Re: U.S. soldiers kill 46 Iraqi fighters...

Being tired of lurking, on Wed, 03 Dec 2003 07:56:03 +0000, Dennis M.
Hammes posted:

> "Dr. Flonkenstein" wrote:
>> 
>> Being tired of lurking, on Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:55:58 -0800, Jethro's Giant
>> Brain posted:
>> 
>> > Peter J Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >> On 1 Dec 2003 16:07:16 -0800, Jethro's Giant Brain wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > only 5 U.S. soldiers were wounded, and none were killed.
>> >>
>> >> It's all right, chucknozzle. As a defender of free speech, I support
>> >> your right to gloat over indiscriminate killing of civilians.
>> >
>> > They weren't civilians, you fucking dumbass.
>> They weren't Klignons, you fucking peabrain.
> 
> Since there hasn't been an Iraqi military since May, every Iraqi
> casualy since May has been "civilian" by definition.
>   In fact, all "military" activity in Iraq since May is categorised
> "G5," i.e., police work that I don't see any of you volunteering to
> become deputies for.  Thus, the Iraqi police are UN Coalition and on
> federal payrolls, i.e., called "military" by the media.
>   Over here, even the Columbian cocaine boys don't use RPGs on the
> sheriff.
>   Besides, we've had 12 or 40 years to learn that the Arabic word
> for "civilian" is "bulletproof vest."

HaHAhahAH   LOLLLL!

-- 
mhm 27x12
smeeter #28
Usenet Valhalla Circle #19 & #21
CEO Alcatroll Labs Inc.