But i do think gaint hates the US. Why else would he spread so many lies about it that are clearly false?
I have a couple problems with this last sentence.
1. You don't know giant's motivations. Stating that you think he hates the US is nothing more than flamebait and you know it.
2. Clearly false. Now, I haven't read every link he has posted but when it comes to politics and government, it is indeed a rarity when anything is clear, cut, and dry. Many people think Bush is clearly an idiot. Others think he is clearly not. Obviously it isn't clear one way or the other to everyone.
3. Assuming for a moment that he believes these "lies" to be true, exposing them is a patriotic duty. It is our duty to prevent the corruption of the system. Unfortunately, not many take this duty seriously. Just look at how much money candidates raise for campaigns these days.
4. Assuming for a moment that he agrees that these are lies, hatred of the united states still isn't necessarily the reason why he would spread them. It could simply be hatred of specific intelligence organizations or specific people. Hell, it could be just to get your ass all riled up again and firing anti-american labels at anything that moves.
You people seriously need to get a hobby other than contorting what I say in an attempt to discredit me. Youo are just sore because I point out this BS you people try to pull.
But i do think gaint hates the US. Why else would he spread so many lies about it that are clearly false.
Well, your support of Israel is considered anti-american in most of the country. But that doesn't get much media play, does it? I just can't wait until you start spewing your BS outside of your safe area and see what happenes to you there.
PS, there no question I've lived in more cities in this country, travelled more in it and come from a family that has and does have much more energy spent in the building of it (all the way up to a secretary of state, yes).
So basically you can keep repeating this BS, but it's just another one of the lies you live your life by.
Using a weapon that is not banned on a military target is a violation of the GC?
what part of this sentence do you knumbskulls not understand?
Quote:
posted by giant
My concern is not whether or not what was done was permitted by the geneva convention. My concern is with sentences like this from you: Except the chemicals involved are completly different that the ones Saddam might have hoarded.
But, yeah, go ahead and contort what I'm saying so you can avoid responsibility for the lies you and others spewed during the war.
At least the fact that you've resorted to you anti-american BS shows that you know you look like a fool and have nothing to argue based on fact.
So why not address the point I was actually making rather than the one you are pretending I made? Oh yeah. That would mean you would have to admit how wrong you have been for the past 9 months.
giant, did you even read the rest of my post? I'm not contorting what you're saying, I'm researching the facts, that's why I included a link to support the argument that I made
As a simple request lets drop the chief, bud, buddy stuff, it may not be for malice, but it's weirdly annoying to me comrade
giant, did you even read the rest of my post? I'm not contorting what you're saying, I'm researching the facts, that's why I included a link to support the argument that I made
As a simple request lets drop the chief, bud, buddy stuff, it may not be for malice, but it's weirdly annoying to me comrade
Where to start?
I already linked to Protocol III (primary source, as opposed to your secondary source) before your post. Maybe you should actually read it, since you still are wrong about what it says even in the wake of multiple links to it. I don't see where it distinguishes between napalm and other incendiary bombs of the same type. In other words, what I said is 100% correct. According to the Geneva Convention napalm and these new weapons are equal.
How much you want to bet you won't acknowledge that you were wrong.
Not that I care. My concern in this thread is not with the geneva convention but with the use of the chemicals, the disbelief pro-war types had towards their use and the condemnation of Iraq for chemical weapons when the US was actually the country that used/had them.
Yeah, you're right, I won't admit I'm wrong on this. The fact is that this thread is about the Geneva Convention, and that under certain circumstances incediaries are allowable by the Convention.
I'm sorry that you are blind to the fact that loopholes are made for everything and that all nations(not just the US) take advantage of those loopholes.
And if you don't like it so much let's see you post pictures of the next or last time you go out on a civil protest.
As for being pro-war, no I'm not, I have a father who is being sent over there, he's already lost 30+ friends in various warzones around the world. If you would pay attention to what I actually post instead of twisting things then you'd understand and remember that I've said as much in the past.
Yeah, you're right, I won't admit I'm wrong on this. The fact is that this thread is about the Geneva Convention, and that under certain circumstances incediaries are allowable by the Convention.
I'm sorry that you are blind to the fact that loopholes are made for everything and that all nations(not just the US) take advantage of those loopholes.
