The true face of Iraqi Freedom

[Ratty Sr.]

Interesting, I made two defensive points based on commonly accepted definitions and then countered with two follow-up questions. There was no reference to either user in my defenses presented; yet you would say I was utilizing logical fallacy? Are you sure you know what that means? In neither response was argumentum ad hominem, despite the personal nature of the points I was responding to, nor was there any counter referencing either’s posters stance, so I am unsure how the presentation of a follow up question can fall into that definition?

You basically tried to absolve the US troops of responsibility for their crimes against civilian population because terrorists are known to commit worse crimes. That's a logical fallacy because crimes commited by terrorists don't make American crimes any less relevant. You also made another fallacy by citing examples of beneficial actions US troops perform on conquered areas as if they are somehow relevant to what we are discussing here - namely, US war crimes. Sander made all this painfully obvious in his post, but you conveniently neglected to address in a sensible manner.

Stupidity? Well then would you humor a fool and broaden your own perspective? Now from the horses mouth it should be obvious that there are two sides to the issue, and while Iraq is struggling I would not yet concede that she is out of the fight by any stretch.

You can continue to insult me, but before you get to deep into it you may want to consider your sources and what they want you to hear and perceive. The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle the only “stupidity” is of those who do not realize that.

My sources are numerous and adequate, thank you very much. For the record, I have been on both sides. In 2003 I was a great supporter of the invasion, confident that it was justified and necessary. But then I did the exact thing you are advising me to do now - I broadened my perspective. Perhaps you should do the same.

As a follow up question, if you would indulge my stupidity of course. With all the setbacks and mistakes, terrorists and government ineptitude taken to account, do you believe that Iraq would have had a better future under the reign of the Hussein’s than what she faces now and that inaction would have served her people better?

Simply put, yes.

Not to mention that he’s virtually the only one showing “proper discussion conduct”, i.e. not blatantly insulting other members of the forum.

The man started his response with blatant trolling, followed by inane relativizing and fallacies. On top of that, he has already been warned for spamming and double-posting in other threads. "Proper conduit" indeed.

Obviously, the man is neither stupid nor uneducated as you’re implying – quite the opposite.

He may not be stupid, but Rosh has already proven that he is either ignorant on - or unable to comprehend - at least one Geneva Convention. All he has demonstrated so far is his ability to respond to facts with stupid non-arguments.

The problem here is your(plural) biasness and lack of understanding for other peoples views on the same subject. Something which really doesn’t befit experienced “debaters”.

So, basically you are saying we are wrong because we don't share the same view as him (and it's not true that I "lack understanding for other people's views on the same subject", because not too long ago I shared those exact views)? What exacty makes his views more valid than ours? Oh, right:

Not to mention a methodical lack of factual reference to back any of your claims…and more importantly lack of any “hands-on” experience, unlike this gentleman who’s witnessed or experienced the actual implementation of GC in real life situations.

Perhaps you need to get a pair of glasses, because something is clearly wrong with you sight. I linked to a HRW article on the subject which also happens to contain links to detailed accounts of *first-hand witnesses* of events in question. Rosh provided further links. Poe provided... not a damn thing, if you don't count a link to a list of Iraqi newspapers, which is cute but not really relevant to the topic.

As for his "hands-on experience", other people have previously (unsuccessfully) tried to use such cheap tactics to silence the dissenting voices and hide their poor grasp of the subject, on this very forum and in similar topics. Let me just say right away that his experience means jack shit. Alright, he served in Somalia a decade ago. It was a different war, of a different nature, initiated, organized and carried out by different people, under different circumstances. Unless he was in Iraq and has first-hand knowledge of how they treat POWs there, I am unimpressed by whatever stands in his resume.

Naturally, everything isn’t and can’t be expected to be perfect – but give one example of modern (urban) combat where the GC was entirely adhered to anyway?

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Poe]

Again, the argument you present is similar to the 'But look at them' argument (my rebuttal was, by the way, entirely ignored by you, so you should not be the one to judge others on their 'proper discussion'). No, I can't name any situation in the past where the parties have acted better, but hey, this not then is it? The USA can do better, and that's the most important thing, especially for a nation which prides itself to be the home of freedom and whatnot.

I ignored your rebuttal because it had no substance; nor does this one. I however did not judge you on proper discussion as I felt it to be obvious and not worth mentioning. As before, you state that the US can do better, but cannot provide reference as to how it has been done better. With that in mind, you will forgive me if I chose not to debate with you what appropriate action by the Americans is, as its definition is apparently largely a matter of your own personal opinion and bias instead of anything tangible.

