Let me get this straight........

Post #25,767 by Mike 1/25/02 5:05:31 PM Reply	Let me get this straight........ You just shared with me that the world is a fucked up place and that we do very bad things. And yet you seriously believe that the Second World War was fought in a fair manner? You're delusional....... >>You are afraid. .....blah blah >>But you aren't going to react in a logical manner. Yeah.......I see how you cut through my absent logic with a single stroke. Scratch that...........lets make it multiple strokes. Clean your keyboard off and try again. --------Streak of batpiss---------
Post #25,774 by Simon_Jester 1/25/02 5:14:01 PM Reply	You might want to read his post again. He never claimed WWII was fought in a fair manner.
Post #25,816 by Mike 1/25/02 11:16:02 PM Reply	You're right ...he said it was fought according to the "rule of law". [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=25634\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=25634] --------Streak of batpiss---------
Post #25,863 by Brandioch 1/26/02 1:26:28 PM Reply	It's so sad when you have to resort to oocq's. Out Of Context Quotes. Let me repost the section you were refering to. You said: "There have been thousands and thousands of people whose lives have been negatively impacted.... the women of Afghanistan, the massacres of villages during conflict, the children who starved and not least those who died on September 11th...and the families they left behind." I replies: "Shall we discuss WWII? Millions killed. Yet we still maintained rule of law." That seems to be a bit different from what you implied. Shall we take the previous two sections of that discussion? You said: "The rule against interrogating POWs was to prevent torture of rank-and-file to obtain information about (say) future plans or existing positions." I replied: "Close enough." You said: "It was NEVER conceived that it would (or might) prevent the interrogation of a body of people who plan to (say) blow up London with a nuclear bomb." I replied: "And it has? How?" Hmmm, it seems to me that the quote you quoted wasn't about FIGHTING accourding to the Rule of Law in WWII (at least not on our side). It seems that the quote you quoted was about our TREATMENT OF THE PRISONERS AFTER THE WAR. You've said we need to be able to "coerce" the prisoners to reveal information they might have. You support this position by saying they MIGHT be ready to nuke cities. You say that they've already hurt/killed/whatever THOUSANDS. I pointed out that even after MILLIONS were killed in WWII, we still followed the rules and treated the prisoners with basic human civility (far better than they deserved, but we're representing the good guys here). In fact, if you'd actually read my other posts, you'd see that the only reason we weren't charged with war crimes was that we were the victors in that conflict. We are not perfect, but we can try to be better. Rather than try to justify being worse. But I already know your position.
Post #25,931 by Mike 1/27/02 2:23:10 AM 1/28/02 4:28:22 PM Reply	Brandi - its okay to be wrong...... .....its the denial which hurts you the most. Brandioch: >>It seems that the quote you quoted was about our >>TREATMENT OF THE PRISONERS AFTER THE WAR. So be it. I see now. You're proposing that although the FIGHTING was barbaric and ugly......afterwards the prison-taking and POW treatment was all done according to the letter of the law. What utter fucking trollop. What a load of I-can-imagine- these-things-so-therefore-they-must-be-true. You fucking self-absorbed non-thinker. How warm things must be in your world. Is this a go-ahead-prove -me-wong-I-dare-you thing? Or is this bollocks just typical self-serving shit which I can expect to see here? You are so delighted with yourself at having found what you think is another sliver of light in the door opening in which to put your mangy foot of lunatic logic that you forgot to pause and actually wonder whether you are correct or not. In the department of twisting and wriggling to satisfy one's own ego you get a perfect 10. In the department of research before doing your talking.....you get 1 for presentation (because at least some people could possibly be taken in by your pompous attitude). SIT DOWN FOR A SECOND. YOU'RE JUST FUCKING WRONG Read on ...... and for once open up that little snot ball which your are trying to pass off for a mind. Please, PLEASE read the link below and then maybe give yourself a day to chill out. Then reconsider.......are you really sure that your are right? And on what do you base this? Common wisdom? Pah! You can find supporting info for Bacque yourself if you try (you won't). I'm not here to breathe life into your pathetic untrained ill-informed and largely unresearched view of the world and its history. Nonetheless I''l try if you try to wrap your already-been-chewed brain around the following and let the rest of us know what you think:- [link\|http://serendipity.magnet.ch/hr/cm01.htm\|http://serendipity..../hr/cm01.htm] Extract from James Bacques "Crimes And Mercies": For most of my life I hardly thought about the flaws in our democratic system. I thought things were bumping along not too badly until I encountered the crimes of Eisenhower and De Gaulle. Even then, I did not imagine that these crimes revealed anything important about our society today because, after all, they occurred almost half a century ago, under the tremendous force of hatred caused by war. It was only when