News from the Colonies - America's War in Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics' started by goofyfish, Apr 28, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Coldrake Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    808
    In the Mideast or in Seattle?

    My point was, those were not citizens; when they breached the security of the compound and were caught with a bag of weapons parts they were essentially combatants.

    So you expect civility in a war zone, but not a message forum?

    Interesting that you hold the US military to a higher standard than it's opponents, but you don't hold yourself to a higher standard than your opponents. You did say up above, "when among the rude, I conduct myself accordingly." Shouldn't I then just look at the US military's situation and say "When in Baghdad, tiassa, when in Baghdad."

    Maybe he did. Maybe that's why he surrounded himself with a small army and an arsenal to boot.

    Most military personnel are not mindless killers, contrary to the rumors. Most believe in what they do. And if officers believe the soldiers should be punished by the military, I have no problem with that. I said in an earlier post, that what the military considers crimes should be handled by the military.

    Thanks for the distinction.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Your point is taken, although I think hate is hate, and if they hated us before...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Method more important than result?

    In Seattle, and also down in Portland.
    And?
    That's thin.
    When we get around to killing each other for stupid reasons, the difference will become very apparent.
    Nope. My lowering of standards generally don't involve advocating recognized violations of human rights. My lowering of standards generally doesn't kill innocent people.
    Perhaps, but he was a Jerusalem Syndrome case. Megalomania probably had more to do with it.
    And yet there is still a hesitance among Americans to accept the international rules we've exploited to our benefit. Hi, we the US think these rules should be held against anyone but us ....
    Hatred comes from fear. Fear comes from ignorance. Bombs and bullets do little, if anything, to solve that situation. I think history pretty much proves that.

    (Dr. Jeffries, incidentally, is the man who successfully argued that a black man cannot be racist because he is oppressed. After praising the destruction of Challenger, he noted that the disaster slowed the progress of spreading white filth across the Universe. Fired from his job at CUNY for that and other race-related offenses, he sued for something like half a million dollars using the "black man, no racist" argument. He got his job back and a handsome award from a jury of New Yorkers ... go figure.)

    A final note: Is it the process or the result that is important to people? The US has failed in history in its prior state-building and state-manipulation efforts. We have agreements to certain rules of conduct while about that lark. And yet we continue to both fail in our state-building and state-manipulation, and we continue to abrogate our international agreements .... Why should our soldiers be exempt from the Geneva Conventions in the sense that we, the USA, who have a vested interest in a specific outcome, would rather provide "justice"? Think of all our corporate thieves and polluters. Perhaps we should let Condoleeza Rice decide what they have and haven't done wrong? An old Doonesbury (6.21.1988) expresses the point well. A jury of one's peers, perhaps, but come now ....

    Yes ... we are the empire. We shall tell the world what justice is, and they will either like it or not. After all, they're either with us or against us.

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Coldrake Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    808
    Interesting. There is a large Arab population on campus, but I've never heard them insult each other, or anyone else insult them using derogatory terms.

    Well, I think the distinction between civilian and combatant is obvious.

    Was it? It was actually just a question of curiosity, but you didn't answer it.

    I haven't killed anybody on the board to my knowledge, but you keep insisting on a higher standard for me.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    OK, so you consider your lower standards ok as long as you avoid advocating violations of human rights or killing innocent people. Fair enough.

    I'll take your word on that. I couldn't say one way or the other.

    I won't argue that.

    True, but still...if they hated us already...

    And OJ walked and granny won millions from McDonalds for sticking and open cup of coffee between her legs in jr's Corvette. Gotta love the court system.

    And you would think at some point the history lessons would sink in.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Is it really the same thing to you?

    Ummm ... never mind.
    Sorry, I'd forgotten the relevance of the United States having rescinded its adherence to the conventions regarding enemy combatants.
    Fair enough.

    Pacifists generally take a minor amount of heat for simply having any feelings whatsoever. People who point out an irritated or even hostile pacifist generally fail to make a certain distinction: my lack of civility does not bring harm. I'm not pointing guns at anyone in my lack of civility, I'm not stealing anyone's clothes and chasing them naked down the street, I'm not asking anyone to take off their beret before I shoot them in the back of the head.

    A lack of civility on a message board does not kill people, does it? How can I possibly humiliate you on a message board to a similar extent short of presenting pictures of you doing things that I'm going to take a wild guess that you don't. Sorry ... I don't want to invoke any examples that might upset you. But seriously, do you really think the comparative civilities are the same?
    All other of our present disputes aside, your reading comprehension is again in serious doubt.

    Like I said ... When we get around to killing each other for stupid reasons ....

    Hmm ... my lack of respect for your lack of respect for human dignity versus a general lack of respect for human dignity. My lack of respect for your lack of respect regarding a rhetorical position: do you really think that compares the the reality taking place?
    Words are words. People have to take it out on each other somehow, and if yelling until they're blue in the face, cussing until the words have no meaning, or generally yammering it out like fools, that's a foolish humanity I can appreciate. Words were intended to communicate. Bombs and bullets are intended to kill. There's a huge functional difference that honestly I didn't expect to have to explain to you or anyone else.
    Every little bit will help at this point, is the thing.
    And every little bit will help.
    Oh, yes. "The maggot and the grub" was just one of Jeffries' many ways of titting the white man's tat. Ever hear about the feminists that wanted to change the term to "femstruation" in order to get the prefix men- out of the word? Imagine an angry black man on a tear with the same concept. (In Jeffries' case, race almost doesn't matter; if you seek that much of an upheaval of conventional dialogue, you meet resistance.)
    In what context? Because that's sort of my point to.

    My take on it: We cannot continue to pretend any sense of nobility, cannot claim to raise lowly peoples, cannot claim to be anything other than just as greedy as the next guy, and that's a tragic reduction of the American potential.

    I have a fine line on 9/11. It is because I believe that we are a noble nation that I agree with my neighbors that we didn't deserve to be kicked in the sac like that. If I throw out that sad faith in my country, I have to admit that I don't know what everyone's so damned upset about. I want to be able to be honestly angry about people hurting my neighbors. But that means all of them, and not just my American neighbors.