In fact, the vast majority of your arguments seem to consist of such relative arguments. Hussein did worse, yes. But then again, if Hitler had been at the helm, the Jews would've been off much worse, eh? See the fallacies there? The fact that some party would've done worse has jack shit to do with how another party can act right now.

The vast majority of my argument seam to be based off relative points? Fancy that. I am not answering questions with “but they did this” as a defense or justification, again I am simply asking you to bring into light this scale you would weigh “appropriate” response, so that I might debate if it has been reached or not, so I am afraid I do not see any fallacy.

Okay, let's perform this argument again: a thief is by definition unlawful, hence he is otuside the law and we must not respect his rights granted by law.
See the fallacy?

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Montoya, Princess Bride.

A convicted thief is a felon, for his transgressions against the law the rights afforded to him are altered so they are no longer on par with those who are lawful, that is the way it is; no voting, no guns, ect… I fail to see the fallacy, as it is the reality of it. By the same measure a terrorist is outside of the law, for his transgressions against the law; the rights afforded to him are altered so they are not on par with those who are lawful… With that for reference again I ask, how can terrorism, and terrorists be considered lawful?

 

[Ratty Sr.]

A convicted thief is a felon, for his transgressions against the law the rights afforded to him are altered so they are no longer on par with those who are lawful, that is the way it is; no voting, no guns, ect… I fail to see the fallacy, as it is the reality of it. By the same measure a terrorist is outside of the law, for his transgressions against the law; the rights afforded to him are altered so they are not on par with those who are lawful… With that for reference again I ask, how can terrorism, and terrorists be considered lawful?

Nice way to purposefully ignore the point. Let me pose a question to you - are thieves and other criminals held in American prisons without trial while enduring physical torment?

 

[Poe]

You basically tried to absolve the US troops of responsibility for their crimes against civilian population because terrorists are known to commit worse crimes.

Apparently there was some kind of miscommunication; I absolved the US troops of responsibility for there crimes against civilian populations when I referenced Convention 4. Part 3. Section 1, Article 28, which states “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." I did note that you and the other “scholars” of the GC did not rebut it, did you miss it? I went on to point out the irony I found, as in a clearly stated point of personal opinion. Maybe you should read it again with the understanding that I do not counter or make points with maters of opinion.

But then I did the exact thing you are advising me to do now - I broadened my perspective. Perhaps you should do the same.

Undoubtedly true, and I do try to do so whenever I can. For a reference of the fact, I have been consistently against the invasion, from day one. As I mentioned before I am a reformist/isolationist, a firm believer in people should be sorting these things out on there own and only in the most dire of situations should we intervene, manipulate or interfere with the policies of other nations. But, it pains me to see suffering, it stirs my blood and makes me want to go out of my way to help if they would have me. However, at the end of the day while I endorse with helping a fallen man to his feet the logical part of me believes you must show restraint before you invite him home to move in and take him on as a responsibility, particularly when the basic needs of your own people are not being met.

I noted that you stated your believe that the people of Iraq would have had a better future under the Hussein’s, yet posed no reasoning for it, am I to assume it is strictly a mater of opinion and not based on reality? Also, I must note that while arguing my points with someone else in an inflammatory manner is most amusing, it is poor form, and thus, I will not respond to them. However feel free to continue to do so as I said, it is most amusing.

Nice way to purposefully ignore the point. Let me pose a question to you - are thieves and other criminals held in American prisons without trial while enduring physical torment?

Pray tell, how exactly in stating the abject reality of the example that was presented “purposefully ignoring the point”? I acknowledged before in previous posts there is more than a little room for improvement in the method used to determine terrorist from civilian. However as stated, once convicted the laws that apply to all no longer apply. See incarceration, felony convictions and the death penalty for reference… However as you would take up his point, maybe you could explain how terrorism and terrorists can be considered “lawful”?

 

[Bradylama]

However as you would take up his point, maybe you could explain how terrorism and terrorists can be considered “lawful”?

They aren't. Quite the opposite, they are un-lawful. Much in the same sense that someone who burglarizes homes is an unlawful person. That does not mean that they are outside of the law, and aren't entitled to proper justice.

 

[Roshambo]

Well in that case you must have volumes held within there.

Strike two. There is volumes of garbage that I have had to debunk when it deters from the conversation, or due to outright ignorant post-padding like yours.

I cannot quote verbatim all 159 articles of the August 12th 1949 Geneva convention, but I have read them before and understand there purpose.

Your previous statements prove you to be a liar. There is no "between the definitions" of combatants in the Geneva Conventions. If I didn't spell it clearly enough for you, EVERYON IS COVERED BY THE GCS. (Well, not 'everyone', but for the purpose of this discussion it means everyone involved.)

