win a prize?

I mean besides untimely demise and an all expense paid trip to the afterlife.

10/27/2005 10:49:36 AM

yes, he was completely solid. i mean solid in a tissue, water mix. not solid like granite, but solid nonetheless.

10/27/2005 10:50:50 AM

10/27/2005 1:31:17 PM

fuck off kris. show some damn respect

[Edited on October 27, 2005 at 9:19 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2005 9:19:29 PM

Quote :

"show some damn respect"

10/27/2005 9:37:42 PM

see this is some typical liberal shit. on the one hand they say "we support the troops becasue we want to bring them home" yet they go and mock and disrespect them at the same fucking time. like spitting on the soldiers after they came home from nam.

10/27/2005 9:46:06 PM

I'm not going to say this is typical liberal shit.

I'm just going to say that it's fucking shitty to talk about the dead like that.

It's not a milestone.

It's not something to make a shitty joke about.

10/27/2005 9:57:04 PM

^^^^^ oh you've been waiting around for a little while now with a smile on your face to bust that one out now haven't you

10/27/2005 10:34:52 PM

aw come on guys, lighten up, it's not like you knew them or anything

I was just saying we didn't really hear a lot of commotion about the first 1000, I'll be watching and ready to celebrate 3k though

but really guys, lighten up, have a good time, party like its 1999 US soliders killed in iraq

10/27/2005 11:04:28 PM

the prize is severance pay for the families.

also dont discredit the 15,000+ wounded and maimed.

[Edited on October 27, 2005 at 11:12 PM. Reason : ]

10/27/2005 11:10:55 PM

wounded men are just soliders to cowardly to be killed

10/27/2005 11:13:02 PM

Kris, please tell me you're making fun of the media for making it seem like an event.

10/27/2005 11:15:40 PM

More or less, but it's given me a chance to use the offensive jokes that I am ever so good at making

If it's about abortions, death, rape, or genecide, I can probably make a joke about it.

10/27/2005 11:20:54 PM

It's now 2006.

10/27/2005 11:41:35 PM

this 2000 number .......... in my opinion i think its fudged. its probably in reality far higher, maybe double or tripple what they report. cammon.. would you beleive everything the govt says?.

10/28/2005 12:14:35 AM

I wouldn't disbelieve government reports on casualties.

They kinda don't lie about those. If they did, you'd hear about it, trust me.

People kinda notice when there's 2000 reported dead, and 6000 are actually dead. Those parents would bitch.

10/28/2005 12:16:10 AM

^i didnt think they lied about weapons of mass destruction either

10/28/2005 2:07:22 AM

I read somewhere, that might be wrong, that they don't always count people who die a little later, from injuries related to war. Like if they get shot, then a month later die from some complication. They only count people who die in the battlefield.

In any case, it doesn't really matter. 2000 and 6000 are crappy numbers for anyone to be dead (let alone the 20k Iraqi civilians).

10/28/2005 2:09:07 AM

actually the 2000 includes non-combat related deaths

10/28/2005 2:43:06 AM

Quote :

"aw come on guys, lighten up, it's not like you knew them or anything"

i knew one of them, and i know and served with an assload of guys serving there. so once again, fuck off kris.

10/28/2005 3:24:28 AM

this is too much even for tww. don't bash ppl FIGHTING in the name of our country who have died doing it. make fun of katrina victims what stayed behind.

10/28/2005 8:03:56 AM

I got a joke

"What's the first thing the Solider serving in Iraq heard when he got home?"




























"Dearly beloved, we are gathered on this tragic day to mourn the loss of. . ."

10/28/2005 9:37:35 AM

Don't they start weddings with "Dearly Beloved", and not funerals?

10/28/2005 11:12:59 AM

^ Well they say that the two are intimately interwoven with each other...

10/28/2005 12:15:29 PM

only 448,000 to go to match the US deaths in WW2!

10/28/2005 12:18:45 PM

I specifically used that phrase to make you start off thinking it would be a good thing happening but then hitting you with the "mourn the loss of"

10/28/2005 2:27:43 PM

^ wish you were there to die

10/28/2005 2:31:03 PM

he's not poor

10/28/2005 2:32:22 PM

no, just a dick

10/28/2005 2:33:36 PM

2012 as of today

10/28/2005 10:46:42 PM

Quote :

"see this is some typical liberal shit. on the one hand they say "we support the troops becasue we want to bring them home" yet they go and mock and disrespect them at the same fucking time."