I interviewed Drew Middleton, a star reporter for the New York Times, that I began to see how events of long ago were affecting our lives today. In Middleton's office in New York in 1988, I told him I had discovered that the US and French armies had committed enormous atrocities in Europe in 1945. Because he had written stories in 1945 denying this following his visits to the prison camps, I wanted his reaction. ...... In the opinion of nearly everybody in the West, the Second World War was a good war. It was necessary to defeat the utter evil of the dictators. If anyone in the post-war years doubted this, they were reminded of the pictures of emaciated bodies in Hitler's death camps. Lofty were the aims of the Allies, noble were their ideals, eloquent the expression of these ideals in such documents as the Geneva Convention, the Atlantic Charter, and the UN Declaration of Human Rights. All these were in the tradition of the liberal reforms which had succeeded in the West for many years, yet all these noble declarations were being broken by one branch of government while they were being written by another. Or, like the Geneva Convention, they were broken as soon as they became applicable. People who say anarchy is impractical are ignoring modern government where anarchy is normal, in the sense that government is constantly changing course, covering up, contradicting and reversing itself and doing these things simultaneously. The Allies clearly did not intend to keep their word in the 1940s. Why not? And why give it? ....... The answer to the first question is of course that people often don't keep their word, because normal human frailties prevail over the noble resolve to correct them. The more interesting question is, why make such declarations? For one thing, it is reassuring to hear them. And probably it is fun to make them. Think of the well-dressed gentlemen, arriving by limousine in English castle, French chateau or American office block with polished secretaries to sit about a gleaming table making high-toned statements about lofty purposes until lunch. Surely, to a kind of mind that is quite common, this is highly important. But there is another reason, maintained by a delusion prevalent in the West. We see today great institutions of public opinion \ufffd among them Le Monde and the New York Times \ufffd feverishly denying the Western Allied atrocities of the post-war period against Germany. For most people in the West, the denials rest on delusion, not evidence. The question never even becomes, 'Did the Allies do such things?' because the answer has been planted in everyone's heads already. 'NO, the Allies did not, because they could not.' For instance, the eminent British historian Michael Howard, reviewing for the Times Literary Supplement a book about Allied atrocities against Germans, admitted that although he was 'an innumerate historian' unqualified to judge the crucial statistics in the book, he could 'apply the criterion of inherent probability' to refute the book. You can buy James Bacque on Amazon.com One more thing.....before you wimpering about James Bacque not being directly relevant to POWs blah blah blah (I see your kind every fucking day and it makes me ill) read....... Bacque, James Other Losses Prima Publishing 1991 Other Losses : The Shocking Truth Behind the Mass Deaths of Disarmed German Soldiers and Civilians Under General Eisenhower's Command "This book has shaken many of the accepted views on World War II. Bacque investigates the deaths of about 1 million German soldiers and civilians in American and French concentration camps. The French and American authorities had purposely allowed prisoners to starve to death and refused them adequate housing and medical care." ...if you can get it. Naah I know the answer to that one already. Edited by Mike Jan. 28, 2002, 04:28:22 PM EST Expand All History
Post #25,934 by Ashton 1/27/02 5:32:19 AM Reply	Post-war treatment.___Indeed. Your reply was to Brandioch, but I followed your link. The numbers he reports are indeed startling - about an order of magnitude larger than I had imagined / heard vague reports about over years. This Canadian researcher appears to have spent about 2 years (and among the first English speakers there?) at the Central State Special Archive in Moscow. After reading his thesis I looked for some reviews from orgs. not necessarily dedicated to general nose-rubbing of the species into its dung. Found also this rebuttal to a book by Douglas Peifer, by James Bacque: [link\|http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~german/discuss/veday/bacque.txt\|Corrections to another book with claimed errors] Excerpt: This and the many mistakes in the Ambrose-Bischof book raise questions about their scholarship. In future postings, I shall if anyone asks, describe some of these very distressing errors in their book. In the meantime, the more interesting question turns on the accuracy and extent of the Soviet archives. Here are the chief points: the archives record a death total for the Japanese prisoners that is the same as the total determined by the Japanese government; the archives show that more Poles died in the Katyn-related massacres than the Poles themselves had thought; the archives record more deaths among captured German civilians (internyrovannye) than the Adenauer government had estimated in the 1950s. These facts are doubly significant, demonstrating not only the accuracy of the archives, but also