While the articles that go to great length to detail how one is to preserve and protect civilian populations in a time of war I thought we were referencing the treatment of the terrorists themselves, but apparently the point of this discourse has shifted.

I was discussing the treatment and classifications of suspected terrorists, and how they ARE still covered by the Geneva Conventions.

Congratulations for being an ignorant twit that didn't bother reading what I had read.

Now, apparently your focus now is not how America and her allies are addressing the terrorists, but how we are actively targeting the civilian populations and violating the GC.

Read again, moron.

Despite little factual reference for most of your points (unsubstantiated, un-documented, un photographed “Claims” by anonymous sources from obviously biased outlets are not factual) they do sound quite convincing and full of venom, definitely well written prose manipulated to provoke the maximum response from those who are, what was the phrase you used? “Ignorant” of the GC?

HELLOOOO! They cite examples of the Geneva Convention that clearly outline what is going wrong, how the terrorists are still covered by the Geneva Conventions, and etc. Yes, that page is harsh against the US presence, but they have cited examples and definitions of the GC that you apparently are too stupid to want to believe that since they are biased, their usage of the GCs is invalid.

Or that the GCs are themselves invalid, which would be irony in itself.

A quick reference for you would be Convention 4. Part 3. Section 1, Article 28, which states “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." Thou I am sure as a learned scholar of the GC you already knew as much.

Because I had to operate within them, during a time of war, yes I had to know of them. You know, part of my PROFESSION at the time. Kind of a fucking coincidence, huh?

I don’t know that we cut off water, nor would I bother to find out, as I do know denying an entrenched enemy in an urban environment power to greater enhance our technological advantage on them is doctrine, so it is surely not beyond the realm of feasibility that water would be cut as well to help weaken the enemy and drive the civilian population out of the city.

Now you are a confirmed idiot. Cutting off the water to a major city is considered a war crime because it also adversely affects a number of civilians. Here, since you only care to look up the GCs when it suits your garbage, here is the one you should be interested in:

International law specifically forbids the denial of water to civilians during conflict. Under Article 14 of the second protocol of the Geneva Conventions,

'Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited. It is
therefore prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless for that purpose, objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of food-stuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works.' (30)

Remember when I mentioned the supplemental protocols?

You might have wanted to pay attention, jarhead.

But as the GC clearly states, when your enemy elects to hide behind civilians and use their presence as a defense, there is no pause. It is a horrible thing to be sure; defiantly something that requires conviction to pursue.

Liar. That protocol, Protocol 1, Article 51, states this:

The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

Therefore it is considered a war crime to use civvies as shields, but it doesn't give anybody carte blanche approval to shoot through civvies because of Article 52, protection of civvies and civvy objects by limiting acts of military force to military objectives.

(Article 54 again proves you are full of shit about the starvation, which includes water, of civvies in order to "get at military targets".)

I don’t know what is more ironic. That the founding authors of the GC saw this kind of conflict coming way back then or that the obviously “educated” elements chose to ignore the fact that they did.

I don't know what is more ironic, the US being held as everything wholesome and the GCs are being used feebly to excuse what the military has done, or the fact that you call yourself a soldier and have no clue about the rules of conflict.

Well, no...irony seems to imply "surprise".

I also don’t understand how people can raise such ire against the Americans, despite the medical care we give, re-construction of infrastructure, building of schools and the like, and shout and scream about civilian casualties we cause while turning a blind eye to the terrorists who actively target civilians and are quite proud of there success at doing it.

You are such a self-deluded shit. How about those who now have had no jobs or home since this entire thing started, who have had to move out of Fallujah and other areas not because of terrorists, but because the US has made living conditions hell in the area?

A token school or rebuilding the country into a few war profiteer's pocket is supposed to impress me. On top of the war crimes. Comedy goldmine.

And then there is the big one, that somehow some peoples perspective of reality has become so deluded with propaganda that they throw logic to the wind and believe for one second that the Americans have chose to fight these terrorists in urban centers where we are hindered by regard for the civilian population that our foes use as cover instead of afield where we can utilize our tactical advantage to its fullest.

Logic to the wind? Sorry, kid, but the GCs were made for a reason - to protect the civvies. Harming civvies for a few military targets is the same shit Hitler, Mussolini, and Hideki Tojo's men practiced on a regular basis, and thusly supplemental conventions and protocols were added to the earlier conventions. Again, wake the fuck up and actually learn about the Geneva Conventions, or do yourself and the US a favor and shut the hell up. NOWHERE in the Geneva Conventions are ANY provisions that state it is okay to kill off, starve, or otherwise harm civvies in order to attack military targets. In fact, that flies in the face of pretty much EVERYTHING the GCIV stands for.

