- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 20,915
- Reaction score
- 546
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
U.S. Military Denies New Abuse Allegations at Ishaqi
Officials Conclude Troops Followed Rules of Engagement
By JONATHAN KARL
June 2, 2006 — Horrific images of Iraqi adults and children have fueled new allegations that U.S. troops killed civilians in the Iraqi town of Ishaqi. But ABC News has learned that military officials have completed their investigation and concluded that U.S. forces followed the rules of engagement.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2032795&page=1
Trajan Octavian Titus said:And I hope that all of you judgement rushing pieces of **** burn in hell:
hipsterdufus said:Well, all 5 people that were talking about alleged at abuse at Ishaqi are here.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/324484-post1.html
Harditha is the issue of the day. You weren't trying to mislead anyone by the title of this thread were you? :roll:
ShamMol said:I don't think he realized the difference.
You people? Purlease, have some respect for someone who hasn't even participated in that horrible thread.Trajan Octavian Titus said:Oh no you're right, I've only been on the Haditha thread for like a week now telling you people to chill until the facts are in.
Moderator's Warning: |
Guidelines & Rules - Please read *before* posting here. 2. The title of every post must be identical to the title of the news story headline. This is important as it helps to avoid multiple topics about an issue, while starting discussions out on a more neutral basis. Thread title changed |
This is unecessary and uncalled for.Trajan Octavian Titus said:And I hope that all of you judgement rushing pieces of **** burn in hell:
Simon W. Moon said:This is unecessary and uncalled for.
Who exactly do you think you're addressing?
First you say it's not addressed to anyone in particular then you say they know who they are.Trajan Octavian Titus said:No one imparticular, that's why it's not a personnel attack which is acceptable as per forum rules, (they know who they are).
LiberalNation said:First you say it's not addressed to anyone in particular then you say they know who they are.
My question, how is it not specifically a slam on particular people if they know who they are.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:No one imparticular, that's why it's not a personnel attack which is acceptable as per forum rules, (they know who they are).
It is no longer a blanket statement when you say, you know who you are. You are personally attacking everyone who falls under the, you know who you are part of your attack. You meant it as an attack on people personally whether you named names or not trying to get around the rules for personal attacks.Trajan Octavian Titus said:Tell me how a blanket statement is a personal attack?
Moderator's Warning: |
This thread is getting no where very quickly. If anyone would like, please feel free to restart the thread minus the gratuitous abuse which is so apt to derail civil debate and discussion. |
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?