T Nation

Evil Americans

[quote]Unaware wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

I do know a bit about radiation exposure; I believe it is called depleted uranium for a reason. Someone else may know if there is a risk of gamma emission, but I would doubt it–too risky to store and handle. Alpha and beta irradiation is not penetrant to the fetus, and single or multiple episodes of radiation do not cause the fetal monsters demonstrated here.

DoD says DP uranium still has 60% the radioactivity of natural uranium.

Wouldn’t the alpha radiation pose a potential danger if ingested?

I would assume that it would take alot of DU to be harmful.

[/quote]

DU is an alpha and beta emitter, chiefly. I can walk 100 yards from where I sit and touch a wall filled with it, because it is used as a radiation shield. (It is a great absorber of alpha, beta and gamma, but ot neutrons.)

You are correct that the chief risk is in ingestion. So how does one ingest DU–it would have to be micronized and inhaled, not something that happens when it is shot from a gun. Hedo can correct me if I am in error.

Do I want it around? No, of course not. Who would want it lying around for 10,000 years?
But the risk is not necessarily from irradiation, but as a a heavy metal, less toxic than lead, arsenic, tin (perhaps), etc.

If orion cares to know, he may want to check his tap water. Czechoslovakia once had large uranium mines, when it was used as a ceramic glaze. The Danube is not blue, its green.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Unaware wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

I do know a bit about radiation exposure; I believe it is called depleted uranium for a reason. Someone else may know if there is a risk of gamma emission, but I would doubt it–too risky to store and handle. Alpha and beta irradiation is not penetrant to the fetus, and single or multiple episodes of radiation do not cause the fetal monsters demonstrated here.

DoD says DP uranium still has 60% the radioactivity of natural uranium.

Wouldn’t the alpha radiation pose a potential danger if ingested?

I would assume that it would take alot of DU to be harmful.

DU is an alpha and beta emitter, chiefly. I can walk 100 yards from where I sit and touch a wall filled with it, because it is used as a radiation shield. (It is a great absorber of alpha, beta and gamma, but ot neutrons.)

You are correct that the chief risk is in ingestion. So how does one ingest DU–it would have to be micronized and inhaled, not something that happens when it is shot from a gun. Hedo can correct me if I am in error.

Do I want it around? No, of course not. Who would want it lying around for 10,000 years?
But the risk is not necessarily from irradiation, but as a a heavy metal, less toxic than lead, arsenic, tin (perhaps), etc.

If orion cares to know, he may want to check his tap water. Czechoslovakia once had large uranium mines, when it was used as a ceramic glaze. The Danube is not blue, its green.

[/quote]

Dr. S

The only times I have seen it used is tanks shooting at other tanks. They are expensive rounds and not as common as High Explosive. The DU portion of the round is contained in the other tank being shot at. We also have a plane called an A-10 that used 30mm rounds with DU. IMO if they missed they would go deep into the ground, intact and not break up.

Something else to consider with regard to chemicals in the environment. Most third world hell holes like Iraq, with a petroleum industry are environmental nightmares. Public health is also far behind western standards. Plenty of contamination exists but the western nations are the only ones who attempt to minimize or clean it up. Haz waste over there gets dumped out of sight, not treated and disposed of properly. That’s done by the locals, not the US.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]orion wrote:
Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:
Did you two sycophants even google depleted uranium?

No?

Thought so.

See link above.

Not necessary. I’m quite familiar with the arguments on both sides.

You?

Thought not.

See hedo’s post above.

You mean the post that perpetuates the propaganda that they used them as shields?

I posted a whole study that they had their military facilities in the cities because the Sowjets put them there, but nice try.

You do not even know to what extent your ignorance is exposed by just having knee jerking reactions to what I might have said, but maybe that is why you have them?[/quote]

it seems to me that you’re a leftist muslim apologist. muslims using human shields is fact. they’ve done it in Somalia, Lebanon, Iraq, Gaza. are you gonna deny that too. remember that there a lots of foreign Jihadists, Arabs , Chechens, paks, Uzbeks, Turks. these people have no qualms about doing such things.

