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

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

Thadius -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 5:17:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx 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. So no Article three of the Geneva Convetion coming forth from you? Afterall, you are the one that suggested we all read the document, you have to have a copy handy someplace, if not there are plenty of places on the internet that have the exact wording available. Still waiting.

thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 5:26:02 PM)
I listed and linked what arms were on the trip and the number of men (32 men and a dog) This disagrees with your opinion. He lists 51 men four horses and a dog. http://artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/clarke.html

thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 6:20:02 PM)
My statement to ky What is a valid military target under that concept? You know quite well what defines a valid military target. "Civilized" people have rules . To which Mikey asked quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u "Civilised people have rules." Just what are those rules during a period of "total war "...pray tell enlighten us? Mikey it is a reference to the "Geneva Convention" Another document you might want to read sometime. Then your post Did the Geneva Convention apply ex post facto? Since you are the history expert around here, how could a treaty from 1949 apply to a war that started a decade or so earlier? As you well know the Geneva convention is not a single document but a series of treaties and documents that is continually updated. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/135?OpenDocument Art. 15. Fortified places are alone liable to be besieged. Open towns, agglomerations of dwellings, or villages which are not defended can neither be attacked nor bombarded. This document from 1874 speaks to bombardment of civilians. My posts to ky and mikey are in the present tense for the present time. You asked if the 1949 protocol was retroactive. No it is not. When I clicked on "full text" for the 1864 protocol I got the 1949 text thus my reference to article three...sorry for the confusion. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/345?OpenDocument Article 1. The civilian population of a State shall not form the object of an act of war. The phrase "civilian population" within the meaning of this Convention shall include all those not enlisted in any branch of the combatant services nor for the time being employed or occupied in any belligerent establishment as defined in Article 2. ATTACK OR BOMBARDMENT OF UNDEFENDED TOWNS Art. 2. The bombardment by whatever means of towns, ports, villages or buildings which are undefended is prohibited in all circumstances. A town, port, village or isolated building shall be considered undefended provided that not only (a) no combatant troops, but also (b) no military, naval or air establishment, or barracks, arsenal, munition stores or factories, aerodromes or aeroplane workshops or ships of war, naval dockyards, forts, or fortifications for defensive or offensive purposes, or entrenchments (in this Convention referred to as "belligerent establishments") exist within its boundaries or within a radius of "x" kilometres from such boundaries. BOMBARDMENT OF DEFENDED TOWNS Art. 3. The bombardment by whatever means of towns, ports, villages or buildings which are defended is prohibited at any time (whether at night or day) when objects of military character cannot be clearly recognized. Art. 4. Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorising the civilian population is expressly prohibited. Art. 5. 1. Aerial bombardment is prohibited unless directed at combatant forces or belligerent establishments or lines of communication or transportation used for military purposes. 2. In cases where the objectives above specified are so situated that they cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment. These two conventions show that war against non combatants is prohibited. That they were made more clear in 1949 is not disputed.

thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 6:46:00 PM)
quote: 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. And these are your words. quote: 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 see I did not state "overwhelming military expedition...I said the Lewis and Clark expedition the "Voyage of discovery". I said that Napoleon was busy with his wars in Europe and because of that he would not be able to respond effectively. You would do better if you confined your rebuttle to what I actually say instead of what you want to hear.

slvemike4u -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 7:02:35 PM)
Tommie there is a new thread you might be interested in ....I think it's called the "Katyn Forest" are some such thing...stop by and be ignored there....lol.

thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 7:14:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Tommie there is a new thread you might be interested in ....I think it's called the "Katyn Forest" are some such thing...stop by and be ignored there....lol. Isn't that the place where the Russians murdered much of the Polish officer corps?

