It has happened again

[Guest Anglesault]

No ones ignoring the topic. we've discussed the topic. THe discussion of the topic has flowed into other discussions...like it always does. Get over it.

 

And Monkey's IS a racist term. There's been sources provided that prove that.

The source you gave me linked to some german rant on the Jews.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I like how using any racist term could be covered under a precedent on a board where such things are supposed to be bannable.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Mike, you've got to be shitting me. You are using technicalities in direct opposition to the spirit of the Geneva Convention. You can't seriously think that it's a viable excuse for what they did and not just-cause for the same actions to be taken in-return. Not that I want the actions to be taken in-return, I'm with the US on this and don't mistake that, it's just think crying moral outrage over something (that is well deserved, mind you) and not about another is kinda slimy.

[Highland 0]

I don't like the use of the word "Monkies", but that is only because animals or incapable of evil

Tell that to my cats...

They want to be just like their owner.....

[Guest MikeSC]

I like how using any racist term could be covered under a precedent on a board where such things are supposed to be bannable.

At those moments I think you couldn't possibly BE any dumber --- you always seem to dig a little lower and prove me wrong by posting something that a fetus would be ashamed of.

 

Congrats.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Whatever, Mike. You completely ignored what I'm saying, which it doesn't matter if your intentions aren't race-based.

 

I'm sorry to keep coming in this thread after I made a post above saying I was basically withdrawing myself from it. My contention is that Mike is an arrogant bully, a liar, and wrong. The only reason I'm posting to say that is that I think people should know that he disputes proven fact and information just to avoid admitting when he is wrong, and I think CE readers should read his posts from that perspective.

 

I am well aware that Mike will respond to this with either verbal assaults or a feigned claim of innocence, neither of which would bother me because I can't stand him and insults from him mean very little because I hold him in such miniscule esteem. He's belligerent, but he's not being effective at it because he's so blind and predictable.

 

I guess what I expect is a response that looks like you're proving me wrong but is a thinly-veiled attempt to change the subject. Bring it on, although I hope none of the people here are stupid enough to believe you.

 

Dance like you've never danced before, Mike. Your reputation is on the line here.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, you've got to be shitting me.  You are using technicalities in direct opposition to the spirit of the Geneva Convention.

You know what the spirit of the Conventions WAS?

 

To get armies to fight wars in a "fair" manner.

 

Seems the violating of the "spirit" falls pretty heavily on one side.

You can't seriously think that it's a viable excuse for what they did and not just-cause for the same actions to be taken in-return.

Because, of course, beheadings are as bad as making a guy pose naked.

 

And, yet again --- since you seem to miss these reports --- THE GUARDS ARE BEING PUNISHED.

Not that I want the actions to be taken in-return, I'm with the US on this and don't mistake that, it's just think crying moral outrage over something (that is well deserved, mind you) and not about another is kinda slimy.

Again, one guy jaywalks. Another guy rapes a nun. BOTH break the law.

 

Isn't there a LITTLE moral difference?

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Whatever, Mike. You completely ignored what I'm saying, which it doesn't matter if your intentions aren't race-based.

Actually, this statement just shows that your bitching for the sake of bitching, since you seem to realize what the statement is and is not.

I'm sorry to keep coming in this thread after I made a post above saying I was basically withdrawing myself from it. My contention is that Mike is  an arrogant bully, a liar, and wrong.

A liar? Ouch.

The only reason I'm posting to say that is that I think people should know that he disputes proven fact and information just to avoid admitting when he is wrong, and I think CE readers should read his posts from that perspective.

BWA HA HA HA HA!

 

Shall I do the "slow clap" now, to make this "teen flick" scene of yours all you dreamed it could be?

I am well aware that Mike will respond to this with either verbal assaults or a feigned claim of innocence, neither of which would bother me because I can't stand him and insults from him mean very little because I hold him in such miniscule esteem. He's belligerent, but he's not being effective at it because he's so blind and predictable.

Wow, hating somebody you don't know? Pretty sad.

I guess what I expect is a response that looks like you're proving me wrong but is a thinly-veiled attempt to change the subject. Bring it on, although I hope none of the people here are stupid enough to believe you.

 

Dance like you've never danced before, Mike. Your reputation is on the line here.