And yes, I am also discussing the terrorists, and what their legal state is. So far, you haven't been able to prove shit about their legal state being nothing to the point where the GCs don't cover them, and have been going off on a diverting tangent that is built upon mouth-stuffing.

But please, preach on as to my ignorance of the GC, thou you may want to give credit where it is due and quote some of the authors you are repeating that propaganda from.

I don't have the time to fully educate you on whom wrote and signed the Geneva Conventions, as that is what I am talking about. If you are so ignorant that you don't know of what else I am discussing, or don't care, don't bother replying again. If you feel like you disagree with the GCs, that is your problem, not mine. Your simple, one-track mind is wholly grounded on trying to excuse the US of war crimes with a very absurd interpretation of one rule, that you absolutely miss that the US violates several other GCs and supplemental Protocols in the same stride. GCIV, Part 3, Section I, Article 28 only states that it doesn't render an area in which civvies are present immune to military presence, meaning that the presence of civvies doesn't render the area impassable for troops to both move and operate through. THAT STILL MEANS THAT CIVVIES ARE STILL TO BE PROTECTED, MORON.

Art. 27. Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

Too bad you skipped that one over your determination to feebly excuse war crimes.

Now for chucklehead #2:

I think I'll have to side with Poe here, even though I'm strongly oposed to US foreign policy, especially the one regarding Iraq. But his arguments hold more ground than do any of yours.

Speaking of clueless...

Not to mention that he’s virtually the only one showing “proper discussion conduct”, i.e. not blatantly insulting other members of the forum.

Amusing that you presume to tell me what to do on my own forum, much less the general guide of netiquette regarding flames. You might want to read up on them if you want to continue your argumentative cluelessness, as I am not going to entertain your ignorant attitude any longer.

Obviously, the man is neither stupid nor uneducated as you’re implying – quite the opposite.

So then he excuses numerous, excessive and repetitive violations of the GCs with a sloppy interperetation of one rule, regardless of the specific wording of protection for civilians from military action, much less war crimes that amount to starving 3/4 of a MILLION people. Yeah, that's "fucking brilliant" in my book, kid.

The problem here is your(plural) biasness and lack of understanding for other peoples views on the same subject.

I only try to understand idiocy to the point where I can crush it as completely as possible. So far, neither of you have been able to prove anything, instead one assclown excuses war crimes against civvies with a sloppy interperetation of an article, and you come along to suck his ass.

Something which really doesn’t befit experienced “debaters”.

And this negates your post as flamebait, how? Oh, yes, easy to be a hypocrite when you don't bother to match what you claim. So far I haven't seen shit for proof by him, only the sad twisting of one article to excuse war crimes. Let me know when this starts to sink in.

Not to mention a methodical lack of factual reference to back any of your claims…

Amusing, since I have been able to quote and effectively demonstrate the scope of the GCs, addressing his points about the legality of the suspected terrorists held in custody (still waiting for that tribunal!), the violations of the GCs in regards to civvy life and welfare and how the US policy has pissed on that (really, just look up "cut off water to Fallujah" and you will see numerous reports of how it is a war crime), and I have debunked his deluded idiocy in regards to ONE article of hundreds in the GCs and supplemental protocols (so Protocol 1, 54 would also prove him to be full of shit)..

Unless you're too stupid to use Google.com to look up past topics, in which case feel free to leave because I don't have the patience to educate some brain-donor as they stumble into the conversation without a clue..

and more importantly lack of any “hands-on” experience, unlike this gentleman who’s witnessed or experienced the actual implementation of GC in real life situations.

You base that assumption how? I already pointed out that I have had to know the GCs, because I was in the military myself. I can also accurately describe the points of the GC, because I know why and how they were written the way they were. It is part of being a leader in combat situations, and therefore it WAS required knowledge for certain ranks. I am not so sure now.

So far I haven't seen Poe do anything remotely resembling a clue in regards to the GCs. Instead, as I have to bring up multiple times for your benefit, he seems to just be dry-humping of one article in a skewed meaning while pissing on the rest.

Just because some jarhead holds a rifle, that doesn't make them knowledgeable about the GCs.

Naturally, everything isn’t and can’t be expected to be perfect – give one example of modern combat where the GC was entirely adhered to anyway?

Sure, everyone else runs the red light, so it's perfectly legal!

No, I don't see that moronic line of "logic" working either. Furthermore, I can only assume your questionable presence in this thread is because I chewed you out for giving a moderator attitude when you kept double-posting without a clue.

