RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

irishbynature -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 4:56:06 PM)

Your obsessive reactions to the posts are what the rest of us enjoy...[:D] Happy 4 page posting! It's a riot to see you so obsessed with the DC!
Warmly,
Irish



Alumbrado -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 7:40:56 PM)

quote:

The Geneva Convention, articles 19 to 22 states that no medical service vehicle may be attacked unless the vehicle is being used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy (it wasn't but regardless, the article continues) 
 Protection may, however, cease only after a due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded (none of which apparently took place).


Yeah that seems to be the way I recall it too... I don't remember anything about being told to fire on an ambulance as soon as it 'became clear' that the enemy was using it for support.

Maybe there are 2 different United States Militaries out there..the one with Mustang Officers told to shoot at enemy ambulances, and the one where even mustangers have to follow the regs.
[8|]



Lilmissbossy -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 10:42:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

“Now, your point that sales did not take a hit does not prove wrong the fact that there was a backlash, and failed to address that since people boycotted her CD’s, that was an opportunity cost that was forever last.  Take those sales numbers that you tout, and add an additional amount that would have equalled what they would have made had Natalie not make her comment.  No matter which way you look at it, they still took a hit! And THAT was the contention of my side of the argument.” - herfacechair

 
WRONG!!!! (AGAIN) 

for every sale of a cd lost by a boycott [not much of a boycott when they went platinum huh?] there was a cd bought by someone who wanted to demonstrate their support for the chicks because they AGREED with what they said.
 
why do you think despite the so-called boycott sales weren't affected??

a child could work that out!



philosophy -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/26/2006 6:38:36 AM)

"I've posted my links showing that the Nuremberg trial transcripts support the assertion about al-Husseini promoting the 'Final Solution' to the Nazis, now let's see your's refuting them, instead of more lame denials.

(Don't anyone hold their breath, it will be a long wait..unless he goes right for the David Irving material)."


.....ah, David Irving......bit of a giveaway there i'm afraid. Now i know where you get your data from i can see how you make the statements you do.



Alumbrado -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/26/2006 7:02:41 AM)

quote:

.....ah, David Irving......bit of a giveaway there i'm afraid. Now i know where you get your data from i can see how you make the statements you do.


Yes...I get my data (which you are unable to address) from those who condemn and refute David Irving. 

Thanks for dropping the mask once and for all, and clearly identifying yourself as being on the opposite side from myself and others who ridicule him.




philosophy -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/26/2006 7:57:53 AM)

"
quote:

.....ah, David Irving......bit of a giveaway there i'm afraid. Now i know where you get your data from i can see how you make the statements you do.



Yes...I get my data (which you are unable to address) from those who condemn and refute David Irving. 

Thanks for dropping the mask once and for all, and clearly identifying yourself as being on the opposite side from myself and others who ridicule him."



do learn to read



Alumbrado -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/26/2006 8:08:00 AM)

 
Your words are a matter of record, and quite easy to read. 
Probably not so easy to get you to own up to what you said, but they definitely speak for themsleves.
If you didn't mean what you said, it isn't the job of everyone else to clear up your poor communications.

For the record:

You derided the notion of Arab involvement in the Holocaust, and the Final Solution. 
After links were provided,  you decried the use of SPL links, and the Nuremburg testimony as invalid.
You cried nutty conspiracy theories about documented Holocaust material,  denied that links even existed, and when David Irving's name was taken in vain you responded critically.

If you post in that manner, you will be seen in a certain light...by your own doing.



philosophy -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/26/2006 8:12:23 AM)

Alumbaby.......you seem to have deliberately misread what i posted in order to criticize me. David Irving is a nasty minded holocaust denier......you seem to suggest that i read his work, and that if i got to his stuff early i'd understand what you mean. well, sorry, but i already know his arguments and have laughed at his wilful stupidity and sighed at the gullibility of those who believe him. Sorry, if i thought you agreed with him, but then i only have the words you type to go on.



Alumbrado -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/26/2006 8:15:51 AM)

Which you cannot produce, so you resort to outright lies, denial, and childish name calling...

And we are also still waiting for you to produce those links...which is why you are doing the derailment shuffle, now isn't it?




shtrbg -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/26/2006 8:29:15 AM)

on the otherhand, if you are going to burn a book, cd etc the only way is to buy said CD so therefore the sales would jump as well



herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/26/2006 12:56:14 PM)

meatcleaver: Had too much to drink to answer in full at the moment but to say Israel is fighting for its survival because of a few inaccurate Qassam rockets is a nonsense and just an excuse for its excessive use of force and killing of innocent civilians.

No, I am not saying that they are fighting for their survival because of the Katyusha Rockets being launched into Israel.  In fact, you can’t just narrow this to just these rockets.  As I have indicated on this thread, Hezbollah has harassed Israelis prior to this offensive.  Hezbollah does not care much for a Jewish state in the Middle East.

meatcleaver:  Imatar Rabinovich, the ex-Israeli ambassador to the US let the cat out of the bag on BBC today when he said that Israel is fighting a proxy war on behalf of the USA against Hezzbollah because Washington sees Hezzbollah fighting a war by proxy for Syria and Iran. This sounds more like the truth and explains the Israel's over reaction.

