Anonymous
Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2006 11:06AM
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
jgoins
Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2006 11:06AM
More beast words that means nothing.
fossil_digger
Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2006 12:12PM
is it me? or are these things getting longer and longer?
triton
Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2006 01:02PM
PLEASE ADVISE THE DATE OF U.S. SIGNATURE TO GENEVA CONVENTION
madmex2000
Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2006 03:05PM
Stop your Warmongoring>
Anonymous
Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2006 03:30PM
Here we go again:
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
madmex2000
Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2006 04:38PM
To All Anonymous post: Get a name or fuck off.
zxz555
Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2006 04:40PM
What is so wrong with Nazism?
They only persecuted Jews and the disabled. If the rest of Europe hadn´t complained we would all be happy now. It would all be forgotten because the Jews would all be dead so no more whining from them. Spastics would be killed at birth. No more bitching there either.
Isn´t it time America apologised to Germany and Japan for picking the wrong side of the argument?
Anonymous
Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2006 06:14PM
madmex2000 = adcbeast
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
HellBent
Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2006 07:05PM
Triton:
"What are the Geneva Conventions?
The Geneva Conventions provide an agreed-upon framework of legal protections to safeguard soldiers, civilians, and prisoners during wartime. The original Geneva Convention, drafted in 1864, dealt with the treatment of wounded troops. Shortly after the Second World War, it was expanded to include military personnel shipwrecked at sea, as well as prisoners of war and civilians under enemy control. The Conventions have been ratified by nearly every country in the world—194 states in total—including the United States. "
(From the Council on Foreign Relations)
From the International Red Cross:
[
www.icrc.org]
State Parties: United States of America
Signature: 12.08.1949
Ratification: 02.08.1955
HellBent
Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2006 07:07PM
Torture is the tool of the truly weak.
zxz555
Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2006 07:24PM
It turns me on every time you say that.
ignisdijnn
Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2006 07:27PM
Hahaha
"Boehner"
jgoins
Report This Comment
Date: September 30, 2006 12:09PM
How many wars have we fought in which the enemy followed the Geneva Convention? None. So what good does it do? Again none. Does anyone think terrorists agree with the Geneva Convention, if you do then I feel sorry for you because you are mentally retarded.
zxz555
Report This Comment
Date: September 30, 2006 12:21PM
but then again, freedom fighters, resitence, no wait, terrorists is the word I´m looking for, aren´t signatories to the Geneva Convention. They follow the Genoa convention.
aDCBeast
Report This Comment
Date: September 30, 2006 05:12PM
jgoins .. chickenlittle
You obvously have not taken a course in american history beyond high school.
Tell US soldiers that were tortured to speaks lies about the United States would strongly disagree with your immature stance on torture.
Plus, lowering yourself to do something that doesn't get information that is useful is a plain waste of fucking time.
TORTURE DOES NOT ILLICIT THE TRUTH. this is proven in numerous studies by the DIA, CIA, and other security agencies. Many CIA, DIA, NSA morons want to retest these results rather accept the truth.
That is why they moved to more sophisticated methods like "truth telling" drugs. But these clearly violate any torture laws.
The US has not been in a war since WWII. Every thing else was a police action or an occupation.
aDCBeast
Report This Comment
Date: September 30, 2006 05:15PM
zxz555
Hitler wanted to conquer the world. that meant everyone not just jews.
aDCBeast
Report This Comment
Date: September 30, 2006 05:15PM
Anonymous@119234
You are a moron.
Anonymous
Report This Comment
Date: October 01, 2006 10:46AM
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
You FAG!
SAME OLD BEAST BULLSHIT
zxz555
Report This Comment
Date: October 01, 2006 11:10AM
No, no ,no. Hitler was nice. Just misunderstood. He never wanted to kill everyone like I do, just the blacks, Jews, cripples, nearsighted, etc. But that would have made everyone left =the same= and the utopian dream would have been achieved. You have to break some eggs to make an omlette, I´m sure Hitler said that often.
jgoins
Report This Comment
Date: October 01, 2006 11:16AM
Prior to WWII many people in the world thought Hitler only wanted to rule a couple of minor countries in Europe so they didn't care. If you think these Islamists only want to destroy Israel then you are as short sighted as those people prior to WWII who thought Hitler was not a threat to the world. Beast, thank God you don't have a brain because you are dangerous.
aDCBeast
Report This Comment
Date: October 02, 2006 01:56AM
jgoins .. chickelittle
now you are a flat out liar. No one was allowing Hitler to "rule a couple of minor countries".
That is 100% bullshit.
It is impossible to be dangerous without a brain.
jgoins your moron status is proved yet again.
aDCBeast
Report This Comment
Date: October 02, 2006 02:04AM
jgoins .. chicklittle
Following your logic, I guess the world should have the dismissed the US claims of isolationism for the last century and seen them for the imperialist aggressors they have been.
jgoins
Report This Comment
Date: October 02, 2006 12:10PM
Well beast it seems you actually agree with any of the action taken against Hitler after he moved into Poland. Then why not the same for those of Islam who are bent on destroying Israel? If it was right to try and stop Hitler when he left his borders then why wouldn't it be right to protect Israel from destruction and genocide? Once these people destroy Israel do you really think they will not go any farther? Where do you draw the line?
aDCBeast
Report This Comment
Date: October 06, 2006 02:39AM
jgoins
I see that you have swallowed the conservative rhetoric in full. "genocide" Give me a fucking break. Where are your genocide remarks about the US military killing Iraqis then ? People who the US was supposed to be freeing from a "powerful" oppressor (LOL!).
Anyone who supports international law supports the dissolution of the state of Israel.
the creation of the state of Israel violated international law regardless if the majority of the UN voted for it.
Since western nations (the US) won't act in accordance with international law, muslim nations have to resort to military means regain their land.
You are a moron.
These muslims that wish to REGAIN their land did not go in serach of Israel. Israel was land stolen from them. HUGE FUCKING DIFFERENCE.
The pre-emptive theory falls apart since muslim nations have not attacked a country that was outside of their lands.
Hitler ventured all over the globe raping the world of its resources. The NAZI violations were clear and any comparison of the two situations is crazy. These comparisons are made by racists who think they should control people they don't understand.
Anonymous
Report This Comment
Date: October 07, 2006 08:19AM
New World Order....
[
video.google.com]