Don't bother to troll again or you will fare worse than this time.

 

[Bradylama]

First, Max:

Not to mention that he’s virtually the only one showing “proper discussion conduct”, i.e. not blatantly insulting other members of the forum.

I don't recall when exactly I insulted Poe, unless you mean I'm using derogatory language like "towel head" and "boners," in which case, I'd suggest removing the stick from your posterior.

Naturally, everything isn’t and can’t be expected to be perfect – give one example of modern combat where the GC was entirely adhered to anyway?

More straw men. Whether or not war is perfect isn't the issue here, it's whether or not the US military has commited war crimes. Nor is the particular issue about the effectiveness of that policy, though it's definitely debateable.

On this issue, Rosh has definitely provided hard evidence to show that the actions within those claims are warcrimes. Not to mention that Rosh served in the navy, and while perhaps not having any combat experience (correct me if I'm wrong) would be as familiar with Geneva as any other member of the armed forces. The only issue you have with Rosh is that he doesn't play nice, which isn't indicative of him being right or wrong, it just means that he's a dick. Live with it.

However as detainees are under suspicion, while the “innocent until proven guilty” process takes place awarding them the same rights and protections of the civilian populace is quite the leap for me, would you fill in on what legal precedent you would make such a stance from?

I don't have to. We have over 200 years of legal history regarding how to go about conducting the treatment of law breakers. Whether or not they should be afforded those rights isn't the issue. This isn't a matter of policy, it's a matter of event. I don't disagree that the reports could be skewed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're false.

Ratty is one of our better conspiracy theorists, and is quick to draw imaginative conclusions. That doesn't mean that he's wrong.

For as far as terrorism being an “method” and not some “all encompassing label I think you have a different definition of it than everyone else.

No, not really. The modern conotations of terrorism is that it is an action targetting civilian pops in order to create terror to facilitate political change. It's a method. "Terrorists" are people that apply terror as a method of warfare.

Nevermind the greater context of a "War on Terror," where "terrorists" are implied to be enemy combatants in an encompassing "war" and are thus, when captured, POWs, in the "War on Terror."

 

[Ratty Sr.]

I noted that you stated your believe that the people of Iraq would have had a better future under the Hussein’s, yet posed no reasoning for it, am I to assume it is strictly a mater of opinion and not based on reality?

It's based on opinion, of course. My opinion, however, is based on facts. Fact is that Hussein's regime, though brutal and repressive, at least provided a degree of order and safety to Iraqi citizens, whereas Allied occupation brought nothing but chaos, death and even greater poverty.

Pray tell, how exactly in stating the abject reality of the example that was presented “purposefully ignoring the point”? I acknowledged before in previous posts there is more than a little room for improvement in the method used to determine terrorist from civilian. However as stated, once convicted the laws that apply to all no longer apply. See incarceration, felony convictions and the death penalty for reference… However as you would take up his point, maybe you could explain how terrorism and terrorists can be considered “lawful”?

The point is that terrorists are entitled to same rights granted by law as other criminals. These include rights not to be beaten, not to be starved, not to be exposed to dangerous chemicals and not to be held indefinitely without trial.

Strike two.

That's his third actually, if not fourth.

 

[Poe]

Your previous statements prove you to be a liar.

Now you are a confirmed idiot.

You might have wanted to pay attention, jarhead.

or the fact that you call yourself a soldier and have no clue about the rules of conflict.

You are such a self-deluded shit.

Logic to the wind? Sorry, kid,

Again, wake the fuck up and actually learn about the Geneva Conventions, or do yourself and the US a favor and shut the hell up.

If you are so ignorant that you don't know of what else I am discussing, or don't care, don't bother replying again.

Liar. That protocol, Protocol 1, Article 51, states this:

I am not going to entertain your ignorant attitude any longer.

Before I continue, I really have to ask, have you surrounded yourself in your life with people of so little character that such boorish assaults actually result in some kind of concession on there part?

Anyway, I was not going to bring in the December 7, 1979 accords for the obvious can of worms that article 54 opens up, which I have noticed you apparently chose to skip, yet used as a point of reference. Anyway, Article 54, section 5 states “In recognition of the vital requirements of any Party to the conflict in the defiance of its national territory against invasion, derogation from the prohibitions contained in paragraph 2 may be made by a Party to the conflict within such territory under its own control where required by imperative military necessity.”

Do I need to translate that one and put it into perspective for you or can you do that on your own Squid? You don’t mind if I call you squid after all, being were so familiar you can call me a Jarhead.