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
He was driving the moderate elements from the Dem party and infesting it with tools like Obama and Nancy.

You still haven’t answered the stuff about the quotes. If someone says America is evil, then context is just a load of crap.

He should be tarred, feathered, and put on a slow freighter to Israel, with Rahm Emmanuel.

â??The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.â??â??George Soros

He doesn’t say that the United States is evil, just an obstacle to a stable and just world order. It may surprise you to hear this, but there are a great many of people in this world that would agree with him. The primary reason why is that the United States preaches about a Global Free Market yet at the same time enact protectionist measures against any other nation that wants to participate. US foreign relations has a pretty abysmal record as well, IMO. Going against the UN on Iraq, for example.[/quote]

They’re not using their $$$$ to introduce radical marxists into our political system. Soros is.

I predict that one of those he puts in power will do a ‘Stalin’ to him, when he gets tired of taking orders from the old crook.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
Just in case these pictures do not make it as long as your more patriotic ones you can find them here :

http://images.google.at/imgres?imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jHuooQTCYXc/STHHv6Jv5bI/AAAAAAAAD0U/KGEtOvVQ2VM/s400/uranium%2Bvictim1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://prisonerofjoy.blogspot.com/2008/11/victims-of-uranium-weapons-used-by.html&usg=__G1f22BpO5va_cc-UTlgUaiKsZIg=&h=300&w=400&sz=21&hl=de&start=7&um=1&tbnid=OVEyM_TPvSdDiM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dafghanistan%2Bvictims%26hl%3Dde%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

American heroes, just doing their job.

Uh…no.

I do not know what the first photo shows.
I am not fetologist, but the other photos show meningoencephalocole and other neural tube defects, and fetal hydrops and cretinism. It is far more likely that the causes are perinatal deficiencies of B vitamins and folic acid, and iodine, respectively; both conditions are unfortunately very common in rural Afghanistan.

I do know a bit about radiation exposure; I believe it is called depleted uranium for a reason. Someone else may know if there is a risk of gamma emission, but I would doubt it–too risky to store and handle. Alpha and beta irradiation is not penetrant to the fetus, and single or multiple episodes of radiation do not cause the fetal monsters demonstrated here.

So, orion, if you were taken in by this Jihadist propaganda, you are a willing believer in nonsense, because it is a lie that serves your chronic refractory Anti-Americansism; or, like some of the tikes here, cretinism is also common in semi-rural Austria.

So you do not know really and those kids just happen to be born there and depleted ammunition could never pose a threat when it disintegrates after hitting a target.

So you are talking out of your ass really?

Human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in the offspring of persons exposed to DU.[11] A 2001 study of 15,000 February 1991 U.S. Gulf War combat veterans and 15,000 control veterans found that the Gulf War veterans were 1.8 (fathers) to 2.8 (mothers) times more likely to have children with birth defects.[83] After examination of children’s medical records two years later, the birth defect rate increased by more than 20%:

"Dr. Kang found that male Gulf War veterans reported having infants with likely birth defects at twice the rate of non-veterans. Furthermore, female Gulf War veterans were almost three times more likely to report children with birth defects than their non-Gulf counterparts. The numbers changed somewhat with medical records verification. However, Dr. Kang and his colleagues concluded that the risk of birth defects in children of deployed male veterans still was about 2.2 times that of non-deployed veterans."[84]

In early 2004, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.[85][86] Children of British soldiers who fought in wars in which depleted uranium ammunition was used are at greater risk of suffering genetic diseases such as congenital malformations, commonly called “birth defects,” passed on by their fathers. In a study of U.K. troops, “Overall, the risk of any malformation among pregnancies reported by men was 50% higher in Gulf War Veterans (GWV) compared with Non-GWVs.”[87]

Your soldiers beg to differ.

I would bet I am a damn sight better acquainted with obstetrics and embryology than you will ever be.
If there is someone talking out his ass, it is you; so much so that it is hoarse from the operatic presentation to which it is constantly subjected.