10/29/2005 3:11:49 AM

well its because the far left is slowly turning on the soldiers

they buy into the abu graib stuff, the internet rumors, and the torture accusations and begin to say "they're animals!!!11"

at first its "a small minority of them" then its "not all but some," and you hear things like "fighting a worthless war" and "dying for nothing"

then they make jokes, disrespect them, hurl insults at them, all in the name of their precious, but ultimately not worth dying for, free speech. they say the right is trying to split america and push their agenda, when ironically the loudest voices we hear are the left. they spit venom and then laugh, almost like a cartoon villain on a crimespree.

oh, don't worry soldiers. they don't hate you as much as they do christians. but that's a topic for another day.

10/29/2005 3:20:01 AM

some sick people here.

10/29/2005 4:10:57 AM

death is funny

10/29/2005 5:37:10 AM

now 2015

10/29/2005 9:39:10 AM

THEY THEY THEY

10/29/2005 11:15:05 AM

2000 aint that bad. More than that have died of hunger today and no one is sad about that shit.

10/29/2005 11:40:10 AM

nobody cares about that

10/29/2005 1:41:05 PM

exactly

10/29/2005 4:09:04 PM

BITCH BITCH BITCH

10/29/2005 4:11:01 PM

rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble

10/29/2005 4:13:28 PM

PEOPLE BE DIEINNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

10/29/2005 4:17:49 PM

Quote :

"all in the name of their precious, but ultimately not worth dying for, free speech"

It's a good thing we have soliders in iraq dying to protect our freedom of speech

10/29/2005 4:51:11 PM

i like how youre spitting on the grave of someone who fought for your right to be able to say horrible things like this!

10/29/2005 5:06:22 PM

better than pissing

10/29/2005 6:05:11 PM

10/29/2005 6:33:31 PM

^are you implying that in order to support something, you must participate?

10/29/2005 10:51:05 PM

Iraq: 2000 Lies
Yamin Zakaria, GlobalResearch.ca



October 28, 2005

"People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election." (Otto von Bismarck Prussian Prime Minister, 1815-1898)



I wonder how many people really believe that the milestone figure of 2000 US soldiers killed is the real truth - I certain do not, and it has nothing to do with my views on the war, but everything to do with the various independent reports and analysis emanating from numerous sources around the world. Recently a friend of mine came back from Baghdad, what he reported was consistent with many others who have come back from the region, about the level of violence, security and the level of attacks on the US forces. Even the most die hard pro-war supporters have trouble believing the reports from the embedded sources, or from those reporting from their Hotels in the 'comfort zone’ or the so-called Green Zone, named in the fantasy Hollywood style!



The 2000 US soldiers constitutes around 1.0% of the total number of 159,000 US troops present in Iraq. To suffer this level of loss over a period of two years should be almost insignificant, in terms of impacting the military operations. Yet, in the press there is a constant cry about the shortage of troops, and thus National Guardsmen are now being deployed in Iraq. After hurricane Katrina, shortage of National Guardsmen surfaced, as everyone witnessed the lack of manpower in helping the people of New Orleans and Louisiana to cope with the devastating hurricane.



Numerous other sources, have also confirmed as to how the casualty figures are being massaged, for example if a soldier is lifted from the battlefield to say the hospitals in Germany, and then dies there, his death is not added to the total number of dead. Then there are numerous stories of the deaths of soldiers from Latin and Central America, who are serving in the US army in Iraq with the promise of being awarded Green Card after they have completed their mission; they are not added to the total number of US casualties either. In fact many witnesses have said that their bodies were dumped in the river in Baghdad or buried in mass graves.



There is also a glaring discrepancy between the statements of the ordinary US soldiers, and the PR mouthpieces of the Pentagon, conveyed by the likes of Reuters, CNN, FOX-TV and others. A BBC documentary on the Iraq war made by Sean Langham, prior to the revelations of Abu-Ghraib, also indicated this lie about the US casualty figures. He interviewed a senior US soldier in a military hospital in Baghdad, who stated in disbelief and surprise that he could not understand where the media was getting the figures about the US casualty rates, stating that he was seeing far more casualties and deaths than were being reported; and Sean Langham himself witnessed a helicopter landing in the hospital every hour delivering wounded soldiers. That was one hospital, with one account, with one reporter, now multiply that with all of the hospitals handling US casualties, and you begin to see there is serious deception going on here.



