Re: Then I am sorry for you.

Post #26,024 by Mike 1/28/02 8:24:35 AM 1/28/02 4:31:36 PM Reply	Re: Then I am sorry for you. >>Or the fact that the majority of your post seems to be direct to personal >>attacks against me and not at my position. In this thread I ripped your position on both the Geneva Convention and the treatment of prisoners during/after the WWII. Then I ripped you when you just weren't prepared to listen. Live with it. Edited by Mike Jan. 28, 2002, 04:31:36 PM EST Expand All History
Post #26,037 by Brandioch 1/28/02 9:59:07 AM Reply	Believe that if you wish to. "In this thread I ripped your position on both the Geneva Convention and the treatment of prisoners during/after the WWII." First off, I've shown that the reference you used to "counter" my position on the Geneva Convention was fundamentally flawed in that it claimed that the Geneva Convention only applied to treatment of prisoners of armies that abided by the Geneva Convention. This is not the case and is stated as such repeatedly in the Geneva Convention. Then you post a reference to a book stating that our treatment of prisoners was not in accourdance with the Convention. This author's prior journalistic endevour has been questioned. Now, I'm looking into this SINGLE PIECE OF "EVIDENCE" that you've referenced. While it may be accurate, it is still the only work to make such claims. Sorry, that is not YET an adequate refutal of my position. But, you'll believe whatever you wish and make whatever claims you wish.
Post #26,073 by Mike 1/28/02 1:00:33 PM 1/28/02 4:30:36 PM Reply	Believe that if you wish to. >>This author's prior journalistic endeavour has been questioned. And as I pointed out - Stephen Ambrose doing the questioning made it very clear that evidence of Allied atrocities was apparent. >>While it may be accurate, it is still the only work to make such claims. Not so. If you had looked you would know. >>But, you'll believe whatever you wish When I see evidence it influences my beliefs >>and make whatever claims you wish. I'll have opinions and express them. P.S. Sorry about the ad hominem stuff but it really makes my ass clench when somebody who is thick as pigshit in the neck of a bottle thinks they are clever just because they went to college. Edited by Mike Jan. 28, 2002, 04:30:36 PM EST Expand All History
Post #26,076 by Another Scott 1/28/02 1:06:24 PM Reply	Please change your "PS" sig. It's not appropriate. Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #26,123 by Mike 1/28/02 4:35:03 PM Reply	Done You are of course, correct. I even cleared up a few prior posts.
Post #26,138 by Another Scott 1/28/02 5:11:37 PM Reply	Vielen danke.
Post #26,084 by Brandioch 1/28/02 1:26:41 PM Reply	Ummm, you're wrong. Oh, not that there are instances where we violated the rules. But then >I< never said that we >NEVER< did such. In fact, if you will read back over my previous posts, you will see that I said we violated the GC many times. Up to and including dropping nukes on women, children and wounded. But since this claim will render your strawman null and void, you will continue to ignore it. Yes, we broke the GC at times during our handling of prisoners. But not to the degree that you've claimed. The thing I find most amusing in this is that such actions (even if they did occure) have ZERO relevance to the current discussion. Or do you believe that because we did it before, it is okay? Not so. This is just some weird tangent you've gone off on to try to support your position by claiming I've taken positions that I have not. Thrill yourself.
Post #26,097 by Mike 1/28/02 2:19:58 PM Reply	One more time around >>In fact, if you will read back over my previous posts, you will see that I >>said we violated the GC many times. Up to and including dropping nukes on >>women, children and wounded. GC came into effect in 1950. Time to change your position? -- Silly people make me cross --
Post #26,099 by Brandioch 1/28/02 2:36:51 PM Reply	The phrasing, not the position. They were adopted August 12, 1949. We still dropped nukes on women and children and wounded. Or do you deny that we dropped those nukes? Maybe you don't think it was a "war crime" to do so?