    Think of it this way ... about twenty minutes ago, I had a conversation with one of my next-door neighbors that started off with, "I don't want to be rude, but ...." I did what I could to assuage his concerns, and then advised him that no, I would not consider his interjection rude. That last part, that I dared find him not rude pissed him off in some way that I cannot quite explain. But it kind of reminded me of politics. Maybe the next time he knocks on my door I can pre-emptively defend myself and then leave the body in the gutter for the trash collection. It's getting to be that way, lately. Of course, my neighbor complaining about I-think-I-know-but-am-not-entirely-sure-what is, in my humble opinion, something on a considerably different scale than, say, a war zone and occupied territory.

    But that's just me.

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Coldrake Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    808
    Don't clam up on my account. If you had something to say...

    We're back at square one. A neverending tautology.

    Well, I've got my own pictures that could humiliate me.

    No, but this begs an interesting question. Since you're saying that as long as people don't kill or humiliate each other on the board, then a lack of civility is ok. So what are we left with here? That me having an opinion contrary to yours is in no way to be tolerated, but a lack of civility is? I'm just trying to get the social rules of the board down pat.

    So as long as we don't kill each other for stupid reasons...gotcha.

    Who was it that said to me that if we ignore the little things?

    If we were face to face I suppose we could yell at each other until we were blue in the face.

    .

    I know. I was agreeing.

    Well, we've managed to fool ourselves for over a century that our foreign policy wasn't self-centered, althoug at one time we did manage to lift up 'lowly peoples' through our greed. Old Rudyard would be quite disappointed.

    Take up the White Man's burden--
    Have done with childish days--
    The lightly proferred laurel,
    The easy, ungrudged praise.
    Comes now, to search your manhood
    Through all the thankless years
    Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
    The judgment of your peers!
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    How many diagrams would you like?

    I'm having a Homer Simpson moment. "What, do I have to draw you a picture?" I can't figure if it's a lack of comprehension on your part or deliberate horsepucky. Either way, it's annoying. I thought to spare you the strafing invective.
    You'll have to explain the significance of this point in relevance to the argument.

    However:

    - As I scour the web I find no evidence that Ali Baba translates directly to "thief". Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but there are also a couple of points to consider.
    - In the story"Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves", Ali Baba is a woodcutter who steals from an army of robbers. Would we claim that the Iraqi thieves were stealing from other thieves? If yes, what aside from "might is right" licenses the "punishment" of the four Iraqi men?
    - Furthermore, I came across a PDF from Penguin Books, a set of Teacher's Notes for Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. You can view the Google html (link removed due to Sciforums' inability to display it) here; the PDF server was slow for me last night, about 2k a second. As the notes assert:
    - So it seems to me that we have American troops using a phrase made popular in the west by a possibly illegitimate (e.g. not actually Arabic) source ....
    - I would love to have been a fly on the wall at some of those meetings between US troops and Iraqi civilians, to know if they prescribed the phrase "Ali Baba", or merely told them in broken english to put "thief" and "unclean" on their chests, or how that actually came about.

    Because frankly, it ends up sounding the same to me as a mediocre-at-best rap song from the 1990s. "Man, why I always gotta be Baba? Why can't I be George or Eddie?"

    Seriously: In addition to being a violation of the Geneva Conventions, it seems to me that the use of the phrase "Ali Baba" was as racist as if I'd scrawled "Kunta Kinte" on a black man's chest and chased him down the street. And what's even funny is that, if memory serves me correctly, "Kunta Kinte" is still a bad choice of words because the more insulting name is ... "Toby", I think. The number of levels at which the incident breaks down into the morbidly hilarious stupidity of arrogant Americans is appreciable, but the Geneva Conventions just aren't a great source of comic relief for me.

    Give me an historical context which will exonerate the apparent racism, read some Hawthorne, and, well, you've asked that I not engage certain points of argument, so there are a couple of considerations I can't ask you to undertake ... convenient for you, indeed. Now then ... I'm going to go back to searching the web, but I'm only giving the "Ali Baba" issue the rest of today to research.

    In the end, the use of the phrase "Ali Baba" is tantamount to the citation I made somewhere around this site of Sir Mix-A-Lot's "One Time's Got No Case":
    Maybe we should parade Sergeant Covarrubias down the street with "Adolf" and "monster" scrawled on his chest. Oh, wait ... he's an American and entitled to due process.

    And that's essentially the problem. Quite frankly, I'm stunned that I have to spell it out for you.
    Well, you know, that's your own damn choice. Seriously ... after Guantanamo, it is merely stubborn sentiment that compels me to believe the United States gives a rat's ass about human dignity. Of course the stripping and humiliating of Iraqis was appropriate; we've already rejected the Geneva Conventions ... it was silly of me to forget Guantanamo. I was, in fact, trying to agree with you to a certain degree.

    Furthermore, your one-liner habit is getting stale. I'm sick and tired of looking up through three of your posts to see what a one-word reply means.
    The point being, and that you're ignoring, is that it would be hard for me to cause you the same distress and humiliation via this message board. And since you seem to want to compare an occupied territory to a message board, I think it fair to point out the limitations of that analogy.
    To a certain degree. People lose their tempers around here. We have clearance to say certain things to one another; it's just a matter of how you say it. I don't mind the yelling; rather, it's the amount of silly and pointless yelling that goes on around here, and, more specifically ... well, we'll get that point next:
    Read the stickies.

    In the meantime, you're perfectly welcome to have an opinion regardless of what it actually says. But when you voice that opinion in support of troops who violate the Geneva Conventions, well ... did you not expect anyone to respond?
    Well, if that's the best you can understand, sure.

    I'll try less syllables (sil-luh-buhlz) in the future.
    Well, is expression a crime?

    If one of us gets around to threatening the other, well ... that will be a relatively little thing that cannot be overlooked.
    Okay ... that ... answers the question ....

    Actually, it doesn't.

    In what context do you mean the following words, which you have written: And you would think at some point the history lessons would sink in.

    As a side note, is your poor communication intentional, accidental, or the result of not expecting to change any minds and therefore a form of apathy?