HELLOOOOOOOO! Earth to Liquid R!!
Here is the exchange that took place:
Quote:
Giant: Well, it looks like 'napalm' was indeed used in Iraq.
Scott: Were these outlawed by the GC?
Giant: just as much as napalm, IIRC
Scott: You're own article states that the GC does not prohibit these type of weapons.
Giant: As for everything that I've posted in this thread regarding ... the geneva convention, I appear to be 100% correct.
LiquidR: Incendiary weapons are not restricted on all occassions...so giant not 100% correct, sorry.
Scott brought up the geneva convention, I made a correct assertion. I'm not even arguing against the point you are making, in fact I linked to the actual protocol III before you linked to a secondary source on it. If you had any sense you'd see that your issue was fully addressed in my original statement regarding these weapons and the geneva convention.
You are pretending I said things I didn't and then saying I'm wrong. Well then I will do the same.
LiquidR, the earth is not really a marshmallow. You are so wrong when you say that it is. I'm sorry you are blind to the fact that the earth is not a marshmallow.
Oh, and thanks for reminding me that you are a kid. That must be why you don't know what's going on around you, including the discussions you pretend to participate in.
LiquidR, the earth is not really a marshmallow. You are so wrong when you say that it is. I'm sorry you are blind to the fact that
the earth is not a marshmallow.
Oh, and thanks for reminding me that you are a kid. That must be why you don't know what's going on around you, including
the discussions you pretend to participate in.
So, going to admit you are wrong yet?
I'm going paraphrase something you said earlier, giant why do you have to be a jerk all the time.
Ok I'll concede that I misread your posts, but the fact is that you are often vague and ill-concise with how you communicate, not to mention inflammatory, so I thought you in your bias were implying something
as for the part about being a kid, goes to show that you do not pay attention at all
I'm going paraphrase something you said earlier, giant why do you have to be a jerk all the time.
Ok I'll concede that I misread your posts, but the fact is that you are often vague and ill-concise with how you communicate, not to mention inflammatory, so I thought you in your bias were implying something
I'm a jerk?! You are the one that been attacking me for something I never said and continued to do so after I pointed it out. Do a search on me and find any instance of me doing anything like that. Go ahead.
And good job at not taking responsibility. Maybe I should refer you to this post, where I predicted such behavior:
Ok, so "napalm", or incendiary devices that use similarly acting chemicals named something other than that controversial and generic "N-word" were used. Why was it so much of a surprise? The original source was reliable, (ie not Fox or CNN etc) but the usual "conspiracy theory" kneejerkers chimed in.
In the story, George Bush Sr. ordered the use of Sarin, Tabun and CycloSarin nerve gas on Iraqi troops during the Gulf War of 1991. Do you feel that this is a ridiculous assertion, or plausible?
Not that I care. My concern in this thread is not with the geneva convention but with the use of the chemicals, the disbelief pro-war types had towards their use and the condemnation of Iraq for chemical weapons when the US was actually the country that used/had them.
"We were all there, for at least half an hour. They knew we were journalists. After they shot Mazen, they aimed their guns at us. I don't think it was accident. They are very tense. They are crazy," said Stephan Breitner of France 2 television.
One of the soldiers started shouting at us, but when he knew we were journalists, he softened. One of the soldiers told us they thought Mazen was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade," said Abbas.
Lemme get this straight. A pack of idiot reports walks up to a POW camp in an area that continues to have attacks and then they are shocked when someone mistakes them.
Lemme get this straight. A pack of idiot reports walks up to a POW camp in an area that continues to have attacks and then they are shocked when someone mistakes them.
No, some reporters had been in the same area for over 30 minutes when out of the blue the U.S. military shoots at them.
Reports with out Borders wants complete access, complete freedom of movement and complete guaranty that they will not have to suffer the effects of working in a war zone.
No doubt the european media is giving us the usual unbiased reporting they always do.
Reports with out Borders wants complete access, complete freedom of movement and complete guaranty that they will not have to suffer the effects of working in a war zone.
That may be what they want, but if they were working within the guidelines of the military and they're still killed by soldiers on edge then there's a problem.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
I use the "/" as an and/or.
