1. Hello,


    New users on the forum won't be able to send PM untill certain criteria are met (you need to have at least 6 posts in any sub forum).

    One more important message - Do not answer to people pretending to be from xnxx team or a member of the staff. If the email is not from forum@xnxx.com or the message on the forum is not from StanleyOG it's not an admin or member of the staff. Please be carefull who you give your information to.


    Best regards,

    StanleyOG.

    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hello,


    You can now get verified on forum.

    The way it's gonna work is that you can send me a PM with a verification picture. The picture has to contain you and forum name on piece of paper or on your body and your username or my username instead of the website name, if you prefer that.

    I need to be able to recognize you in that picture. You need to have some pictures of your self in your gallery so I can compare that picture.

    Please note that verification is completely optional and it won't give you any extra features or access. You will have a check mark (as I have now, if you want to look) and verification will only mean that you are who you say you are.

    You may not use a fake pictures for verification. If you try to verify your account with a fake picture or someone else picture, or just spam me with fake pictures, you will get Banned!

    The pictures that you will send me for verification won't be public


    Best regards,

    StanleyOG.

    Dismiss Notice
  1. tenguy

    tenguy Reasoned voice of XNXX

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    56,085
    You have no basis for your last statement, the roles have often been reversed and the US did not whine about the lack of an apology.

    My point is really quite simple, collateral damage and casualties are not rare in modern warfare, the more sorties the higher the risk. The US has assumed (and your country has accepted this) a much larger role in NATO with air support. Therefore it is quite logical that the US is much more likely to inflict such collateral damage.

    No one wants to see non combatant or allied casualties from the ordinance delivered by US forces. However, I am reading a implication that we do not care about these casualties, IMO you are way off base.
     
    #41
  2. Tom_from_northumberland

    Tom_from_northumberland OLD NOT BUT OBSOLETE

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,920

    agreed but this view point is selective when the collateral damage is caused by others in country that nth US has ties to then it is not acceptable

    and i refer of course to the be in my bonnet northern Ireland

    republicans have bombed the police how about we sent a missile in to the republic to kill some dissident republicans

    you think the US would accept that

    no

    double atandards from the US
     
    #42
  3. Arvin

    Arvin Porn Star

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,374
    You soldiers or whatever your positions were in the army simply don't see (or what?) the big problem of this technical perception of war...

    I guess it's easier to cope with the actual reality of it... The actuality are dead people - TV reports by the embedded journalists follow the same style and all is turned into one big virtual game for all - cold statistics, vague terminology, satellite pictures, showing actual dead bodies is almost considered a journalistic crime - talking about collateral damage and other "blah, blah, blah", downplaying of responsibility for actions and decisions - much more is allowed than in ordinary society - obviously noone is even remotely considering persecuting someone for the bad judgement and error he did in combat... but killed, raped and othewise mutilated people are not so virtual...

    With such technical perception of war, no wonder even ordinary people, not just systematically "brainwashed" army personnel has the impression that there is nothing to apologize for if you kill someone (by "error")... Shame for human race!
     
    #43
  4. tenguy

    tenguy Reasoned voice of XNXX

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    56,085
    Sorry I don't get the connection here. What does a terrorist act in Northern Ireland have to do with the US apologizing to the Pakistanis about an errant missle strike?
     
    #44
  5. RandyKnight

    RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    26,534
    U S had it's fingers crossed behind their back when apologizes
     
    #45
  6. ItalianStallionDanny

    ItalianStallionDanny Porno Junky

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    437
    --Some day in the near future or rescent past--
    (this is a scenario)

    "The Hussien Regime of Iraq has rescently launched a plethera of SCUD missiles at the nieghboring countries of kuwait and U.S. and U.N. military bases and made impact, death toll is expected to number in the hundreds of thousands and counting as the specialized hazmat teams are scrambled to quarantine the infected people and areas of impact. This happened earliear this morning and the death toll expected to rise and continues to, will reach to the millions. This is assumed to be joint-effort of Al-qaueda and other extremists agencies."

    White House Press secretary Robert Gibbs, reporting from the white house.



    This is the kind of threat we would be facing had we not came into Iraq, production plans and rescources were being mobilized to create such weapons. While proven no WMDs were found, however accounts of plans. equipment. and facilities to do so were most cirtainly there and in the making, and most definately were in Hussiens agenda. He even admitted it at one court trial, and even more of his subordinates.

    Heh, people would be calling Bush a fool if this would of happened because he didn't do anything, but again now we call him a fool because he did something.... However we take such things forgranted and yet the world still turns... So all is well.

    Sic condita velico acclaims quod factum in politicala universitas es a geminus - ora mucro. -- Cicero, of the Triumverate.


    Just use this for reference all of you, consider it at least.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 8, 2010
    #46
  7. Heyesey

    Heyesey Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    8,362
    So your argument is ... we should have invaded Iraq because they were bad guys who wanted to kill people.

    And yet you don't think the USA are bad guys for killing people? Does your dictionary not include the word "hypocrite?" Damn right they should apologise, and well done to them for doing so. I wish our spineless mob could remember the difference between being the good guys and being the bad guys.
     
