Scraps Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Hostages rescued Pritchard told reporters he believed the hostages survived their ordeal because of their "commitment to peace and justice." Reflecting his group's opposition to the Iraq war, he suggested that the U.S.-led invasion and occupation was "the root case" of the abduction of the four men.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Next time try the words "Thank You" No sh--, Scraps.
KD in CA Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 I am appalled that we risked the lives of soldiers for these ungrateful scumbags.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 The only thing missing that would make this completely surreal is someone complaining about their "abduction" by US forces...
SilverNRed Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 The only thing missing that would make this completely surreal is someone complaining about their "abduction" by US forces... 640201[/snapback] Charlie Sheen hasn't had time to chime in yet.
OnTheRocks Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 is there anything in the article about how Tom Fox was a super hyper gung ho Pro-War advocate? no? i didn't think so.
Scraps Posted March 23, 2006 Author Posted March 23, 2006 Charlie Sheen hasn't had time to chime in yet. 640210[/snapback] Charlie won't blame it on the invasion of Iraq. He'll tie it into the secret CIA plot that brought down the twin towers with radio controlled cargo planes that shoot missiles into building just before the planes crash into the buildings themselves.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Charlie won't blame it on the invasion of Iraq. He'll tie it into the secret CIA plot that brought down the twin towers with radio controlled cargo planes that shoot missiles into building just before the planes crash into the buildings themselves. 640221[/snapback] Charlie's got more insight than the rest of us, though...his dad runs a fictitious White House on TV. Does anyone ever get the sense that the only thing keeping Charlie from being a member of the Church of Scientology is that they won't have him?
blzrul Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Hostages rescued 639913[/snapback] Technically speaking that's not incorrrect - no invasion, no reason for them to be there, and no abduction. It was certainly a most ungracious and ungrateful statement though. Sheesh.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Technically speaking that's not incorrrect - no invasion, no reason for them to be there, and no abduction. It was certainly a most ungracious and ungrateful statement though. Sheesh. 640407[/snapback] I thought you were going to sneak out to "see me". Liar.
SilverNRed Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Technically speaking that's not incorrrect - no invasion, no reason for them to be there, and no abduction. 640407[/snapback] Riiiiight. Because they had to be there after the invasion. I'm pretty sure this is the same group that showed up in Iraq before the invasion to serve as human shields for Saddam. But it's not like they're crazy or anything.
Scraps Posted March 23, 2006 Author Posted March 23, 2006 Technically speaking that's not incorrrect - no invasion, no reason for them to be there, and no abduction. It was certainly a most ungracious and ungrateful statement though. Sheesh. 640407[/snapback] So if I develop a cocaine addiction can I blame Christopher Columbus? After all, if he hadn't discovered the New World, we wouldn't have all those coca plants being grown in South America or a vibrant drug smuggling industry.
The Merovingian Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 It is not our job to make them happy. Our brave men and women in the military simply do what they know is right. It was right to free these ungrateful pigs, and I am sure that we would do it again. Afterall, their freedom to say stupid things and be ungrateful in the face of brave sacrifice is secured by the very people who delivered it.
X. Benedict Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 It is not our job to make them happy. Our brave men and women in the military simply do what they know is right. 640646[/snapback] Don't they do what they are told?
JimBob2232 Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 If we could have 10,000 of these peace clowns taken hostage in Iraq, think of how many insurgents that would tie up guarding them.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 If we could have 10,000 of these peace clowns taken hostage in Iraq, think of how many insurgents that would tie up guarding them. 640794[/snapback] That's the best occupation plan I've heard in a while, actually... Which is pretty damned sad...
Johnny Coli Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 That's the best occupation plan I've heard in a while, actually... Which is pretty damned sad... 640920[/snapback] Easy there, Monkey. It's a "liberation," not an "occupation." Freedom is on the march!
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Easy there, Monkey. It's a "liberation," not an "occupation." Freedom is on the march! 641004[/snapback] It can be both. We occupied them to liberate them.
Recommended Posts