmd's. after its done we now know there were none or atleast he hid them well, but we know it was a mistake.[/quote']

 

Tell what you say for a baby,not me.You say his intel told him that so why they didn't show him the place of WMD.

 

I know you know that is no WMD there and the whole world told Bush that but he didn't listen and he lied

Tell what you say for a baby,not me.You say his intel told him that so why they didn't show him the place of WMD.

 

I know you know that is no WMD there and the whole world told Bush that but he didn't listen and he lied

 

 

no. he was misinformed. by the cia and many countries who told him and SHOWED him tons of evidence to prove it. im still convinced saddam hid the wmd's in another country, there some intel showing that is possible. but you cant blame a person for being told the wrong info. so the moral is he didnt lie but was told wrong. if he was lying then he'd know there was no wmd's and still told the world that, but he believed there was.

he was doing his job acting on all the intel he had. its not his fault the intel was wrong.

no. he was misinformed. by the cia and many countries who told him and SHOWED him tons of evidence to prove it. im still convinced saddam hid the wmd's in another country' date=' there some intel showing that is possible. but you cant blame a person for being told the wrong info. so the moral is he didnt lie but was told wrong. if he was lying then he'd know there was no wmd's and still told the world that, but he believed there was.[/quote']

 

 

I told you the whole world told him there is no WMD and you say many countries told him there are WMD

 

It's not a normal mistake because it bring a war

he was doing his job acting on all the intel he had. its not his fault the intel was wrong.

 

 

Before you said there was a WMD but Saddam hide it somewhere

 

Now you say the intel was wrong and he doing his job,is that mean there is no WMD in Iraq

 

 

I'm confused with you:dozey:

I told you the whole world told him there is no WMD and you say many countries told him there are WMD

 

It's not a normal mistake because it bring a war

 

not really, france, russia, jordon, and other nations intelligence agencies all showed bush evidence of saddam having wmd's. the world publicly like as in the citizens of nations told us that, but behind closed doors bush had intelligence agencies from around the world telling him and showing him evidence saddam had wmds's.

Before you said there was a WMD but Saddam hide it somewhere

 

Now you say the intel was wrong and he doing his job,is that mean there is no WMD in Iraq

 

 

I'm confused with you:dozey:

 

no wmd's in iraq....but i believe he got them out of iraq before the invasion.

not really' date=' france, russia, jordon, and other nations intelligence agencies all showed bush evidence of saddam having wmd's. the world publicly like as in the citizens of nations told us that, but behind closed doors bush had intelligence agencies from around the world telling him and showing him evidence saddam had wmds's.[/quote']

 

 

 

I will tell you somthing

 

If Saddam really have a WMD Bush was never thinking attack Iraq, so why he didn't attack Iran or N.Korea

 

I will tell you why,because they have

 

Bush didn't even talked with Saddam like Iran or N.Korea.He directly attacked as he was waiting a chance