Post #26,106 by Mike 1/28/02 3:14:40 PM Reply	Mmmmmm much better Yes I know.....you were the one who had the brain burp. "The 1949 Geneva Conventions entered into force on 21 October 1950." [link\|http://www.icrc.org/icrceng.nsf/c1256212004ce24e4125621200524882/301ba126aac7284841256604002e8ccd?OpenDocument\|http://www.icrc.org...OpenDocument] >>We still dropped nukes on women and children and wounded. Un huh uh huh. And...and.....and......and another thing.....oh.....yeah... so there. Hmmmmmm. >>Or do you deny that we dropped those nukes? Read my posts, silly billy. >>Maybe you don't think it was a "war crime" to do so? Oh you bitch. -- Vacuous people make me very vexed --
Post #26,101 by Mike 1/28/02 2:58:41 PM Reply	And..... >>But then >I< never said that we >NEVER< did such. You said: Shall we discuss WWII? Millions killed. Yet we still maintained rule of law. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25634\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25634] Then......when I raised the more general breaches of international law.... you requalified your position to focus only on POWs. When I have given you evidence that POWs were treated outside of international law.......you are now trying to say that you "never said that we NEVER did such". Way to go. Let's just both say that the question of POW treatment NEVER came up in EITHER of our posts. That way I can go back to my imagined world and you can go back to your imagined world (note: trying to be even handed). You have to admit that its kinda sorta tough to reconcile that with a statement that we "maintained the rule of law". Finally...... if you want to do a better job of arguing that the Taliban are recognised and "regular army" you could make the point that the U.N. Security Coucil recently passed resolutions condemning the Taliban for allowing Al Quaeda to operate on its territory. You could argue that if the United Nations were able to conceive that Taliban were in any way responsible.....that if the United Nations thought they were an appropriate entity to appeal to for some kind of response......that they were being recognised and as such so were all/any troops calling themselves Taliban. If the United Nations expected any kind of response it could be said that they saw evidence of legitimate authority. Apologies if this is said elsewhere.....but you made it clear in a post to BePatient that it's bad form (obsessive?) to be reading posts if you are not directly involved (hee hee). -- Can't think of anything PC right now --
Post #26,112 by Brandioch 1/28/02 4:09:38 PM Reply	Again? It's called "context". And we've already been over this. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25863\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25863] "Then......when I raised the more general breaches of international law.... you requalified your position to focus only on POWs." No, that was the ORIGINAL context of the discussion. You were the one that lost it in an attempt to re-draft my position to one more suitable to your arguments. But, as I said, that's been covered. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25863\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25863]
Post #26,118 by Mike 1/28/02 4:22:41 PM Reply	Dancing on the head of a pin If you want to say that you NEVER said something. I'm going to point out where you did. -- Can't think of anything PC right now --
Post #26,141 by Brandioch 1/28/02 5:15:18 PM Reply	You post lacks content. Or at least, it lacks a reference. I will, once again, instruct you in the construction of a well reference posting. Pay attention. First, I quote the part of your post that I'm replying to: "If you want to say that you NEVER said something. I'm going to point out where you did." Then I reply: What the fuck are you talking about you IDIOT!?! Then I provide supporting material for my post. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=26101\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=26101] Read that. You said I "requalified" my position to only focus on POW's. As I noted ONLY THREE FUCKING POSTS AGO that was the CONTEXT of that discussion. You do understand CONTEXT, don't you? Oh, I forgot. Like Bill, you can't remember anything that is more that two posts ago. Oh, I understand. If I say something like "cops are employed to uphold the law" and you can point to a specific instance of a cop breaking the law, then you feel that this somehow justifies your position or invalidates mine? Or if I say that "cops have arrested people without violating their rights before", you can find someone who claims that cops have violated rights before and this supports your position or invalidates mine? Oh, because I didn't put weasel words like "usually" or "most of the time" or "in many cases". Is that what you're trying to say? Sorry to interupt your fantasy world. But people don't behave like that. I thought it was understood by most adults (well, intelligent adults). I guess you don't fall into that "most adults" category. Only in your fantasies is it that everyone acts the same and believes the same. In the real world, you have good people and bad people.