    Given that every side of this argument we could stand on and invent has a road that leads to the statement in question, I don't think a contextual clarification is much to ask. Your economy of words is officially detrimental to the efficacy of your expression.
    And I just don't see what makes trying even harder to lie to ourselves will do to help anything aside from one or another person's direct satisfaction in response to some ignorance- or hate-based context.

    Thieves stealing from thieves ... you gotta love Americans. It's what we choose, and I must admit that I'm puzzled by the neurosis that makes people pretend that crimes by Americans against internationals are somehow benevolent.

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 7, 2003
  10. Coldrake Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    808
    Actually, I wasn't arguing it. You said you had heard Arabs in this country call each other Ali Baba on more than a few occasions. I merely thought that was interesting, because I hadn't. But I noted that my personal contacts were on a college campus, so maybe you were among them in a different setting where there was more stealing going on among them or something other. But you're right; I should not have asked you to respond. If I'd know I was going to get a 1000 word essay and 4 links for my effort, I would have rethought it.

    So? You were the one that first made reference to it, not me. If you don't think Ali Baba represents 'thief' though, then what do you think those Arabs you personally heard call each other that in Seattle and Portland were trying to convey to each other? I'm curious of the setting, and why else they would be calling each other that.

    I thought it was 'Sambo', but I suppose it has about as much relevance in this post as kunta kinta or Toby, which is none.

    Lucky me, huh? Last thing I want is another dissertation that goes nowhere.

    Sure. Same as you probably expected a response to your response. But I do think it humorous you've made that one opinion a personal crusade. I'm actually curious to see how long we can make this thread with just the two of us posting in it.

    Is it? You're the one that is stuck on Ali Baba and are now trying to make it a racist incident.

    Pleez du. I gits so cornfuzed, mista tiassa.

    That should have been obvious in light of what you originally said. But anyway; in the post-WWII era the US' record at nation-building has been atrocious. Sooner...or later...the history... lessons...should sink...in.

    *yawn* tiassa's obligatory "I'm smarter than you" sequence that must be included in each of his posts.

    *Note to Coldrake: learn to read 'tiassa speak' or expect to be harangued repeatedly.

    What I find particularly funny about your consistent remarks about lack of communication skills is that in another thread you were quick to point out to someone who, like you, pointed out that someone else's inability to understand was a result of their failure to grasp what he was saying. You interjected that usually it was the result of speakers' inabilities to make themselves understood. So maybe, just maybe, the poor communication skills are yours.

    I clarified myself long ago in this thread. I'm just hanging around watching you vent at this point.

    Yes, apparently it is unless it's your expression. My expression/crime is why you're still going on about Ali Baba, the Geneva Convention, racism, and so on and so on.

    Now that's funny. It's not killing you, or humiliating you...
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Really? Where? It must be a lapse of mine. If you would be so kind as to point it out, I will happily retract it.
    All similar questions are on hold until I've figured out to what you're referring.
    Sambo, Rufus ... I think Mix got "Jerome" from a personal experience. Muhammed, Uncle Tom ....
    Or a question that you can't respond to honestly for a lack of integrity. Either way, you've asked for constraints on what we can talk about. It's convenient for you, then, if I choose to honor them and not ask you any questions that are too tough for you.
    A great tactic of the bloodthirsty: make a mockery out of any situation. You can't help but show that inner darkness, can you?
    I'm waiting for your citation so that I can figure out what I need to amend, or whether it truly is your reading comprehension.
    It's bad to hurt a man. It's bad to make a man naked. It's bad to chase a naked man. It's bad to chase a naked man just 'cuz he's not you.

    See Sam.
    Hear Sam say, "Good".
    Hear Sam say, "Nice".
    See Sam.
    See Sam grab man.
    See Sam call man "Ali Baba".
    See Sam steal man's clothes.
    See Sam write on man's chest.
    See Sam chase man down street.
    Sam is bad.
    See bad Sam.
    Bad Sam, bad!
    Well, see, what confuses me is that I then look at you, who advocates violations of the Geneva Conventions, and wonder when that lesson will sink into your skull. Yet you seem to understand it. Which brings me back to nationalism, since we've already discussed the "little things". Yet you say it's not nationalism.

    How about you give me, or anyone left reading this topic, a decent explanation of what it is, then, that compels you to advocate violations of the Geneva Convention. Poorly trained soldiers? Fundamentally corrupt people in our armed services?
    Your reading comprehension is already in doubt. Has it occurred to you that there is also a problem in the way you write? When the best you can manage on an issue is a one-liner each post for three or four posts, it seems that you're merely posting in order to be disrespectful.

    I'm still trying to consider issues of international agreements, ethics, and justice. You're still trying to argue against Tiassa.

    What is your problem?
    I'm well aware of that point. I'm having a hard time filling myself with enough shite between posts to keep writing in a language you understand. Eventually I'll figure out how to speak honestly to the fundamentally dishonest.

    But it's also why I consider those who advocate impropriety and violations of human dignity among that portion of humanity that shouldn't reproduce. They run a high risk of adding to the flock of idiots in society. But, like sex without a condom, you're not going to knock someone up or get HIV every time. It's just a consideration of risk versus responsibility. But given how far I have to stoop in order to come anywhere close to communicating with people such as yourself, for whom standards are utterly arbitrary ("That's not a war crime; that's not a violation of the Geneva Conventions; that's not so bad that we should worry about it"), well, what the hell do you expect? When in Rome also can be said to include failures to communicate. I'll lose even more credibility among the "Romans" if I fail to be incoherent at least some of the time. Remember, Sciforums is the website where people taught me that it's an insult to presume them intelligent.
    You remind me so much of other brilliant posters like Kalvin B; although you write better sentences in general than your predecessors.
    What's funny is that while we agree that I owe you no respect, it seems to me that you wish me to owe you great disrespect.

    At any rate, please demonstrate that the words I've cited in the above quotation are true. Do so, or else I'll be forced to be so uncivil as to demand an apology from you.
    Well, I'm not one of those that only worries about myself. I'm worried about the fact that people like you would continue to advocate the hurting of other people. And since the best you can do is mock ideas of human dignity, notions of international obligations, and stand on what still reeks of nationalism despite your apparent best efforts to explain, well?

    What did you expect? A blowjob?

    Look at you ... you'll hang around to mock anything as long as you don't have to tolerate the idea of Americans giving anybody else worldwide an ounce of proper dignity.

    What is your malfunction?

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Coldrake Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    808
    OK.


    Does that help clarify?

    o-tay

    Only constraint (singular) that I've asked for is to leave my daughter out of your posts. Nothing else. Don't flatter yourself that you can make it too tough for me.

    You've made a mockery out of the situation from your first post.

    Which citation? You've brought up Ali Baba too many times for me to make the effort to cite them all.

    Do you really think it is as simple as that last sentence or is that just your own personal spin on the situation? It may be bad to chase a naked man, but it is not always wrong if it gets a point across short of killing him. During the Filipino guerilla war Black Jack Pershing captured a number of Moro rebels. He had his troopers rub their bullets in freshly killed pig's blood and guts before executing the prisoners. He then had them buried wrapped in pig's intestines, and allowed a couple of rebels to witness the exectutions and burials. They were allowed to return to the Muslim rebels. Obviously this is a horrifying story and should never be condoned under any circumstances, and it is incidents like that the Geneva Conventions have sought to outlaw. However, it virtually stopped rebel activity among the Moros and saved future loss of life on both sides. In the case in Iraq there was an attempt to send a similar message, this time without the executions or the religious violations committed by Pershing. Of course there is always the chance it might backfire, but there is the possiblilty that because of the 'naked' incident no one will attempt to infiltrate that compound again. And if that was accomplished without loss of life, then great.

    Here we are again. I don't see it as a violation. But gain, if the US army sees it as a violation, then they will properly investigate it and prosecute.

    No, that had not occurred to me.

    I'll be the first to admit I don't like to write the lengthy responses you prefer, particularly when there appears to be nothing of value in them.

    You may be considering them, but you're not arguing them; at least not after your original point. All you've really done is attack my integrity, my reading comprehension, my writing skills, and my honesty, occassionally still mentioning my advocacy of violating the Conventions. I've told you my position on that, numerous times actually. So now it seems you are merely arguing against me, and I'm responding in kind. So yes, I guess I am simply arguing against you at this point. I mean really, you've brought nothing new to the argument in a while.

    Gee, I don't know, maybe my lack of integrity, my poor reading comprehension, my woeful writing skills, or my lack of honesty? I'm sure you'll tell me.

    He must be before my time.

    I don't see an "above citation" to know what you're talking about, but my reference to only an expression of mine apparently being a crime is quite simple: this entire thread has been because you considered my expression that I didn't see the 'naked ' incident as a violation of the Geneva Conventions a crime in your eyes. So the less than sublime message from Tiassa is "be careful what you say on here unless it is agreeable to me."

    Of course, if you were referring to something else when you mentionted the "above citation" you will have to clarify; I wouldn't want to leave that demand for an apology dangling like a chad.

    You'll have to reference me to the point where I advocated "the hurting of other people."

    Was somebody offering?

    And look at you. You make up character defamations as you go to suit your agenda.

    I'd rather hear it from you. You spin it so well.
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Misunderstandings, understandings, considerations, and our lack thereof

    Perfectly. Please note:

    - You said you had heard Arabs in this country call each other Ali Baba on more than a few occasions.

    Now, even as I look back a page in our discussion, I do not see that particular association noted in the boldface above. You've invited your own Arab-on-Arab aspect.
    Indeed. Do you really want me to go back and answer the question now? Or have we cleared up my reasons for putting it on hold?
    And I can respect your insecurity.
    That's easily debatable. People making excuses for violations of the Geneva Conventions? Seemed pretty sloppy to me when I arrived. But you don't seem to get it, do you? When in Rome, Coldrake. I don't pretend that rationality works in an arena where it has visibly failed to achieve proper consideration. And that invites its own issue, whence we have arrived.
    (Free pass.)
    On at least one level it is that simple: This treatment is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions because it is humiliating. However, humiliation was the exact point of it. It's all well and fine to treat someone that way, or so it seems for a lot of people, unless of course that person is your own self. Somewhere in this topic is a dualism: it's a better shot than being shot. Are our troops really that stupid that short of this the best they can think of is murder? I mean, the whole thing is a little mind-boggling to me because it is simple: What is so hard to figure out?
    Well, why don't we bring that process of justice back home to the U.S. of A.? If it's good enough for human beings, it's good enough for human beings regardless of nationality, right?
    Yep. That licenses it. It certainly is easier than seeking peaceful resolutions. In the abstract, the US has that in common with other criminals.
    Well, I think of the IRA and the various Ulster paramilitaries. Ever heard of a six-pack? It didn't kill anyone. And yes, having your major joints shattered with cinderblocks tends to impress the message greatly, from what I hear.

    It's a simple choice: We can figure out how to do this according to the rules we've prescribed for ourselves (e.g. Geneva Conventions) or we can choose what seems easiest at the time.
    The simplest thing to do is wade through the Conventions themselves for you. I really thought you could figure it out, but I've farmed through a lot of your words to no avail; at some point I must acknowledge the economy of simply raiding the damn Conventions, no matter how droll the adventure promises to be. Thus:

    Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War - Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949

    From the aforementioned Conventions:
    And it goes on ... Article 68 even sets the conditions for execution, but that's beside our present purpose. In fact, by the time I get to Article 71 ("No sentence shall be pronounced by the competent courts of the Occupying Power except after a regular trial. ") I get the distinct feeling that Due Process is a presumption of the Conventions. Ah ... here it is:
    These Articles are extracted from Section III: Occupied Territories. Now, I would hope you could point out any errors I make in concluding that the treatment of the accused thieves in Iraq, paraded down the street naked, violates the Geneva Conventions. Please. Sincerely. I would like to know where you and I differ because I really do think it's quite simple and fundamental. The only thing complicated about it to me is fishing the words out of the Conventions. It took all of twenty minutes, including the time spent listening to someone bitch at me about ... um ... well, I've managed to forget, but ... it's beside the point. It took all of twenty minutes, including fifteen minutes of unnecessary distractions on the home front. I'm reading through some of the rest to make sure there isn't something glaring I missed, but I'm not seeing anything so far.
    Yes, you'll win a Pulitzer. More relevant to the point than sarcasm, though, is the sidebar that comes in wondering whether you expect to communicate anything with one-liners? You seem to resent implications of poor character, yet you don't appear to wish to do much more than complain about them.
    Should I expect someone who sees so little communicative value in a board like Sciforums to see any value in any posts? Aside, that is, from your sheer entertainment and the opportunity to play the mocking innocent?
    Well that's all you've given me to work with. Give me something more substantial.
    Yes, and it appears to be based in mistaken assertions of fact.
    Give me something more. Oh, wait ... that's right. As we see from the Conventions, there's not much more you can do than sit there and repeat, "It's not a violation, it's not a violation." Right. Just because you say so.
    How often do I get to say this?

