Rustles My Jammies. . I fabricated evidence used I exposed war crimes to murder 1. 5 million people and crimes against for profit in Iraq and I humanity in Iraq
x
Click to expand

Rustles My Jammies

I fabricated evidence used I exposed war crimes
to murder 1. 5 million people and crimes against
for profit in Iraq and I humanity in Iraq and I am
am still free in prison for treason
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1094
Views: 56636
Favorited: 93
Submitted: 03/04/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to davidavidson submit to reddit

Comments(408):

[ 408 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#145 - Covenantkilla (03/05/2013) [-]
I GO TO FUNNYJUNK FOR MY POLITICAL OPINION
#387 to #145 - John Cena (03/05/2013) [-]
You're comment and picture made me fall out of my chair. Good show sir.
#333 - critique (03/05/2013) [-]
What's on the menu today, Funnyjunk? Politics?   
Oh... I was hoping for funny...
What's on the menu today, Funnyjunk? Politics?
Oh... I was hoping for funny...
#143 - cupotruth (03/05/2013) [-]
Your politics are wrong but I don't give a 			****		.   
   
Everybody's politics are wrong when you're on the internet.   
   
Dance thread.
Your politics are wrong but I don't give a **** .

Everybody's politics are wrong when you're on the internet.

Dance thread.
#391 to #143 - thunderkrux (03/05/2013) [-]
aww yeah 			***********		 dance thread
aww yeah *********** dance thread
#223 to #143 - buthow (03/05/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#95 - John Cena (03/05/2013) [-]
Illuminati.
User avatar #103 to #95 - davidavidson (03/05/2013) [-]
That goat symbol. You know ur **** m8
#96 to #95 - John Cena (03/05/2013) [-]
Wear were u when illuminati 9/11?
I was in house
mom say 9/11
People is illuminati kill
no
User avatar #113 - jrondeau **User deleted account** (03/05/2013) [-]
While I may not be for the war in Iraq, ignorant faggotry like this is why we're such a polarized country right now. Look at the facts before you post **** like this OP.
User avatar #32 - pappathethird (03/04/2013) [-]
There should be a channel for posts like this called "I-don't-know-anything-about-politics-or-law-in-general-but-i-like-to-complain-c hannel"
User avatar #58 to #32 - jewsburninindaoven (03/04/2013) [-]
How about the i-like-to-complain-about-people-complaining-about-politics channel?
User avatar #102 to #32 - davidavidson (03/05/2013) [-]
Make one and send it to me. Because there seems lots of butt sores generated from my posts. Yet people still thumb it up.

MAGIC
#36 to #32 - invadingaliens (03/04/2013) [-]
The 'I-want-to-complain-but-i-dont-know-about-what-so-ill-just-do-what-everyone-does -channel'
User avatar #40 to #32 - helltard (03/04/2013) [-]
or the i-dont-like-anything-that-doesnt-agree-with-my-political-views-so-i-wanna-compla in-channel

thats all anyone is doing
#205 - allamericandude (03/05/2013) [-]
..so I'll join in.   
   
I don't support the war in Iraq (I support the troops, of course), but I don't believe the "war-for-profit" conspiracies. They're a bit like Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy--the more you think about them, the less they make sense.   
   
Even if someone did want to make a profit off the war, it's a really inefficient way to do it. Considering all of the resources, time, and effort that would be needed to get your conspirator friends promoted through the political system, elected into positions of power, convince the government that they need to go to war, spending billions of dollars to send boat loads of troops and equipment overseas.....   
   
There are WAY easier ways to make a profit in this world. The conspirators would have a higher chance of making a profit with less effort and time just by starting a business or investment firm or something. Heck, considering this happened in the early 2000s, they could have just invested in Apple.   
   