Post #26,160 by Mike 1/28/02 6:19:02 PM Reply	You are a naughty boy >>Oh, because I didn't put weasel words like "usually" or "most of the time" >>or "in many cases". >>Is that what you're trying to say? >>Sorry to interupt your fantasy world. But people don't behave like that. This is so delicious. I can't believe I have been blessed with you. More! More! Dude, if you want to dip your toes in the legal pond for a while you would be well advised to steer clear of the famed "weasel word" defense. Let me guess.......you hardly ever lose an argument do you? My guess is that you kick the chessboard every time your Queen gets her skirt blown up. Does it not strike you as ironic that in the same post where you are pedantically squealing about me saying you "requalified" something you also want to extend yourself the privileges of not needing to use precise language? In the SAME post! lmao THE FUCKING SAME POST! Mike:The Second World War was most definitely NOT fought according to the rule of law. Brandioch, you asked me to "Check the treatment of POW's." in the TITLE to one of your posts. You are asking me to believe that what you intended for me to find was (please insert appropriate weasely word) evidence of (please insert appropriate weasely word) behavior? If so, I think you (please insert appropriate weasely word) lying. Brandioch:>> I pointed out that even after MILLIONS were killed in WWII, we Brandioch:>> still followed the rules and treated the prisoners with basic Brandioch:>> human civility (far better than they deserved, but we're Brandioch:>> representing the good guys here). LINK=[link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25863\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25863] What weasely word shall we use to describe the above? Restating? Repeating? Clarifying? Pick anyone you like. Make a new one up if you prefer. But........ once....... you........ have....... a.......... name....... for........ it......... PLEASE reconcile it with: Brandioch:>> But then >I< never said that we >NEVER< did such.
Post #26,167 by Brandioch 1/28/02 6:43:42 PM Reply	I think my original posts were clear enough. "This is so delicious. I can't believe I have been blessed with you. More! More! Dude, if you want to dip your toes in the legal pond for a while you would be well advised to steer clear of the famed "weasel word" defense." What did you intend to say? "Let me guess.......you hardly ever lose an argument do you?" You'd be wrong. But I don't supposed you'll believe that. You haven't so far. "My guess is that you kick the chessboard every time your Queen gets her skirt blown up." content == zero (again) "Does it not strike you as ironic that in the same post where you are pedantically squealing about me saying you "requalified" something you also want to extend yourself the privileges of not needing to use precise language?" In your opinion or mine? I was talking about you taking a post of mine out of context. That is NOT the same as you insisting that everytime I make a statement it must apply to 100% of individuals. "In the SAME post! lmao THE FUCKING SAME POST!" You quoted me out of context. Out of context. Deal with it. START QUOTE "Mike:The Second World War was most definitely NOT fought according to the rule of law." ... useless crap deleted ... Brandioch:>> I pointed out that even after MILLIONS were killed in WWII, we Brandioch:>> still followed the rules and treated the prisoners with basic Brandioch:>> human civility (far better than they deserved, but we're Brandioch:>> representing the good guys here). LINK=[link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25863\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25863] END QUOTE Again, you seem to be UNABLE to grasp the simple fact that I was talking about our treatment of the POW's after the war. In fact, I have ON SEVERAL FUCKING OCCASIONS pointed out that we dropped nukes on WOMEN, CHILDREN AND THE WOUNDED. But that doesn't fit the point you want to make so you will ONCE AGAIN skip over it. Unfortunately, it was the point I was making so your "rebutal" of my position keeps falling apart when I point out that what you're claiming I said was actually taken out of context. Context. It's what you keep missing. Reminder, I said we nuked women and children. You said I said that we fought WWII accourding to the rules of war. I said we nuked women and children. You said I said we fought WWII accourding to the rules of war. Eventually, I will have to presume that you think nuking women and children is in accourdance with the rules of war. I would suggest you reconsider that opinion.