providing a second test of the accuracy of the German death totals, since all these prisoners were kept in the same camp system, many of them in the same camps at the same time. By every test, these are by far the most complete, coherent and accurate archives on World War Two prisoners in the whole world. And they record an appalling atrocity by the Soviets: to the 421,000 Germans must be added all the others to a total of well over 600,000. I'll have to read the book, as it passes (my) first degree test for plausibility (there are so many rants that do not). Enough time has elapsed for: Bacque to be disgraced (!?) had he Bowdlerized the archival data. That I also count as (+), aided by Google search for any such accusation.. Found none such. I'd agree that it is a rather massive rebuttal to the idea that (the US, UK, France)'s "TREATMENT OF THE PRISONERS AFTER THE WAR" bore any resemblance to the Geneva or any other convention. I can only observe FWIW: I am shocked at the magnitude; hardly surprised at the qualitative ugliness (that I have in fact asserted on occasion): OF FUCKING COURSE! Muricans are as hypocritical as the rest of the species - compounded by our egregious sanctimony which is incapable of imagining that WE ARE. This likely will deserve a thread of its own, if any others plan to read the book. I plan to. "Those who deny history" must be in a special Dantean locale way below the ones who.. won't bother even to read it: Ah but, Whose Version? (No wonder jingoistic ignorance is popular -- it's so much easier.) But to return to the original contretemps: You surely wouldn't suggest the "Everybody Does It" rubric for, in 2002: out-Eisenhowering Ike, would you? Yes, we're killers. We (can) try to restrain ourselves each day, for one more day. Should we try to debrief these collected suckers? Fucking-A. Should we torture them? (And would anyone answer that positively, beyond a whisper? / or report on it after doing it?) ... Probably this entire thread is moot, except as an effort to get the folks with the whips to try and remember that their aim was to remain human - within The Great New War Against Evil\ufffd. A certain naivete is necessary to avert madness. Y'know? We are not ever going to find out - well, maybe after some of Our Dungeonmasters reach retirement age and write memoirs: which the next generation will dismiss as Impossible, as in Bacque II ? Muricans don't do bad things\ufffd Share your pain over our malevolence. (When on other worlds, I never admit I am from This species - and I join in with their ridicule of those crazy destructive homo-saps and their juvenile hubris..) Ashton just visiting Kurt Vonnegut - ..and so it goes (Hey at least everyone knows about Dresden - who wants to)
Post #25,951 by Brandioch 1/27/02 1:00:28 PM Reply	Did that feel good to you? "I see now." Actually, I doubt you do. That's based upon the fact that you take my qoutes out of context and have trouble reading the references I've posted. "You're proposing that although the FIGHTING was barbaric and ugly......afterwards the prison-taking and POW treatment was all done according to the letter of the law." Let me focus on one part of your statement. "was all done" No. You are the one with the fantasy belief in the infallibility of this government and the people in it. Not I. I am the one questioning their decisions when their criteria is not made public. "What utter fucking trollop." Informational content == zero "What a load of I-can-imagine-these-things-so-therefore-they-must-be-true." Informational content == zero "You fucking self-absorbed non-thinker." Informational content == zero "How warm things must be in your world." Informational content == zero "Is this a go-ahead-prove-me-wong-I-dare-you thing?" Informational content == zero "Or is this bollocks just typical self-serving shit which I can expect to see here?" Informational content == zero "You are so delighted with yourself at having found what you think is another sliver of light in the door opening in which to put your mangy foot of lunatic logic that you forgot to pause and actually wonder whether you are correct or not." Informational content == zero "In the department of twisting and wriggling to satisfy one's own ego you get a perfect 10." Informational content == zero "In the department of research before doing your talking.....you get 1 for presentation (because at least some people could possibly be taken in by your pompous attitude)." Informational content == zero "SIT DOWN FOR A SECOND." Informational content == zero "YOU'RE JUST FUCKING WRONG" Informational content == zero "Read on ...... and for once open up that little snot ball which your are trying to pass off for a mind." Informational content == zero "Please, PLEASE read the link below and then maybe give yourself a day to chill out." Informational content == zero "Then reconsider.......are you really sure that your are right?" Informational content == zero "And on what do you base this?" Informational content == zero "Common wisdom?" Informational content == zero "Pah! You can find supporting info for Bacque yourself if you try (you won't)." Informational content == zero "I'm not here to breathe life into your pathetic untrained ill-informed and largely unresearched view of the world and its history." Informational content == zero Then we have a link to a reference saying that our people violated the Geneva Convention. Unfortunately, I have to research this a bit before I can comment.