    When I am so definitively right, as the Conventions cited above show. what else can I bring to the table but the bare facts? Yes, I'm outraged at your advocacy of criminals. While other Americans seem to be afraid of the terrorists, I'm more afraid of my fellow Americans who are more than willing to keep on cheering for more reasons for strife. Look, the one way I can think of to severely reduce the number of mad imbeciles trying to kill Americans in droves is for American institutions to start treating human beings with some dignity abroad. Analogously, I point to Nepal. Yes, American companies were paying children to work long hours in bad conditions. Yes, there is a Maoist insurgency in Nepal now. No, it's not the fault of American corporations, per se. But if you pay people so little that children have to work in order for families to survive, a Maoist insurgency is about the best you can hope for. There's something about the way people treat each other, you know.

    The fewer Arabs we piss off with the Bush League reconstruction and occupation of Iraq, the better it will be for all Americans--and that includes me, so there's my vested interest--in the future.
    Well, only you can tell me the root cause. However, I am not in any way, shape, or form, a licensed therapist, counselor, or otherwise.
    He used to refer to vague prior points as if they were definitive, as well. We never could figure out if he was lazy, arrogant, or simply angry.
    Wow. I didn't realize I carried that much authority here.

    It's something to think about.

    However, there is something that goes here about your writing skills, as well as about your reading comprehension. Nonetheless, I'm not mapping three generations of posts just to fill you in on your own words. Like I've said before, your economy of words is detrimental to the efficacy of your expression.

    Now then: You're as entitled to your opinion that violations of the Geneva Conventions are acceptable as much as I am to mine that it is better for humanity if people who advocate such violations not reproduce. The fewer people we have making excuses for such behavior, the fewer people will get away with it.

    Is expression a crime? Try a straight answer.

    At any rate, I refer you to your 5.6.2003 post, where you wrote
    Now, it even carries back a couple of posts before that, but that's when I asked if expression was a crime. I could refer you to your earlier post on that same day, where you wrote, OK, so you consider your lower standards ok as long as you avoid advocating violations of human rights or killing innocent people. Fair enough.

    You've been running a side diversion attempting to equate the lower standards of anger expressed at support for criminal behavior with the lowered standards of supporting criminal behavior. I hope I don't ever catch someone raping my daughter°; I might have to lower myself to be equal with him by being angry. Of course, I could always take the "high road"° and say, "Eh ... it doesn't look like a crime to me."
    Humiliation is harmful. From there, 2 + 2 = 4, but I can see how you might argue with that. After all, you could always say that burning their clothes, scrawling on their chests, and then parading them down the street was an act of compassion the same way my uncle nearly drowning his own son wasn't bad; throwing a terrified six-year old into 50-degree water "builds character". Maybe that will excuse our soldiers' conduct.
    Stop reinforcing anti-American stereotypes.
    Yes, yes, you're rubber, I'm glue ... whatever. I'm brought to mind of some advice publicly given Gunny Covarrubius after he expressed his desire to be a police officer. A Las Vegas cop noted that he needed to learn discretion and not talk about those things.

    The moral of that reflection is that you might choose to be mocking and have no faith in your own communicative skills, nor the skills of others, but you ought to think twice before admitting it, and thrice before advertising it. Quit playing the role so well, please.
    Well, like I said ... only you can tell me the root cause. I can only observe the symptoms and speculate. And what the symptoms tell me is that I'm witnessing an all-too-familiar triune conflict that involves a general standard of propriety, a sentimental advocacy against it, and an awareness of the disparity. Those are the basic factors, at least. The question is whether or not you choose to address those factors honestly. I hope to have demonstrated to you that you are, indeed, incorrect in excusing the parading of Iraqis naked through the street as not being a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

    And while you probably don't give two shakes about my opinion of you, my whole reason for carrying on this argument goes away when you legitimately recognize or legitimately defeat the assertion that the treatment of those Iraqis violated the Conventions. I'm aware that you'll support the prosecution of violators, so it seems all that's left is to wonder if you intend to hold out on the assertion that American soldiers did not violate the Conventions when they paraded people naked down the street.

    If fundamental honesty is the issue, much can be learned from your considerations on the "Ali Baba" incident in terms of the violations committed by US troops.

    Notes:

    ° my daughter - You see? I didn't have to mention your daughter.

    ° high road - This phrase is put in "quotation marks" because it's a dubious assertion. However, comparatively, your standard would seem to imply there is some moral question at becoming angry about criminal behavior. If denouncing criminal behavior is somehow immoral, then it stands to reason that advocating criminal behavior is of better moral propriety. And while people might make excuses for American offenders (I admit that I avoid combat zones), I don't think any excuses can be made for the armchair advocates. Rational thought demands better conduct, and demands advocacy of more humane efficiency.

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Slate article & other stuff

    Why Rumsfeld should be careful about lecturing Saddam about the Geneva Conventions (MSN/Slate)

    I came across this article while following up more on the humiliation aspect of it. So the trail starts with actual Prisoners of War, so I'm left guessing how it is that the people who aren't Prisoners of War can be treated worse than the PoW's. But perhaps we have here a technicality that lets our troops off on grounds of "humiliation". I doubt it, though. It would appear that, circumstances being what they are, there are problems regardless of whether you consider the accused in either a military or civil sense.

