Metal Reviews

Don't be a fucking retard.

btw.. check out their homepage!.. you might think it's fake, but no! it is in fact the homepage of Westboro Baptist Church. Great fun and lot's of funny articles. Owned by the womans father, who's even more retarded:

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

or direct

http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html


here's some of the fun articles, at least their titles:

"We Dare You To Read This: "God Loves Everyone" - The Greatest Lie Ever Told " 94 pages long

"Typical fag-ass American soldiers" - funny retarded article 1 page. About 3 soldiers who are facing court due to appearence in gay porn movie for money ( since when did porn movies get illigal - i don't get it) article from newspaper with this additional comment.



and my favourite ( which is link to a homepage) ... .tadaaa... " God hates Sweden"



and the lovely baptist also commented on Swedens Royal family

I'd like to see an epic battle between the Phelps family and Anal Cunt. The team that offends the most people wins.

The terrorists we are fighting right now in Iraq are a threat to our safety. They were a threat before we even went in there. You don't think that if they thought they could do it, they wouldn't massacre America? We are facing an enemy with exactly that kind of mentality right now. We had been facing terrorist attacks not necessarily from THEM specifically, but from similar people throughout the middle east. It's a matter of getting them before they fucking get us (9/11).

Vietnam, anyone? Korea wasn't all that popular either. So no, you are wrong actually. I somehow sence that no matter what foreign policy America chooses, they are going to be criticized for either not doing anything or actually doing something. I don't recall Europe complaining when we came there to save their war torn asses. The soldiers aren't fucking fighting to save "Bush's face"! I have not met one soldier or any person period who says "God damn I love Bush and his policies so much, I want to kill people and risk my own painful death to make sure people love him just as much!" Bullshit. They are fighting right now because they don't have a fucking choice. Pulling out is not an option and both sides typically agree with that. It doesn't really make him look good for helping another country anyways. Throughout history, America has tended to support a more isolationist policy and many many other presidents were criticized for engaging in foreign wars. Only a few were actually praised for helping the oppressed. Also, and this might be shocking, but we aren't really profiting for this war.

Yes, a FEW have done some bad things, but the enemy has done far worse. Most of them deserve the torture and humiliation for their crimes anyway. You'd better believe that if we wanted to, we could do FAR more damage. If anything we are extremelly tame and moral (especially considering our numbers).

They are just as much heroes for having the courage to go down there, whether for Iraq or America.


You're an idiot. I'd suggest informing yourself before making baseless comments. Not only that, but it's hypocritical. It's the same thing as saying "I hope all Jews get blown up" or "I hope all Muslims get blown up". All are based on foolish steorotypes. Oh shit, I forgot, it's not politically correct to wish death upon a race, but any other group of people you don't agree with is alright.


Most tend to scream a lot before they die. Supposedly, theres a lot of pain involved with getting shot.

Jesus Christ, I least Anal Cunt aren't really serious...

AJ, the reason there are terrorists in Iraq is because we invaded. As much as Saddam hated us, he couldn't have really done anything.

If we were going to flatten somewhere, we should have flattened Afghanistan more thoroughly and found Osama, brought him back, given him a trial, and then executed him. That would have been sane. Attacking Iraq did nothing good besides getting rid of Saddam and that's been mitigated by the ridiculous number of innocent Iraqi civilians that have died thanks to the invasion.

What Dead Machine said. In addition, there has been piles upon piles of proof that Bush essentially fabricated the entire WMDs excuse. The top US intelligence source in Iraq has flat out said that he reported that Iraq did not have an active WMD manufacturing program. Bush, of course, proceeded to suppress that little tidbit. Former neocons have said that Bush wasn't shaping policy to fit the intelligence he was receiving, he was looking for (and manufacturing) intelligence that would fit the policy he wanted. Iraq was very little threat to us when we invaded, and we invaded in the stupidest way possible. Jesus Christ, I was a senior in high school when we went into Iraq, and by the time I graduate from college, we'll still be there.

And yes, this is about Bush's ego. He wanted to win his daddy's war. The man is a bungling idiot who I was convinced would kill me (September 12, 2001 just outside D.C. was an unbelievably frightening day) by his gross ineptitude. You can't compare Iraq to Vietnam; no one was invading them. Hell, we are the invaders.

You say they deserve torture? Anyone who would seriously wish torture on civilians or even soldiers is a barbarian and hardly better than a mewling rodent who eats its own young. You use the words "the enemy." You're no better than a terrorist when you reduce an entire country to a faceless "enemy" - that's how fanatics are born. Grow a sense of human empathy before you try to formulate opinions on what people "deserve." Yes, Saddam was a despot and committed many, many crimes, for which he deserves to be tried and punished - most likely by execution. It's like a rabid dog - you don't vivisect the dog to punish it for the pain and destruction it causes, you destroy it quickly so it can't cause any more pain and destruction.

Back to the issue of our troops. I'm not saying the troops are all idiots who deserve what they get (I know a few very nice, very intelligent individuals who have been over there), and neither am I saying that they're all freedom fighters who deserve our unconditional love; there are mostly likely quite a lot of idiots there.

The country had terrorism before we went in, although they hadn't attacked us yet. Sadam wouldn't do anything stupid personally, however indirectly he was a pretty large threat through financing, arms dealing, and weapons research. By doing nothing, that threat could have very easily grown.