Post #25,968 by Mike 1/27/02 5:43:12 PM 1/28/02 4:32:24 PM Reply	Dude, it felt freakin' awesome. It was even better the second time reading your response because your "Informational content == zero" seemed like the next best thing to a stunned silence. >>Unfortunately, I have to research this a bit before I can comment. Yeah and I'm sure they'll be a public climbdown in your future if you discover you were deluding yourself. NOT. Edited by Mike Jan. 28, 2002, 04:32:24 PM EST Expand All History
Post #26,010 by Brandioch 1/28/02 1:47:16 AM Reply	Then I am sorry for you. You post: "You fucking self-absorbed non-thinker." I reply: "Informational content == zero" You reply: "It was even better the second time reading your response because your "Informational content == zero" seemed like the next best thing to a stunned silence." So you think that my replies to your personal attacks pointing out that you're saying nothin is equivalent to "stunned silence"? Stunned by what? Your research? Your insight? Your education? Or the fact that the majority of your post seems to be direct to personal attacks against me and not at my position. "Yeah and I'm sure they'll be a public climbdown in your future if you discover you were deluding yourself. NOT." If I believe I am wrong, I will admit it. I have in the past.
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 --
Post #26,032 by Mike 1/28/02 9:45:12 AM Reply	Just FYI You say: >> Or the fact that the majority of your post seems to be direct to personal >> attacks against me and not at my position. From VERY early on in the debate: Brandioch >> I think that statement tells me all I need to know about your Brandioch >> position. Say hello to Chairman Mao for me, will you? You abandoned the "high road" a long time ago. Don't bother to even dream about trying to reclaim it now. 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.
Post #26,035 by Brandioch 1/28/02 9:53:20 AM Reply	I don't expect you to see the difference. But I'll post this anyway. There is a difference between telling someone that their position is similar to Chairman Mao's handling of "counter-revolutionaries" -and- "You fucking self-absorbed non-thinker." Note that my statement is in reference to your position. Your statement is about me.
Post #26,038 by bepatient 1/28/02 10:06:08 AM Reply	Because thats not what you did. Nice try, though. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,056 by Brandioch 1/28/02 11:49:00 AM Reply	Thank you. It's so nice to know that, even though you have nothing of value to offer any conversation, you still feel psychologically compelled to read each and every one of my posts. Who did that song "Obsession"?
Post #26,065 by bepatient 1/28/02 12:41:48 PM Reply	No problem.... I don't have anything to add to the POW discussion because Mike already destroyed you. And...its pretty much a moot point now anyway. They've been classified. They're not POWs. Read the story. [link\|http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1784000/1784700.stm\|http://news.bbc.co..../1784700.stm] And we even have our own little internal debate about terminology so as to make sure we stay with in the confines of Geneva...as Colin Powell appears to not like the title "illegal combatants" It is clear and restated, however, that our position is that we were NOT dealing with members of "regular armed forces" and that we continue to treat these detainees in accordance with Geneva with the exception of interrogation. Oh. And to this untrained reader, your statement about >Say Hi to Mao for me< seemed a little far from your characterization of what it was >supposed< to mean. Mike must be functionally illiterate too...since he seemed to not read it your way either. Oh well. Obsessed? You should be so flattered ;] You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,070 by Brandioch 1/28/02 12:54:17 PM Reply	Flattered? Not really. But I guess you need someone to obsess about. Anyway, I'm so glad that you're so informed on this subject. Maybe you can tell me about the NSC's visit scheduled for later? You see, as stated in the article "illegal combatants" is NOT a term that was used in the rules regarding war. But then, I don't expect you to know anything about actual situations. So, a US official says that the prisoners are not POW's. And this is gospel to you because your government wouldn't lie to you. Well, even when they do, it's because it's in your own best interest, right? So that's okay. "Speaking during a visit to the camp along with four other US senators, Mr Rumsfeld told reporters that the war against terrorism required a new way of thinking and new concepts." Strange, I must not have understood this way of thinking. Oh, that's right. All those years I spent in Germany (where they deal with terrorism on a daily basis) don't count. "They've been classified. They're not POWs. Read the story." Really? And accourding to the Geneva Convention, who is it that determines the classification? "Oh. And to this untrained reader, your statement about >Say Hi to Mao for me< seemed a little far from your characterization of what it was >supposed< to mean." And that can easily be accounted for by the fact that you're rather less than educated in certain matters. Well, what can one expect when you've demonstrated time and time again that you can't remember what happened just 2 posts ago?