These photos shows absolutely nothing that is directly connected to depleted uranium; exccept for the first photo, all the others represent fairly common fetal abnormalities with ready explanations.

“…a veteran.” This is it? That is your cited evidence One pension board–perhaps for political reaasons, and with no science–allowed the guy a break? Sad and ridiculous.
Everything else you have cited is simply unverifiable nonsense. The sources you have sited–with which I am familiar–cannot in any fashion connect, for example, Gulf War syndrome to U238. Period. So many things have implicated, it is hard to figure out anything.

So you have been taken in, eagerly so, by heart-breaking photos. That you persist in your ignorance is a stunning testament to your small-mindedness.[/quote]

I actually had put up some pictures of kids that were just plain killed by US soldiers, with perfectly normal bombs so these posts are missing.

While I think that the deformed children popping up everywhere the US waged war are interesting they are more or less a side show

[quote]kodiak82 wrote:
orion wrote:
Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:
Did you two sycophants even google depleted uranium?

No?

Thought so.

See link above.

Not necessary. I’m quite familiar with the arguments on both sides.

You?

Thought not.

See hedo’s post above.

You mean the post that perpetuates the propaganda that they used them as shields?

I posted a whole study that they had their military facilities in the cities because the Sowjets put them there, but nice try.

You do not even know to what extent your ignorance is exposed by just having knee jerking reactions to what I might have said, but maybe that is why you have them?

it seems to me that you’re a leftist muslim apologist. muslims using human shields is fact. they’ve done it in Somalia, Lebanon, Iraq, Gaza. are you gonna deny that too. remember that there a lots of foreign Jihadists, Arabs , Chechens, paks, Uzbeks, Turks. these people have no qualms about doing such things.
[/quote]

“Using the as human shields” translates to me into “not being suicidally insane”.

As you may have noticed facing the Imperial Army (cue in the Imperial march here)on the battlefield is bound to end in disaster.

If however they can involve you in guerrilla battle, weaving in and out of the population they have excellent chances of winning.

It is kind of weird to make them responsible though for how they defend themselves when you attack their country.

I guess they are cold hearted bastards by choosing a tactic that might actually work but you know that before you attack a country and yet attack it anyway.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Unaware wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

I do know a bit about radiation exposure; I believe it is called depleted uranium for a reason. Someone else may know if there is a risk of gamma emission, but I would doubt it–too risky to store and handle. Alpha and beta irradiation is not penetrant to the fetus, and single or multiple episodes of radiation do not cause the fetal monsters demonstrated here.

DoD says DP uranium still has 60% the radioactivity of natural uranium.

Wouldn’t the alpha radiation pose a potential danger if ingested?

I would assume that it would take alot of DU to be harmful.

DU is an alpha and beta emitter, chiefly. I can walk 100 yards from where I sit and touch a wall filled with it, because it is used as a radiation shield. (It is a great absorber of alpha, beta and gamma, but ot neutrons.)

You are correct that the chief risk is in ingestion. So how does one ingest DU–it would have to be micronized and inhaled, not something that happens when it is shot from a gun. Hedo can correct me if I am in error.

Do I want it around? No, of course not. Who would want it lying around for 10,000 years?
But the risk is not necessarily from irradiation, but as a a heavy metal, less toxic than lead, arsenic, tin (perhaps), etc.

If orion cares to know, he may want to check his tap water. Czechoslovakia once had large uranium mines, when it was used as a ceramic glaze. The Danube is not blue, its green.

[/quote]

Must I dig up the pictures of US soldiers frolicking in radioactive dust?

Right now there might be no scientific explanation for why there are more deformations when people have been exposed to that shit, but when we have found one in 20 years, we still could have known now that 50-100% more of that happening is hardly a coincidence.

[quote]orion wrote:

It is kind of weird to make them responsible though for how they defend themselves when you attack their country.

