Created 20 years ago2004-05-04 07:03:38 UTC by hazardous!
The original picture was a polaroid blahblahOh, that must be so hard to fake.
Don't be so easy on it. People die in wars, it's a hostile environment, it just happens. No, I don't like it either, but what can you do?:
...your an idiot. Soon as I saw that paranoid post I remembered this TV show I saw about the top 10 conspiracies. There were people saying the government targeted microwave mind control weapons on them that made them hear voices in their head. Do you hear them now? Whispers? Its impossible to make them out, but they are there. Remember, did we really make all these great inventions, or did the aliens give them to us? Colour TV is way beyond us.'Crazy', 'Paranoid', and 'Insane' are words used throughout history to describe people and ideas that are simply different. And different does not mean wrong. So many condemned and ridiculed ideas in the past have later become conventional wisdom. - First they ridicule you; then they condemn you; then they say they knew you were right all along.
jahzel stop quating those idiots who have no life.These idiots to whom you claim 'have no life', have no life simply because you strongly, and ignorantly, feel that anyone who infuriates your glamorous perception of reality must therefore be subject to ridicule. As for your Photoshop boasts, I'm sure you could produce some image, but in my opinion, the image is much too ?original? for the mind of a hoaxer. In other words, it is unlikely that a hoaxer could create an image as spontaneous as this without there being noticeable mistakes. You CAN tell a Photoshop faked image from something like this. I suggest you visit the site to see the full picture. As it was on Polaroid film, a hoaxer could not make a 3D statue that is clearly self-luminescent. You say this is not sufficient evidence, but all I say is there is also no sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. Let's leave it at that shall we...
and indeed. if i adjust my camera right i can create the same effect wiht some photshoping
He could have shot into the air, he could have used non lethal weapons, something like that.He did. But Iraqi's aren't afraid of that. They shoot in the air for every reason (or no reason at all).
War mustn't be an excuse for anything.To some extend. You want to put war into rules, but you'll see it's impossible. No side will totally obey these rules. It would be nice if they did, but it's not gonna happen. That's reality. It's unfair sometimes, yes.
There are strict rules and laws which explicitly define whether a murder happened in self-defense or not.How can you oversee events in the heat of battle? That's difficult. Sure, when one murders trough brutality, I'd say punish him. But if it was self-defence or accident? The question here is: how do you know exactly what and why it happened? The rules are clear. The situation is not.
This sounds like "Do what I order, or you will die!".More like: "don't steal, or face the consequences" to me.
If a marine kills people without an urgent reason, he must be punished and banned from the military. That is the only just thing.I agree with that one.
The question here is: how do you know exactly what and why it happened? The rules are clear. The situation is not.For those situations there is an general rule, dunno know it in latin, that says that if your guilt can't be proven, you won't be convicted.
More like: "don't steal, or face the consequences" to me.But the consequences must be equivalent to the deed. The people didn't do what the marines ordered, and died. That is not equal at all.