Post #26,091 by bepatient 1/28/02 2:01:28 PM Reply	Gospel according to Brandioch... ...can I get an Amen! You see, as stated in the article "illegal combatants" is NOT a term that was used in the rules regarding war. But then, I don't expect you to know anything about actual situations. So, a US official says that the prisoners are not POW's. And this is gospel to you because your government wouldn't lie to you. Well, even when they do, it's because it's in your own best interest, right? Oops...you seem to be confusing me with someone else...because I've never assumed it was in our best interest to deny their status as POW...only that they don't qualify. Then, it seems, I've provided links to several publications reporting that the US government and other experts in international law agree with my POV (and Mike's) that these combatants do not qualify. To which...you linked to the convention...and supplied us with your interpretation. To which Mike provided his. I have yet to see you link to anything besides the Geneva Convention. To which Mike has indeed raised questions about your interpretation. To which you respond with direct personal attack. Oh, that's right. All those years I spent in Germany (where they deal with terrorism on a daily basis) don't count. About as much as all those years I spend in Brussels, where they deal with more terrorism on a daily basis...as they have the distinction of being the only capital in Europe with a recognized Embassy for the PLO. Oh...and that little building on the north side of town didn't help either...that being HQ for the EEC. Really? And accourding to the Geneva Convention, who is it that determines the classification? Clue...its not Brandioch. And there are prominent experts on international law that agree with the US position that they are NOT prisoners of war. So when and if a competent tribunal is put forth to determine status...its seems the consensus has you in opposition. And by that time...we'll have released most of the detainees in accordance to international law...something you seem to thing the US has complete disregard for. And that can easily be accounted for by the fact that you're rather less than educated in certain matters. Still trying to take the high ground, I see. Well, what can one expect when you've demonstrated time and time again that you can't remember what happened just 2 posts ago? Et tu You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,098 by Brandioch 1/28/02 2:26:13 PM Reply	I am humbled before God. A nice, simple one. "Oops...you seem to be confusing me with someone else...because I've never assumed it was in our best interest to deny their status as POW...only that they don't qualify." Oops. You seem to be functionally illiterate, again. You see, any time their designation is NOT know, they are to be treated as POW's. And "illegal combatants" is NOT a term used in the GC. Therefore, they were not classified under the GC. Therefore, they are POW's. Under the GC. "Then, it seems, I've provided links to several publications reporting that the US government and other experts in international law agree with my POV (and Mike's) that these combatants do not qualify." Then tell me why the NSC is coming over to check? "I have yet to see you link to anything besides the Geneva Convention." Well, could it be because that is the standard by which these people should be classified? "To which Mike has indeed raised questions about your interpretation." And to which I have responded. Most recently (sorry, more than 2 posts ago and you won't be able to recall) regarding the fact that his "reference" was under the impression that only troops who follow the GC are afforded the protections of the GC. "To which you respond with direct personal attack." Like I said, you're functionally illiterate and unable to recall anything further back than 2 posts ago. "About as much as all those years I spend in Brussels, where they deal with more terrorism on a daily basis...as they have the distinction of being the only capital in Europe with a recognized Embassy for the PLO. Oh...and that little building on the north side of town didn't help either...that being HQ for the EEC." Great. And what can you tell me about their handling of terrorists? Hmmmmm? Nothing? I thought not. I ask: "Really? And accourding to the Geneva Convention, who is it that determines the classification?" You reply: "Clue...its not Brandioch." Allow me to rephase that exchange. I ask: "Really? And what is the capital of New York?" You reply: "Clue...its not Brandioch." Okay, that is to illustrate that you HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. It was a simple, question. "And there are prominent experts on international law that agree with the US position that they are NOT prisoners of war." A fact that is irrelevant IF THEY ARE NOT THE ONES WHO MAKE THE DECISION. "So when and if a competent tribunal is put forth to determine status...its seems the consensus has you in opposition." How amazing that you already know the verdict of that tribunal. You know, they could save time and money and just consult with you regarding what their decision will be. "And by that time...we'll have released most of the detainees in accordance to international law...something you seem to thing the US has complete disregard for." Even MORE amazing. Not only do you know what that tribunal's findings will be -BUT- You also know the date/time that we will release "detainees". I was under the impression that only one being knew the future to such a detailed degree. I am humbled before God. How foolish I was to ever argue with someone who already knows the future.