If the best argument you have is insults and selective quoting of the GC I RECON you might as well get rid of me, before you make it even worse. Because after this then we have to bring up the circumstantial validity of the current government in Iraq, then we get into the moral implications of accepting that some will use civilians as shields and then the long term implications that come out of those who are responding to it. However, I am sure that falls into that “Ignorant Attitude” you mentioned. The insults are nothing to me after all, I have been called worse by better. However, it is with some amusement I ponder if the vault will catch this when you go right off the deep end, to bear witness to what you are made of? Or if your just going to throw it in the recycle bin to save face?

 

[Bradylama]

Their. Not there, Their, and in the case of plural, they're. Also, we're.

*waits for the hammer*

So anyways, what is it about Iraq that constitutes our "national territory?"

 

[Ratty Sr.]

So anyways, what is it about Iraq that constitutes our "national terrirtory?"

Burned!

 

[Roshambo]

Before I continue, I really have to ask, have you surrounded yourself in your life with people of so little character that such boorish assaults actually result in some kind of concession on there part?

Troll #3. Again, so anyone missed it, not related to the topic.

Anyway, I was not going to bring in the December 7, 1979 accords for the obvious can of worms that article 54 opens up, which I have noticed you apparently chose to skip, yet used as a point of reference. Anyway, Article 54, section 5 states “In recognition of the vital requirements of any Party to the conflict in the defiance of its national territory against invasion, derogation from the prohibitions contained in paragraph 2 may be made by a Party to the conflict within such territory under its own control where required by imperative military necessity.”

As others have noted, Iraq is now suddenly the US' sovereign soil?

I really can't believe that you were ever a marine, or in such a position to be held accountable for such laws of war. So either you're a liar or a marine without honor. Which still boils down to "piece of shit" in my book. I can't believe that you could even be so moronic to drag out a quote without fully reading it first.

Hooked-On Phonics sure worked for you.

Do I need to translate that one and put it into perspective for you or can you do that on your own Squid? You don’t mind if I call you squid after all, being were so familiar you can call me a Jarhead.

Sorry, I meant to say "Groundpounder", as that is about the only evident use anybody could get of you. You, contrary to aforementioned ass-lamprey's opinion, have yet to point out anything other than your own self-defeating idiocy and garbage you bring up out of context.

If the best argument you have is insults and selective quoting of the GC I RECON you might as well get rid of me, before you make it even worse. Because after this then we have to bring up the circumstantial validity of the current government in Iraq, then we get into the moral implications of accepting that some will use civilians as shields and then the long term implications that come out of those who are responding to it. However, I am sure that falls into that “Ignorant Attitude” you mentioned. The insults are nothing to me after all, I have been called worse by better.
However, it is with some amusement I ponder if the vault will catch this when you go right off the deep end, to bear witness to what you are made of? Or if your just going to throw it in the recycle bin to save face?

You have NO honor when you believe that doing "nice" deeds somehow absolves people of crime, and therefore I cannot do anything further to ruin your own credibility as a soldier or even entertain you as a judge of what would and would not constitute a war crime. To put it into a media reference you are sure to understand, it is like the gangster making a token charity donation; nice, but doesn't absolve the deaths and mistreatments at their hands. A few schools and Haliburton taking a vested intered in the country's oil refineries is hardly enough for me to even consider turning a blind eye to the careless taking of lives and forcing hundreds of thousands of people to go without water. How you can condone such is beyond everything I have been taught, taught to others, and practiced myself. I do not mock or take lightly my counterpart in the opposing military, I do not mock or disrespect those who have no ability to defend themselves. I certainly wouldn't be so asinine to say I was "helping" them at all if I were to commit such a war crime. Nor can I say others are doing so, while they do this.

Being able to vote is also a joke when it takes a back seat to the doctrine of the invading forces doing things like, say, shut off the water to hundreds of thousands of civvies, "protected persons" as defined by Geneva Convention IV. So if the current Iraqi govt has any connection to the same, then they should be tried for war crimes against their own people. Remember, this is an area strife with politics, and this kind of shit has happened elsewhere, another time in the Mid-East. Kind of like when the US stuck its hand into the beehive, the last time or dozen. Also in the Axis countries, but I do hate repeating myself for the slow. Count this as a freebie.*

So, kids, keep looking through your rose-tinted glasses, and understand that the US is next to toilet paper when it comes to international diplomatic standing. If anyone of the US forces is tried for war crimes, or the invasion is itself declared a war crime (WMD? Oh, that's not the meme of the week, no wonder you forgot about them in light of "Hey, look, more people we pissed off! They MUST be terrorists!"), that also implicates quite a few countries and there goes the backbone of what people considered to be "the good guys". People in multiple governments would be held accountable, especially if they knowingly aided and executed some of the major considerations of war crimes.

