You know, so that makes it ok to run over a person.
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
You know, so that makes it ok to run over a person.. You're as sick as they are, maybe you should move there.
This also begs the question, if bulldozers move so slowly how could the driver run over someone unless it was intentional?
Originally posted by: nowareman
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
You know, so that makes it ok to run over a person.. You're as sick as they are, maybe you should move there.
This also begs the question, if bulldozers move so slowly how could the driver run over someone unless it was intentional?
Does anyone really doubt that it was intentional?
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: nowareman
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
You know, so that makes it ok to run over a person.. You're as sick as they are, maybe you should move there.
This also begs the question, if bulldozers move so slowly how could the driver run over someone unless it was intentional?
Does anyone really doubt that it was intentional?
I never doubted it was intentional but I posed the question in the off chance someone did. I can't imagine anyone defending such action but with the comments made previously unfortunately I wouldn't be surprised if someone did.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
wow, aren't you getting personal
i guess its to be expected from one that bases his arguements on emotion more then reason. sinking to calling names, a sure sign of maturity.moral relativsm is in i see. basically the logic that theres no difference between a military strike against military targets, and say.. 9/11.
My guess is that the operator intentionally moved the bulldozer forward.
My guess is that she intentionally laid down in front of it.
The operator can't see in front of a bulldozer because of the blade.
She probably didn't he would take the risk of running over someone.
He probably didn't think anyone would actually lay on the ground under an advancing bulldozer.
Apparently they were both wrong.
My guess is that she intentionally laid down in front of it.
The operator can't see in front of a bulldozer because of the blade.
She probably didn't he would take the risk of running over someone.
He probably didn't think anyone would actually lay on the ground under an advancing bulldozer.
Apparently they were both wrong.
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
wow, aren't you getting personal
moral relativsm is in i see. basically the logic that theres no difference between a military strike against military targets, and say.. 9/11.
Where did I name call? There is no difference when those military strikes make no effort to avoid civilian casualties.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
wow, aren't you getting personal
moral relativsm is in i see. basically the logic that theres no difference between a military strike against military targets, and say.. 9/11.
Where did I name call? There is no difference when those military strikes make no effort to avoid civilian casualties.
now your being asinine, you know very well what you did. go create your strawmen somewhere else. your lowly tactics are reminicent of the ones used by the likes of limbaugh and other talk jocks.
and i you should know that if israel made no effort to avoid civilian casualties, there wouldn't be many palestinians left
as for tractors, they view through small heavily armored compartments because of the palestinian attacks with gunfire/rpgs/molatov cocktails etc. this restricts viewing like it or not, i don't know if he saw in this case.
it is alot easier to sympathize with the side that is not getting retirement homes and restaurants blown up by "activists". since israel became a nation again in 1948 they have been hearing calls for thier extermination as a race(having had a huge part of them exterminated just a few years earlier) and endured repeated invasions with just that intent. until the arabs figured out fighting israel with conventional warfare only results in getting thier arses kicked, even with overwhelming numerical odds in thier favor.
the palestinians DO have a country, it is called JORDAN.
Wow, what planet are you from? In that case the Israelis have a country too, it's called the US. Unlike the Palestinians with Jordan, the Israelis can already claim it as their bitch.
Yeah, that tends to happen to people who take over someone else's land. If someone kicked me out of my house that belonged to my family for generations I imagine myself mighty pissed, don't you?
Incorrect, try again.
Wait wait.... you mean Journalists got killed in a warzone?!?!?! That NEVER happens.... ummmm oh wait a sec... yes it does.
It's very easy to point the fingers at Israel on a constant basis. The rules that apply to the United States and Israel seem to only apply to the United States and Israel.... everyone else it seems can do whatever they want... Should I list journalists killed by Palestinian terrorists?... or should I just list the intentionally killed babies?.... whichever you prefer...
War is hell... if you don't want the hell... dont fight a war.
-Max
It's very easy to point the fingers at Israel on a constant basis. The rules that apply to the United States and Israel seem to only apply to the United States and Israel.... everyone else it seems can do whatever they want... Should I list journalists killed by Palestinian terrorists?... or should I just list the intentionally killed babies?.... whichever you prefer...
War is hell... if you don't want the hell... dont fight a war.
-Max
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter