RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 7:42:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
On the other hand  the route for the new oil pipe line has been finalized and the contracts for it's construction are to be let soon. 


I think it's a natural gas pipeline.


I had heard it was both but I was making a generic comment, I should have said fuel.



thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 7:46:13 AM)


In the case of brutal tyrants that ignore even the most basic of human rights, yes I definitely feel it's okay.

Life for women in Afghanistan now is better, perhaps not by much, but they do have legal rights and protections now, and you can hardly say that's worse than not having any.

Way kewel...
you get your knickers in a twist and you want people to go bleed. Yet you have not bought a lottery ticket for a body bag.



thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 7:51:14 AM)

I might suggest you check his posting history...

Please do...you will find that mikey has constantly found himself unable to refute any position I have taken.


a quick search just might lead you to a conclusion I have reached...engaging him in any way shape or form and hoping to have an actual discussion is both foolhardy and fruitless.

If you do not bring actual facts to the table.


He is arrogant and obnoxious.

You always say the sweetest things 



thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 7:54:14 AM)

Not so fast cock smoker.


Now that is what I call a well thought out rebuttle



Elisabella -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 7:55:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


In the case of brutal tyrants that ignore even the most basic of human rights, yes I definitely feel it's okay.

Life for women in Afghanistan now is better, perhaps not by much, but they do have legal rights and protections now, and you can hardly say that's worse than not having any.

Way kewel...
you get your knickers in a twist and you want people to go bleed. Yet you have not bought a lottery ticket for a body bag.



I didn't start the war, scroll up, someone asked what recent war was justified and I said Afghanistan. Because the Taliban are sick fucks who deserve to die a slow and painful death, I'm not going to even pretend to shed crocodile tears over them.

The citizens, sure. But I don't buy into the "better a tyrant than a few dead civilians" line of thought.



Thadius -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 7:56:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Not so fast cock smoker.


Now that is what I call a well thought out rebuttle

I thought so too, it added a certain flare to the FACTS THAT ACCOMPANIED IT. You know the rest of the post that proves once again that you are full of shit, at least when it comes to these topics.

Have a great day.



thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 8:16:27 AM)

Your words were:


quote:

The treaty of San Ildefenso clearly states that France would exercise a protectorate over Louisana and that it would continue to be a possession of Spain.
At this time Napoleon held the king of Spain,his wife and son as his "guest" in the palace at San Ildefenso.
The "Voyage of discovery" Was a military expedition into a foriegn country and was armed with the most modern of auto loading rifles...22 .40 cal rounds without stopping to reload.
France saw this military expedition as a military threat that she would not be able to respond to effectively.

and


quote:


At the time of the expedition it would have been comprable to NASA at its inception.
Do you feel that France would be frightened by a mere 30 soldiers? Maybe it was that those 30 men represented the leading edge of an American army and France needed her army in Europe and not in America.



quote:

How disingenuous of you.
This is from the second quote you posted above.  It clearly points out that there was but one of the repeating rifles and this post occures before you mention anything about it. 
If you are not going to try to have a discussion then why post?


Wow, just all over the place with this response. According to supply lists there were a total of 15 rifles taken on the "Voyage of Discovery" most if not all were the Model 1792 flintlocks, perhaps a couple of Model 1803s although there is no record of them.

If you would use something besides wiki you might have also noticed that there were two cannon and the repeating rifle I mentioned.



thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 8:23:38 AM)

You danced and dodged until you finally admitted that there was 1 of these new fangled rifles allegedly on the trip (even though it wasn't on the handwritten list of supplies by the folks that went on the expedition),

Are you denying the existence of this weapon on the expedition?



and still tried to claim that a mere 32 men and a dog were too much for the French to react to,

No... you said that. 
What I said was that France was involved in Europe and that the "Voyage of Discovery" was but the leading edge of the U.S. Army.


and thus we somehow forced them to attack Spain... and so on and so on....

Obviously you have very little understanding of the Napoleonanic wars.  Perhaps you might want to brush up on that before you comment and show your ignorance. 




thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 8:26:33 AM)

Ah and since I feel like rubbing your nose in it a bit tonight, especially when it comes to this particular topic.
The Geneva Conventions which were adopted before 1949 were concerned with combatants only, not with civilians. Some provisions concerning the protection of populations against the consequences of war and their protection in occupied territories are contained in the Regulations concerning the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

The unbolded part of your quote seems to contradict the bolded part.



thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 8:30:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Not so fast cock smoker.


Now that is what I call a well thought out rebuttle

I thought so too,

Name calling is considered by some to be the equivilant of the thought process.



Thadius -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 8:42:21 AM)

First off, learn to use the quote feature, I am not the only one that has made that request. Secondly, your attempts to change the subject time after time is beginning to get tiresome. Third, I provided a link in the other thread to the actual manifest that was hand written by Lewis, this is the third time you have accused me of getting my information from wiki, and the third time I have proved you wrong on that account. Finally, your choice to avoid the FACTS even when presented from the original source, has lead me to believe all you want to do is argue and stroke your own pathetic ego.

Of course I expect you to come back with some witty response about how nobody has refuted anything you have said, and that we are all full of shit, at least in your mind.

Ah I noticed that you just replied again and continue to try and beat a dead horse. So let us try one more time. You stated that the reason the French saw a fait accompli was the overwhelming military expedition that they could not repel or react to, when asked about this overwhelming force you claimed it was the "Voyage of Discovery" and that they were so well armed that they were "comprable to NASA at its inception", to which again I listed the and linked what arms were on the trip and the number of men (32 men and a dog) with at best (giving you the benefit of the doubt) had one of the airguns with them. I still refute the fact that France was 1) unwilling to react 2) unable to react because of their fear of this 32 man expedition (you know which is the crux of your original argument, about every piece of land being gained via violence). That about sums that discussion up.

So now shall we discuss the finer points of the document that you claimed that neither Mike or I have read, the Geneva Convention? Oh and how the 1864 treaty or any ammendments to it prior to 1949 applied to bombing civilians? I am also wondering where your citation of Article Three from that original document, that you claim to know so well, backs up your claim (in other words please provide proof of your claim).




Thadius -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 8:54:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Ah and since I feel like rubbing your nose in it a bit tonight, especially when it comes to this particular topic.
The Geneva Conventions which were adopted before 1949 were concerned with combatants only, not with civilians. Some provisions concerning the protection of populations against the consequences of war and their protection in occupied territories are contained in the Regulations concerning the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

The unbolded part of your quote seems to contradict the bolded part.

See above post. Oh and as you like to recommend, try reading the document and keeping it in the context of the document. Reading comprehension is your friend, you know where they say

quote:


During World War I the Hague provisions proved to be insufficient in view of the dangers originating from air warfare and of the problems relating to the treatment of civilians in enemy territory and in occupied territories. The International Conferences of the Red Cross of the 1920's took the first steps towards laying down supplementary rules for the protection of civilians in time of war. The 1929 Diplomatic Conference, which revised the Geneva Convention on wounded and sick and drew up the Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, limited itself to recommending that "studies should be made with a view to concluding a convention on the protection of
civilians in enemy territory and in enemy occupied territory."


and then they really highlight the specific topic and the question at hand (about protection of civilians during war)
quote:


The events of World War II showed the disastrous consequences of the absence of a convention for the protection of civilians in wartime. The Convention adopted in 1949 takes account of the experiences of World War II. It contains a rather short part concerning the general protection of populations against certain consequences of war (Part II), leaving aside the problem of the limitation of the use of weapons.

So again I ask for your Article Three citation.



slvemike4u -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 9:09:05 AM)

[sm=banghead.gif][sm=banghead.gif][sm=banghead.gif][sm=banghead.gif].....Let me save you the trouble tommie..."Now that is what I call a well thought out rebuttal".
We have seen how you react to rebuttals ...notwithstanding at all the thought processes that were applied.Given the intended target....the emoticons are more than you deserve.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 10:58:13 AM)

Thad,

I've got to agree with mike in this case.

As far as I can remember, thompsonx has never admitted that he was wrong, and never admitted that he has learned anything, or admitted that someone might actually have a point when it comes to a discussion.