I will remind you of this:

You completely ignored what I'm saying, which it doesn't matter if your intentions aren't race-based

Since YOU decided to bitch that the term was racist --- and you now ADMIT it wasn't racist --- why the hell should ANYBODY listen to you continue to bitch?

-=Mike

[Art Sandusky 0]

I like how using any racist term could be covered under a precedent on a board where such things are supposed to be bannable.

At those moments I think you couldn't possibly BE any dumber --- you always seem to dig a little lower and prove me wrong by posting something that a fetus would be ashamed of.

 

Congrats.

-=Mike

It's a known precedent in this folder.

 

Your options now include:

 

A) Veiled flame

B) Veiled flame

C) Veiled flame with a link to a stilted website as support

D) Calling me stupid

E) Calling me stupid

F) Blatant flame

G) Calling me evil

H) Say this post has nothing to do with the subject

I) Poor attempt at sarcasm in a veiled flame

 

Choose carefully.

[Guest MikeSC]

I like how using any racist term could be covered under a precedent on a board where such things are supposed to be bannable.

At those moments I think you couldn't possibly BE any dumber --- you always seem to dig a little lower and prove me wrong by posting something that a fetus would be ashamed of.

 

Congrats.

-=Mike

It's a known precedent in this folder.

 

Your options now include:

 

A) Veiled flame

B) Veiled flame

C) Veiled flame with a link to a stilted website as support

D) Calling me stupid

E) Calling me stupid

F) Blatant flame

G) Calling me evil

H) Say this post has nothing to do with the subject

I) Poor attempt at sarcasm in a veiled flame

 

Choose carefully.

I don't need to call you stupid.

 

Your post proves that better than I ever could.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Since YOU decided to bitch that the term was racist --- and you now ADMIT it wasn't racist --- why the hell should ANYBODY listen to you continue to bitch?

-=Mike

A racist term doesn't need to be used racially to still be hate speech.

[Guest MikeSC]

Since YOU decided to bitch that the term was racist --- and you now ADMIT it wasn't racist --- why the hell should ANYBODY listen to you continue to bitch?

      -=Mike

A racist term doesn't need to be used racially to still be hate speech.

Yeah, it kinda does. Otherwise, it isn't hate speech or racist.

 

I thought you'd know that.

-=Mike

[Art Sandusky 0]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOURE TEH DUMB ONE!!!!!!

Ladies and gents, the MikeSC Defense System.

[Justice 0]

You know what, I'm actually going to agree with Mike on the Geneva convention thing. The Geneva Convention only applies to organized and recognized armies of other countries, which these people are clearly not a part of. They are techincally considered "Illegal combatants" (This is a bit different from the Afganistan thing since there's an argument to make for Taliban forces, but these people are obviously civilians). Considering that they should basically be executed on the spot, I'd consider myself lucky to be still alive if captured by security forces.

 

And I'm frankly tired of "We tortured them!" talk. Did we humilate them? Yes, absoutely, and that's wrong. It's being remedied. But is it torture? No. It's not comparable. We have idiotic frat boy shennanigans on one side, and on the other side we have things like people being put on electrified bed-frames. You can't honestly compare the two because they are on two entirely different levels. To quote Jules from Pulp Fiction:

 

"This isn't the same ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fucking sport."

[Guest MikeSC]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOURE TEH DUMB ONE!!!!!!

Ladies and gents, the MikeSC Defense System.

Nah. I just sit back and let you stick that foot in your mouth that you seem to love to chew on.

-=Mike

[Art Sandusky 0]

What the fuck are you going on about? I pointed out that your defense against anything is to tell someone they're stupid, or, if they call you stupid first... well, to call them stupid. You speak of your opinions as fact, and if anyone disagrees, you try and tell them they're making fools of themselves simply because they haven't agreed with you.

[Guest MikeSC]

What the fuck are you going on about? I pointed out that your defense against anything is to tell someone they're stupid, or, if they call you stupid first... well, to call them stupid. You speak of your opinions as fact, and if anyone disagrees, you try and tell them they're making fools of themselves simply because they haven't agreed with you.

Man, you make my defense easy. Thanks.

-=Mike

[Art Sandusky 0]

See, what does that even MEAN? Just saying you're right/better/smarter doesn't make it so.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Yeah, it kinda does. Otherwise, it isn't hate speech or racist.

Again, using derogatory words with a racist meaning isn't necessarily exclusive to racist statements. You're still dredging up it's origins if you call a white man the infamous n-word in a derogatory manner.