    #47
  8. Tom_from_northumberland

    Tom_from_northumberland OLD NOT BUT OBSOLETE

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,920

    double standards T good old US of A double standards

    if the UK had done the same to Ireland against Irish terrorists
    and the collateral damage was Irish citizens

    the media government and people of the USA would be almost unanimous in their condemnation of UK military action

    i
     
    #48
  9. Baddog_WOOF

    Baddog_WOOF Porn Star

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    10,077
    Good thing the English didn't use Australians for cannon fodder and hang them out to dry!
    Oh, sorry...the English did do that.
    Carry on :)
     
    #49
  10. Baddog_WOOF

    Baddog_WOOF Porn Star

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    10,077
    Yes, there was no real justification for the invasion of Iraq.
    Yes, Bush probably did it because Saddam did put out a hit on his father.

    Are the USA bad guys?
    Well, sometimes we are.

    Americans are violent people.

    Shit, it isn't as if I am giving away any secrets.
     
    #50
  11. Baddog_WOOF

    Baddog_WOOF Porn Star

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    10,077
    Yes, my heart goes out to the families of the Pakistani scouts who were killed by the American military, just the same as it does when the American military mistakenly killed Canadian and British soldiers in Afghanistan.

    Bad shit happens during a war.
    In every war, there are cases of "friendly fire" killing the wrong people.
    There is no comfort in that fact, but it is a fact of war.
     
    #51
  12. Tom_from_northumberland

    Tom_from_northumberland OLD NOT BUT OBSOLETE

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,920

    spot on B:)

    but you forgot

    Canada
    NZ
    India
    Pakistan
    Bangladesh
    South Africa
    the Caribbean colonies

    etc, etc, and seriously

    we should be very great full to them all

    but times move on

    all i ask from the us is honesty and consistency

    do what you think is right but be honest about it and consistent

    if is acceptable for US forces to mess up kill Pakistani civilians then it is acceptable for UK forces to mess up and kill Irish civilians

    there for there is no need for the UK to apologise for "bloody Sunday"
     
    #52
  13. Tom_from_northumberland

    Tom_from_northumberland OLD NOT BUT OBSOLETE

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,920

    totally with you

    and unless it was a deliberate act there should be no charges brought

    but we should all apologise for are mistakes and accept an apology which is genuinely given
     
    #53
  14. Arvin

    Arvin Porn Star

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,374
    I am trying to stay away from this thread, but just can't... I don't get it why if you make an error in "peace" - like unintentionally running over a drunk stumbling in front of your car or failing to pay attention and crashing into another car or miscalculating the stability of a crane and dropping a few tons of brick on a person or you fool around with your new hunting rifle and shoot your neighbour unintentionally - you are charged with at least some offence and you have to pay for your error with some prison time or in some other way, but if you make an error in war and kill some innocent civilians - noone is charged with manslaughter or something, becuase it was "just an unintentional mistake" - how can that be?

    Sorry, I don't know wartime legislature, but from what I read from you here - is it really like - for unintentional killing "mistakes" noone pays? :confused:
     
    #54
  15. tenguy

    tenguy Reasoned voice of XNXX

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    56,085
    Tom, it seems as though you are a believer in selective recollection.

    When it suits your purpose you can cite chapter and verse, when it doesn't you simply ignore the truth.
     
    #55
  16. smcaaphd

    smcaaphd zOMGorgeous

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    31,576
    :eek:

    Have ewe dropped anchor, Tenguy?
     
    #56
  17. Prurient Purveyer

    Prurient Purveyer Porn Star

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,793
    I just selected your post cause it was the shortest honey- and the cuteist.

    I can well understand the resentment many Americans must feel at the issuing of an apology in these circmstances. It has been pointed out that errors happen in war and civilians and our own or our allies' troops are killed by "friendly fire" so shouldn't this just be included in that category.

    The answer is no; this was the US firing on Pakistani Soil and killing Pakistani soldiers. That for a start deserves an apology. But there's more to it than that; its clear there is resentment that the US is there at all, maybe its Pakistani nationalism, maybe the US troops are seen as Christians lording it over the Muslim locals. Whatever.

    But if the US is to get a result other than "achieved nothing" from the hundreds of lives and billions spent then priority one is to get onside with the locals and that includes both Pakistan and Afghanistan and an apology is a good start.
     
    #57
  18. Tom_from_northumberland

    Tom_from_northumberland OLD NOT BUT OBSOLETE

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,920

    i take on board what you say here but all the pressure of war on front line troops will always produce unintentional errors but gross negligence is a different matter and i agree with you then there should be charges

    as long as they go all the way back up the tree
     
    #58
  19. Tom_from_northumberland

    Tom_from_northumberland OLD NOT BUT OBSOLETE

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,920
    what Truth:confused:

    i am not to sure what you mien TG i know the double standards of my own government

    most US citizens cannot see any in their in their actions or in their government

    what Truth am i ignoring please explain:confused:
     
    #59
  20. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    No, Danny they often get an official military/government cover up.

    But aren't you in the military? Or weren't you just recently?

    If so and if your intelligence is representative of your military its no wonder we end up killing so many innocent people on all sides. You're probably too dumb to tell the difference and too full of your own bullshit to care.
     
    #60