But i do think gaint hates the US. Why else would he spread so many lies about it that are clearly false?
I have a couple problems with this last sentence.
1. You don't know giant's motivations. Stating that you think he hates the US is nothing more than flamebait and you know it.
2. Clearly false. Now, I haven't read every link he has posted but when it comes to politics and government, it is indeed a rarity when anything is clear, cut, and dry. Many people think Bush is clearly an idiot. Others think he is clearly not. Obviously it isn't clear one way or the other to everyone.
3. Assuming for a moment that he believes these "lies" to be true, exposing them is a patriotic duty. It is our duty to prevent the corruption of the system. Unfortunately, not many take this duty seriously. Just look at how much money candidates raise for campaigns these days.
4. Assuming for a moment that he agrees that these are lies, hatred of the united states still isn't necessarily the reason why he would spread them. It could simply be hatred of specific intelligence organizations or specific people. Hell, it could be just to get your ass all riled up again and firing anti-american labels at anything that moves.
Originally posted by LiquidR
so giant not 100% correct, sorry,
go look what I wrote, chief:
Were these outlawed by the GC?
giant:
just as much as napalm, IIRC
You people seriously need to get a hobby other than contorting what I say in an attempt to discredit me. Youo are just sore because I point out this BS you people try to pull.
Originally posted by Scott
But i do think gaint hates the US. Why else would he spread so many lies about it that are clearly false.
Well, your support of Israel is considered anti-american in most of the country. But that doesn't get much media play, does it? I just can't wait until you start spewing your BS outside of your safe area and see what happenes to you there.
PS, there no question I've lived in more cities in this country, travelled more in it and come from a family that has and does have much more energy spent in the building of it (all the way up to a secretary of state, yes).
So basically you can keep repeating this BS, but it's just another one of the lies you live your life by.
Originally posted by Scott
Using a weapon that is not banned on a military target is a violation of the GC?
what part of this sentence do you knumbskulls not understand?
posted by giant
My concern is not whether or not what was done was permitted by the geneva convention. My concern is with sentences like this from you: Except the chemicals involved are completly different that the ones Saddam might have hoarded.
But, yeah, go ahead and contort what I'm saying so you can avoid responsibility for the lies you and others spewed during the war.
At least the fact that you've resorted to you anti-american BS shows that you know you look like a fool and have nothing to argue based on fact.
So why not address the point I was actually making rather than the one you are pretending I made? Oh yeah. That would mean you would have to admit how wrong you have been for the past 9 months.
As a simple request lets drop the chief, bud, buddy stuff, it may not be for malice, but it's weirdly annoying to me comrade
Originally posted by LiquidR
giant, did you even read the rest of my post? I'm not contorting what you're saying, I'm researching the facts, that's why I included a link to support the argument that I made
As a simple request lets drop the chief, bud, buddy stuff, it may not be for malice, but it's weirdly annoying to me comrade
Where to start?
I already linked to Protocol III (primary source, as opposed to your secondary source) before your post. Maybe you should actually read it, since you still are wrong about what it says even in the wake of multiple links to it. I don't see where it distinguishes between napalm and other incendiary bombs of the same type. In other words, what I said is 100% correct. According to the Geneva Convention napalm and these new weapons are equal.
How much you want to bet you won't acknowledge that you were wrong.
Not that I care. My concern in this thread is not with the geneva convention but with the use of the chemicals, the disbelief pro-war types had towards their use and the condemnation of Iraq for chemical weapons when the US was actually the country that used/had them.
I'm sorry that you are blind to the fact that loopholes are made for everything and that all nations(not just the US) take advantage of those loopholes.
And if you don't like it so much let's see you post pictures of the next or last time you go out on a civil protest.
As for being pro-war, no I'm not, I have a father who is being sent over there, he's already lost 30+ friends in various warzones around the world. If you would pay attention to what I actually post instead of twisting things then you'd understand and remember that I've said as much in the past.
Originally posted by LiquidR
Yeah, you're right, I won't admit I'm wrong on this. The fact is that this thread is about the Geneva Convention, and that under certain circumstances incediaries are allowable by the Convention.
I'm sorry that you are blind to the fact that loopholes are made for everything and that all nations(not just the US) take advantage of those loopholes.