No, I think we went to war for a much simpler reason and more plausible reason:  Bush and the rest of the US Government fell into the same old trap of wanting to be the world police. Bush did it, Clinton did it, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson*, etc, etc...and now Obama's doing it. The US is the world's last superpower, and that status gives us this sense that we need to take a stand on every issue in every country on the planet. Occam's Razor.   
   
*Forgive me if that's out of order.
..so I'll join in.

I don't support the war in Iraq (I support the troops, of course), but I don't believe the "war-for-profit" conspiracies. They're a bit like Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy--the more you think about them, the less they make sense.

Even if someone did want to make a profit off the war, it's a really inefficient way to do it. Considering all of the resources, time, and effort that would be needed to get your conspirator friends promoted through the political system, elected into positions of power, convince the government that they need to go to war, spending billions of dollars to send boat loads of troops and equipment overseas.....

There are WAY easier ways to make a profit in this world. The conspirators would have a higher chance of making a profit with less effort and time just by starting a business or investment firm or something. Heck, considering this happened in the early 2000s, they could have just invested in Apple.

No, I think we went to war for a much simpler reason and more plausible reason: Bush and the rest of the US Government fell into the same old trap of wanting to be the world police. Bush did it, Clinton did it, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson*, etc, etc...and now Obama's doing it. The US is the world's last superpower, and that status gives us this sense that we need to take a stand on every issue in every country on the planet. Occam's Razor.

*Forgive me if that's out of order.
User avatar #213 to #205 - sonicg (03/05/2013) [-]
Ask anybody that has been deployed overseas, they'll tell you the truth. They aren't 'fighting for oil', they're trying to help kill a virus we know as terrorism.
User avatar #220 to #213 - allamericandude (03/05/2013) [-]
Well, I agree it's not for oil. We get more oil from Angola than we do from Iraq, and after the war most of the oil field contracts went to China and India.

On the other hand, Iraq wasn't entirely about terrorism either. That's what Afghanistan was about. There was some Al Qaeda presence in Iraq, but that was only really after we had invaded. Turns out Al Qaeda really likes killing Americans, so they went over to help out. And insurgent terrorism in Iraq (ie, terrorist attacks by Iraqis against the troops) was also a response to our invasion.
User avatar #222 to #220 - sonicg (03/05/2013) [-]
Exactly, a virus. The Taliban an al Qaeda are simply a virus to humanity. hence why I totally agree with your previous statement.
#230 to #213 - drevv (03/05/2013) [-]
The invasion of Iraq was because we believed they had WMDs, not over terrorism (You're confusing Afghanistan). I'll just copy and paste what I wrote on another comment that says Iraq was not for economic reasons. I believe the profit they are referring to is preventing Saddam Hussein reverting from the selling of oil in gold, instead of the US Dollar.
"The US pretty much has a monopoly on the World Currency because the US Dollar is accepted world wide. Saddam Hussein reverting to the selling of oil in gold would hurt the US Dollar and could potential cause it to collapse at an even faster rate. Overall, I didn't hate Bush, but his reasons for going to war with Iraq were not over WMDs."
#316 - bigrog (03/05/2013) [-]
As someone who actually has stock in oil, no ******* money was made in iraq.
0
#334 to #316 - pinkipieisbestpony **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#336 to #316 - scarasm (03/05/2013) [-]
Money was made by Haliburton and other companies of the like
#338 to #316 - swagbot ONLINE (03/05/2013) [-]
but the Pertodollar still reigns supreme (for now).

So at least the U.S. economy didn't crash :)
#340 to #338 - bigrog (03/05/2013) [-]
Yes it did, around that time we went into one of our worst succession ever. Though that had nothing to do with the war, the economy goes in cycle
#345 to #340 - swagbot ONLINE (03/05/2013) [-]
Curious - as an investor, do you agree with all the Alternative Media that we're in for a MASSIVE depression shortly?
#351 to #345 - bigrog (03/05/2013) [-]
I think it is a possibility, though we've been in successions before without going into depressions, and if we do, we've survived them before. Either are economy is going to revive again soon or we will go into a depression. One or the other
User avatar #65 - ShadeElement (03/04/2013) [-]
I'm so hip.
I'm gonna be extra edgy and use the words like "murder" instead of "internationally sanctioned war" because its so edgy.
I'm gonna be all "Yeah! **** the man!" and side with a traitor.

