It has happened again

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

"we're"? we are? "We"? we?

 

Oh it's not we. It's the military that has to do it. we get to sit in your comfy home with our safe jobs and bitch about how awful this is and how we should be willing to kill everyone to get the bad guys. "We" think we have the solution to the war.

 

You take actions like what Marney is advocating and "We" become the terrorists.

[Guest MikeSC]

This reminds me of my eighth grade (sometimes tenth in the US system, sometimes not) teacher trying to justify his frequent use of the word "Neger" (pronounced Nay-gerr) as non-racist because it's not the very similar English word that is written quite a lot like the Niger river. Asked on why he exclusively refered to black people as Neger (same in singular and plural) and why he didn't have any special words for Asians and Indians and what not, he kind of shut up.

Unlike your teacher, I have explained fully what causes somebody to become a monkey --- and ALSO unlike him, more than one race contains monkeys.

 

McVeigh was a monkey.

Ditto the Unabomber.

And the whole "it's racist when you slur someone as a person but it's not when you use that word to descrie someone's actions" would make it perfectly acceptable to say "that guy totally jewed me" instead of "he cheated me financially."

This is not even remotely the same thing. You're being nice here, so I'll politely explain it --- one last time:

 

The MOMENT somebody intentionally targets civilians and kills them to advance their agenda, they forfeit humanity. Thus, they become nothing more than monkeys. McVeigh crossed the threshold. Unabomber crossed it. The terrorists cross it regularly.

You're accomplishing quite a feat by dodging all these logical potholes.

No, you're simply placing potholes on a perfectly paved street in the hopes of blowing somebody's tire.

So we're not targeting civillians but our targets aren't military either, they're something inbetween that allows us to kill them but bars them from recieving the same respect as soldiers.

Again, not true. We target things WHEN GUNFIRE COMES AT US FROM THEM. There is nothing "sneaky" about that. You fire, we return fire. That's the way the world works. They lack the protection of the Geneva Conventions because the BLATANTLY violate the Conventions.

It's cowardly to attack a military base at night, by surprise but it was actually a genius strategical move of our military to take out most important targets in Iraq and Afghanistan before the actual war began, by surprise.

Nobody said it was cowardly to attack at night. It is cowardly to wave a white flag and then open fire when troops approach. It is cowardly to dress up as a civilian and then ambush people.

Them targeting civillians who support the interim government and are trying to rebuild the country is cowardly and sub-human (I am amused by the soundbit of Hitler yelling "They're not even human!" just in German) but us arresting everyone who may just support terrorism indefinately and without charge is a perfectly legit practice.

Yet, it is --- as they don't tend to die in quite the sheer volume. We hold them in prisons until we feel they are not a threat to us. Would it make you happier to just release them to kill again?

We're not "torturing" them, it's just legit interrogation. Tying people up, electro shocks, beatings, sleep deprivation and deep-seated cultural humiliation isn't torture.

Sleep deprivation actually is quite legal. And don't even bother with "cultural humiliation" as we have monkeys at Gitmo who regularly masturbate and throw semen at their guards. Somehow, the whole humiliation aspect of that doesn't seem to be universal.

 

And, again, humiliation is a little different than physical torture followed by, you know, cutting a man's head off.

 

Especially since the men who have been beheaded were NO threat whatsoever. They weren't even remotely tied to the military.

Especially not what we have done. But lo and behold they treat their captives inhuman. To them the whole deal with the women's clothing and public, mixed-sex nudity is pretty much like being anally raped on live television would be for us.

Then their culture is a shitheap and should be destroyed as quickly as possible. If humiliation is AS BAD AS RAPE in their eyes, they're fucked up beyond repair.

 

That they are so fucked up and irrational makes dialogue impossible.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED BUT WE'VE STILL GOT TO FIGHT A LOT SO NOT ACCOMPLISHED, REALLY. More of a flip flop.

The mission was accomplished. Saddam's regime was toppled.

I mean .. come on, guys. We're really on the same side. I want the American ideals to win but could you please pull your damned heads out of your asses and face the music? We're not the shining white paladins of justice. We're murdering grunts who do a damned job that must be done. Everything else is just so people with less of a stomach can sleep soundly at night.

We're doing good in a world where doing nothing is applauded. History will vindicate our actions.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

ROOOOOOOOOARRRRRR

Oh for the love of God, get a grip.

 

I'm done.

 

 

 

I pledge allegiance to the United States of Marney, with arrogance and tough talk for all.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

They lack the protection of the Geneva Conventions because the BLATANTLY violate the Conventions.

 

Just wondering Mike, is that a two way street? US breaking the Geneva Convention with their Cruel and Unusual Punishment of the soldiers - even if _they_ broke the Convention first, as you say - does that mean any thing that happens to the US now by the other side (or any side) that breaks the GC is okay**?

 

This isn't an attack, so don't treat it as one. I just want to know where you stand on the issue.

 

Edit:: **I should rephrase that last part - I don't mean "okay", but it's the closest possible word. Acceptible? Void from Protection?

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Definition of Monkey as a Racist term:

 

Derived from their appearance, which sometimes can be simian-like (or more so than other races).

 

Usually used to refer to Blacks, so Mike can't even get his Racist terms down correctly.

 

http://www.angelfire.com/geek/APRACE/glossary.html

[Guest Anglesault]

Usually used to refer to Blacks, so Mike can't even get his Racist terms down correctly.

Or, perhaps it wasn't intended as a racist term, seeing as it makes no sense when applied to an Arab?

[Guest MikeSC]

Definition of Monkey as a Racist term:

 

QUOTE 

Derived from their appearance, which sometimes can be simian-like (or more so than other races).

 

Usually used to refer to Blacks, so Mike can't even get his Racist terms down correctly.

Seeing as how racism wasn't the point of it --- your snide comment is as useless as your usual bilge.

They lack the protection of the Geneva Conventions because the BLATANTLY violate the Conventions.

Just wondering Mike, is that a two way street? US breaking the Geneva Convention with their Cruel and Unusual Punishment of the soldiers - even if _they_ broke the Convention first, as you say - does that mean any thing that happens to the US now by the other side (or any side) that breaks the GC is okay**?

Seeing as how they aren't COVERED by the Conventions in the first place, it's all moot.

This isn't an attack, so don't treat it as one.  I just want to know where you stand on the issue.

 

Edit:: **I should rephrase that last part - I don't mean "okay", but it's the closest possible word.  Acceptible?  Void from Protection?

Rudo, the Conventions apply to very definite groups. People who fight amongst the populace, wear no identifying signals on their clothing to indicate that they're not civilians, target civilians --- are not covered.

-=Mike

...And, I will remind folks that we are punishing the guards...

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Usually used to refer to Blacks, so Mike can't even get his Racist terms down correctly.

Or, perhaps it wasn't intended as a racist term, seeing as it makes no sense when applied to an Arab?

I sincerely doubt it. I live in a city with a very large Middle Eastern population and I hear the term constantly used as a derogatory term.

 

I'm not saying Mike is racist but he's using a racist term.

[Guest Anglesault]

Usually used to refer to Blacks, so Mike can't even get his Racist terms down correctly.

Or, perhaps it wasn't intended as a racist term, seeing as it makes no sense when applied to an Arab?

I sincerely doubt it. I live in a city with a very large Middle Eastern population and I hear the term constantly used as a derogatory term.

 

I'm not saying Mike is racist but he's using a racist term.

And I've never heard it applied to anyone but a black man in a racist manner.

 

We seem to have a stalemate.

[Guest Cerebus]

I wonder if we'll be seeing that beheaded body plastered on the front of every newspaper on earth. We undoubtedly would, if that body were an Iraqi and his captors were American.

[Guest Hero to all Children]

Which is why we don't call them sand-niggers, because it wouldn't make any sense to take a degoratory race-related term and then apply it to the next enemy we believe to be sub-human. I mean .. Jesus, we might as well be calling the Vietnamese and the Korean and the Japanese chinks even though it actually means the Chinese.