    Dunno. It's an interesting set of considerations. Either way, the conduct of American soldiers seems to be questionable on a few little things at least, if not some big things, as well. But I cannot quite see how the burning of the clothes and parading down the street naked fails to violate the Conventions.

    Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949 (ICRC)

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Coldrake Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    808
    So, you're saying that the 'Muslims' you claimed you heard (and you did claim that, as per the cut and pastes) use 'Ali Baba' as a derogatory term in this country weren't Arabs? I'm really curious now. So were they black Americans converted to Islam? White Americans? Africans? Asians? And if so, are you saying these non-Arabs insulted each other using 'Ali Baba'?

    .

    I don't care that they were humiliated under the circumstances. Had they just been grabbed off the street and used as an example for the native population I would agree, but in the situation as it was, I don't have a problem. Again though, if their superiors feeel it was a violation of standing orders, that will be up to them to discipline appropriately.

    Those soldiers did not murder those Iraqis. Why is it so hard to figure that out?

    That's not a bad idea. Certainly 'rehabilitation' in prison isn't a deterrent, as 67% of first time offenders end up back in prison within 5 years. Maybe we should try a little humiliation. We see more and more sex offenders having to post signs in their yards stating their crimes.

    Article 64: he penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention. Subject to the latter consideration and to the necessity for ensuring the effective administration of justice, the tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to function in respect of all offences covered by the said laws.

    Breaking into a military compound to steal weapons is a real threat to the Occupying Power's security.

    Article 76: Protected persons accused of offences shall be detained in the occupied country, and if convicted they shall serve their sentences therein. They shall, if possible, be separated from other detainees and shall enjoy conditions of food and hygiene which will be sufficient to keep them in good health, and which will be at least equal to those obtaining in prisons in the occupied country.

    They were never formally accused of offenses. They were caught in the immediate act of breaching security and dealt with on the spot. But again, I will say if the military considers their actions a violation of US military code, and apparently they do, then the soldiers will be appropriately punished.

    I won't argue that at all. However, the more Iraqis we can convince that it is a bad idea to try and raid military compounds the better it will be for both the soldiers and Iraqis.

    I'm curious. What would your punishment be for those 'criminals' who paraded the naked Iraqis?

    I agree. We went through the same thing in our own industrial revolution. Those workers will likely have to go through their own revolution (unions, strikes, etc) until they achieve better conditions. Much of the problem is that as bad as those conditions are, they are probably better than what those people may have had previously. Another analogy would be the Irish immigrants who came over beginning in the 1840s and created the first permanent working class in America. The conditions they left behind in Ireland were so bad that they were willing to work for much less wages than the young women of America had been getting, and endure the extremely poor conditions of the factories. They long resisted attempts to pass laws against child exploitation because they needed the extra family income. I suspect they will go through a period of strife in the industrializing 3rd world countries before they gain more humane conditions.

    Yes, in a schoolyard or a work environment it can be extremely harmful. It can lead to Colombines or postal workers running amok with Uzis. In a war zone, it ranks low on the list to me.

    That's interesting. When I was six my dad through me out of the boat into the river and simply said "swim back." I dog-pedalled and made my way back to the boat. Been swimming ever since. I admit when I taught my daughter to swim it wasn't so drastic; it was in a pool and more controlled (she was swimming by the time she was four). But my dad was a no-nonsense country boy and he taught me the way he had been taught. I hated the man for many things, but not for that. I always told myself he would have jumped in for me if I had actually started to drown.

    Or?

    I actually do applaud your efforts. Seriously. And we actually seem to agree on many areas of American shortcomings in its foreign policies. Sorry though, I don't see the 'naked' incident as a violation of the Conventions. If it's a flaw in my character, so be it. However, as I said, if the US military sees it as a violation of the Conventions, or as a violation of their own code of conduct, then I agree that the soldiers should be prosecuted to some degree. But again, I ask you; what punishment would you dole out? What is the appropriate level of punishment for 'humilitation'?
     
  16. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Back to square one?

    Coldrake

    You're kidding me, right?
    Where, even, does Muslim/Muslim insults come into it? Usually it's white people doing the insulting. I just don't see where you get off spiraling into this particularly thoughtless void.
    And, nonetheless, their treatment still violates the Geneva Conventions according to the articles I cited last night.
    Well, I'm looking at a couple of things you wrote:

    - My point was, those were not citizens; when they breached the security of the compound and were caught with a bag of weapons parts they were essentially combatants.

    This only reinforces the standard against humiliation, as you might notice that it is in the Conventions related to PoW's (e.g. combatants) that specifically prohibits acts of intimidation; as the Slate article noted of Rumsfeld and Human Rights Watch, the 13th Article of the Third Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War is what's at question in the dispute over the treatment of PoW's in the case of shoing them on television:
    So if you choose to count the Iraqis as combatants, you're legitimizing the point that the humiliation intended by the punishment is in itself a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

    Something else I'm looking at that you wrote is:

    - Sooner or later you'll figure out that this argument is not over what you consider my lack of morals but rather the fact that I don't consider that incident a war crime. Had they put them up against a wall and shot them, it would have been different.

    As you note, you are the one who invoked the notion of shooting the Iraqis as a counterpoint. I'm wondering why you introduce it if you're not willing to maintain it as a comparative example. Is this one of the things I'm not allowed to discuss?

    So what I'm wondering is why, in your mind, the alternatives are humiliation or execution. Do you really think our troops are that stupid? Are they too ill-educated and too indoctrinated in the art of killing that one or the other is the best they can do.
    Have fun amending the U.S. Constitution.