Mostly because I'm an idiot. I don't realize that, love 'em or hate 'em, everything cool I enjoy in my life I owe to "the man", America, or both.
I'm also a naive idealist who doesn't understand that war is ugly, and ugly **** happens. And that the moment you swear that oath to your country, you no longer enjoy some of the freedoms you protect...like freedom of speech. Because people are counting on you what you say CAN and WILL get your fellow soldiers killed.
If that traitor were really concerned about war crimes, there are plenty of LEGAL, more effective avenues he could have pursued that didn't involve betraying his country, duty, honor, and uniform.

Also, Bush wasn't the smartest president to ever sit in the oval office. Ok, he was an idiot. But 2 things-
He didn't invade Iraq for profit. Seriously, what profit? Don't know if you've been paying attention to the news lately, but we sure as hell could use some of that profit you're talking about right now.
Secondly, Being president involves making critical decisions that decide the fate of not only millions, possibly billions of lives, but the fate of the world in general. Often under pressure and with limited information and time. I'd like to see you do better.

Otherwise, carry on being an idiot. Its your right and privilege. Given to you and protected by "the man" your hip idiot ass is fighting against, and purchased with the blood of soldiers the traitor on the right betrayed.
#225 to #65 - drevv (03/05/2013) [-]
I believe the profit they are referring to is preventing Saddam Hussein reverting from the selling of oil in gold, instead of the US Dollar. The US pretty much has a monopoly on the World Currency because the US Dollar is accepted world wide. Saddam Hussein reverting to the selling of oil in gold would hurt the US Dollar and could potential cause it to collapse at an even faster rate. Overall, I didn't hate Bush, but his reasons for going to war with Iraq were not over WMDs.
User avatar #241 to #225 - ShadeElement (03/05/2013) [-]
Its already been established that Bush had plans to invade Iraq long before any "evidence" of WMD's or aiding terror was established.

That's where your facts pretty much end though.
The US does not, nor has it ever had any sort of "global currency monopoly".
The dollar is fading and has been for a while.
Saddam would not have been the first, nor the last to wage market warfare in an attempt to destabilize the dollar and cripple the US economy. (Little did he know we'd do him the favor if he'd hung in there a few more years.)
As the world's leading consumer, any attempt to purposely and maliciously devalue our currency would have been met with almost universal resistance from all nations, not just our allies in the west.
#248 to #241 - drevv (03/05/2013) [-]
The US dollar is traded worldwide and is accepted worldwide. To suggest we don't hold power over other nations because of this is absurd. Did I ever mention Bush's reasoning for going to war was over WMDs or terrorism?
User avatar #257 to #248 - ShadeElement (03/05/2013) [-]
The dollar is accepted worldwide =/= monopoly.
It simply means we are trusted world wide to honor the value of our bills.
This in no way effects exchange rate or the value of the US dollar.

Just because a Japanese citizen can take a dollar from a US tourist and spend it in the UK, doesn't change the fact that the English pound is still worth almost twice as much as our dollar.

*And I'm pretty sure you did mention WMDs, when you summarized your over all statement in your last sentence.
#267 to #257 - drevv (03/05/2013) [-]
I mentioned it as being the reason we didn't invade Iraq, not why we did.

I'm not going to argue why the US Dollar being accepted as the only currency oil is sold in is a good thing, because it's just that blantly obvious. Look up the Petrodollar Warfare.
User avatar #271 to #267 - ShadeElement (03/05/2013) [-]
The dollar was never the ONLY currency oil was traded in.
It was the PRIMARY currency oil was traded in.

key word WAS.