 

Wait .. we've been doing that already? OH SHI-

 

 

 

Actually they are covered by the Geneva convention. Unless you want to do the lawyer thing and say "oh ho ho~! They're not soldiers but they're not civillians either!" and thereby give them the title of unlawful enemy combatants. Which basically reads "rogue warriors." Just that the unlawful is nice linguistic trick to appease people who still care for the aforementioned convention.

 

I don'th think that the Geneva convention includes a cop-out article that says "if your enemy doesn't adhere to these laws then you're still protected by them whereas they aren't anymore. Wink wink."

 

 

A life is a life is a life is a life. A civillian's life isn't worth any more than a soldier's life than a criminal's life than a child's life. It's still the end of something infinitely precious, something irreperable. No one is innocent and no one is deserving of death.

 

To me it's no different if you attack the USS Cole or sink a private cruise liner. People die, you're a murderer.

[Highland 0]

The GC is a joke, it was designed to ensure the powerful remain powerful and as a means of legally punishing those that lose wars.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Usually used to refer to Blacks, so Mike can't even get his Racist terms down correctly.

Or, perhaps it wasn't intended as a racist term, seeing as it makes no sense when applied to an Arab?

I sincerely doubt it. I live in a city with a very large Middle Eastern population and I hear the term constantly used as a derogatory term.

 

I'm not saying Mike is racist but he's using a racist term.

And I've never heard it applied to anyone but a black man in a racist manner.

 

We seem to have a stalemate.

Here

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Seeing as how they aren't COVERED by the Conventions in the first place, it's all moot.

WARNING: Opinion being stated as fact!!!

 

 

Abort debate immediately (Y/N)?

Y

Shutting down....

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Where are you getting that from, Mike?

 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

 

Article 1

 

The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

 

Article 2

 

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

 

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

 

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

------

 

Article 13

 

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

 

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

 

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

[Guest MikeSC]

Where are you getting that from, Mike?

 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

 

Article 1

 

The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

 

Article 2

 

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

 

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

 

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

------

 

Article 13

 

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

 

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

 

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Cute and all --- but when one party is acting IN OPPOSITION to the Conventions (the phrase you bolded, to enlighten you, was referring to warring parties who, while not signing, did follow the rules) aren't covered.

 

I notice you didn't include the definition of what CONSTITUTES a POW.

-=Mike

[Downhome 0]

It seems for the last six months or so, nothing has changed, for the better (or so we'd be led to believe by the majority of all media outlets) OR worse...it just is what it is.

Corrected for accuracy.

 

I personally can't believe that here we are, in a thread with the topic of a horrible subhuman evil act that was committed against an innocent man, American or not, yet some of you seem as if you just want to ignore the very topic of this thread and continue with petty points which are in fact...pointLESS.

 

For the love of God, end this BS with the word "monkey". The use in this thread, and the other threads that we talk about these shits who commit such horrible acts, is meaning simply that they are not human, they are below all civil people to the point where they shouldn't even be thought of as human beings. It is in the context that only animals could resort to such evil and thoughtless acts towards others of their kind. The word "monkey" is simply the example of an animal, nothing more.

 

To even think that it is meant as a racist term towards an entire race of people is just you LOOKING for something petty to bitch about, to get off topic, to ultimately change the subject of this thread.

 

That in itself, is pretty sad in its own right.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

No matter how many times someone gets their panties in a bunch over the "monkey" term, it's always worth a good read.

 

And don't call them towel-heads, those garments are called sheets. Therefore call them by their appropriate name.

 

OH NO RUN FOR COVER -- HERE COMES ANOTHER ONE STRAPPED WITH A BOMB...

 

[Guest MikeSC]

Usually used to refer to Blacks, so Mike can't even get his Racist terms down correctly.

Or, perhaps it wasn't intended as a racist term, seeing as it makes no sense when applied to an Arab?