Prior to the war you would have to scan the newspapers to see US helicopters or planes crashing. Yet, something like 40-50% of the aircraft and helicopters that have perished in this conflict are now listed as 'accidents’ in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that really true? Let’s face it, the US has the state of the art technology built into these aircraft and helicopters, giving it a lot of inbuilt safety measures, twin engines typically for battlefield redundancy, professionally maintained and the pilots are really well trained. So these accidents in volume, and frequency would again point to more lies, instead of admitting the opponent’s effectiveness, as this might sap morale and appeal for the recruiting effort back home.



Take another final example, it is reported that around 15,000 US troops have been injured, yet I clearly remember a year after combat was initiated around 2004, some of the press in the US were reporting around 30,000 injured. So the actual number of wounded has fallen?



Truth indeed is the first casualty of this war, and part of this is the distortion of the casualty figures. But the truth always surfaces sooner or later. To cover the truth you need to generate heaps of lies, so the spin-doctoring machine churns out: Iraq’s mythical WMDs, 45 minute threat from Iraq, Niger connection, plagiarised dodgy dossier, denial of torture, suppression of war crimes against cities like Fallujah, executions of wounded old men in Mosques, setting up of US sanctioned death squads to remove opponents and of course the disgusting and delinquent US favourite porno-torture.



Recently one of the most disgusting stories [1] that have surfaced is that around 50,000 US army personnel were exchanging pictures of dead Iraqis, in order to gain access to a porn site on the internet. Some of those pictures included pictures of genitals of dead corpses, obviously to cater for the sick perverts that are into things like snuff sex and other bizarre sexual practices that most of is could not even imagine. The soldiers reported that the site help to keep their morale up, which speaks volumes about the morality of the soldiers of democracy and freedom. No wonder they want to shove democracy, liberalism and freedom down our throats or up the rear end if you are in Abu-Ghraib! So, become a devout Muslim earn the label of a 'terrorists’ but become a sodomite earn the liberal credentials!



Lies about war strategy could be understood, part of which is to conceal your casualty figures in order to keep your moral high and not to give the enemy any encouragement; but the American and the British populations deserve to be told the truth about the reasons behind this war, why Iraq? Is it oil? Is it a war for Israel given that pro-Zionist neo-cons were largely pushing for the war? Is it to deny the US competitors like China, Russia and India a cheap supply of oil?



May be it is a combination of all those facts. But it was certainly not about Iraq threatening the mighty US, with its mythical WMDs. Despite what Blair and Bush says about their reliance upon military intelligence, the whole world including so many internet pundits without the military 'intelligence’ knew that Iraq was exhausted after the criminal sanctions imposed since 1991, the UN inspectors to which Scott Ritter and now Hans Blix will testify that all the WMD capacity was liquidated after the 1991 Gulf war. Perhaps Bush was 'informed’ by God assuming he was also sober at the time and Blair may well have made his confession by now as a devout Catholic!



Nor was the war about liberation? If the US were liberators this would be obvious by now; the US soldiers would be walking the streets unarmed, with the fellow Iraqis, living amongst them, like they did in the UK during the Second World War and in other parts of Europe after expelling the Germans. Women in liberated Europe were showering the US soldiers with flowers and not bullets. The recent pictures of the Iraqi Shi’ites pelting British soldiers were another very stark image of this reality of the occupier, not the liberator. Now consider the latest report [2] shows death rate for the US soldiers has accelerated, proving that resistance is becoming more popular, more effective, and the occupiers are seen as the source of instability.



Of course we see those who have never fought in the battlefield and avoided all the war drafts, talk of sacrifices. Where are the sons and daughters of the members of the Senate, Congress and Parliament? Why are they not on the frontline making the same sacrifices that ordinary citizens are making? Those who talk about sacrifices they have made the least and they will profit the most. Blair whose face reminds me of the devil incarnate, as his face deteriorates everyday drenched in the blood of the innocents in Iraq, has secured a lucrative position with the Carlyle group, a background sponsor of the war. This is something I predicted early on, I do not need to elaborate on Bush and his cronies, as they were already known to have links and interests with the companies that profit from war; they profit from the blood of the innocents. Yet they are the ones trying to tell the world how benevolent they are. Consider the following verse from the Quran:





"And when it is said unto them: Do not make mischief in the earth, they say, we are only peacemakers" (Al-Koran 2:11)



Now count the number of times they scream "peace" whilst dropping bombs on you.




Yamin Zakaria


London, UKhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ZAK20051028&articleId=1157

[Edited on October 31, 2005 at 12:25 AM. Reason : .]

10/31/2005 12:22:05 AM

SUMMARY

10/31/2005 7:18:00 AM

2026

10/31/2005 1:04:13 PM