The Chinese Yuan has no bypassed the dollar as the primary oil currency.
#275 to #271 - drevv (03/05/2013) [-]
"Since the agreements of 1971 and 1973, OPEC oil is exclusively quoted in US dollars. This created a permanent demand for dollars on the international exchange markets. As of 2005, OPEC continues to trade in US Dollars, but some OPEC members (such as Iran and Venezuela) have been pushing for a switch to the euro.
Since the beginning of 2003, Iran has required euro in payment of exports toward Asia and Europe. The government opened an Iranian Oil Bourse on the free trade zone on the island of Kish, for the express purpose of trading oil priced in other currencies, including euros."
User avatar #278 to #273 - ShadeElement (03/05/2013) [-]
Try reading the book written by William Clark. The guy who invented the term "pretrodollar warfare" as part of an economic hypothesis.

Stop using Wikis for facts.
#301 to #278 - drevv (03/05/2013) [-]
Goodnight.
#281 to #278 - drevv (03/05/2013) [-]
Wikis are a source of information that use sources from multiple other ones. This isn't ******* school where "wikipedia" is unreliable. Please.

I'll repost this.

"Since the agreements of 1971 and 1973, OPEC oil is EXCLUSIVELY quoted in US dollars. This created a PERMANENT DEMAND for dollars on the international exchange markets. As of 2005, OPEC continues to trade in US Dollars, but some OPEC members (such as Iran and Venezuela) have been pushing for a switch to the euro.
Since the beginning of 2003, Iran has required euro in payment of exports toward Asia and Europe. The government opened an Iranian Oil Bourse on the free trade zone on the island of Kish, for the express purpose of trading oil priced in other currencies, including euros."
#106 to #65 - John Cena (03/05/2013) [-]
>implying the war in Iraq wasn't completely ******* illegal
>implying the soldier didn't try those legal avenues already and get told to **** right off.
>implying being a soldier in the military has any honour when you're drone striking the **** out of children
>implying that revealing NOW that horrific crimes against humanity were going on in iraq is in anyway going to endanger soldiers stationed in iraq.
User avatar #114 to #106 - ShadeElement (03/05/2013) [-]
>It was completely ******* legal. Its morality is up for debate, its legality is not.

>There are multiple avenues, and redundancies for reporting violations and misconduct through out all military branches. Its built that way on purpose to counter any " ******* off" a soldier might receive.

> We aren't drone striking the **** out of anything, much less children. Less than 1% of all active drones are armed. Very few of those arms are every used. Also, before you condemn drone strikes, go spit on the graves of the thousands of Allied bomber pilots who carpet bombed millions of elderly, children, and women. Many of them died doing it. We no longer send thousands of young men on suicide missions to bomb mass civilian casualties. We use unmanned aircraft with precision guided missiles. Do we make mistakes? Of course. But ask a 1943 German citizen which they would have preferred.

>He didn't restrict his leaks to the retired or inactive. We also don't know the full extent of what he leaked due to (completely necessary) damage control by military intelligence. I'd simply like to remind you that classified information is classified for a reason. Maybe it would be a bad idea to let our enemies know the details of how we operate, or the exact limitations of our current military capabilities. Maybe we don't want terrorists knowing the names of who we have (or had) deployed when and where. I could write multiple paragraphs on this, but something tells me it would be lost on you.
User avatar #302 to #114 - wishingwell (03/05/2013) [-]
-"From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal." - Kofi Annan, 2004. But ofc it's not officially illegal, when both the US and UK sits in the UN security counsel, which decides the legality of a war, and have fricken VETO.

- And do the avenues work? you could ask the thousands upon thousands of military women, who've been raped by theyr comrades.