Oh, I certainly agree with you for the most part on that one. I'm just defending the soldiers at the moment. Actually, if we do manage to establish a working democracy in Iraq, it would help immensely when dealing with any future problems with the middle east. Honestly, despite civilian cassualties, they are much better off without Sadam and the insurgents anyways. I saw a really interesting show (either on Discovery or National Geographic channel... can't remember) on Sadam's regime and he was one evil mother fucker. Plus, have you seen how excited they have been about being able to vote? Higher fucking voter turnout than our own country and we don't have to travel 10 miles on foot with bombs going off around us! If anything, they are killing themselves these days, which brings up a whole other arguement...

Now, that's obviously incorrect. Terrorists were there prior to the war, no doubt. And if you think Saddam had no ability to harm the US that's just silly. Sure, no WMDs were found when we invaded, but that's likely because they remain hidden or were moved prior to us invading.

Anyone with half a brain could put two and two together and realize when we were right next door in Afghanistan that we'd eventually move into Iraq. Of course, Bush is a tool and jumped the fucking gun hardcore. We should not have left Afghanistan so quickly, but politics are more important, I guess. Regardless, we would have gone to Iraq eventually either way.

If we attacked everyone who 'might conceivably' be a threat in coming years, we'd be engaged in seven to nine wars right now.



Sure, he was evil. However, more Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the occupation than he ever killed. Or it's at least getting close.

Are you kidding? :shock:

Given the rate of deaths, it should surpass the number he killed within his 30-year reign pretty quickly. The killer file says he killed roughly 260,000 Iraqis. About 90,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the occupation in three years.

Given the amount of time we'll need to stabilize, we could easily surpass that number.

A great deal of intelligence didn't even come from our own sources, by the way. If you do a little research, there was some pretty convincing evidence supporting his conclusion. His fault is for jumping the gun WAY too son.

*shakes head* I'm not going to spend hours and hours defending Bush against some gross over exageration that has been coming his way for a while because I'm sure you are only going to be saying things I've heard already and I don't feel like hearing again. My opinion is that he certainly isn't that great of a president but he also isn't that bad either. More of a "meh" president. There have been many worse and our country isn't really worse off having him as president as some would have you believe. My point about Vietnam was not to compare Iraq to it, but to counter Astaroth's point that no matter what war we are in, our soldiers are praised.

I don't believe civilians deserve torture, but those soldiers who believe in commiting atrocious acts upon mankind (hostages, hiding behind children, pretending they are death, roadside bombs, suicide bombings, etc definately deserve to be tortured. Being so nice and easy to those who do not deserve it and who would not benefit from our treating them that way is pointless and achieves nothing while in the end making it easier for the same god damn evil things to keep happening. You give up any human rights you have by violating another's, in my opinion. I never said Iraq itself was "the enemy". I was referencing the insurgents (you know? the once commiting the aforementioned acts). Oh boy, if you start talking about how they are right in fighting us because they are only "defending their country from the evil invader"... Oh yea, that was also a false analogy. The dog species doesn't learn to stop massacring innocent people and attacking American soldiers by showing them what happens if you do it. You also can't gather useful information crucial to protecting ourselves and others from dogs. It's quite obvious many of these people don't give a fuck about simply dying. If you want to save lives, you must show them what is worse than dying. I know it sounds terrible, but the world is fucking terrible and doing nothing hurts us in the end a lot more than doing something controversial.


Very very few if any at all deserve what they get. I also believe that they at least deserve our respect. If you don't agree with a war, the soldiers in a war are not the ones who deserve your ire. That was a huge problem after Vietnam.

Terrorists were there prior to the war. Such a quote demands a source.

No WMD's were found because none existed. Bush admitted it.



It was a bad idea. We ended up with a destabilized region of death and hatred and we're failing to keep it steady at all.

Actually, you are right in a sense. The chance of survival is lower than it was during Sadam's regime. HOWEVER, this is due mostly to the actions of the insurgents and not the U.S. military. Also you must consider that Sadam would have without a doubt continued to kill and allow murder, but once the Iraq becomes more stabilized, this won't happen. The Iraqis are much more at fault for their own deaths at the moment then we are. They are practically fighting a civil war when they should be fixing their country. Oh well, its their choice. Self-determination is always hard at first.

Actually, some leading intelligence officials still think there might be weapons there. Recently they uncovered some powerful military aircraft buried in the sand. It isn't unreasonable that there could be WMDs buried as well.

Clinton should have finished it. With better planning and more support, it might not have been such a bad idea anyways.

Nice job of making the people of Iraq sound like petulant five-year-olds.

And did it ever occur to you that maybe some of the Iraqis, y'know, don't want us there? Because they want to decide the fate of their own country, free from the interferance of a country that has a long and illustrious history of installing leaders it thinks will be best for its own interests? Like, oh, I don't know, the Taliban, for example?

They are acting very very irresponsibly in a time when it is most dangerous to be that.

We gave them the OPTION to decide the fate of their own country in the first place because they didn't have it before! Sadam's regime was widely hated, but they couldn't do anything about it, but because of our "interference" now, they can and it is very much appreciated. We've given them the gift of self determination and now they are abusing it at our expense. The only thing we are telling them to do is HURRY THE FUCK UP.

So, American suicide bombers and missiles are have killed 90,000 people?

I agree it was a bad idea, and I agree that no WMDs were found, obviously, but I don't believe they were not there. And I could be wrong, but I do remember reading much that corroborates this. I just have no doubt that Saddam moved everything in time, like I said, any halfwit could predict what US politics were going to force our troops into.

Bush admitting to their being none is a Captain Obvious damage control move.