I sincerely doubt it. I live in a city with a very large Middle Eastern population and I hear the term constantly used as a derogatory term.

 

I'm not saying Mike is racist but he's using a racist term.

And I've never heard it applied to anyone but a black man in a racist manner.

 

We seem to have a stalemate.

Here

Ignoring the whole "monkeys come from many different races" thing, eh?

 

Downhome said it best. You're just looking to bitch for the sake of bitching.

-=Mike

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

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.

[Guest BDC]

Mike has explained that he's using it in a different manner than the sources you cited. It's a known precedent in this folder. Quit with the semantics.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Usually used to refer to Blacks, so Mike can't even get his Racist terms down correctly.

Or, perhaps it wasn't intended as a racist term, seeing as it makes no sense when applied to an Arab?

I sincerely doubt it. I live in a city with a very large Middle Eastern population and I hear the term constantly used as a derogatory term.

 

I'm not saying Mike is racist but he's using a racist term.

And I've never heard it applied to anyone but a black man in a racist manner.

 

We seem to have a stalemate.

Here

Ignoring the whole "monkeys come from many different races" thing, eh?

 

Downhome said it best. You're just looking to bitch for the sake of bitching.

-=Mike

It's one example Mike. My entire life I've heard Monkey's used as a racist term.

 

I'm willing to drop it because neither of us will change our minds.

 

And I'm not bitching for the sake of bitching. I don't like racism. I saw it as a racist comment so I spoke up. If anything I'm someone who doesn't care who he pisses off.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Somebody's acting niggardly in this thread...

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Mike's trying to make a difference by taking the word monkey back from those who wished to degrade one race for the purpose of degrading people (from all races, who may be less than subhuman) that he doesn't like.

 

CWM, you should quit your whining. Mike's just making the English language better.

[Highland 0]

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

[kkktookmybabyaway 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...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I notice you didn't include the definition of what CONSTITUTES a POW.

-=Mike

It speaks for itself. A prisoner captured in act of war.

 

Now, either these wars we're going on aren't real wars, or terrorism really isn't the act of war we keep repeating to ourselves that it is, or...?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Mike has explained that he's using it in a different manner than the sources you cited.  It's a known precedent in this folder.  Quit with the semantics.

So if I sit and call him a kike, not because he's Jewish, but because he disagrees with me and therefore I feel the need to call him that, and anyone from any religion or race or country could be a kike because they disagree with me regardless of their background? That somehow ignores that I'm using derogatory language in a derogatory fashion?

 

I'd hope not.

[Guest MikeSC]

I notice you didn't include the definition of what CONSTITUTES a POW.

          -=Mike

It speaks for itself. A prisoner captured in act of war.

 

Now, either these wars we're going on aren't real wars, or terrorism really isn't the act of war we keep repeating to ourselves that it is, or...?

Not quite. POW's are actually very explicitly laid out in the Conventions. I know --- because I posted it before.

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

If believing that makes you happy, have fun.

It's one example Mike. My entire life I've heard Monkey's used as a racist term.

 

I'm willing to drop it because neither of us will change our minds.

 

And I'm not bitching for the sake of bitching. I don't like racism. I saw it as a racist comment so I spoke up. If anything I'm someone who doesn't care who he pisses off.

I've explained, AD INFINITUM, what it means. You've entered your world of perpetual blissful ignorance.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike has explained that he's using it in a different manner than the sources you cited.  It's a known precedent in this folder.  Quit with the semantics.

So if I sit and call him a kike, not because he's Jewish, but because he disagrees with me and therefore I feel the need to call him that, and anyone from any religion or race or country could be a kike because they disagree with me regardless of their background? That somehow ignores that I'm using derogatory language in a derogatory fashion?

 

I'd hope not.

If you can point to PRECISELY what makes me a kike --- as I did with monkey IN THIS VERY THREAD (yet again, I might add) --- you'd have a point.

 

But you can't.

 

And, per usual, you don't.

-=Mike