toldailytopic: Libya's Muammar el-Qaddafi is dead, discuss.

Nick M

Plymouth Colonist
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It's a shame that he's dead - he was, after all, just a man, and the death of a person is never something to be happy about

Right in line with the rest of the wicked and unsaved...

Psalm 58:10

10 The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance; He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked,
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Can I have my portion of my money back? 80 billion for one man, killing him in my name....A tad bit ridiculous
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Was a lot cheaper than the last dictator we removed...

The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War project, which said the total for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2-4 trillion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

US casualties in the Iraq War?
4479.

To get rid of Khaddafy?
$80 billion.

No U.S. casualties.

A definite improvement.
 

some other dude

New member
Oh no brum - lots of brown people died in this little escapade. The last count I saw, weeks ago, was over fifty thousand.

The left tend to ignore that while heaping praise on Bammy.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Oh no brum - lots of brown people died in this little escapade. The last count I saw, weeks ago, was over fifty thousand.

The left tend to ignore that while heaping praise on Bammy.

50 thousand brown people?..........Really. We were at war with 50 thousand brown people?
 

some other dude

New member
Was a lot cheaper than the last dictator we removed...

The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War project, which said the total for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2-4 trillion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

US casualties in the Iraq War?
4479.

To get rid of Khaddafy?
$80 billion.

No U.S. casualties.

A definite improvement.



Of course, the dishonest barbie conveniently forgets to mention that those US casualties in the Iraq war were mostly incurred after his buddy Saddam was removed from power.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Of course, the dishonest barbie conveniently forgets to mention that those US casualties in the Iraq war were mostly incurred after his buddy Saddam was removed from power.

True, which is why "mission accomplished," wasn't accomplished. We just hadddddd to stay.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
50 thousand brown people?..........Really. We were at war with 50 thousand brown people?

Actually, we were on their side. And fewer people died because we kept the Libyan Air Force grounded.

Yeah, we did lose most of the thousands of troops in Iraq after we beat the Iraqi Army. First it was because we wanted to stay until we found Saddam. And after we caught him, they came up with other things to keep us there and run up the bill and body count.

That's another reason it worked better this time.
 

some other dude

New member
Actually, we were on their side. And fewer people died because we kept the Libyan Air Force grounded.

Impossible to know, isn't it?

Yeah, we did lose most of the thousands of troops in Iraq after we beat the Iraqi Army.

Actually, Saddam left office 4/9/2003, at which time the invasion of Iraq had incurred 117 US military deaths.

First it was because we wanted to stay until we found Saddam.

:chuckle: I suspect there were other compelling reasons too, but you go right on thinking what you want no matter how silly it makes you look.

And after we caught him, they came up with other things to keep us there and run up the bill and body count.

:chuckle: Right - like that.

That's another reason it worked better this time.

Because only brown people have died? Careful barbie, your racism is showing.
 

MrRadish

New member

For the same reason that crime is repulsive: it causes a person to suffer. I'm not saying that people should never be punished, but punishment should only ever be administered (reluctantly) because of the need for a deterrent, not because someone who's inflicted suffering 'ought' to suffer themselves.

If you're actually taking joy in somebody suffering and being killed then your attitude's worse than quite a lot of murderers'. At least a lot of murderers feel remorse about what they've done.

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu said:

Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.
Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.
 

lightbringer

TOL Subscriber
Impossible to know, isn't it?
Actually, Saddam left office 4/9/2003, at which time the invasion of Iraq had incurred 117 US military deaths.
:chuckle: I suspect there were other compelling reasons too, but you go right on thinking what you want no matter how silly it makes you look.
:chuckle: Right - like that.
Because only brown people have died? Careful barbie, your racism is showing.

If being happy that mostly Iraqis died in that battle is racism, I must be a racist!
 

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for October 20th, 2011 09:34 AM


toldailytopic: Libya's Muammar el-Qaddafi is dead, discuss.


Dead?! I didn't even know he was sick!
Poor guy, who was he?
Who are all of you for that matter :AMR:
 
Top