I guess they are cold hearted bastards by choosing a tactic that might actually work but you know that before you attack a country and yet attack it anyway.
[/quote]

So, you are or aren’t concerned with rules and crimes of war?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:

It is kind of weird to make them responsible though for how they defend themselves when you attack their country.

I guess they are cold hearted bastards by choosing a tactic that might actually work but you know that before you attack a country and yet attack it anyway.

So, you are or aren’t concerned with rules and crimes of war?[/quote]

Sure, let me quote a prominent American:

We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.

If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.

Justice Jackson, chief prosecutor Nuremberg trials

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:

It is kind of weird to make them responsible though for how they defend themselves when you attack their country.

I guess they are cold hearted bastards by choosing a tactic that might actually work but you know that before you attack a country and yet attack it anyway.

So, you are or aren’t concerned with rules and crimes of war?

Sure, let me quote a prominent American:

We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.

If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.

Justice Jackson, chief prosecutor Nuremberg trials

[/quote]

That’s great and all, but what does that have to do with a justification for using non-combatants as human shields?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:

It is kind of weird to make them responsible though for how they defend themselves when you attack their country.

I guess they are cold hearted bastards by choosing a tactic that might actually work but you know that before you attack a country and yet attack it anyway.

So, you are or aren’t concerned with rules and crimes of war?

Sure, let me quote a prominent American:

We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.

If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.

Justice Jackson, chief prosecutor Nuremberg trials

That’s great and all, but what does that have to do with a justification for using non-combatants as human shields? [/quote]

Was Justice Jackson not clear enough?

In war this shit happens.

On both sides.

Which is why you do not start wars.

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:

It is kind of weird to make them responsible though for how they defend themselves when you attack their country.

I guess they are cold hearted bastards by choosing a tactic that might actually work but you know that before you attack a country and yet attack it anyway.

So, you are or aren’t concerned with rules and crimes of war?

Sure, let me quote a prominent American:

We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.

If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.

Justice Jackson, chief prosecutor Nuremberg trials

That’s great and all, but what does that have to do with a justification for using non-combatants as human shields?

Was Justice Jackson not clear enough?

In war this shit happens.

On both sides.

Which is why you do not start wars.

[/quote]

I was asking specifically about your statement regarding the use of human shields. You’re quote leads to a whole different debate. Was Iraq the aggressor against another country, first? Is there some standard that bars a country from accepting help from an outside alliance? Has the now defeated aggressor broken the ceasefire terms?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:

It is kind of weird to make them responsible though for how they defend themselves when you attack their country.

I guess they are cold hearted bastards by choosing a tactic that might actually work but you know that before you attack a country and yet attack it anyway.

So, you are or aren’t concerned with rules and crimes of war?

Sure, let me quote a prominent American:

We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.

If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.

Justice Jackson, chief prosecutor Nuremberg trials

That’s great and all, but what does that have to do with a justification for using non-combatants as human shields?

Was Justice Jackson not clear enough?

In war this shit happens.

On both sides.

Which is why you do not start wars.

I was asking specifically about your statement regarding the use of human shields. You’re quote leads to a whole different debate. Was Iraq the aggressor against another country, first? Is there some standard that bars a country from accepting help from an outside alliance? Has the now defeated aggressor broken the ceasefire terms?[/quote]

I think Bush I played his cards very, very well in the first Gulf War.

He could have and should have taken out Saddam or buy him out and make him leave afterwards though.

And when Albright said that 500000 dead children might have been “worth it” Clinton should have had her beheaded and sent her head to Muslim leaders around the world just to show that that was not official policy.

Not making it official policy would have been even better though.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:

It is kind of weird to make them responsible though for how they defend themselves when you attack their country.

I guess they are cold hearted bastards by choosing a tactic that might actually work but you know that before you attack a country and yet attack it anyway.

So, you are or aren’t concerned with rules and crimes of war?

Sure, let me quote a prominent American:

We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.

If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.

Justice Jackson, chief prosecutor Nuremberg trials

That’s great and all, but what does that have to do with a justification for using non-combatants as human shields?

Was Justice Jackson not clear enough?

In war this shit happens.

On both sides.

Which is why you do not start wars.

I was asking specifically about your statement regarding the use of human shields. You’re quote leads to a whole different debate. Was Iraq the aggressor against another country, first? Is there some standard that bars a country from accepting help from an outside alliance? Has the now defeated aggressor broken the ceasefire terms?[/quote]

To answer more directly:

If the US attacked and occupied Austria, would I fight them on a battlefield?

Hell, no!

Your occupying forces might find their stay in Vienna to be quite interesting though.

Would that mean “using civilians as shields”?

Maybe, if you want to call it that.

However, if it worries you so much, why dont you go home?

[quote]orion wrote:
And when Albright said that 500000 dead children might have been “worth it” Clinton should have had her beheaded and sent her head to Muslim leaders around the world just to show that that was not official policy.

Not making it official policy would have been even better though.

[/quote]

Is it official policy? Or just “what happens in war?” In fact, isn’t it really the official policy of the poor souls “forced” to fight from behind the backs of non-combatants? After all, it’s only effective because it’s not the official policy of the regular forces. It just strikes me odd that intent has no room in your position. I mean, who is intending for civilians to die? Who is doing everthing possible to maximize this?

[quote]orion wrote:
Hell, no!

Your occupying forces might find their stay in Vienna to be quite interesting though.

Would that mean “using civilians as shields”?

Maybe, if you want to call it that.

However, if it worries you so much, why dont you go home?
[/quote]

You’d consider using homes, places of worship, and hospitals to fight from? But, then you’d have to admit that you’re trying to kill your own people for propoganda purposes. Surely, you couldn’t honestly say, “our enemy, they target civilian populations!” At least, not sincerely.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
And when Albright said that 500000 dead children might have been “worth it” Clinton should have had her beheaded and sent her head to Muslim leaders around the world just to show that that was not official policy.

Not making it official policy would have been even better though.

Is it official policy? Or just “what happens in war?” In fact, isn’t it really the official policy of the poor souls “forced” to fight from behind the backs of non-combatants? After all, it’s only effective because it’s not the official policy of the regular forces. It just strike me odd that intent has no room in your position. I mean, who is intending for civilians to die? Who is doing everthing possible to maximize this? [/quote]

Na, that was about the sanctions.

You know, the one that killed any old, sick or too young person in Iraq while the elite continued to live a life of luxury?

It is not quite true that intent play no role for me.

If a US destroyer for example really thought that it was under attack and they blew up a fish trailer, well shit tends to happen.

However it is not quite as simple as that.

These days you just have to know what will happen when you start a war. By tarting it you give implicit consent to what will happen.

It is a dolus eventualis, an actual form of intent, at least in Austrian law. As far as I can via a quick google I see the term also exists in Anglo-Saxon law.

It is even one step beyond that because everybody should such cases are absolutely inevitable when you start a war.

So, everybody starting such a war implicitly claims that he thinks that his reasons are good enough to kill a few hundred, thousand whatever people for them

You concentrate on the specific actions off American forces vs guerrillas. True, the American forces seem to have the moral high ground but that is quite easy when you are that technologically superior.

All in all though, as Jackson put it, starting a war is the ultimate war crime because all other war crimes necessarily flow from it.

And I really think that everyone that joins the US army must know that he joins an arm that not only defends America but regularity kills innocent people for questionable reasons.

Oh, and mercenaries are paid killers.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Hell, no!

Your occupying forces might find their stay in Vienna to be quite interesting though.

Would that mean “using civilians as shields”?

Maybe, if you want to call it that.

However, if it worries you so much, why dont you go home?

You’d consider using homes, places of worship, and hospitals to fight from? But, then you’d have to admit that you’re trying to kill your own people for propoganda purposes. Surely, you couldn’t honestly say, “our enemy, they target civilian populations!” At least, not sincerely.
[/quote]

But I would do it anyway, and place propaganda videos on youtube and be a general pain in the ass.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.