This is only part of the truth, but not the complete truth.  Israel was in this fight long before the United States was.  And just as Iran and Syria is supporting Hezbollah, we are supporting Israel.  Hezbollah and the states that are supporting them don’t want a Jewish State in their midsts.  On the other side of the coin, we are engaged in a war against terrorism.  So no matter how you try to look at this, Israel is fighting for its survival.  In fact, they have been in a state of war for decades.  The rest works out because of shared interests.



herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/26/2006 12:57:17 PM)

meatcleaver: Lebanon is smaller than Israel and while Israel is a nuclear power and has the military power of a large European nation, Lebanon has virtually no military and is defenceless.

This is not a fight between Israel and Lebanon, but a fight between Israel and Hezbollah.  Their engaging Hezbollah is like our engaging Al-Qaeda.

meatcleaver: Unless you are one of those people that see ambulances carrying the wounded to hospital as a threat to the existence of Israel.

Nothing said about ambulances being used for military purposes.  I will trust the judgement of the combat pilots and the spec ops on the ground painting the target over what a journalist reports, and definitely over that of someone sitting within the perimeter of the four walls of their residence; getting second hand information from the journalist.



herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/26/2006 12:59:42 PM)

EnglishDomNW: Exactly

There is no “exactly” to it.  What you stated:

“If you steal someone's land, and they object to it, did they start the conflict or did you?” -EnglishDonNW:

To which I responded:

“And what part of the statement, “Keep in mind that both Jews and Arabs lived in Palestine and considered themselves Palestinians,” is hard to grasp?” herfacechair

The point being that the Israelis DID NOT steal what also belonged to them.  This is a counterpoint to your insinuation that the Israelis “stole” what “did not” belong to them in the first place. 

As I also stated, they had the opportunity to have a larger area, but blew it. 

EnglishDomNW:  You seem to be arguing against your own point here

No I am not.  What you quoted rebuts YOUR point, and supports MY point. Israel did not steal land as you insinuated with your response. 

EnglishDomNW:  I'm sure if a family dies from a hail of rockets in the North of Israel, you will (correctly) denounce that act, the same as any right-thinking individual would. It's a savage act.

I don’t know if I would write 400 pages denouncing it, or complain on the streets, but I would see it as an act of savagery, especially given that Hezbollah’s modus operandi with their attacks is to strike terror.  They are deliberately attacking civilians as part of their tactics. 

EnglishDomNW:   Yet your instant reaction is to defend Israel launching a rocket attack on a clearly marked ambulance ferrying injured civilians to the hospital and describe that as "legitimate military action".

The Israeli combat pilots and the Israeli SPEC OPS troops that painted the ambulance WERE at the scene.  You were NOT at the scene.  Hence I will trust the judgements of the combat pilots responsible and the SPEC OPS troops who painted the ambulance as a target over anybody’s insinuation that the ambulance “was just carrying injured civilians”. 

This is not a similar act as the terror attacks perpetrated by Hezbollah, who do go out of their way to attack the civilian populations.  Your deliberately ignoring - or refusing to acknowledge the fact that Israel’s enemies will use hospitals, mosques, ambulances, and other protected landmarks for military purposes, does not change the fact that these people will abuse protected equipment and buildings for their own purposes. 

One of the tactics that Hezbollah is using is to draw fire into civilian areas.  The Israelis warned them not to do this, and that if they do engage in this, they will still fire. 

Now, if the Israelis initiate an investigation over the ambulance bombing, and the investigation finds that the Israelis were in fact in the wrong, THEN I will come out and do the following three things: (1) Lambast the Israelis that are at fault, (2) Praise the Israeli Government for holding them accountable, and (3) Lambast Hezbollah for doing - as normal SOP - what the Israelis don’t approve of.

EnglishDomNW:   Trust me on this

Trust your opinions? You have not given me enough justification to do so.

EnglishDomNW: - somewhere in the world right now, someone is declaring Hezbollah's deeds as "legitimate military action".

Terrorists see that as a “legitimate military action”.  So do their enablers.  But that does not make it a “legitimate military action”.  This is like members of the Man Boy Association claiming that sexual relationships between men and boys are “legitimate”. Just because another terrorist sees Hezbollah’s deeds as “legitimate military action” does not make it a legitimate military action.  

EnglishDomNW:   And in the middle of your ludicrously biased opinion and theirs are the civilians on both sides.

“Ludicrously biased” opinion? ROTFLMFAO! 

My “opinion” is an assessment based on my military experience, as well as on extensive research and reading done on these types of people done over the past five years. 

You are trying to put on equal footing two things that are not even close to each other.  Here, let me demonstrate.  That would be like trying to justify sexual relationships between a man and a boy because two consenting adults are allowed to have sexual relationships.  Then turning around and trying to put that into perspective by “seeing” things from the eyes of a man that believes that men and boys should have a sexual relationship.  (As in accusing the general public of having a “ludicrously” biased opinion because they rightfully condemn such arrangements.)

But the reality is that any attempt to compare the two would miss the point about what is really going on.  The Israelis are going out of their way to target Hezbollah and their hideouts.  They have an excellent INTEL program that they are using to target, attack, destroy, neutralize, etc their enemy.  They have warned Hezbollah that they will fire at them even if they position themselves and their equipment among the civilian population. 

That made it incumbent on Hezbollah to NOT use neutral equipment for their purposes, to NOT hide out in neutral landmarks, etc.  Hezbollah can go a long way to reducing Lebanese civilian deaths by redeploying their forces away from urban areas and by stopping their use of vehicles and equipment that would normally not be targeted.

Unlike Hezbollah, the Israelis WILL investigate incidents where there appears to be a deliberate move by one of their troops to take on civilian targets when they were not being used for military purposes.

EnglishDomNW: you are so determined to prove that one side is wholly good and the other is wholly evil

First, this is not about proving one side good and the other side wholly evil.  The Israelis are in the right on this one.  Hezbollah has been harassing Israel MONTHS prior to this current fiasco.  They have been attempting to kidnap Israeli soldiers at least since the beginning of this year.  The Israelis have finally put their foot down. 

Second, Hezbollah is specifically going out of its way to target civilian populations, while the Israelis are going out of their way to target enemy combatants.  If civilians get killed in the process of an Israeli attacks, it was because Hezbollah knowingly positioned themselves among the civilian population.  The purpose?  Just as with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the insurgents in Iraq, they know that by hiding among the civilian population, they increase the chances of causing civilian casualties - and drawing world opinion in their favor.

EnglishDomNW:  that you render your own opinions as meaningless.

No, my “opinions” are not rendered meaningless.  But my assessments do punch holes in the opinions expressed by the post that I am addressing.

EnglishDomNW:  But it wasn't. It was carrying civilians that had already been wounded to the hospital.  And anyone but an extreme zealot would be condemning it.

You DON’T know that for a “fact”.  The news may have claimed that this was the case, but the news, especially the likes of BBC and CNN, tend to hold allot of information out.  Unlike either you or the journalists, the combat pilots and the SPEC OPS forces on the ground who were painting the ambulance saw something that the media either did not catch or refuses to inform the public. 

EnglishDomNW:  I think the reason I question your status is possibly because of your posts, not despite them.

You do realize that the majority of the military/military vets/government employees share either the same or similar views to the one that I expressed here, do you? Heck, my views are “lenient” compared to that of other service members and vets that I have talked to.

EnglishDomNW:  The Geneva Convention, articles 19 to 22 states that no medical service vehicle may be attacked UNLESS the vehicle is being used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy

Which is precisely what I described in laymen’s terms:

“Geneva Convention protection STOPS as soon something that is supposed to be serving 100% in a non combatant capacity ceases to be used only for non combatant purposes but also for combat support/combat ops purposes.” -herfacechair

Acts harmful to the enemy includes combat support and combat operations.  If the ambulance is delivering a missile, that missile will eventually be used by the enemy.  If you don’t believe that combat support - such as logistics - can prove harmful, then you need to talk to people on both sides about why they don’t have to worry about attacking supply lines. 

EnglishDomNW:  (it wasn't but regardless, the article continues)

And you “know” because you were “there”, right? Or is it because that’s what you heard on the news? Again, I will trust the judgements of the combat pilots and the SPEC OPS forces that were on the scene.  I know that you are not saying that you were not there, but unless you were right there watching the whole thing unfold, unless you have seen what happened around the ambulance before and during the attack, you are not qualified to sit there and say that “it ‘wasn’t but regardless’”. 

EnglishDomNW:  Protection may, however, cease only after a due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded (none of which apparently took place).

WRONG.  The Israelis HAVE warned Hezbollah to NOT hide among the civilians, this includes both weapons and personnel.  They have also warned Hezbollah that they will be fired upon if they try to use civilians, civilian use equipment and structures. 

Now, unless the Israelis launch and investigation, and comes up with a finding that supports what the news said, I am not going to jump on the bandwagon and start accusing the Israelis of atrocities for shooting the ambulance.  I am also willing to entertain the possibility that the ambulance got caught at the wrong place at the wrong time.  This is war, crap happens.  But until a thorough investigation proves otherwise, I am going to trust the judgement of the combat troops over that of a journalist.

EnglishDomNW:  What's even worse is that on tonight's news, Israel killed four UN peacekeepers one from Canada, one from China, one from Finland and one from Austria. (Let me guess, "they could have been hiding missiles", right?) in an apparently deliberate attack.  And on top of that, the rescue team that was sent in were also attacked as they cleared the rubble.

Then you need to contact the Israelis investigating that incident and save them some time by giving them your conclusions. 

Again, I am going to go by the judgement of the Israeli forces that were in the region rather than what the news withholds.  This case involves that building being caught in a cross fire between the IDF and Hezbollah.  When you are being shot at, you don’t have time to say, “crap, that is the UN building, we can’t shoot”, especially when all you see is OPFOR firing at you from or near a BUILDING. Given that we are talking about Hezbollah, it would not surprise me in the least bit if they went near the U.N. building to draw Israeli fire.  That was their tactic in other areas in Lebanon.

EnglishDomNW:  I don't think there's a person on this board that wouldn't condemn this act, possibly excluding you, who will invent some military reason why Israel had to do it.

I don’t need to “invent” a military reason to describe a military reality…

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/25/mideast.main/index.html

quote:

Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to the United States, said that "UNIFIL obviously got caught in the middle" of a gunfight between Hezbollah guerillas and Israeli troops.

"We do not have yet confirmation what caused these deaths. It could be (Israel Defense Forces). It could be Hezbollah," he said.


The Israelis are investigating this.  Even IF this was proved to be an error on the Israelis part, this STILL sets them apart from Hezbollah, who are killing civilians as a policy. 

EnglishDomNW:  Condemn both sides herfacechair. Because believe me, they both deserve it.

there is no equivalency between the two sides.  Hezbollah’s general policy is to attack the civilian population and cause terror with those rockets.  It is not Israel’s policy to go out of its way to kill civilians while disregarding Hezbollah targets.  As with the case with the UN building, the IDF is investigating attacks on neutral and civilian targets, where there appears to be no justification for the attack, something that is not being carried out by Hezbollah. 

There is a difference between the two.  If the Israelis attack a neutral target it was (1) being used for combat support/combat ops, (2) caught in the crossfire, or (3) some other legitimate military reason.  In those cases where the Israelis are clearly wrong, the attacks are placed under investigation and the responsible party is held accountable.  I don’t see that on the Hezbollah side.  I don’t expect to, as that is THEIR Standard Operating Procedures.

EnglishDomNW:  I have no doubt you would too.

Yup, Hezbollah attacks the Israelis with their rockets and kill Israeli civilians, I will cheer each time the Israelis attack Hezbollah positions. 

EnglishDomNW:  Indeed let's stop here.

Negative, here was what I was pointing out..

What does Hezbollah need to do to stop Israel from attacking them? Plain and simple, quit attacking Israel, quit trying to kidnap Israeli soldiers from the Israeli side of the border, accept Israel’s right to exist, and any other demands that the Israelis put on them. 



herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/26/2006 1:00:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irishbynature

Your obsessive reactions to the posts are what the rest of us enjoy...[:D] Happy 4 page posting! It's a riot to see you so obsessed with the DC!
Warmly,
Irish


The least that I could do for my laughing at the posts made in response to my posts.  But I would not go as far as believing that you speak for the rest of the posters here. 



herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/26/2006 1:03:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

The Geneva Convention, articles 19 to 22 states that no medical service vehicle may be attacked unless the vehicle is being used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy (it wasn't but regardless, the article continues) 
 Protection may, however, cease only after a due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded (none of which apparently took place).


Yeah that seems to be the way I recall it too... I don't remember anything about being told to fire on an ambulance as soon as it 'became clear' that the enemy was using it for support.

Maybe there are 2 different United States Militaries out there..the one with Mustang Officers told to shoot at enemy ambulances, and the one where even mustangers have to follow the regs.
[8|]


Tell THAT to those that wrote the text of the Rules of Engagement that I read, and tell THAT to the people that organized and conducted the ROE briefings.

Just like with the ROE text that I read, they explained that places like mosques, hospitals, and vehicles such as ambulances were not to be fired upon.  HOWEVER; if any of these places were being used as a base to fire at you, THEN YOU FIRE BACK! 

Then they used an example of the ambulance.  They explained that the moment that the ambulance was no longer being used just for neutral purposes, that it was being used to support the enemy, such as transporting their equipment, or their troops, that ambulance can be fired upon and the crew detained.

In the case of the Ambulance and the UN building, people have already came to a conclusion as to what happened, without being at the scene, and without waiting for a completion of an investigation where it is being conducted.




herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/26/2006 1:07:39 PM)

No matter how large you make your fonts in your attempts to “prove” me “wrong”, you are going to be just as wrong as you were before.

Lilmissbossy: WRONG!!!!

That is a big negative.  I am right, no matter how you look at it, there is an opportunity loss in terms of revenue.  You’d know that if you either owned or business or got a business degree.

Lilmissbossy: (AGAIN)

Again? ROTFLMFAO!

The only one that is wrong again is you.  Despite your big font reply, you failed to prove my point wrong.  In fact, you failed to address the point made in the part of my post that you quoted.

Lilmissbossy:  for every sale of a cd lost by a boycott [not much of a boycott when they went platinum huh?] there was a cd bought by someone who wanted to demonstrate their support for the chicks because they AGREED with what they said.

OK, take your numbers here. Then, ADD the number of CDs that they would have sold had NOBODY boycotted their CD’s.

THAT was the point that I was making.  Now, here is another question that I know that you will dodge, but I am going to ask it anyway:

Where, in my posts, do I say that the Dixie Chicks ARE NOT going to enjoy sales success as a result of their comments about the president?

If you could find where I made that statement, your entire post would have a valid counter point. 

My point was that they took a hit.  Regardless of whether they succeed after the fact or not, that does not dismiss the FACT that they took a hit in the form of people not listening to their music, not buying the CD’s, refusing to attend their concerts, refusing to listen to radio stations that play their music, etc. 

Now, if you could prove that this did not in fact happen, THEN you will have a point.

What you quoted:

“Now, your point that sales did not take a hit does not prove wrong the fact that there was a backlash, and failed to address that since people boycotted her CD’s, that was an opportunity cost that was forever last.  Take those sales numbers that you tout, and add an additional amount that would have equalled what they would have made had Natalie not make her comment.  No matter which way you look at it, they still took a hit! And THAT was the contention of my side of the argument.” - herfacechair

What I have previously stated:

“The main issue was the backlash that the Dixie Chicks endured after making their irresponsible statements.  Whether that is a drop in sales, people not buying their CDs, people not attending their concerts, not listening to their music, or not listening to the stations that play their music, or what ever additional action was taken, whether one or two of these things did not happen or not, the fact of the matter is that one or more of these things took place after they made their comments. They took a hit after Natelie made her irresponsible statement.  That WAS the contention of my side of the argument. -herfacechair

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/16/maines.bush.ap

quote:

Radio stations nationwide are boycotting the Dixie Chicks…

"We've had a huge listener reaction and movement against the statements," said Paul Williams of KPLX-FM in Dallas-Fort Worth, the nation's fifth largest radio market.


(1)  Did the backlash - as I defined it - happen or not?

(2)  Could they sell more CDs if the people who are currently NOT boycotting their CDs decide to all of a sudden purchase their CDs?

Lilmissbossy:  why do you think despite the so-called boycott sales weren't affected??

WRONG.  They WERE affected.  You don’t always have to end up in the negative as a result of your sales being affected by a boycott.  Affected sales can still remain in the green.  No matter how far above your break even point you are, if people are not purchasing your CDs, you are falling short of what you could be doing. 

If people are refusing to purchase your CD’s, that is an X amount of CDs that you are not selling.  So, even if you sold a 1,000,000 CD’s, that is falling short of (1,000,000 + X) CDs. 

Got it?  THAT was one of the points that I was making in the statement that you quoted.

Lilmissbossy:  a child could work that out!

I agree, even a 9 year old kid could figure out that if 3 people outright refused to purchase his lemonade in protest of Sparky’s taking a dump in their yards, and that kid sold 10 lemonades that day, he’d realize that had he brought a poop scoop along and cleaned up after Sparky’s mess - or steered him away from those three yards - he would have sold 13 lemonades that day. 

That even if he exceeded his goal by a serving, he would know that his sale was affected by what he did not do in reference to Sparky.  That effect is measured by 3 lemonades. 

The question is, why can’t some 18 year olds figure that out?

AGAIN..

Here are a couple more questions that you are avoiding:

Lilmissbossy: Going to jail = everyone in Guantanamo Bay?

Question:  The detainees in Guantanamo Bay are there because..

(A)  They were captured on the battle field as they were trying to fight against our troops, were involved with terrorism one way or another and were captured overseas, etc…

(B)  They were American citizens who disagreed with the Bush Administration while exercising their freedom of speech and expression on U.S. soil…

Here is a review for the above pop quiz:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4715916

Lilmissbossy:  Dying = you shouldn't need to ask.

Let me simplify this.  How many American citizens are dying in concentration camps on US soil - or elsewhere - as a result of their badmouthing the Administration on U.S. soil?

What is a political term for someone that avoids answering simple straightforward - non shotgun - questions like these?



herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/26/2006 1:09:51 PM)

shtrbg: on the otherhand, if you are going to burn a book, cd etc the only way is to buy said CD so therefore the sales would jump as well

Unless you previously owned the CDs, then decided to burn them.  In this case, there would be no need to run out and purchase CDs to burn.



EnglishDomNW -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/26/2006 2:21:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

EnglishDomNW: Exactly

There is no “exactly” to it.  What you stated:

“If you steal someone's land, and they object to it, did they start the conflict or did you?” -EnglishDonNW:

To which I responded:

“And what part of the statement, “Keep in mind that both Jews and Arabs lived in Palestine and considered themselves Palestinians,” is hard to grasp?” herfacechair

The point being that the Israelis DID NOT steal what also belonged to them.  This is a counterpoint to your insinuation that the Israelis “stole” what “did not” belong to them in the first place. 

As I also stated, they had the opportunity to have a larger area, but blew it. 
 

 
Exactly.  In your own words, "they considered themselves Palestinians"

Are you on a mission to defeat your own arguments throughout this entire thread?
quote:




EnglishDomNW:  You seem to be arguing against your own point here

No I am not.  What you quoted rebuts YOUR point, and supports MY point. Israel did not steal land as you insinuated with your response. 

 
No, YOU'RE wrong (as Lil pointed out, "again") and I'm RIGHT.
quote:




EnglishDomNW:  I'm sure if a family dies from a hail of rockets in the North of Israel, you will (correctly) denounce that act, the same as any right-thinking individual would. It's a savage act.

I don’t know if I would write 400 pages denouncing it, or complain on the streets, but I would see it as an act of savagery, especially given that Hezbollah’s modus operandi with their attacks is to strike terror.  They are deliberately attacking civilians as part of their tactics. 

Isn't that awful?  Everyone condemns that tactic, don't they.  Let's see how far you can keep this argument up
quote:



EnglishDomNW:   Yet your instant reaction is to defend Israel launching a rocket attack on a clearly marked ambulance ferrying injured civilians to the hospital and describe that as "legitimate military action".

The Israeli combat pilots and the Israeli SPEC OPS troops that painted the ambulance WERE at the scene.  You were NOT at the scene.  Hence I will trust the judgements of the combat pilots responsible and the SPEC OPS troops who painted the ambulance as a target over anybody’s insinuation that the ambulance “was just carrying injured civilians”.

  
You are never at the scene when a rocket falls in Northern Israel but you know it happens.  How?  You watch the news. 
quote:


This is not a similar act as the terror attacks perpetrated by Hezbollah, who do go out of their way to attack the civilian populations. 

How do you know, are you at the scene when they do it?  Or do you watch the news? [:D]
quote:


Your deliberately ignoring - or refusing to acknowledge the fact that Israel’s enemies will use hospitals, mosques, ambulances, and other protected landmarks for military purposes, does not change the fact that these people will abuse protected equipment and buildings for their own purposes. 

Not much point for the Geneva Convention really, since you're giving Israel full reign to attack anything it likes (including UN buildings - clearly marked) because anything on the planet "might" be harbouring hidden missiles, mightn't it?
quote:

One of the tactics that Hezbollah is using is to draw fire into civilian areas.

How do you know, did you ask them in your official Mustang role?  It must be either that or "you get your information from news sources" which you've already criticised yourself as holding back information.  Which is it, herfacechair?
quote:


 
  The Israelis warned them not to do this, and that if they do engage in this, they will still fire.
  
 
How do you know, did you ask them in your official Mustang role?  It must be either that or "you get your information from news sources" which you've already criticised yourself as holding back information.  Which is it, herfacechair?
quote:



Now, if the Israelis initiate an investigation over the ambulance bombing, and the investigation finds that the Israelis were in fact in the wrong, THEN I will come out and do the following three things: (1) Lambast the Israelis that are at fault, (2) Praise the Israeli Government for holding them accountable, and (3) Lambast Hezbollah for doing - as normal SOP - what the Israelis don’t approve of.

Well, good for you.  Have an apple
quote:


EnglishDomNW:   Trust me on this

Trust your opinions? You have not given me enough justification to do so.

Haven't you noticed how I'm always right?  How much justification do you need?
quote:


EnglishDomNW: - somewhere in the world right now, someone is declaring Hezbollah's deeds as "legitimate military action".

Terrorists see that as a “legitimate military action”. 

How do you know, did you ask them in your official Mustang role?  It must be either that or "you get your information from news sources" which you've already criticised yourself as holding back information.  Which is it, herfacechair?
quote:
So do their enablers.  But that does not make it a “legitimate military action”.  This is like members of the Man Boy Association claiming that sexual relationships between men and boys are “legitimate”.

Jesus, where the HELL did you go now??
quote:


Just because another terrorist sees Hezbollah’s deeds as “legitimate military action” does not make it a legitimate military action.  

Exactly.  And just because someone on the internet, a "Mustang Officer" (lol) says it's "legitimate military action" doesn't make it so either.  Or anyone from the "Man Boy Association. (lol x 2)
quote:



EnglishDomNW:   And in the middle of your ludicrously biased opinion and theirs are the civilians on both sides.

“Ludicrously biased” opinion? ROTFLMFAO! 

ARE YOU SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING YOUR OPINIONS ARE UNBIASED? ROOOOOOOOOOFLMFAO!!!!!!!
Come ON, not even you can possibly believe that!!

My “opinion” is an assessment based on my military experience, as well as on extensive research and reading done on these types of people done over the past five years. 

Oh yes, I forgot.  You're a "Mustang Officer" on his way to a secret location. Damn, I keep forgetting that, sorry.  Sir.
quote:

You are trying to put on equal footing two things that are not even close to each other.  Here, let me demonstrate.  That would be like trying to justify sexual relationships between a man and a boy

What is your obsession with this Man/Boy love thing and what could it possibly have to do with Israel or the Dixie Chicks?  YOU ARE SCARING ME!
quote:
because two consenting adults are allowed to have sexual relationships.  Then turning around and trying to put that into perspective by “seeing” things from the eyes of a man that believes that men and boys should have a sexual relationship.  (As in accusing the general public of having a “ludicrously” biased opinion because they rightfully condemn such arrangements.)

I think you're seriously close to the edge.
quote:
But the reality is that any attempt to compare the two would miss the point about what is really going on.  The Israelis are going out of their way to target Hezbollah and their hideouts. 

Thank the sweet Lord you got off THAT subject
quote:
They have an excellent INTEL program that they are using to target, attack, destroy, neutralize, etc their enemy.  They have warned Hezbollah that they will fire at them even if they position themselves and their equipment among the civilian population. 

That made it incumbent on Hezbollah to NOT use neutral equipment for their purposes, to NOT hide out in neutral landmarks, etc. 

Hezbollah can go a long way to reducing Lebanese civilian deaths by redeploying their forces away from urban areas and by stopping their use of vehicles and equipment that would normally not be targeted.


The civilians of Lebanon can't win can they?  If they're in a terrorist stronghold, bang.  If they're in a civilian house, under your rules that's a legitimate target because Hezbollah use civilian dwellings to hide their forces. 
 
So, in your "unbiased" (lol) world, Israel can flatten the entire country because there "might" be terrorists hiding out there.
How unbiased.
I suppose they also flattened the clearly marked UN building just in case, right?
 
I mean, why take chances?
quote:
 
Unlike Hezbollah, the Israelis WILL investigate incidents where there appears to be a deliberate move by one of their troops to take on civilian targets when they were not being used for military purposes.

How do you know Hezbollah don't, have you infiltrated them as well as the entire planets news services, the Israeli Defence Force and the Man Boy Love association?  You Mustang Officers certainly keep yourselves busy .
quote:
EnglishDomNW: you are so determined to prove that one side is wholly good and the other is wholly evil

First, this is not about proving one side good and the other side wholly evil.  The Israelis are in the right on this one.

And now, back to our unbiased news reporter on the scene, in his rubber militarywear, Sergeant Herfacechair
quote:


 
  Hezbollah has been harassing Israel MONTHS prior to this current fiasco.  They have been attempting to kidnap Israeli soldiers at least since the beginning of this year.  The Israelis have finally put their foot down. 

Second, Hezbollah is specifically going out of its way to target civilian populations, while the Israelis are going out of their way to target enemy combatants.  If civilians get killed in the process of an Israeli attacks, it was because Hezbollah knowingly positioned themselves among the civilian population.  The purpose?  Just as with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the insurgents in Iraq, they know that by hiding among the civilian population, they increase the chances of causing civilian casualties - and drawing world opinion in their favor.

Presumably you at least lay the blame for the killing of the UN operatives solely at the hands of the Israelis and not because Hezbollah might be hiding in there.  Surely, your "unbiased" news reporting allows you to do that, right? 
quote:


EnglishDomNW:  that you render your own opinions as meaningless.

No, my “opinions” are not rendered meaningless.  But my assessments do punch holes in the opinions expressed by the post that I am addressing.
 

LOL - yes, that Man/Boy line punched the hell out of everyone else's opinions.
quote:




EnglishDomNW:  But it wasn't. It was carrying civilians that had already been wounded to the hospital.  And anyone but an extreme zealot would be condemning it.

You DON’T know that for a “fact”.  The news may have claimed that this was the case, but the news, especially the likes of BBC and CNN, tend to hold allot of information out.  Unlike either you or the journalists, the combat pilots and the SPEC OPS forces on the ground who were painting the ambulance saw something that the media either did not catch or refuses to inform the public. 

So let me get this straight.  If the news "holds a lot of information out", where are you getting your information from?  Are you in direct link with the IDF and Hezbollah?  Or do you have military friends at the scene sending you the information.

I'm curious to know.
quote:


EnglishDomNW:  I think the reason I question your status is possibly because of your posts, not despite them.

You do realize that the majority of the military/military vets/government employees share either the same or similar views to the one that I expressed here, do you?

When did you interview them?  Give me dates, times, and response figures.
quote:


Heck, my views are “lenient” compared to that of other service members and vets that I have talked to.

EnglishDomNW:  The Geneva Convention, articles 19 to 22 states that no medical service vehicle may be attacked UNLESS the vehicle is being used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy

Which is precisely what I described in laymen’s terms:

“Geneva Convention protection STOPS as soon something that is supposed to be serving 100% in a non combatant capacity ceases to be used only for non combatant purposes but also for combat support/combat ops purposes.” -herfacechair

Acts harmful to the enemy includes combat support and combat operations.  If the ambulance is delivering a missile, that missile will eventually be used by the enemy.  If you don’t believe that combat support - such as logistics - can prove harmful, then you need to talk to people on both sides about why they don’t have to worry about attacking supply lines. 

EnglishDomNW:  (it wasn't but regardless, the article continues)

And you “know” because you were “there”, right? Or is it because that’s what you heard on the news?

I "know" this because I believe the news over a fake military figure on an internet message board.  What about you?
quote:


 
Again, I will trust the judgements of the combat pilots and the SPEC OPS forces that were on the scene.  

I didn't realise they'd personally called you with an explanation.
quote:


 
I know that you are not saying that you were not there, but unless you were right there watching the whole thing unfold, unless you have seen what happened around the ambulance before and during the attack, you are not qualified to sit there and say that “it ‘wasn’t but regardless’”. 

I'm as qualified as you are for saying the reverse.
quote:


 
EnglishDomNW:  Protection may, however, cease only after a due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded (none of which apparently took place).

WRONG. 

LOL how can it be wrong for heaven's sake, it's PASTED DIRECTLY FROM THE TEXT OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION, or did you get the Man/Boy love association to rewrite it while i was making soup?
quote:
 
The Israelis HAVE warned Hezbollah to NOT hide among the civilians, this includes both weapons and personnel.  They have also warned Hezbollah that they will be fired upon if they try to use civilians, civilian use equipment and structures. 

Now, unless the Israelis launch and investigation, and comes up with a finding that supports what the news said, I am not going to jump on the bandwagon and start accusing the Israelis of atrocities for shooting the ambulance.

Of course you're not, you're our "unbiased reporter", remember? LOL

quote:


 
  I am also willing to entertain the possibility that the ambulance got caught at the wrong place at the wrong time.  This is war, crap happens.  But until a thorough investigation proves otherwise, I am going to trust the judgement of the combat troops over that of a journalist.

That's a shock.
quote:


 


EnglishDomNW:  What's even worse is that on tonight's news, Israel killed four UN peacekeepers one from Canada, one from China, one from Finland and one from Austria. (Let me guess, "they could have been hiding missiles", right?) in an apparently deliberate attack.  And on top of that, the rescue team that was sent in were also attacked as they cleared the rubble.

Then you need to contact the Israelis investigating that incident and save them some time by giving them your conclusions. 

I don't need to.  They've already started their own investigation.  But I will point out to you that "on the news" which you distrust so much, the UN peacekeepers made as many as ten telephone calls to Israeli's and asked them to stop bombing near the UN building (clearly marked).  Despite reassuring them that would happen, the Israeli's kept firing until a direct hit killed the people inside.
quote:
Again, I am going to go by the judgement of the Israeli forces that were in the region rather than what the news withholds.  This case involves that building being caught in a cross fire between the IDF and Hezbollah.  When you are being shot at, you don’t have time to say, “crap, that is the UN building, we can’t shoot”, especially when all you see is OPFOR firing at you from or near a BUILDING.

Ummmm.  The UN Building was shooting at nobody for goodness sake.  When you see a building with a huge U.N.printed on its roof, you should at least take a wild guess what those letters stand for.
quote:



Given that we are talking about Hezbollah, it would not surprise me in the least bit if they went near the U.N. building to draw Israeli fire.  That was their tactic in other areas in Lebanon.
 

Of course it wouldn't.  Because you're "unbiased", remember?
quote:




EnglishDomNW:  I don't think there's a person on this board that wouldn't condemn this act, possibly excluding you, who will invent some military reason why Israel had to do it.

I don’t need to “invent” a military reason to describe a military reality…

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/25/mideast.main/index.html

quote:

Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to the United States, said that "UNIFIL obviously got caught in the middle" of a gunfight between Hezbollah guerillas and Israeli troops.

"We do not have yet confirmation what caused these deaths. It could be (Israel Defense Forces). It could be Hezbollah," he said.


The Israelis are investigating this.  Even IF this was proved to be an error on the Israelis part, this STILL sets them apart from Hezbollah, who are killing civilians as a policy. 



The UN post was hit by a precision guided missile, following as many as 10 calls from the representatives inside to Israeli forces asking them to stop.  Despite reassurances that it would, a missile flattened the top floor of the building which collapsed onto the people inside.


Stick to Man/Boy Love analogies.  I don't know what "Man/Boy Love" is, AND I DONT WANT TO.  At least when you talk about that, you ARE unbiased [:D]



Alumbrado -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/26/2006 3:03:11 PM)

Please tell me he didn't just say 'SPEC OPS' troops?  LOL!! Next he'll be telling us all about MAC SOG and secret identities. 

And I do NOT want to know how NAMBLA got into  this.[sm=ugh.gif]


Anyway, I hear the cover of the new Dixie Chicks CDs is kinda hot, if you are into that sort of thing.




Lilmissbossy -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/26/2006 3:25:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

shtrbg: on the otherhand, if you are going to burn a book, cd etc the only way is to buy said CD so therefore the sales would jump as well

Unless you previously owned the CDs, then decided to burn them.  In this case, there would be no need to run out and purchase CDs to burn.


LOL!!  if you already owned the cds you must have bought them in the first place!!  SHEESH.
 
 



Page: <<   < prev  18 19 20 [21] 22   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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