Indiscriminate“, “innocent” and “policy” are very specific words, which is why I capitalized them, and it makes the clear distinction between what the terrorist are doing and what the US is doing

Since the 2003 invasion, there have been daily massacres of “INNOCENT” Iraqis by U.S. Marines with the full knowledge of the U.S. military chain of command

Hundreds of thousands of “INNOCENT” Iraqis, mostly women and children have been slaughtered in cold blood and in cowardly fashion. These countless massacres by U.S. forces were obfuscated and barely reported by Western media.

On the morning of 19 November 2005, U.S. Marines were on their way to Haditha, in northwest Iraq. When they were attacked and later failed to find their attackers, they deliberately and “INDISCRIMINATELY” massacred 24 Iraqi civilians in the Subhani district of Haditha. The victims”range from little babies to adult males and females”. Initially, the U.S. Marines alleged that 15 “insurgents” and civilians were killed in “cross fire”. As usual, the U.S. Marines lied about the massacre and tried to cover it up. It was the video of an Iraqi journalism student from Haditha which prompted the Time to investigate the massacre.

In April 2004, U.S. forces siege the vibrant city of Fallujah and “INDISCRIMINATELY” and deliberately killed more that 800 civilians in cold blood. Again, in November 2004, U.S. forces bombed the city with napalm bombs white Phosphorous, “depleted” uranium and cluster bombs. More than 6000 innocent civilians, mostly women and children were massacred, and the entire city was destroyed in gross violation of the Geneva Conventions and international law. The silence of Western media was deafening despite the enormity of the committed war crimes.

your definition is too vague. I suppose stepping on an ant would be a terrorist act according to your definition. Get real.

I probably won’t debate anyone in here further on any other irrelevant postings to the OP. This isn’t the anti-support troops thread, it’s the SUPPORT TROOPS thread. If you want to be anti-US troops make a new thread for that purpose. All you are doing is sabotaging the intent of the OP and acting like a child.

As my son fights alongside your Canadian troops... what is your problem?

They need the thrill they get when the flag is raised, even if it is then folded and placed in their lap.

Did ya ever think that many IED's might be leftover? the Russian thingee? in re to Afghanistan.
And if so, maybe they are there and maybe many years have taken a toll on these IED's, so maybe they are still there and beneath the sand. Ya think?

Do you believe in stoning? As they do.. dig a pit and stone a woman to death. Is that ok? And kill the children because... just because they want to? is that ok? Or, maybe ya want to see that person hung in a the square, ya know...where ya buy vegtables and stuff and then you see that dead body hang.

So, you think that the women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan should suffer?

All i can say to you is ..i think you are awful.

So, you think that the women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan should suffer? Do you believe in stoning? As they do.. dig a pit and stone a woman to death. Is that ok? And kill the children because... just because they want to? is that ok? Or, maybe ya want to see that person hung in a the square, ya know...where ya buy vegtables and stuff and then you see that dead body hang.

You should br greatful.... for many things

Three years after the US-led invasion of Iraq, women's secular freedoms - once the envy of women across the Middle East - have been snatched away because militant Islam is rising across the country.

Under Saddam, women played little part in political life but businesswomen and academics traveled the country unchallenged while their daughters mixed freely with male students at university.

Now, even the most emancipated woman feels cowed.

Quit complaining, acting jealous, whining , etc.

you aren’t changing anyone’s mind in here. Especially mine

you forgot "policy". The definition requires all three of the specific words I mentioned. Also stick to the present.

The Few. The Proud. The Disillusioned. Conflict in Iraq: Some active duty troops, while proud to serve, are speaking out and signing a petition against the war

Joe Garofoli
SF Chronicle
Saturday April 7, 2007

A few signs of dissent are appearing in the military aside from conscientious objectors and newly realized pacificists. Last month, a career chief master sergeant in the Air Force wrote an opinion piece in the military newspaper Stars and Stripes opposing the war, and a busload of retired veterans and civilian activists toured military bases in the South, hoping to coax more support from active duty soldiers

Last week, retired Marine Corps Lt. Col. Andrew Horne, who served in the Persian Gulf two years ago, rebutted President Bush's weekly radio address.
Said Horne: "The commander-in-chief has failed to properly lead the troops, and previous Congresses didn't ask the tough questions or demand accountability. The result is the mess we are in today."
These inside-the-fortress expressions of opposition are almost always prefaced with words of respect for the military, of their comrades' patriotic service to their country.

The Evidence Is There: It’s Time for Congress to Investigate the Ties Between the Bush Family and Osama bin Laden

Lucy Komisar
IPS News
Friday, April 6, 2007

The following is taken from a chapter, "The BCCI Game: Banking on America, Banking on Jihad," by investigative journalist Lucy Komisar in the new book "A Game as Old as Empire," just published by Berrett-Koehler (San Francisco).

Now that the U.S. Congress is investigating the truth of President George W. Bush's statements about the Iraq war, they might look into one of his most startling assertions: that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Critics dismissed that as an invention. They were wrong. There was a link, but not the one Bush was selling. The link between Hussein and Bin Laden was their banker, BCCI. But the link went beyond the dictator and the jihadist -- it passed through Saudi Arabia and stretched all the way to George W. Bush and his father
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/060407ties.htm

Bush Lies: Stated Wiretap Required Court Order

What a difference a year makes -- or is an election? Back in 2004, George W. Bush was caught on camera explaining very carefully that the government always requires a court order when "chasing down terrorists." Trying to sell the Patriot Act -- which he wanted renewed but which was coming under increasing fire from all sides of the political spectrum -- Bush was very clear that "a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way." By that, he meant that
neither the Patriot Act nor its ostensible cause -- the 9/11 terrorist attacks -- changed the absolute legal requirement for the government to get a court order before ordering wiretaps against suspected terrorists.

(One interesting side note: Bush continually refers to ordering wiretaps against "terrorists" -- not suspects. This is highly revealing of his mindset: anyone who is suspected of being a terrorist automatically IS a terrorist. This mindset has permeated the entire military and security apparatus: that's why countless innocent people have been jailed and tortured around the world: because all suspects are regarded as guilty -- no matter how shaky or specious or non-existent the basis of their capture.)

But this week, Bush has outed himself as a liar. He has admitted -- even boasted -- of his secret spy program that operated without any warrants or any recourse to judicial oversight whatsoever -- not even the FISA program which could have given him the broadest possible scope to order wiretaps and surveillance of suspected terrorists. Last year, before the election, Bush was insisting that wiretaps could be only issued by a court order; now, after the election, he freely admits that this is not the case.

http://infowars.com/articles/ps/bush_lies_stated_wiretap_court_orders.htm

Post 9/11 Anthrax & Beltway Sniper Attacks: Well Timed Inside Jobs?

Were the post 9/11 anthrax mail attacks a well timed 'inside job' designed to target and intimidate U.S. senate opponents to the White House sponsored Patriot Act just prior to it's Capitol Hill passage?

Were the Washington, DC 'Beltway Sniper' shootings also a well timed 'inside job' designed to intimidate potential Washington DC opponents to the White House Iraq war plans during Capitol Hills debate of the matter?

Is it just a coincidence that 2 of the most notorious U.S. domestic terrorists ever, are also Gulf War 1 veterans?http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/060407anthrax.htm

According to StopRosie, in order to be an American, one must support Israeli-inspired invasions of sovereign nations, support and cheerlead the unfathomable destruction of civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, and mosques, the torture and rape of prisoners, including children, and the decimation of the Constitution of the United States.

If this be the case, I am no longer an American. Of course, the exact opposite is the case—the people behind StopRosie are no longer Americans in the traditional sense and are instead a sort of freak hybrid of authoritarian, fascist, and slavish backer of Israel and global neolib bankers wrapped in plastic American flags manufactured by slaves in a sprawling Chinese labor gulag.
...Let’s face it… most Americans, while they may indeed have suspicions about the truth surrounding 9/11, will do little to nothing about it...—because Americans are so easily sidetracked, browbeaten, and intimidated. If said loud and long enough on the corporate media idiot tube, people will begin to believe it, as they believe Saddam and Osama were one, or it was difficult to tell the difference between them.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/070407Haters.htm ^^^