 

Mike, let's see you put your money where your mouth is and reference a time when someone else called someone monkeys as a derogatory statement without racist overtones.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Seems the violating of the "spirit" falls pretty heavily on one side.

 

I totally agree. Like I said, I personally would like to see the US military "show what they really can do" over there. However, my original question was, does that make the US "right" by breaking the rules? In my view, wrong is wrong. Even if it is more "right" than the other.

 

And, yet again --- since you seem to miss these reports --- THE GUARDS ARE BEING PUNISHED.

 

You've mentioned this -and infact, boasted it- on many occasions Mike. I am well aware. The precident was still set.

 

Again, one guy jaywalks. Another guy rapes a nun. BOTH break the law.

 

While I appreciate the extreme analogy to make a point, it's not doing it for me Mike. What they did could be considered a War Crime; that's not a misdemeanor.

 

Isn't there a LITTLE moral difference?

 

Sure. They did something worse. But it doesn't excuse the US from doing something wrong. And it's not as big as the gap between walking across the street and raping a nun.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

hasn't the Pentagon admited violating the Geneva convention in Iraq?

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Its really heartbreaking to hear this, but I figured there was no way he could be saved. Fuck extremist Muslims.

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Y'know, I''ve tried to be a lurker and let this all go, but....

 

http://truthout.org/imgs.art_01/3.abu.ghraib_02_061204.jpg

http://truthout.org/imgs.art_01/3.abu.ghraib_03_061204.jpg

 

This isn't torture? Especially when a Red Cross report says about 70% of the people in the prison were f'ing innocent of any crime?

 

The way you know these pics are real is that they include that same woman who was leering over the dead Iraqi guy packed with ice from the LAST round of pictures which was released.

 

The Pentagon and the Senate have admitted to having over 2000 such photos in their possesion... pictures of Iraqi guys shielding their penises from dog bites, guys pissing and shitting themselves as they're cowering from dogs who are trying to bite them, photos of guys being anally raped with maglight flashlights... we have only seen the briefest beginnings of all of this.

 

And yeah, it fucking sucks a guy got killed over this but guess what, do you know why we shouldn't turn Arabia into glass? Because we're supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to be fucking America. No wonder why 90% of Iraqi' see us as occupiers going by the latest poll.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

ya know Jesse.. you may want to offer links to those photos instead. Just some advice

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Seems the violating of the "spirit" falls pretty heavily on one side.

 

I totally agree. Like I said, I personally would like to see the US military "show what they really can do" over there. However, my original question was, does that make the US "right" by breaking the rules? In my view, wrong is wrong. Even if it is more "right" than the other.

 

And, yet again --- since you seem to miss these reports --- THE GUARDS ARE BEING PUNISHED.

 

You've mentioned this -and infact, boasted it- on many occasions Mike. I am well aware. The precident was still set.

 

Again, one guy jaywalks. Another guy rapes a nun. BOTH break the law.

 

While I appreciate the extreme analogy to make a point, it's not doing it for me Mike. What they did could be considered a War Crime; that's not a misdemeanor.

 

Isn't there a LITTLE moral difference?

 

Sure. They did something worse. But it doesn't excuse the US from doing something wrong. And it's not as big as the gap between walking across the street and raping a nun.

You missed my moral relativism comment on the first page, although it was much more subtle and such.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I caught it. I don't use "isms"

 

Plus, I am jealous of your sig.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

As mentioned before, "Monkey" was used in terms of action, not race. Thus not making it racist. Hell, "Monkey" is a common word and association - it's not solitarily used as a racial slur. It *was* used in a negative way, but if he said "Savage" - which has also been used as a racial slur - would he have been equally "tarnished"?

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Didn't realize they'd be that big....crap.

[Art Sandusky 0]

As mentioned before, "Monkey" was used in terms of action, not race. Thus not making it racist. Hell, "Monkey" is a common word and association - it's not solitarily used as a racial slur. It *was* used in a negative way, but if he said "Savage" - which has also been used as a racial slur - would he have been equally "tarnished"?

When has "savage" been used racially, and when was the last time you saw monkeys behead people, carry out terrorist activities, and fly planes?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Kotzen.. well.. there's a High School in Missouri that uses the nickname 'Savages' with an Indian logo.

 

Something might be a bit racial there.