The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
A while ago I read about a group of Iraqi asylum seekers who had attacked four royal marines whilst they were returning to their barracks.
One of the iraqis pulled out a knife and stabbed one of the marines, so the another marines obviously try to defend their mate who had just been stabbed.
The marines were holding a *kit sale* that day and this was to auction off for charity their dead mates stuff (he had died in a copter crash in Iraq).
Anyways one of the Asylum seekers has put in a complaint against a marine because the marine had assaulted him - even though he was part of the group that had ambushed the marines and he had been arrested two days before for carrying a knife.
What SHOULD happened is the Iraqis should be kicked out the country straight away and the complaint against the marine dropped. What WILL happen is the Iraqi will get a few grand for all the distress that has occured to him and the marine will proberbly be up for a court Martial.
We will have to wait and see what happens.
One of the iraqis pulled out a knife and stabbed one of the marines, so the another marines obviously try to defend their mate who had just been stabbed.
The marines were holding a *kit sale* that day and this was to auction off for charity their dead mates stuff (he had died in a copter crash in Iraq).
Anyways one of the Asylum seekers has put in a complaint against a marine because the marine had assaulted him - even though he was part of the group that had ambushed the marines and he had been arrested two days before for carrying a knife.
What SHOULD happened is the Iraqis should be kicked out the country straight away and the complaint against the marine dropped. What WILL happen is the Iraqi will get a few grand for all the distress that has occured to him and the marine will proberbly be up for a court Martial.
We will have to wait and see what happens.
Page:
Cubist wrote:
> Maybe this analogy will help get my views across -
>
> How do you protect a flock of sheep?
> You kill the wolf
> Woolf's travel in packs though
> How do protect the sheep then?
> Kill all the wolfs
For a start this doesn't work because you don't kill the wolves, you put fences up. Secondly, it makes no sense because it was not Iraq or Iraqis that carried out the destruction of the WTC, so what you're proposing is "Wolves kill sheep, so let's kill all the bears".
We know perfectly well what your views are, it just so happens that they are flawed for many reasons. I'll say it again, IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SEPTEMBER 11TH. So to "level their cities" in retaliation is stupid. If America committed a terrorist act against another country, and that country retaliateed against us, would you be happy? Because that's what you're proposing in reverse.
Also, you're saying that because some people from the Middle East are terrorists all are willing to do the same (and what's more deserve to be punished for it). Well, if that's the way you see it then whenever someone in your family, nay, your whole country commmits a crime and is punished, you get the same punishment. Because if there's a mass murderer from your country, you're capable of doing it too, right? Therefore you should go to prison/be sentenced to death as well - it's for the good of the rest of us, Cubist, hope you understand.
> Maybe this analogy will help get my views across -
>
> How do you protect a flock of sheep?
> You kill the wolf
> Woolf's travel in packs though
> How do protect the sheep then?
> Kill all the wolfs
For a start this doesn't work because you don't kill the wolves, you put fences up. Secondly, it makes no sense because it was not Iraq or Iraqis that carried out the destruction of the WTC, so what you're proposing is "Wolves kill sheep, so let's kill all the bears".
We know perfectly well what your views are, it just so happens that they are flawed for many reasons. I'll say it again, IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SEPTEMBER 11TH. So to "level their cities" in retaliation is stupid. If America committed a terrorist act against another country, and that country retaliateed against us, would you be happy? Because that's what you're proposing in reverse.
Also, you're saying that because some people from the Middle East are terrorists all are willing to do the same (and what's more deserve to be punished for it). Well, if that's the way you see it then whenever someone in your family, nay, your whole country commmits a crime and is punished, you get the same punishment. Because if there's a mass murderer from your country, you're capable of doing it too, right? Therefore you should go to prison/be sentenced to death as well - it's for the good of the rest of us, Cubist, hope you understand.
"retrospective"
Damn typos.
Damn typos.
I meant initially, not a belated retropective reason.
Depends what version you have.
"Reasons for The Gulf" has more updates than Windows
"Reasons for The Gulf" has more updates than Windows
Erm...do you even watch the news?
What was the reason given for the US and Britain going to war?
What was the reason given for the US and Britain going to war?
Unfortunately i doubt I can get my hands on the exact reports, hell not even journalists can thanks to the censorship involved but I'd rather take their word and be safe instead of dismissing it and wondering if they really do have a nuke or two up their sleeve.
This is my favourite part -
"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Rumsfeld said. "We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light, through the prism of ... Sept. 11th."
"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Rumsfeld said. "We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light, through the prism of ... Sept. 11th."
I went to google and the first result I got was from the start of the War by USA Today. It doesn't really support my views as it's not written to answer that specific question but it's a good enough start. I'll keep looking - http://www.usatoday.com/news/ washington/2003-07-09-wmd-usat_x.htm
I can wait.
Fine but it may take I while I don't have a clue how to find them but I'm sure the articles must be out there.
Page: