 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
2 users currently in General Chat:  Dark Vampriel |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - General Chat - Propaganda spam? (Really Effed up, read) |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38  Posts: 241/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Do you know that they weren't? No, you don't. No, I don't know they weren't part of the convoy that attacked Jessica Lynch because they tend not to say, "The Iraqi prisoner, who was not part of the convoy that attacked Jessica Lynch.." but suffice to say, that there are so many prisoners involved that it's a pretty safe assumption that they weren't all part of that convoy. And even if they were, why the hell would that matter? They attacked American soldiers, therefore they deserve to be treated like animals? For all you or anyone else knows, these people tortured little girls, and sliced off old people's feet. Guilty until proven innocent? And you say how we invaded their lands, and killed thousands of their people. Hmmm, what did Sadaam do to his own people? Oh, that's right....kill them, often times brutally. What the hell kind of argument is that? "We're bad, but so is Saddam"? Great, so you've already conceded my point: We're bad. That's the problem. Besides, Saddam Hussein cannot be equated to the Iraqi people, or pretty much anyone in Iraq except for his inner circle. 0_o; I guess this helps me understand where England is coming from.  ; It's a Daily Telegraph article which was taken down.. though I'd like a more neutral source.(edited by hhallahh on 05-10-04 03:31 PM) |
|||
|
Toxic in a sublime state of mind Level: 75  Posts: 1119/2857 EXP: 3732709 For next: 94195 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 8 hours |
| ||
| What we are doing is in the time of war. He just gassed a village. Those two don't exactly match up real well. Unless you're suggesting that somewhere along the line we've gassed a village. We're bad, but so is Sadaam. Right. We are at war. People die in wars. At what point was it said that war was going to be good? Yes, we invaded. Yes we've killed people. But for the most part, the people on the other side are holding guns and shooting back. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 242/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| The point is that there are certain rules of war that we like to believe we obey. That we don't get off on torturing and humiliating other humans, as these soldiers obviously did. We fight because we have to, and when we capture people, we don't enslave them or whatever. You can't argue something like, "Saddam gassed a villiage, and this guy worked for Saddam, therefore we should treat him like he gassed a villiage." If you can't see how that's shitty logic, I pity you. You can attribute a lot of atrocities to Saddam, yes, but you can't attribute them to generic Iraqi prisoner #3427 and use that as a justification for torture. And even if you could, it's still not a justification, because we don't live in an "eye for an eye" society. Anyways, here's a fun picture:  Aw, isn't she loveable? |
|||
|
Toxic in a sublime state of mind Level: 75 Posts: 1120/2857 EXP: 3732709 For next: 94195 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 8 hours |
| ||
| You said: "We're bad, but so is Saddam"? I said: Right. We are at war. People die in wars. At what point was it said that war was going to be good? Yes, we invaded. Yes we've killed people. But for the most part, the people on the other side are holding guns and shooting back. You said: You can't argue something like, "Saddam gassed a villiage, and this guy worked for Saddam, therefore we should treat him like he gassed a villiage." Maybe my shitty logic took over, but...where did I say that? The actions that happened, were they right? No. Should I care about generic Iraqi prisoner #3427? No. He's a human being and all that good stuff, but why should I care what happened to him? "The point is that there are certain rules of war that we like to believe we obey." Uh...well you can stay in Wonderland, but those rules aren't exactly going to be followed. |
|||
|
Cymoro PATRICK DUFFY WILL LASER YOUR SOUL   Level: 67  Posts: 433/2216 EXP: 2549743 For next: 43129 Since: 03-15-04 From: Cymoro Gaming Since last post: 6 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
| I got one asking if I wanted a tighter pussy. My cat is alerady too cheap, so I deleted it. |
|||
|
Alastor the Stylish Hey! I made a cool game! It's called "I poisoned half the food, so if you eat you might die!" Have a taco.  Level: 114  Posts: 692/7620 EXP: 16258468 For next: 51099 Since: 03-15-04 From: Oregon, US Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Actually I haven't gotten any spam on my current E-Mail address. Dunno why. On my last one, though... Ugh. All sorts of messed up stuff  |
|||
|
Toxic in a sublime state of mind Level: 75 Posts: 1122/2857 EXP: 3732709 For next: 94195 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 8 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Kyouji "Kagami" Craw READ THE THREAD BEFORE POSTING. It's been said at least 2 times that this isn't about spam email. |
|||
drjayphd Beamos What's that spell? pimp! Level: 56  Posts: 255/1477 EXP: 1387410 For next: 10766 Since: 03-15-04 From: CT Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| I've actually been spared most of the overtly political spam. Most of it's the usual... the closest I got was some asshat trying to sell Hillary Clinton cards... basically like the terrorist deck, only mocking her. That just annoyed me, mostly because of the sales pitch... I forget what she did, but there wasn't really anything unethical about it, and they claimed she was doing it "in a blatant attempt to improve her chances of winning". Uhm, dipshit, she's allowed to do whatever the hell she wants to win in an election, as are you. Just because you don't like her, doesn't mean she has to lose. But I haven't gotten anything like this, selling an idea instead of some shitty product. Find me someone who defends the torture of prisoners and I'll introduce them to a very large set of hedge clippers. There was a case of some white-power group leaving fliers in mailboxes, but that was through the postal service, not email. |
|||
|
kitty Come on babe, pet the pussy ;) Level: 70 Posts: 985/2449 EXP: 2962406 For next: 53405 Since: 03-15-04 From: Scranton, PA, USA Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by hhallahh Originally posted by Yiffy Kitten Reading is good, mmmkay? It's fucking war. Our soldiers are being killed. They have every right to beat the shit out of the enemy soldiers that are killing (or trying to kill) them. If you don't think so, if you think the enemy soldiers deserve rights, you're giving rights to primates. It's like saying "A monkey can kill a man, but don't do anything to harm him if he does." These people aren't human. If you think they are, then you're fucking blind, ignorant, stupid, misinformed, or a combination of the aforementioned. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 243/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Maybe my shitty logic took over, but...where did I say that? The point is that what Saddam did is completely irrelevant to whether the actions of the wardens in Abu Gharib were justified. You might as well say Hitler was bad as well. All it means is that these aren't the worst atrocities that humans haven't committed throughout history? Great. Should I care about generic Iraqi prisoner #3427? No. He's a human being and all that good stuff, but why should I care what happened to him? You should care about the hypocrisies of your own government, or people, or whatever. Reading is good, mmmkay? See, you're supposed to give me a source that backs up your assertion. I never heard anything about these people being the same as the ones who attacked lynch, and I'm pretty sure I would've heard it in some Republican talking point if it were true. It's fucking war. Our soldiers are being killed. They have every right to beat the shit out of the enemy soldiers that are killing (or trying to kill) them. If you don't think so, if you think the enemy soldiers deserve rights, you're giving rights to primates. It's like saying "A monkey can kill a man, but don't do anything to harm him if he does." These people aren't human. If you think they are, then you're fucking blind, ignorant, stupid, misinformed, or a combination of the aforementioned. Wow, you're a complete idiot. You've certainly shown an authoritarian side, but this takes the cake. Yea, why don't we just nuke them and take their gas? Problem solved. So at what point do they stop being human? When they're born in the land of a devil-god? When they raise arms against the glorious harbingers of American liberty and justice? When we decide that we're bored of this "rights" shtick and want to put a broomstick in one of their anuses? Really, help me out here. (edited by hhallahh on 05-10-04 05:44 PM) (edited by hhallahh on 05-10-04 05:47 PM) (edited by hhallahh on 05-10-04 05:50 PM) |
|||
|
kitty Come on babe, pet the pussy ;) Level: 70 Posts: 988/2449 EXP: 2962406 For next: 53405 Since: 03-15-04 From: Scranton, PA, USA Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by hhallahhFinally, you say something intelligent! About fucking time! THESE PEOPLE WERE NOT FUCKING INNOCENT, DUMBASS. I'm not saying anything about the innocents, I'm talking about the MOTHER FUCKING TROOPS. TROOPS != CITIZENS. Maybe I'm capitalizing for emphasis but you probably still won't understand... THESE PEOPLE WERE NOT INNOCENTS. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 244/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Oh, come on, I clearly gave you that option in my post: When they raise arms against the glorious harbingers of American liberty and justice? See, you just had to copy/paste that, and that's when they stop being human, right? So it's not brutal and underhanded to bomb their cities and civilians? 700 Coalition troops have died, but we've probably killed more than 7000 civilians alone. Our tactics aren't brutal and underhanded? Give me a break. Our soldiers are just as inhuman as theirs. And even so, the Geneva Conventions apply to these people. The war isn't about hating your enemy, and taking out retribution on those who served him. Basically, you're saying no soldiers anywhere should have any expectation to not be tortured, or whatever. But I suppose that doesn't matter... when you're winning the wars. Anyways, please give me sources that say that the tortured prisoners killed American soldiers, and were not just often associated with organizations that killed American soldiers. Please. It helps you out to bring facts into an argument, not just capital letters. |
|||
|
kitty Come on babe, pet the pussy ;) Level: 70 Posts: 989/2449 EXP: 2962406 For next: 53405 Since: 03-15-04 From: Scranton, PA, USA Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
| Please, really, link me to some information saying how we killed 7,000 innocent civilians? We might've killed 7,000 TROOPS but not civilians... So once again, you don't understand... see, AFAIK, the Geneva convention tells you to not harm soldiers, but stops at guerilla fighters... when the "president" (dictator) of the fucking country has fled and there is no government, the people fighting aren't troops, they're murderers... |
|||
|
Toxic in a sublime state of mind Level: 75 Posts: 1123/2857 EXP: 3732709 For next: 94195 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 8 hours |
| ||
| No, it's not brutal to bomb their cities. And, where does it say we've killed 7000? You seem to be big on the whole sources, so give us some too? What's underhanded about dropping a bomb? At least you see that coming, rather than having an informant send a convoy of 100 men to its demise. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 245/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Let's see. Google search on "Iraqi Civilian Deaths" yields: 9000-10000 Civlian Deaths What's underhanded about dropping a bomb? It's just a double-standard that the other side uses... that it's somehow sneaky and unfair to ambush American troops, but something like a fucking air strike is perfectly fine. So once again, you don't understand... see, AFAIK, the Geneva convention tells you to not harm soldiers, but stops at guerilla fighters... when the "president" (dictator) of the fucking country has fled and there is no government, the people fighting aren't troops, they're murderers... The Geneva Conventions applies to "uniformed soldiers"... I'll admit that I don't know if these soldiers were uniformed. They tend to ditch the uniforms when they switch to guerilla warfare mode. It's definately debatable whether guerilla warriors in post-Saddam Iraq can be held under the Geneva Conventions (I'd probably lose that debate), but it's obvious that even if it's allowable under the letter of the treaty, these acts violate the spirit of the treaty. We're not supposed to be splicing hairs, and upon declaring success: "Great! Now we can torture them!" It's the great American hypocrisy... "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.... for us". The people we've captured are not subhuman barbarians, and are no more deserving of torture than our troops are. And note that you were originally advocating torture as an acceptable means of retribution. You do realize how fucked up this is, don't you? We have no better case for torturing their troops than they would have had for, say, torturing Jessica Lynch. You know how much of a shitstorm it would set off if the bar were set so low? Yikes. The American justice system has two purposes when it punishes criminals: To actually punish the criminal, and to protect society from that criminal. Not to exact personal revenge on the criminal. Once you start advocating making others suffer as a legitimate penence for what they've done to you... you'll have an extremely shitty and violent society. Like I said, if the torture victims were white (or if Jessica Lynch or someone had been tortured), no one would be defending them, because these connections would have been made quicker. Guerilla warfare obviously blurs the troop/murderer line. But even so, we don't torture murderers, and even if we did, we'd try them and convict them first. And like I said, I want sources that say that the tortured people were proven murderers or whatever. (edited by hhallahh on 05-10-04 06:26 PM) |
|||
|
Toxic in a sublime state of mind Level: 75 Posts: 1124/2857 EXP: 3732709 For next: 94195 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 8 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by hhallahh You might notice that at your nice source there, it does not say who infact is doing these killings. Just 1 min 3 max. Rockets. Oh yeah, that's real descriptive. Tells me all I want to know there. And, STOP PUTTING FUCKING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I DID NOT SAY IT WAS UNFAIR TO AMBUSH US TROOPS. And yeah, I don't have a problem with air strikes either. It's not like we have agents telling Iraqis to go stand by that red X on the ground. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 246/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Actually, that's something I should've pointed out... a lot of the civilian deaths are due to militant Iraqis planting bombs and stuff. However: This database includes up to 7,350 deaths which resulted from coalition military action during the "major-combat" phase prior to May 1st 2003. In the current occupation phase the database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation. So you can assume it's pretty safely above 7,350 deaths in reality. You can splice the numbers some more, but I think my point stands until someone evidences otherwise... we've killed a lot of civilians. And, STOP PUTTING FUCKING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I DID NOT SAY IT WAS UNFAIR TO AMBUSH US TROOPS. And yeah, I don't have a problem with air strikes either. It's not like we have agents telling Iraqis to go stand by that red X on the ground. I didn't say you said that. Yiffy Kitten said that. I said it was a tactic often employed by "the other side", because I've heard the general line of thought lots of times: "It's not fair that they don't just march up to our tanks and start firing." War is war. You use what tactics you have to to win. I mean, by whatever "standards" the Right likes to talk of, George Washington would've been a war criminal. |
|||
|
Toxic in a sublime state of mind Level: 75 Posts: 1126/2857 EXP: 3732709 For next: 94195 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 8 hours |
| ||
| No, it's not. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation. That's absolutely ridiculous. Your argument was that "we" being US troops killed over 7000. US troops did not take health care away. The US did not make peasant A shoot peasant B. And, I'd like to see some sources saying that Tom said it was unfair, because he didn't. Also, if I interpreted your last paragraph right, you just gave up. "War is war. You use what tactics you have to to win." |
|||
Setzer Popo Level: 36  Posts: 65/532 EXP: 290182 For next: 17928 Since: 04-22-04 From: Not Florida. because I'm going to sink it. Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 48 min. |
| ||
| Hey, lets put it this way guys. This is war we captured them, they're ours, we can do whatever the fuck we want with them, ever hear "all is fair in love and war" Well, if we want to beat teh fuck out of some P.O.W. I don't see why we shouldn't... Is it right for us to beat someone up in a battlefield, but not in a prison? pshaw, now suck my dick, kthx. | |||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 247/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation. That's absolutely ridiculous. Your argument was that "we" being US troops killed over 7000. US troops did not take health care away. The US did not make peasant A shoot peasant B. The "law and order" and "sanitation" counts aren't included in the original 7,350, though. And, I'd like to see some sources saying that Tom said it was unfair, because he didn't. THESE PEOPLE WERE NOT INNOCENTS. THEY WERE SOLDIERS WHO KILLED AMERICANS USING BRUTAL, UNDERHANDED ATTACKS ~Yiffy Kitten Can I safely assume "brutal, underhanded attacks" = unfair? I mean, as opposed to the non-brutal, non-underhanded tactics, which presumably would've been perfectly okay to use. Also, if I interpreted your last paragraph right, you just gave up. "War is war. You use what tactics you have to to win." Well, I was referring to battle tactics... I can't think of a time when a nation was chastized for "unfair battle tactics", unless they're targeting civilians. I'm saying that there really is no such thing. Well, if we want to beat teh fuck out of some P.O.W. I don't see why we shouldn't... Is it right for us to beat someone up in a battlefield, but not in a prison? No, it's not right to beat someone up on the battlefield if he/she poses no threat to you or has surrendered. If you blow someone's arm off and take their gun with it, and, knowing they're defenseless, you finish them off anyways, yea... that's excessive and brutal. (edited by hhallahh on 05-10-04 06:50 PM) (edited by hhallahh on 05-10-04 06:51 PM) |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - General Chat - Propaganda spam? (Really Effed up, read) |
| | |