    Parading people naked through the streets as punishment is an old Puritan bit that we in the United States considered uncivilized enough to bar with the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution. Shall we add whippings to the list of punishments in Iraq? It's good enough for Singapore, it's good enough for Puritans ....
    Well, we can apply the military side and deal with acts intended to intimidate detainees.
    And that's part of the problem.
    Without due process, we won't know that; we can, however, merely believe the agents responsible for the violation of the Conventions. However, we're still looking at violations of the Geneva Conventions; which set of Conventions applies is a matter of formality.
    Treating Iraqis with basic human dignity is a good start. Too bad our troops blew that one.
    They're soldiers. A court-martial would satisfy me; the facts are apparently there for the world to see; rather than trying to suppress the event, some American troops and commanders seem to want to justify it. However, there may be a convention in place to cover due process in this case. I'm a-lookin'. By the way, is there anything else that you don't know that you'd like me to find out for you? Maybe the ancient mystery of alchemy?
    First off, I'm just wondering if history will ever prove useful for Americans. In that context, the suggestion is that we can make some effort to give less reasons to those that "hate us" for their hatred. Secondly, I just don't see how "not as bad" suffices. Americans love that idea as long as they're not getting hurt by it. We have a whole cottage industry of Dr. Phils and Rhondas on the Air dealing with the effects of this idea; it has treated Americans so well in history that I can't imagine why the Iraqis don't openly embrace it. To the other, some Iraqis have noted that things were "better" under Saddam. I, too, hope for the eventual result, but I'm not at all encouraged by the general American attitude concerning Iraq.
    So if you dislike application of the Conventions so much, why do you not advocate formal American abrogation?
    Were you afraid of your daughter?
    (I am not allowed to respond to this point per your requests.)
    Well, I'll hold you among the responsible the next time someone gets pissed enough at Americans to blow something up. Stop being part of the problem.
    Upon conviction under due process, I think a short prison term for starters; it's not the worst offense in the world. However, accounting for the situation and the additional responsibilities of our soldiers, I would say that the offense becomes much more grave. Five to twenty, minimum security, in the American justice system, probably life by the courts-martial, and I would imagine an international tribunal would see either no cause for prison or else a short term of three to five years. It would be interesting to hand these men over to the Iraqi justice system and see what it metes out, but I have human rights concerns about many punishments I hear coming out of the Arab world. In the end, for these men to have to walk through life with a war-crimes conviction on their record is enough. Just as long as whoever hires them knows that they are criminals ... that's fair to me.

    In the meantime, keep standing by your convictions. I kept hoping that you would get it, but in the face of the Conventions themselves, you still hold out. In the meantime, my original point stands: people like you should, for the benefit of your fellow human beings, not risk reproduction. There are other considerations that go here, but I'm not allowed to discuss them, in merciful recognition of your whining.

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Coldrake Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    808
    You're making the presumption that I said the Iraqis were violating the Geneva Convention by displaying the POWs on television. It was a calculated move by the Iraqis, knowing how Americans are horrified by the thought of Americans being held by Muslims (just as they were horrified at American POWs being held by Asians). I would say that the Iraqis were trying to play the American viewing audience to put pressure on the administration to end the war.

    You keep saying you're not allowed to discuss certain things. That's up to you.

    No, they can put them in prison if they choose.

    You really don't have any sense of humor, do you?

    That might be true. But then again, it might not.

    A court martial is merely a trial. I asked for what punishment you would dole out.

    Yeah. Could you explain metaphysics to me and maybe find out where that damned Waldo is hiding?

    I'm not sure how my daughter would apply to this situation since I was a six year old boy at the time, but I assume that was some sort of weak attempt at an insult. Either that, or your reading skills suck.

    Why? That didn't stop you from a feeble insult above.

    I'm honored that you hold my opinion as so influential on world affairs.

    *yaaaawn*

    I could see a dishonorable discharge if they are convicted of a crime.

    Sport, you're the beggest whiner on the forum. All I've seen is 3 pages of whining from you in this thread alone. Not allowed to discuss 'other considerations'? That's your own BS. You keep harping on that for some strange reason. All I ever said was I prefer you keep my daughter out of your arguments, but that didn't stop you above obviously, so feel free. It will give you one less thing to whine about.

    Gee, Sparks, I had at least held you in a little higher regard than Tiassa. I didn't really expect you to put words in my mouth. More fool me. I've never stated, or even advocated, a desire to see Iraqis shot for crimes. But that photo has been posted on this forum before, and it's obviously doctored. And it wouldn't be the first doctored photo used to make the troops look bad. Look at the soldier riding piggyback. He has no face! Nor does he have the front of his helmet. They were obviously cut out in a hatchet job of an editing attempt. That's so amateurish as to be painful, and I'm sure was done by some amateur simply for internet posting. I can't believe anybody would even fall for that photo. Well, not true. Of course I can.
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Coldrake: Same ol', same ol'?

    Quite frankly, now you're just being stupid and writing up random presumptions to object to. Perhaps I should just step out and let you argue with this imaginary foe?

    We're examining the Geneva Conventions; you've asserted that the Iraqi "Ali Babas" were combatants, which hands me the specific point about humiliation and intimidation; the Slate article was merely a part of that. See what I mean? You're arguing against me, and not paying attention to the issues. Stop it, please. It's foolish and distracting.
    Is it? Then stop whining about not wanting to discuss those things that you bring to the discussion.
    Ah, but that would require due process, which requires a substantiation of the allegations of criminal misconduct, a condition what--altogether too inconvenient for Americans?

    Yet you acknowledge that there are other alternatives. Why, then, did you rest on such stupid rhetoric as: Sooner or later you'll figure out that this argument is not over what you consider my lack of morals but rather the fact that I don't consider that incident a war crime. Had they put them up against a wall and shot them, it would have been different. It seems as though you're introducing a completely unnecessary dualism, since there are tertiary considerations at least.
    You really don't respect other people do you?
    Something goes here about a river in Egypt.
    And I thought you knew how to read.
    You're not smart enough to understand metaphysics, and Waldo is hiding in your ass.
    Nope, it's my typing. The actual question is Were you afraid of the water? (You see? It rhymes. That should make it easier for you to understand.)
    You have whined and begged me to leave your daughter out of it, despite your introduction of her as an example. Maybe you should have cut your losses then, Coldrake, and just stuck with my advice and the quiet comfort that it was already too late, and that you had, indeed, escaped the risk.
    I don't, actually. I look out at my bloodthirsty, apathetic, spiteful neighbors and you, in combination with them, become an incredibly powerful voice for stupidity. I should fear you on the grounds that you vote, but Whitney Brown has given me over ten years to dwell on that point, and while solutions don't seem to present themselves (because I won't have the lot of you shot), I am, at least, somewhat more comfortable than I should be when surrounded by that many dangerous people.
    Boy, I bet you feel silly for bitching about my answers:

    - A court martial is merely a trial. I asked for what punishment you would dole out.