Sorry to break it to you, kid, but some of those labeled "terrorist" are native from Iraq as well, and have had what little they had in Saddam's era crushed into nothing by the US occupation. Some were displaced into other countries, and now are forced to return to nothing because they can no longer stay in other countries under "political asylum".

I will trust that you are sentient enough to work a search engine to do some background research. I have already been through this a number of times, I'm not going to educate every simp that seems to flounder into these discussions without a clue. I have already pointed out an independent journalist's site, one of a few, that has gone to great lengths to get the stories of what this war has been on the civvies. I have also cited what should have been an international incident, but it was brushed under the carpet because nobody politically could give a shit or say contrary at the time. The verdict is still out with some countries.

Then we can look towards the attitude of some of the National Guard/military in New Orleans. Sorry, kiddies, but those aren't Iraqis you're pointing your guns at anymore. The fact that they are the media who are often trying to help a lot more than you just standing there only speaks volumes once the stories come out. And they have. It is helpful to know a few people on the N'Awlins police force, especially when you went to visit. That shocked the shit out of more than a few of them.

* Like Carlos Mencia, I have no quarrel or complaint about those who were born retarded. Such things happen, and life sucks, but everyone has their specialty - some involve fast food preparation. However, they are often very humble people who tend to acknowledge their limits and try to stretch them, but they also aren't belligerant about things they know nothing about. In fact, a lot want to learn if it's applied right, but they will not pontificate about quantum physics if it's clearly not in their field of savant.

Ironic that they would be more considerable of a human being than one who excuses war crimes, or even the erudite sniper/electronics engineer. I have done some harsh things, by the rules though still harsh they are, but I will never try to absolve myself of the responsibility nor the fact that I did them. That, kiddies, is the definition of honor to any kind of soldier on the field, I don't care what ethnic background; it is from Sun Tze, Miyamoto Mushashi, and many others around the world. Lying is the trait of a complex, dishonorable being, built upon dishonesty and duplicity.

My only quarrel is with those who were born, and then became retarded. I would suggest that you should learn how to think for yourself, but apparently thought in general poses you a challenge.

Burned!

Indeed. Very Musashi, if I must say so.

"Stomping a Sword, Fire Scroll"

Stomping is not only done with the feet. You should also learn to "stomp" with your body, "stomp" with your mind, and of course "stomp" with a sword, in such a way as to prevent opponents from making a second move.

This means getting the jump on everything. It does not mean randomly hitting an opponent with the idea of settling the contest at once. It means instantaneous and unyielding follow-up. This should be investigated thoroughly.

"A Commander Knowing Soldiers, Fire Scroll"

"A commander knowing soldiers" is a method always practiced in tomes of conflict after having reached the mastery to which one aspires. Having attained the power in the knowledge of the arts of war, you think of your adversaries as your own soldiers, understanding that you should do with them as you wish, intending to manipulate them freely. You are the commander, the opponents are the troops. This takes work.

Miyamoto Mushashi

The first is what I tend to follow, but the second is just a flowery way of saying... "DANCE, PUPPET, DANCE!"

 

[TheWesDude]

------------
Let me pose a question to you - are thieves and other criminals held in American prisons without trial while enduring physical torment?
------------

actually the "Treason and High Crimes" statutes allow the holding of prisoners without trial when their crimes are of sensitive nature. now weather or not they endure physical torment is another question but none of us would really know because they are held entirely away from anyone so they cannot divulge the info they hold and their crimes are of such a sensitive nature that they cannot be brought to trial.

 

[Bradylama]

Musashi will just have to kick my impulsive ass, then.

 

[Roshambo]

Musashi will just have to kick my impulsive ass, then.

Sorry? I think there might be some miscommunication, as I was rather complimenting your response to the teachings of Musashi.

I was likening the quotes to your post as a direct dissection of the point, to strike aside a wild, feeble swing to Stab the Face (Stabbing/Striking the Face, Water Scroll). The second is in regards to impulsive, frantic swings and points made in desperation by the opponent, countered in such a way so that you may keep the enemy continually unbalanced and forced into a position where you may fully manipulate them.

So far, Poe is backed into a corner with each successive point he tries to use, either misquoting or being without a clue of what each article he [ab]uses as a "point" in regards to the conflict, and you stomped, quick and decisively. So far so, that I think you have broken his game open and his modus, since he tries to weasel out of my numerous points by trying to get people to ignore them by not addressing them, so now let's expect yet another article to be posted and maligned with his willful, argumentative ignorance. Or not, and simply ban him, it's about time.