- It may be 1% of drones are armed, but in pakistan the civillian casulties have still been between 18,8% and 25,7%, and out of them 10% was children (the lowest procentage of civillian casulties i could find was around 15%), in over 350 attack, since 2004. And in 2010 the succes rate was (with failing missiles, missing targets, outofcontrol drones and all) around 2% - The only source stated posetively (+50%) at the time, was an 'institue' which claimed that all pakistanis was 'thrilled' about the attacks. Which is a lot better than 43' standards, but we live in 2013, and those standards are wildely outtated. (We could use the tribal wars in Papua New Guinea from 1870 or the Vietnam standards, but we don't, for the same reason we don't watch childmolestation as A-OK as the roman/greek empire)

- I thinks he's brave to stand for what he believes in, against friends (and properly family), knowing he will be loathed. And who says the names of the reg. soldiers weren't changes for the press (like they would in European countries), but only incriminate the higher-ups?

- I thought that one of the worst part of terrorists, are the fact that you don't know who they are, - that they hide in the outskirts or in plane sight, yet you don't want your soldiers to stand forth against possible corruption, in one of the most exspencive wars to date, since it could incriminate some military men (who took a job, well knowing what could happen [don't get me wrong, I hope for Gods sake that nothing happens, and that the soldiers can keep on living a long and hopefully peacefull, and fruitfull lives
#405 to #302 - ShadeElement (03/05/2013) [-]
For the record, I do not support any of our "wars" on terrorism. I especially didn't support the invasion of Iraq.

However my views are based entirely on what is a strategically wise course of action and the well being of my country.

Sometimes that means I take a more liberal stance. Some times a more conservative.

I don't give in to propaganda from either side.
You see the US military as a violent arm of a corrupt government.
I see it as a military. Not good. Not bad. Not perfect. Just a military.

You see America trading blood for oil and waging war for profit.
I see America continuing to be raped on the price of oil because we won't drill our own reserves, and going bankrupt trying to be the world police.

There is no greater conspiracy, and although there is some good and some evil in the world, it is almost never as black and white as either side would have you believe.

America isn't all good, but its far from the oil hungry gluttonous war pig the anti-U.S propaganda would have you believe.
Our military isn't perfect. Personally I think its problem is that it tries to hard to be perfect. You can't keep your hands clean while doing dirty work, and war is a filthy business.
Our problem is this generation doesn't know enough about history to be thankful for how things are now.
We've done such a good job at minimizing the abuses and horrors of war, that the media is starved for them. When they finally find something, they over inflate and exaggerate it as some grizzly spectacle.
Do you honestly think ANYONE would have cared if a German SS was water boarded?
War and politics are ugly. Ugly but necessary.
Stop looking at the world with idealistic eyes, and stop believing propaganda and media spin.


User avatar #411 to #405 - wishingwell (03/05/2013) [-]
Now you're putting words in my mouth - I said that some parts are corrupt. NOT all. (like with cops, politicians, bankers, brokers and so fourth).

and who's fault is it, that the oilprices are high to begin with? (GM-moters turned down the electric car since they had a deal with an oil-company in the 70'ies, which have held back battery technology for about 3 decades - which in my point of view is some sort of moral corruption). and remember that it's the whole world who's being raped by oil prices - not just america.
And i'm not saying that military is full on evil or good - I know they make mistakes! - the danish military wanted to show moral support to the iraqi war and sent a bloddy submarine.
And i know that there is almost no white/black scenarios in the real world, but we still have to strive to be the morally responsible.

And no ofc not! - everyone hate nazis, it's as simple as that. they're right up there with zombies, aliens and homocidal-maniacs/terroists.