Post #26,124 by bepatient 1/28/02 4:36:10 PM Reply	It would help if you read something... ...about this besides your own posts...and your occasional link to the Geneva Convention. And "illegal combatants" is NOT a term used in the GC. Therefore, they were not classified under the GC. Therefore, they are POW's. Under the GC. Bzzt...wrong answer...try again. To many ergos. They are to be afforded equal treatment until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. They are NOT classified as POW. To which directly relates back several posts where I asked you to detail just how their treatment was NOT in accordance to the Geneva Convention. "About as much as all those years I spend in Brussels, where they deal with more terrorism on a daily basis...as they have the distinction of being the only capital in Europe with a recognized Embassy for the PLO. Oh...and that little building on the north side of town didn't help either...that being HQ for the EEC." Great. And what can you tell me about their handling of terrorists? Hmmmmm? Nothing? I thought not. Ah...I see...my experience in a country with daily dealings in terrorism doesn't apply...but yours does. Love that logic. ---- Oh..and you can rephrase the other exchange however you would like... but YOU do not determine the classification. A competent tribunal will do that. And the fact that they have not yet been classified does not make them POW's. It only means that they be treated according to the rules set forth. And while you seem to think that insulting my intelligence will make that fact change...until you provide some evidence that they are NOT being treated humanely in accordance with the GC then the rest of your lengthy diatribe really has no purpose. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,144 by Brandioch 1/28/02 5:19:05 PM Reply	You're posts are so easily disproven. I said: "And "illegal combatants" is NOT a term used in the GC." You said: "Bzzt...wrong answer...try again. To many ergos." Sorry, Bill, but "illegal combatants" is not a term used in the GC. You might want to read the actual documents before attempting to correct me.
Post #26,146 by bepatient 1/28/02 5:20:43 PM Reply	Why don't you answer the point made? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,150 by Brandioch 1/28/02 5:39:39 PM Reply	Allow me to refresh your memory. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=26144\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=26144] START QUOTE I said: "And "illegal combatants" is NOT a term used in the GC." You said: "Bzzt...wrong answer...try again. To many ergos." Sorry, Bill, but "illegal combatants" is not a term used in the GC. END QUOTE Do you deny that such was from your post, in context? Do you deny the validity of my refutation? Here is the url for the text of the G.C. [link\|http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm\|http://www.unhchr.c...nu3/b/91.htm] Use your favorite search app to find "illegal combatants". There, a quote, in context, a reference and instructions. What else can I do for you? Oh, I know, remind you again after your next two posts.
Post #26,181 by bepatient 1/28/02 8:04:28 PM Reply	Again...pick at a detail and ignore the point. Again...nice try...but now that we're over a post away...let me quote it for you.... ===== And "illegal combatants" is NOT a term used in the GC. Therefore, they were not classified under the GC. Therefore, they are POW's. Under the GC. Bzzt...wrong answer...try again. To many ergos. They are to be afforded equal treatment until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. They are NOT classified as POW. To which directly relates back several posts where I asked you to detail just how their treatment was NOT in accordance to the Geneva Convention. ===== 3 sentences too much for you to handle? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,185 by Brandioch 1/28/02 8:22:45 PM Reply	Isn't the point comprised of the details? Or is the point somehow not related to the details? Can the details be wrong and the point still be correct? "They are to be afforded equal treatment until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. They are NOT classified as POW." Hmmmm, looks like a duck walks like a duck quacks like a duck therefore, it is NOT a duck. I think I'm beginning to grasp your logic. Funny, but I thought that >MY< position was that, until they are classified (and "illegal combatant" is NOT a recognized classification) then they must be treated as POW's. At least, accourding to the Geneva Convention. Now, where did I lose you? Or are you saying that because "illegal combatant" is NOT a recognized classification, they were to be treated as POW's until they could be classified? Ahhhh, I see where the confusion is.