    If you'd just kept reading, you wouldn't have shoved your foot in your mouth. Please pay better attention. Your lack of respect is disturbing in the fact that it seems to border intentionally on disrespect.
    Well then take a fucking note, Coldrake: If you don't want to discuss your daughter, don't bring her into the conversation! Are you stupid? Can you not figure this out?

    What, Coldrake, you can raise a point but nobody's allowed to counterpoint it because your poor daughter whom you've bothered to exploit for shallow purposes by introducing her to the topic as a poitn of discussion shouldn't be discussed? What is your problem?

    Quit your bitching. Quit your disrespectful bullshit. Quit hiding from your own cowardice. Quit abusing the notion of your daughter. And quit being part of the ignorant, selfish idiocy that is the problem with America. I know that's a big list, but the first four should be more immediately manageable for you.

    In the meantime, why are you still carrying on? After all, the only actual point of argument you have left is to continue asserting with religious fervor that the Conventions have not been violated.
    You're on, you pathetic, harassing, lying worm. Demonstrate the words put in your mouth, and then consider the number of occasions that you've demonstrated throughout this topic that your reading comprehension is somewhere between your ass and the gutter. And given that you repeatedly tried to put words in my mouth (your distraction related to Arab/Arab insults), I find your prior paragraph, in which you called me the biggest whiner on the forum, amazingly projected. Don't call me what you see in the mirror, Coldrake. Just because you're a defender of indecency does not mean that we have to respect your indecency; your determination to be a cruel human being--that gets my respect, but the cruelty, man ... that's only your own problem as long as you keep it to yourself. When you publicly advocate criminal behavior, that's everybody's problem.

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Coldrake Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    808
    Well, that last post is enough to finally convince me that Tiassa is just another run of the mill messageboard fake..

    Rather than replying point by point, tit for tat with your phoney ass again, I will simply note that in the last week, since this thread began, I've seen some truly pro-war statements made by other posters on this board and yet surprisingly, not a peep out of Tiassa. No indignation. No outrage. Nothing. What's up with that, you phoney? No words of condemnation for them? Of course not, because your pretense at indignation has become too obvious. Your moral outrage is one big sham. You may have tried to amke a point once upon a time, but your now doing nothing more than attempting one upmanship. OK, ok. I concede. Your overblown ego is bigger than mine.

    I've wasted the last week with you in this thread and quite frankly, I'm embarrassed by it. For a while I actually bought in to your worthless crap, believing that you were honestly upset by this event. You suckered me in, but now it's rather obvious what a fraud you are. You're now attempting to somehow prove you are not only morally superior, but it seems to be important to you to somehow think you are intellectually superior as well. Oooo-tay. If your ego needs soothing I'll just go ahead and say "Tiassa, it's so obvious you are superior to me in every way. I was terrribly wrong for thinking I could outlast you in a thread. You obviously can sling bullshit better than me." There. I'm done with this thread. If you want to argue with me in another thread, then fine, jump on in there, but I'm no longer going to be suckered in by you on this particular subject. I've stated my opinion (numerous times) on the subject, but you'd rather use your non-acceptance of it to keep a long worn-out argument going. Not me. The semester's over, I'm starting summer vacation, and I won't be around the computer enough on a regular basis to keep up with the verbal barbs, so you win.
     
  21. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    Is it me or have things gotten a lot cruder in the last couple of weeks? What changed specifically?

    Ah, its spring (at least in the northern hemisphere) and the horomones are raging. Is this an example of lecking behavior?
     
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Wow ... why start taking yourself (somewhat) seriously now?

    I've been busy with you. Most of the war dogs around here wear their bloodstains proudly. Your brand of faux-nobility is dangerous like a wolf in dove's feathers. They'll be dealt with in due time. As the Iraqi Bush War is over, there's not much point in complaining about whether or not it should happen. In the meantime, what we have before us is a series of minor violations of the Geneva Conventions (and some major) by the United States, seemingly in the name of convenience, and people such as yourself who wish to endorse those crimes.
    That's all it's ever been about in this discussion for you. From the moment you chose to hold up your untouchable banner, ego is all you've shown, and all you've been concerned with.
    See what happens when you don't take yourself seriously? You should be embarrassed.
    And for a while I thought you were smart enough to recognize a violation of the Geneva Convention. More fool me ...
    Focus, Coldrake, focus. If you'd bothered to actually think about the issues you were alleging to discuss, you would have seen that it wasn't so much about endurance but about trying to figure out why the hell you're endorsing war crimes. You're welcome to endorse whatever you want, but what do you really expect, Coldrake?

    It has to stop now. We can't be violating our sacred trust and honor (e.g. adherence to Geneva Conventions) merely because it's convenient and we think we can get away with it. I'm not looking forward to the next Al Qaeda hit in the US, and I highly doubt you are, either. Yet in giving your endorsement to war crimes, you add to the list of reasons why the terrorists would want to strike.
    Is it really so ugly to look in the mirror?
    Which one? What is or isn't a war crime? (Not clear.) That I shouldn't consider the points you raise? (Your problem, not mine.) Why war crimes are good? (Hell, you've got me there.) Why a violation of the Geneva Convention is A-OK? (I suppose you've tried to make that clear, but failed miserably, unfortunately.)

    But I lost count of the number of times you said you already stated your opinion. If you had done so clearly, there wouldn't be a question.
    Nope. Simply, war crimes are more important to me than they are to you.
    Next time, aim higher. Take yourself a little more seriously, and you'll realize that this whole tantrum of yours was unnecessary. Enjoy the summer. I'm sure you'll learn, eventually.

    :m:,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    News From The Colonies (continued...)

    Tricky Business, This Imperialism

    Take a look, for instance, at this Reuters dispatch from the far frontiers of empire.
    Sometimes you don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

    :m: Peace.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page