- and yes. war have been a nessesary evil thourhgout history (for the technology to take quantum leaps), but now with the internet, free online education (like from MIT), it's not nessesary as it was before. - it's well known that education breeds non-violent behavior/lesser racism/more openmindness and a greater drive for the survival of the human race.
- in my mind, if there should be wars, then they should be fought online, to keep the internet uncensored in countries where censorship it relevant, so people can educate them selves. (-fx my mother is born and raised muslim and when my big bro told her, he was gay, she almost disowened him, until she read up on homosexuality online, and began to understand how normal it is - now they watch brokeback mountainish movies together).

and fyi I read both the danish leftwing news, aswell as rightwing and scientific news (from different sources), trying to get the whole picture.
User avatar #100 to #65 - davidavidson (03/05/2013) [-]
I'm just gunna carry on then m8
0
#289 to #65 - recio **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #402 to #289 - ShadeElement (03/05/2013) [-]
Because, at the time, Iraq was just an annoyance, and Iran was a major pain in our ass.
If two bullies at school start fighting, no one stops to help either of them.
0
#408 to #402 - recio **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #409 to #408 - ShadeElement (03/05/2013) [-]
You are over simplifying a complicated series of events.
Everything in the middle east is complicated, and keeps getting more complicated.
There's hate between the middle east and the US, with good reasons on both sides.

Personally, and this is only my personal opinion, I long for the day that the world breaks its dependance on fossil fuels. Not for any particular environmental reason, but because we could then leave the middle east to descend back to the dusty back water they were before WWII suddenly made their oil fields relevant.

Not that there isn't anything redeemable about the middle east. It is the cradle of human civilization after all. But in modern times its frankly been more of a pain in the ass than its worth.
#365 to #65 - probablynaked (03/05/2013) [-]
This man felt obligated to inform the people of his country of the impractical war practices that his government was implementing in Iraq. If whistleblowers weren't hunted like animals maybe they wouldn't be forced to shotgun their information so far into the public that it could be reached by enemies who could use it against us, but that's not the case is it? I for one am glad to know that our government had covered up over 30,000 civilian casualties (mostly women and children btw), which were caused by poorly analyzed intelligence and shoddily coordinated air strikes that our government has since apologized for "the inability to discern the presence of civilians and avoid and/or minimize accompanying collateral damage resulted in the unintended consequence of civilian casualties" but that's ok because they said sorry right?
In no way do I sanction the ignorant slant of information that OP brought to this website. But to sit here and tolerate your condemning Manning's acts as traitorous is just beyond my ability right now. I would love to spit on you if I had the chance but I'm a better man than that.
#309 to #65 - smarkles (03/05/2013) [-]
I think I love you.
User avatar #89 to #65 - theuglypanda (03/04/2013) [-]
I love you.
User avatar #86 to #65 - multimedia (03/04/2013) [-]
THANK YOU! For ****** sake, I hate when people bash the war, saying it was all for money.
Ha, no, in case you (retards like OP) didn't notice, that war cost us billions of dollars a month and burned all of the oil you claim we went in there for.
#83 to #65 - paintplayer (03/04/2013) [-]
This dude ******* gets it
#125 to #65 - John Cena (03/05/2013) [-]
You have to look at the people in charge and question them. This is the purpose of democracy, so that everyone's opinion is heard and considered, he isn't an "idiot". Also, I don't see how you can say that America didn't invade Iraq for profit. They claimed to go in there to find some W.M.D.s and disarm Iraq, but came back empty handed, aside from blood and oil of course. Of course, everyone had to think there was W.M.Ds right? How are they supposed to know that there was no threat? Well, only 4 out of the 15 members of the U.N. security counsel announced that they supported the disarment of Iraq so..... The issue with Iraq is that it also costed alot, making it less profitable then what the U.S. had hoped for. I mean you could say that it's hard to be president, but you can't ignore corruption.
User avatar #137 to #125 - ShadeElement (03/05/2013) [-]
Some of what you said is well thought out and based in truth. Other parts are complete nonsense. Namely the myth that America wages war for profit. Lets be honest, we arent that smart. We havent quite figured out how to make the Roman economic model of conquest work for us. Sadly, we go to war for sillier reasons, like fear, or a misguided sense of morality.
User avatar #199 to #65 - coolcalx (03/05/2013) [-]
more importantly, the President can't make these sort of decisions with out the approval of Congress.

you can't blame JUST the President.
#211 - John Cena (03/05/2013) [-]
davidavidson, you are King of the Faggots. All your content serves to only enrage the naive and misinformed, and the only reason you get thumbs is because the twelve year olds on this site know nothing of your "propaganda" or politics. You will block anyone who nay says you.