HELLOOOOOOOO! Earth to Liquid R!!
Here is the exchange that took place:
Giant: Well, it looks like 'napalm' was indeed used in Iraq.
Scott: Were these outlawed by the GC?
Giant: just as much as napalm, IIRC
Scott: You're own article states that the GC does not prohibit these type of weapons.
Giant: As for everything that I've posted in this thread regarding ... the geneva convention, I appear to be 100% correct.
LiquidR: Incendiary weapons are not restricted on all occassions...so giant not 100% correct, sorry.
Scott brought up the geneva convention, I made a correct assertion. I'm not even arguing against the point you are making, in fact I linked to the actual protocol III before you linked to a secondary source on it. If you had any sense you'd see that your issue was fully addressed in my original statement regarding these weapons and the geneva convention.
You are pretending I said things I didn't and then saying I'm wrong. Well then I will do the same.
LiquidR, the earth is not really a marshmallow. You are so wrong when you say that it is. I'm sorry you are blind to the fact that the earth is not a marshmallow.
Oh, and thanks for reminding me that you are a kid. That must be why you don't know what's going on around you, including the discussions you pretend to participate in.
So, going to admit you are wrong yet?
LiquidR, the earth is not really a marshmallow. You are so wrong when you say that it is. I'm sorry you are blind to the fact that
the earth is not a marshmallow.
Oh, and thanks for reminding me that you are a kid. That must be why you don't know what's going on around you, including
the discussions you pretend to participate in.
So, going to admit you are wrong yet?
I'm going paraphrase something you said earlier, giant why do you have to be a jerk all the time.
Ok I'll concede that I misread your posts, but the fact is that you are often vague and ill-concise with how you communicate, not to mention inflammatory, so I thought you in your bias were implying something
as for the part about being a kid, goes to show that you do not pay attention at all
Originally posted by LiquidR
I'm going paraphrase something you said earlier, giant why do you have to be a jerk all the time.
Ok I'll concede that I misread your posts, but the fact is that you are often vague and ill-concise with how you communicate, not to mention inflammatory, so I thought you in your bias were implying something
I'm a jerk?! You are the one that been attacking me for something I never said and continued to do so after I pointed it out. Do a search on me and find any instance of me doing anything like that. Go ahead.
And good job at not taking responsibility. Maybe I should refer you to this post, where I predicted such behavior:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...231#post421231
see, you aren't the only one.
Heres a link:
http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/operation_black_dog.htm
In the story, George Bush Sr. ordered the use of Sarin, Tabun and CycloSarin nerve gas on Iraqi troops during the Gulf War of 1991. Do you feel that this is a ridiculous assertion, or plausible?
So, as is often the case, you're to overwhelmed with your anti-bush/anti-US mind set to clearly evaluate the situation. [/B]
Anti-Bush and Anti-US? Thats like trying to divide by zero.
Originally posted by giant
...
Not that I care. My concern in this thread is not with the geneva convention but with the use of the chemicals, the disbelief pro-war types had towards their use and the condemnation of Iraq for chemical weapons when the US was actually the country that used/had them.
What use of chemical weapons by the US?
"We were all there, for at least half an hour. They knew we were journalists. After they shot Mazen, they aimed their guns at us. I don't think it was accident. They are very tense. They are crazy," said Stephan Breitner of France 2 television.
http://www.newsday.com/templates/mis...2Fworld%2Fwire
More bad news.
EDIT: The URL didn't work, I think because of the % signs. Try copy and paste....
One of the soldiers started shouting at us, but when he knew we were journalists, he softened. One of the soldiers told us they thought Mazen was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade," said Abbas.
Originally posted by Scott
Lemme get this straight. A pack of idiot reports walks up to a POW camp in an area that continues to have attacks and then they are shocked when someone mistakes them.
No, some reporters had been in the same area for over 30 minutes when out of the blue the U.S. military shoots at them.
No doubt the european media is giving us the usual unbiased reporting they always do.
Originally posted by Scott
Reports with out Borders wants complete access, complete freedom of movement and complete guaranty that they will not have to suffer the effects of working in a war zone.
That may be what they want, but if they were working within the guidelines of the military and they're still killed by soldiers on edge then there's a problem.