Post #26,215 by bepatient 1/28/02 11:15:34 PM Reply	no.it wasn't I think we've established that they are POW's (until determined to be otherwise)... That was from the very first post in this thread where you declared them to be POWs. Where did you get lost? Now...since you are a self-declared expert...please detail Geneva treatment for captives that are not POW status...and while your at it...show where the current situation violates those conditions. Duck duck goose. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,230 by Brandioch 1/29/02 12:55:45 AM Reply	Now >THAT< is funny. So, you've gotten past the "they're evil terrorists" phase and now you recognze that they're human beings with rights? The only thing you're focused on right now is....... Whether having all the rights and priviledges of a POW means they are actually POW's or not. But you admit that they have those rights. Well, Bill. I'm going to declare that you've won. :) You're right. They aren't POW's. They're just accourded all the rights that a regular POW would have. Thanks for playing.
Post #26,238 by Ashton 1/29/02 4:16:59 AM Reply	Not as funny as putting a bra on a a statue because The Attorney General for All of Us\ufffd.. feels uncomfortable posing IN FRONT of this bestial naked statue - I guess the same one that legions of less easily upset AGs.. just never even noticed or if they did they didn't think much of it or - See? not as funny :( It's Gotta be.. something in the water.
Post #26,276 by bepatient 1/29/02 9:28:29 AM Reply	I thought you were an expert? Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention. In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be. So...you see...there are SUBSTANTIAL differences in treatment afforded by the convention depending upon classification and interpretation. So, you see, Mr Expert...treatment according to general Geneva principles and treatment under the rules established for prisoners of war are NOT the same. Hence...duck duck goose. Or was that too much for you to figure out? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,314 by Brandioch 1/29/02 11:10:57 AM Reply	Nope. I'm just able to read. "So...you see...there are SUBSTANTIAL differences in treatment afforded by the convention depending upon classification and interpretation." Exactly. And they're classified as "illegal combatants". Which is not listed anywhere in the G.C. So they're afforded all the rights of POW's until they are classified as something else. It's all so simple. All you have to do is think in non-binary terms. I know that is hard for some of you. Billthink - terrorist or released.
Post #26,317 by bepatient 1/29/02 11:23:03 AM Reply	Then why don't you try it sometime They are afforded the rights contained in the Convention. NOT the rights of POWs per the Convention. The GC is much more than just a document covering POW treatment. And it establishes minimum standards for treatment...which you still can't seem to show are being violated. And you seemed to NOT read the direct quote I gave from the Geneva Convention regarding those detained that pose security risk. They are DENIED communication rights and are afforded only the full rights of the Convention after it has been determined that they pose no further risk. R I F You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,321 by Brandioch 1/29/02 11:39:09 AM Reply	You see, I can read and you're illiterate. Oh, so tell me what rights they have then, as "illegal combatants". Then tell me what rights POW's have. Then compare/contrast the two.
Post #26,322 by bepatient 1/29/02 11:45:51 AM Reply	I already gave you your homework assignment Also showed you where basic Geneva provisions can be denied based upon security concerns of the captors. So...if you don't mind...show me where basic Geneva treatment is being violated? You're the expert, right? They are not POW and don't qualify for POW protection. They qualify for basic Geneva protection. Humane treatment, medical care, etc. Those basic protections can be even further limited...appropriate Geneva language was quoted more than 2 posts back. Or can't you follow that far either? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #26,329 by Brandioch 1/29/02 12:15:38 PM Reply	And we, once again, come back to my point. That's right. The prisoner's are to be treated as if they were POW's. But you don't want that. You want these "security" issues to be used to remove their rights. Which is a problem with the GC.
Post #26,352 by bepatient 1/29/02 1:48:55 PM Reply	No we haven't They are to be afforded basic treatment per the Geneva Convention. That is NOT the same as being treated as a POW. POW status grants MORE protection than basic Geneva protection. Those "security" provisions ARE IN THE GENEVA CONVENTION. R(eading) I(s) F(undamental) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!