With that, suck a fat dick and take my red thumb.
#162 - I Am Monkey (03/05/2013) [-]
The fact that you use the figure 1.5 Million tells me your head is in the wrong place, your ass to be specific.
If you want to make an intelligent argument you would be best served not to multiply the actual statistics by 10 for dramatic effect or use the term "murder" for deaths that were accidental in almost all cases.

You people make it sound like the goal is to kill civilians. That is only the case for the Taliban. That's why they are responsible for the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths that you idiots then try to pin on us. They don't give a **** about their people. They'll blow up a market and kill 20 of their own to kill one american. Then we're apparently the bad guys for trying to remove these people from power.

Also, on what planet do you live on where a man who knowingly commits treason is not going to jail? You think he's like "Jail time? Are you ******** me?! All I did was steal top secret files and publish them! This is ******** !" He knew exactly what he was doing and what the consequences were.
0
#186 to #162 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #202 to #186 - I Am Monkey (03/05/2013) [-]
Well in Afghanistan it's the Taliban, in Iraq it's just "insurgents" associated with less well known groups. They both operate with the same complete disregard for their own people.

I assume OP meant both Iraq and Afghanistan considering he said 1.5 million deaths (even though the combined number still wouldn't be nearly that high)
+1
#204 to #202 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#249 to #204 - crickity (03/05/2013) [-]
*eye twitch*
#379 to #162 - John Cena (03/05/2013) [-]
You have some nice arguments here good sir, but taliban is afghan, in iraq you have the whole shia/sunni conflict going on. in iraq most civilian cassualties was indeed because of suicide bombings, but 40% of the civilian killings were actually done by coalition force bombings...


(sorry for bad english)
#341 - pulluspardus (03/05/2013) [-]
and I am batman.
#80 - xadakk (03/04/2013) [-]
Funnyjunk and politics is just as senseless as /b/...how about we just stick to Funny and enjoy the site rather than bring up **** like this...if i wanted the news i would go somewhere that isn't...you know...called funnyjunk
#185 - mkchillin (03/05/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
+17
#57 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
+15
#61 to #57 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
0
#293 to #61 - recio **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
0
#295 to #293 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
0
#401 to #295 - recio **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#81 - russlenavy (03/04/2013) [-]
People like you, OP, are the cancer of the world.   
Please, kill yourself.   
Thanks in advance.
People like you, OP, are the cancer of the world.
Please, kill yourself.
Thanks in advance.
User avatar #209 to #81 - WATCHAGUNADOBOUTIT (03/05/2013) [-]
All I feel is rage. I completely agree, bunch of ignorant people trying to sound intelligent to other ignorant people. What's that saying again where all the dumb people are leaders and the smart people are too shy to say anything?
User avatar #160 - slapchoppin (03/05/2013) [-]
you really think Bush is the one that fabricated the evidence?

more likely someone else fabricated the evidence and then gave it to Bush
#161 to #160 - anonmynous (03/05/2013) [-]
He would still be the one responsible as he was commander in chief at the time.
#229 to #161 - pallypal (03/05/2013) [-]
And thus the problem with Democracy. The representatives don't represent the people that vote for them, and the guy they put at the head has no power because they pretend the people don't want him to. He's a figurehead and nothing more.

Not anything better to go with though, so we'll have to suck it up and fix what we got.
#121 - bansai (03/05/2013) [-]
because, yeah, a government capable, and willing to kill thousands of people, and cover it up as a terror attack and then use said attack as a reason to fight several wars would be inept enough to let evidence leak about their plans. Good one op.
[ 408 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)