Post #26,173 by Mike 1/28/02 7:15:17 PM Reply	Brandioch: >I< never said that we >NEVER< did such (just thought it might help if I put it in the title....you appear to have missed it in the last post). >>Again, you seem to be UNABLE to grasp the simple fact that I was talking >>about our treatment of the POW's after the war. And.........what..........were.......you.......saying......about......them? I think I know but I may be mistaken so tell me again. Go ahead, restate/rephrase/repeat your position. And then............reconcile it with........ Brandioch: >> But then >I< never said that we >NEVER< did such. -Mike P.S. Reprise. Brandioch: >> But then >I< never said that we >NEVER< did such. >>In fact, I have ON SEVERAL FUCKING OCCASIONS pointed out that we dropped >>nukes on WOMEN, CHILDREN AND THE WOUNDED. I got there first. (Go check I dare ya). I thought we we're talking about POWs? Why are you bringing this up at this point? -- Can't think of anything PC right now --
Post #26,179 by Brandioch 1/28/02 7:56:02 PM Reply	Again, the two post rule applies. You can't remember anything I posted more than two posts ago. And you're attempting to quote me out of context again. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25863\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25863] "I got there first. (Go check I dare ya). I thought we we're talking about POWs? Why are you bringing this up at this point?" Ah, but that's the point. You keep switching from the treatment of POW's to claiming that I'm claiming we didn't commit war crimes. Try to keep it straight. And in context.
Post #26,182 by bepatient 1/28/02 8:05:37 PM Reply	What POWs? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,183 by Brandioch 1/28/02 8:16:21 PM Reply	Those POW's.
Post #26,256 by Mike 1/29/02 8:07:34 AM Reply	Bring out the context I'm posting the links to your posts. I've exhausted my ability to put it into the correct context. I think you must mean some other as yet undefined context. I think you should flush it out right now Look......put it BACK into whatever context you see fit. Right here. And then we can attempt to reconcile what you said. Reminder....... Brandioch, you asked me to "Check the treatment of POW's." in the TITLE to one of your posts. You are asking me to believe that what you intended for me to find was (please insert appropriate weasely word) evidence of (please insert appropriate weasely word) behavior? If so, I think you (please insert appropriate weasely word) lying. Brandioch:>> I pointed out that even after MILLIONS were killed in WWII, we Brandioch:>> still followed the rules and treated the prisoners with basic Brandioch:>> human civility (far better than they deserved, but we're Brandioch:>> representing the good guys here). LINK=[link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25863\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25863] What weasely word shall we use to describe the above? Restating? Repeating? Clarifying? Pick anyone you like. Make a new one up if you prefer. But........ once....... you........ have....... a.......... name....... for........ it......... PLEASE reconcile it with: Brandioch:>> But then >I< never said that we >NEVER< did such. P.S. I'm not getting in the least bit impatient, honest. Every time you make a post I hear a guy in the background shouting "Goooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal!" -- Can't think of anything PC right now --
Post #26,325 by a6l6e6x 1/29/02 11:57:17 AM Reply	Incidentally, Mike... you have agreement from Charles Krauthammer of Washington Post. [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35191-2002Jan24.html\|The Jackals Are Wrong.] The critical issue in the treatment of these captured fighters is whether, under international law, they are prisoners of war or "unlawful combatants." Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Post #26,347 by Mike 1/29/02 1:25:25 PM Reply	Thanks...another supporting link attached Ronald D. Rotunda, professor, University of Illinois College of Law [link\|http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry012402.shtml\|http://www.national...012402.shtml] -- Can't think of anything PC right now --

Welcome to IWETHEY!