Firm



slvemike4u -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 11:05:59 AM)

Why did that sound so damm begrudging Firm....was it all that distasteful to agree with me. [:D]

edited to add my smiley...no sense in being misunderstood [:D]



Thadius -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 11:07:32 AM)

Oh I understand, but I wanted to make sure the record was clear, so that when he broaches this topic again in another thread (as we know will happen) it can simply be linked to.



thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 4:03:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Thad,

I've got to agree with mike in this case.

As far as I can remember, thompsonx has never admitted that he was wrong, and never admitted that he has learned anything, or admitted that someone might actually have a point when it comes to a discussion.

Firm


Firm you are a fucking liar.
Please go back and look at our discussion about DDT.
You will find that not only did I admit my error but I thanked you for disabusing me of my ignorance.



thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 5:04:42 PM)

First off, learn to use the quote feature, I am not the only one that has made that request.

This works for me.



Secondly, your attempts to change the subject time after time is beginning to get tiresome.

I answer your questions and refute your
misstatements and you tire...I will alert the press

Third, I provided a link in the other thread to the actual manifest that was hand written by Lewis, this is the third time you have accused me of getting my information from wiki, and the third time I have proved you wrong on that account.

So you are saying that this air gun never existed and it was not carried on the voyage of discovery? 
Then why does the NRA say it does?



Finally, your choice to avoid the FACTS even when presented from the original source, has lead me to believe all you want to do is argue and stroke your own pathetic ego.

My ego is hardly pathetic. 

Of course I expect you to come back with some witty response about how nobody has refuted anything you have said, and that we are all full of shit, at least in your mind.

Also in the minds of historians 

Ah I noticed that you just replied again and continue to try and beat a dead horse. So let us try one more time. You stated that the reason the French saw a fait accompli was the overwhelming military expedition that they could not repel or react to, when asked about this overwhelming force you claimed it was the "Voyage of Discovery"

You probably ought to learn to read because that is not what I said.
What I said was that Napoleon was busy in Europe with his own wars and could not afford to be distracted by Americas adventurism. 


and that they were so well armed that they were "comprable to NASA at its inception",

NASA is armed????...I did not say that.
You try so hard to pull tiny snippets out of my posts and construct new meanings by leaving stuff out...all anyone needs to do is just go back and read the original.


to which again I listed the and linked what arms were on the trip and the number of men (32 men and a dog) with at best (giving you the benefit of the doubt)

You are giving me the benifit of the doubt concerning a historical fact???
They have his fucking journal which describes his using the airgun.
They have the journal entry concerning repairs made to the gun.
They have the fucking gun  at the U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center, at the U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania.


had one of the airguns with them. I still refute the fact that France was 1) unwilling to react

A quick read of the Napoleanic wars should help.

2) unable to react because of their fear of this 32 man expedition (you know which is the crux of your original argument, about every piece of land being gained via violence).

Perhaps one day you will actually learn how to read. 
I did not say every piece of land I said all except alaska were acquired by force of arms or the threat thereof.
Lewis and Clark were both military officers.  The men of the corps of discovery were military...yes there were civilians also.
The corps of discovery was a military mission.


That about sums that discussion up.

It sums up your inacurate opinion of what I have posted.



thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 5:07:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Ah and since I feel like rubbing your nose in it a bit tonight, especially when it comes to this particular topic.
The Geneva Conventions which were adopted before 1949 were concerned with combatants only, not with civilians. Some provisions concerning the protection of populations against the consequences of war and their protection in occupied territories are contained in the Regulations concerning the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

The unbolded part of your quote seems to contradict the bolded part.



Thadius -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 5:14:43 PM)

Just gonna reply to one quick thing that you just wrote with your own words... in your most recent post you claim

quote:


You probably ought to learn to read because that is not what I said.
What I said was that Napoleon was busy in Europe with his own wars and could not afford to be distracted by Americas adventurism.


and your words from the original thread were
quote:


The "Voyage of discovery" Was a military expedition into a foriegn country and was armed with the most modern of auto loading rifles...22 .40 cal rounds without stopping to reload.
France saw this military expedition as a military threat that she would not be able to respond to effectively.


Those are your words, not mine.

I still see you are avoiding the whole Geneva Convention topic. Don't worry your silence and attempts to change the subject say plenty about your position, or lack of one. Still waiting for that citation of Article three in the Geneva Convention (circa pre 1949) that covers attacks on civilians.



Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875