 

[Bradylama]

Oh, ok. I thought maybe there was some corner I left unturned because I wanted to go straight for the juggular.

 

[Roshambo]

Oh, ok. I thought maybe there was some corner I left unturned because I wanted to go straight for the juggular.

Ah, The Single Stroke, Water Scroll.

 

[Poe]

Troll #3. Again, so anyone missed it, not related to the topic.

Just incase someone else missed it, again, could you clarify that it is acceptable to launch a barrage of personal insults, yet questioning the motivation is “Trolling”?

I guess while embracing my inner feces I failed to realize you would miss what being a “party to the conflict” entailed. I could define it, I could explain the legal connotations and pretext of being a party, I could also show what groups, allied to sovereign nations have fit the definition in court, in the past as reference. But as I don’t think you would come to terms with it, and as your ignorance is your own to keep, I shall not deprive you of it.

Furthermore, while you are continuing to insult my integrity and honor “in context” to the discussion, while poignantly ignoring my statements quoted directly to the document in question as being out of context; please take a moment to realize “Groundpounder” is a term used amongst the grunts to refer to artillery. So if you are going insult the infantry, at least use the right vocabulary.

Which also brings to light that while calling someone an “ass-lamprey” is somewhat amusing, I have to ask, would you stand for someone insulting you like that on these boards? I mean assuming you were not a moderator who has to maintain decorum of civility and politeness to set an example?

Yet you would call me honor less? Such a scornful remark would hold some bite if your conduct thus far didn’t illustrate that you don’t have enough of a grasp of what honor is to recognize its absence.

Anyway, to get back on subject, the fact of the mater is simple. There is evil, it will hide behind innocence. It considers your humanity a weakness and its lack of it an asset. It’s barbarism knows no bounds and will use your compassion to kill you, if you allow it. Despite that such evil still needs to be confronted. The creators of the GC realized this, hence the creation of the previsions you would ignore. Your denial, insults and attempts to shift the context of the discussion do not change the reality of the matter. However Quixote it is my sincere hope that your world never collides with the real one, and that your valiant defense of your little virtual fiefdom here keeps your windmills as dragons, and your knighthood intact.

Now for a closing little bit of irony that I again just cannot ignore, is your reference to Musashi. The way you rant and rave and insult instead of counter, the way you dig deeper and go to greater lengths of the same ineffective tactics when your foe refuses to match insults and utilizes tactics different than what you are accustomed to. No adaptation, no patience, no focus… Then resemblance between you and Sasaki Kojiro is a mirror image.

”Generally speaking, the Way of the warrior is resolute acceptance of death.”
- Miyamoto Musashi

 

[Bradylama]

“In recognition of the vital requirements of any Party to the conflict in the defiance of its national territory against invasion, derogation from the prohibitions contained in paragraph 2 may be made by a Party to the conflict within such territory under its own control where required by imperative military necessity.”

What is it about Iraq that makes it our national territory? Even as a puppet government we have no national claim to it. Not that I expect you to be around much longer since you seem to love producing volumes over why Rosh is a big meanie, instead of "countering" my queries.

 

[Poe]

What is it about Iraq that makes it our national territory? Even as a puppet government we have no national claim to it. Not that I expect you to be around much longer since you seem to love producing volumes over why Rosh is a big meanie, instead of "countering" my queries.

I’m sorry Brady, I really didn’t mean to ignore you. From the intelligence you displayed in some other posts I honestly thought you were jesting with such a question, my bad.

Of course, Iraq’ is not our “national” territory. However as an ally of Iraq we are a “party to the conflict”, much the same way we were in France in WW2, or Kuwait in the first Gulf War. The territory under its control is the recognized border of Iraq, which incidentally all three of the cities in question reside in. After talks failed the only option to oust these terrorists (foreign lead composite local/foreign guerrilla forces) was the military one. I.E. America, as a party to the conflict, in defense of the national territory of Iraq, allots for derogation from the prohibitions contained in paragraph 2 being made by a party to the conflict (that’s us again, or the Iraqi’s, or any of the allies) within such territory under its control where it is required by imperative military necessity (as defined by the governmetn of Iraq).

For as far as the National Sovereignty of the Iraqi State, that is debatable to some degree. But while an argument that may merit some consideration morally, legally it holds no weight as with a voter turnout as great as it was and the only local nation who has not officially recognized the government is Syria… Well, its going to be some hard to run with the “Puppet State” prosecution approach.

For as far as me being gone, I’ll leave with a smile. Rosh’s antics have already made quite the impression on me at least, so while I am a somewhat interested to see what depth he may delve to, I will not fret if his only recourse to disagreement is personal insults and banning.