Thadius -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 7:49:14 PM)
I can now understand where you got confused if the wrong text popped up, in regards to your citing of Article 3. The citation you provide from 1938, did not get ratified (it was delayed because of WW2) until it was made part of the 1949 Convention which went into force in 1950. The other citation if you would have paid attention to the intro, lets you know that it was never ratified, but did provide for the setting up of a study of the declaration of Brussels. When you follow that forward, the next action that was ratified were the Hague provisions which were based on that study and suggestions, and neither covered bombardment or any serious provisions for the protection of civilians. Which is why after WW1 they realized just that point and tried to come up with some protections (which became the document of 1938) and finally got ratified in 1949. As you suggest to everybody else, sometimes reading the full text makes a world of difference in the understanding of what was going on. Thanks for the response, and explanation. As a side note, it is kind of an interesting coincidence that one of those citations is based on the actions of Czar Alexander II of Russia.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 7:50:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx 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. Well, thompson, I do fuck, and I've been known to occasionally lie, although not habitually, so perhaps I'll accept the term in general, although not in the specific. I said, "as far as I remember", and now that you mention it, I vaguely remember a thread in which I may have discussed DDT in relation to "junk science" and AGW, although I don't remember your specific comment/apology and/or acknowledgment of error. However, if you would provide a link, I'd certainly modify my comment to the extent applicable to bring it into line with reality. Firm

NorthernGent -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/9/2010 8:00:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou So, I guess the consensus is shoot anyone carrying anything..., because all kinds of things look vaguely like all kinds of thing. Is that honestly the standard for killing people.. Lovely. Amazing eh..."we're in a war.....would rather not do it....but we've got to because we're in a war and that's war for you". Well....where people understand that war involves such incidents....then they must understand that marching into someone's country will inevitably generate such incidents. So....such incidents remain a conscious choice.....and the idea of: "that's war" is a weak argument which suggests that events have rendered such incidents inevitable and therefore the perpertrators didn't/don't have a choice......which of course is nonsense... no invasion = no war = no such incidents (in other words - it is a conscience choice and the incident in the OP is not inevitable).

dovie -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/10/2010 5:33:44 AM)
Black, Appreciate your response to this thread. I was going to verbalize it as 'arm-chair soldiers.' When has the human race ever NOT been at war with each other? I'm reacting to this thread for several reasons: I'm a vet and I work with Vets. Folks without limbs, PTSD etc. OEF/OIF vets shooting heroin in Iraq to cope with the horrors. Easy to critique an action from the comfort of ones living room sofa. We(human race) are always at war somewhere on this planet. Why is that? Perhaps we are a virus. grrrrrrrrrr Make it a great day all! Regards, dovie quote: ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack -FR- I was against going into Iraq. I'm pretty much against any war unless there is a very clear and present danger. I absolutely do not believe in "pre-emptive warfare". The sad and terrible fact is that even in a "justified" war, innocents are killed. There is no "neat and clean" way to fight an armed conflict, certainly not in an urban environment. Urban warfare is about the messiest, nastiest and deadliest form of conflict. You send a couple of thousand men into a foreign country and give them a batch of machine guns and rocket launchers and tell them that people are going to be shooting at them and they will react and sometimes mistakes will be made. That's the choice you make when you go to war. That's all there is to it. The only real question is - is the purpose you're trying to achieve worth the price that will be paid? I don't believe that Iraq was - and I opposed it back when everyone and his brother Fred was for it. FWIW, I was an officer in the U. S. Army, about twenty years ago. I was lucky enough to never be in active combat but I went through all the training, and the mandatory military ethics courses and all the rest of it. I can assure you that you do not get deployed anywhere without the Rules of Engagement being made extremely clear to you. I don't know what the Rules of Engagement were in that particular engagement. I don't have the feeds from the other vehicles. I don't know what had been going on that day - whether this was a hot combat zone, whether anyone else had taken fire in the area, or whether this unit had been specifically tasked for a combat op. I didn't watch the video at first. I just listened to the audio and thought about what I would have done. If I'd been Hotel Two-Six and been informed that there were "individuals with weapons", "five to six individuals with AK-47s", that they "have eyes on an individual with an RPG" and that "we had a guy shooting" - I would have authorized them to engage as well. I then would have had to live with the fact that I ordered the killing of a dozen or so innocent men. Watching the video ... I'm not sure. The guy looking around the corner with a camera looks like he's got a rocket launcher or RPG. But I know he's a reporter with a camera. If I'd been in that Apache, with everything shaking and rattling around me, looking out a gun-site - if we'd been in a combat zone - and we've got a batch of guys with guns and one with an RPG - I probably would have ordered them to open up on the 'hostiles'. From the ways these guys are acting - it's clear to me that in their minds they thought they were engaging hostiles. They believed they were following the Rule of Engagement and at no time did they have any idea these guys were civilians or that they were doing anything illegal, immoral or wrong. I don't know enough about the situation to say whether the military acted incorrectly (and if they were it was a lot higher up than the guys in the chopper or on site) or if the reporters were blithely wandering around a kill zone unknowingly. It's easy to sit back and arm-chair general. It's easy to say "I would have done this" or "I would never do that". The reality of it is - you don't know. You just don't know. I'm not in a position to talk, really, since I've never been in combat but I'm smart enough to wonder just what I would do, how I would react, in extreme circumstances. No one wants to be in charge of an atrocity - but no one wants to be the idiot who got their own squad killed and if you'd going to err - you err towards the former rather than the latter. Watching those men get gunned down and then the van get blown apart is an awful, ugly tragedy - but it's also an unavoidable one. Even if you could somehow have prevented that one - there's a hundred other incidents that didn't get caught on film where civilians were killed, bombed, shot or whatever - where helicopters and planes collided or crashed due to errors in judgement having nothing to do with combat - where soldiers shot each other by accident and got recorded as 'friendly fire'. I have no doubt that sometime during the war someone got drunk, fell asleep, puked while he was out and choked to death in his bunk and got recorded as 'KIA' or a 'training accident' so his family would get benefits now that he's gone. That's it. That's what happened. It happened in Iraq. It happened in Viet Nam. It happened in World War II and you know what, it or something like it happened in every war that was ever fought anywhere. The voices you're hearing are just people doing the best they can to win in tough circumstances and trying their damndest not to get killed. They didn't get up that morning hoping to kill a journalist and his camera or to shoot up a van with kids in it and this is probably going to haunt them for the rest of their lives. If you don't like what happened, the answer is not to get pissy about a video, or to yell that these guys should be tried as 'war criminals' or bitch about their inhumanity. Pretending that somehow this could be done without any accidents - without any innocents being hurt or any mistakes being made is just that - pretending. It doesn't work that way. The real answer is Don't engage in stupid wars. You stop the madness before it begins. You don't create a situation where these kinds of things will happen - because they do happen. Every time. They're happening right now even as we type - only you're not seeing them because they're not being reported. If you want to stop them, you need to stop the war.

thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/10/2010 12:17:11 PM)
Well, thompson, I do fuck, and I've been known to occasionally lie, although not habitually, so perhaps I'll accept the term in general, although not in the specific. I am afraid you will have to accept the term in the specific. I said, "as far as I remember", Since in this case where the incident is between me and thee it seems unlikely that it would have escaped your memory. Especially in light of the fact that I am seldom wrong, an admission of such and an apology would be close in magnitude to the second comming of christ. and now that you mention it, I vaguely remember a thread in which I may have discussed DDT in relation to "junk science" and AGW, although I don't remember your specific comment/apology and/or acknowledgment of error. However, if you would provide a link, I'd certainly modify my comment to the extent applicable to bring it into line with reality. It took me all of about ten seconds to find it. quote: FirmhandKy: Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not remember being snarky or dismissive towards you nor do I remember you being so to me...I do recall that our discussions are often sharp and to the point neither of which do I find offensive. Many would characterize this sharpness as rude and obnoxious...my skin is thick and I would suppose that yours is also. I am not unaware of what weasel word means. My point was and is that you pointed out, and I agree with you, that science is most often someones best guess which is pretty much the definition of weasel word. I do not see your voluminous post as to the meaning of weasel word as changing or disagreeing with my statements. The last time I did any reading on DDT was in the early 70s and had not had the opportunity to do any current research. The article you gave me a link to caused me to go to google and I found thisdwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html - 28k - While it says pretty much the same thing it goes into a bit more detail. Thank you for disabusing me of my misconception about DDT. thompson Ta Daa

thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/10/2010 1:48:17 PM)
Here is an excerpt from the Hague IV in 1907. Article 25 seems pretty clear. http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague, IV), October 18, 1907 CONVENTION RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND The Hague, October 18, 1907 [Ratified by the U.S. Senate on March 10, 1908] [excerpts] ARTICLE XXII The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited. ARTICLE XXIII In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden: (a) To employ poison or poisoned weapons; (b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army; (c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defense, has surrendered at discretion; (d) To declare that no quarter will be given; (e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering; (f) ... ARTICLE XXV The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

slvemike4u -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/10/2010 1:56:27 PM)
Would not the horrendous loss of Allied air crews speak to the fact that these cities were in fact defended ....and done so quite smartly.Someone else can go dig up the stats but it has allways been my understanding that the arm of the services with the highest casultie rate during WWII was the Army Air Corps(The Air Force had not been created till I thing '48?)

FirmhandKY -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/10/2010 3:18:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Well, thompson, I do fuck, and I've been known to occasionally lie, although not habitually, so perhaps I'll accept the term in general, although not in the specific. I am afraid you will have to accept the term in the specific. I said, "as far as I remember", Since in this case where the incident is between me and thee it seems unlikely that it would have escaped your memory. Especially in light of the fact that I am seldom wrong, an admission of such and an apology would be close in magnitude to the second comming of christ. and now that you mention it, I vaguely remember a thread in which I may have discussed DDT in relation to "junk science" and AGW, although I don't remember your specific comment/apology and/or acknowledgment of error. However, if you would provide a link, I'd certainly modify my comment to the extent applicable to bring it into line with reality. It took me all of about ten seconds to find it. quote: FirmhandKy: Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not remember being snarky or dismissive towards you nor do I remember you being so to me...I do recall that our discussions are often sharp and to the point neither of which do I find offensive. Many would characterize this sharpness as rude and obnoxious...my skin is thick and I would suppose that yours is also. I am not unaware of what weasel word means. My point was and is that you pointed out, and I agree with you, that science is most often someones best guess which is pretty much the definition of weasel word. I do not see your voluminous post as to the meaning of weasel word as changing or disagreeing with my statements. The last time I did any reading on DDT was in the early 70s and had not had the opportunity to do any current research. The article you gave me a link to caused me to go to google and I found thisdwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html - 28k - While it says pretty much the same thing it goes into a bit more detail. Thank you for disabusing me of my misconception about DDT. thompson Ta Daa thompsonx, Apologies, then (where's Christ?) [:)]. The actual link to the post you made over three years ago is here. I'm glad that it made such an impression to you that you can remember the specifics of a conversation we had in April of 2007 about global warming. As you may recall, when you first starting posting, we had some offline conversations, as well as during the time period where you were officially "not welcome" in the forums. I will say that you tend to be very self-assured and obstinate when you discuss anything, and especially since you have returned, you have consistently used insults, snide remarks, and displayed a dismissive attitude towards other posters. Based on that general trend - rather than your three year old admission of learning - was were my remarks originated. In case you don't realize it, when someone posts in your style, often times - even if they have a element of truth on their side - they get dismissed due to the overwhelming negative attitude that they display. One such example is you calling me a "fucking liar", when I specifically said "as far as I remember" in the post under discussion, and your comment about it: Since in this case where the incident is between me and thee it seems unlikely that it would have escaped your memory. Especially in light of the fact that I am seldom wrong, an admission of such and an apology would be close in magnitude to the second comming of christ. To me, a conversation held as an aside, over three years ago doesn't hold as much memorability as it does for you, apparently. I can only assume (since you even claim "I am seldom wrong") that it held a much higher emotional impact for you, due to it's rarity. While I suspect it will fall on barren ground, might I suggest that you attempt to look at what, and how you say things from an outside perspective, and consider how it might cast you in a negative light? Best wishes, Firm

thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/10/2010 3:21:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Would not the horrendous loss of Allied air crews speak to the fact that these cities were in fact defended ....and done so quite smartly.Someone else can go dig up the stats but it has allways been my understanding that the arm of the services with the highest casultie rate during WWII was the Army Air Corps(The Air Force had not been created till I thing '48?) Well the article speaks directly to undefended cities which is what we were discussing vis-a-vis "terror bombing" or "carpet bombing" of non military targets with the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population and not to effect any military goal. The majority of the a/c shot down by the Germans were bombers on their way to the attack. These bombers were shot down by a combination of AAA and radar vectored interceptors. When bombers were shot down at the site of bombing it was typically when bombing military targets because those targets would necessarily be heavily defended...Polesti and the dam on the Rhur come to mind. Civilian areas were not considerd to be primary targets so they were not defended. What do you feel was the reason that the U.S. took such high losses compared to the Britts in their bomber forces?

domiguy -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/10/2010 3:23:03 PM)
Wow, 14 pages and still going strong. So, who won the argument?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/10/2010 3:29:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy Wow, 14 pages and still going strong. So, who won the argument? Entropy, as always. Firm

slvemike4u -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/10/2010 3:32:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Would not the horrendous loss of Allied air crews speak to the fact that these cities were in fact defended ....and done so quite smartly.Someone else can go dig up the stats but it has allways been my understanding that the arm of the services with the highest casultie rate during WWII was the Army Air Corps(The Air Force had not been created till I thing '48?) Well the article speaks directly to undefended cities which is what we were discussing vis-a-vis "terror bombing" or "carpet bombing" of non military targets with the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population and not to effect any military goal. The majority of the a/c shot down by the Germans were bombers on their way to the attack. These bombers were shot down by a combination of AAA and radar vectored interceptors. When bombers were shot down at the site of bombing it was typically when bombing military targets because those targets would necessarily be heavily defended...Polesti and the dam on the Rhur come to mind. Civilian areas were not considerd to be primary targets so they were not defended. What do you feel was the reason that the U.S. took such high losses compared to the Britts in their bomber forces? You know Tommie I have tried to simply ignore you...I resisted commenting on Firms last post ...where hi mildly suggessted to you that you're way and manner of responding to folks around here might just tend to cast you in a negative light....Oh how I wanted to post....in very large type....YA THINK. But I resisted and than you come back with this weak assed shit.Do you really think that I am not aware that we,the American forces conducted the daylight raids in what was basically 24 hr bombing(and just for you I will state that the brits did the night time runs)Shall i go a little farther and explain to the terminally dense how daylight runs tend to lead to higher casualty rates?

domiguy -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/10/2010 3:40:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy Wow, 14 pages and still going strong. So, who won the argument? Entropy, as always. Firm quote: Entropy lol...I can't be the only one keeping score, but I believe that son of a bitch is something like 147,642-0. Very impressive record.

thompsonx -> RE: Suprised no one posted the new video of our military murdering Iraqis. Here it is. (4/10/2010 4:16:22 PM)
thompsonx, Apologies, then (where's Christ?) [:)]. The fucker is out in the workshop making crosses for people to bear. The actual link to the post you made over three years ago is here. I'm glad that it made such an impression to you that you can remember the specifics of a conversation we had in April of 2007 about global warming. One always remembers what his own boot taste like. I am grateful you managed to loan me a prybar before I got the other one in there. As you may recall, when you first starting posting, we had some offline conversations, No we did not. as well as during the time period where you were officially "not welcome" in the forums. You mean when you put me on block? I will say that you tend to be very self-assured and obstinate when you discuss anything, and especially since you have returned, you have consistently used insults, snide remarks, and displayed a dismissive attitude towards other posters. I have said nothing that is untrue. Based on that general trend - rather than your three year old admission of learning - was were my remarks originated. Yeah right In case you don't realize it, when someone posts in your style, often times - even if they have a element of truth on their side - they get dismissed due to the overwhelming negative attitude that they display. What unmitigated bullshit coming from someone who has a track record of deriding the "touchy feely" crowd. One such example is you calling me a "fucking liar", when I specifically said "as far as I remember" Funny in the same thread you gave a rather lengthy disertation about "weasel words" and how you felt about their use. in the post under discussion, and your comment about it: Since in this case where the incident is between me and thee it seems unlikely that it would have escaped your memory. Especially in light of the fact that I am seldom wrong, an admission of such and an apology would be close in magnitude to the second comming of christ. To me, a conversation held as an aside, over three years ago doesn't hold as much memorability as it does for you, apparently. I can only assume (since you even claim "I am seldom wrong") that it held a much higher emotional impact for you, due to it's rarity. Well duuhhh While I suspect it will fall on barren ground, might I suggest that you attempt to look at what, and how you say things from an outside perspective, and consider how it might cast you in a negative light? quote: 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 Do you believe that anyone reading the above post by you would believe that the above is true because with one exception neither you nor anyone else has ever been able to bring a successful challange to any fact that I have stated...or would most take from the post that I am usually wrong and just wont admit it? You post up to insult me and then have the balls to ask me to play nice. Well, you can be pretty or you can be right. I have a mirror so I know I will never be pretty... so I will have to settle for being right.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875