This thing is going to get UGLY.

Ben E Lou · 03-23-2003, 11:57 AM

As expected, it appears that our commanders and troops are going to have to make some HARD decisions before this thing is over.

Woman and children being moved into position as human shields.
Word is that they've even moved them into troop formations. They will surely parade the photos of the dead human shields on TV. The irrational who hate America across the globe will latch onto these photos as "proof" of the evil intentions of the liberation forces.

Soldiers dressed as civilians opening fire on American troops.
If this happens enough, at some point our now-hyper-vigilant soldiers WILL mistakenly shoot real civilians, thinking that they are a threat.

Iraqi army appears to be hunkering down in and near Baghdad.
There will be serious collarateral damage as the liberation forces may be forced to fight in the streets of Baghdad.

Hasn't happened yet, but certainly could: POW's used as hostages.
They've already paraded them on television. They've already shown they have no regard for the Geneva Convention. As they start to lose more and more ground, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see them, in their desperation, make threats to harm POW's if we continue to advance.

Rumsfeld said it well today. The outcome is certain. Getting there could get very ugly. Worse than NOT gettting ugly, though, would be to back off now, which would encourage evil men in the future to use such tactics.

Just some thoughts from Ol' SkyDog on a Sunday afternoon.

--Ben

Tarkus · 03-23-2003, 12:07 PM

I agree that all of that is possible. What I'm hoping is that as we get to Baghdad we do more shock and awe, only this time it'd include tons of tank fire as well. Just spot from where the resistance is coming and use lasers or some other method to identify and quickly eliminate the threat. Don't know how realistic that might be, but that's the type of thing for which I'd hope.

Tarkus

rexalllsc · 03-23-2003, 12:14 PM

It's time for some serious 'Shock and Awe'...break those who are on the fringes' spirit.

JonInMiddleGA · 03-23-2003, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SkyDog The irrational who hate America across the globe will latch onto these photos as "proof" of the evil intentions of the liberation forces.

It isn't like they're likely to suddenly have a change of heart if there isn't a single civilian injured. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed that we continue to put allied forces at unnecessary risk in the interest of a little good p.r.

Quote:

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see them, in their desperation, make threats to harm POW's if we continue to advance.

As opposed to the proper treatment they've received already? Ben, these animals don't require any excuse to torture, execute, or otherwise mistreat prisoners. They're going to do that regardless of what we do.

Quote:

Worse than NOT gettting ugly, though, would be to back off now, which would encourage evil men in the future to use such tactics.

You got that part right buddy, in big ol' capital letters.

GrantDawg · 03-23-2003, 02:43 PM

You summed up the same worries I've had all day. Of course, none of this can be called surprising.

Tekneek · 03-23-2003, 04:35 PM

It's the same old same old for the peace loving administration in Iraq. Poor Saddam, the unfortunate target of an imperialistic USA, who would otherwise treat everyone well and be peaceful. Him and anyone who works for him are thugs.

I *hope* he goes down, along with his droogs, by any means necessary now. I don't give a damn what some smelly long-haired granola chomping peaceniks think about it anymore, or the French, or the Germans. It's not like the French have any particular insight on military actions over the past century, and it isn't like Germany has any moral highroad to take given their own history over the past century.

Facts are, the US does not treat captured Iraqis the way that Iraq does. Those people are animals and deserve everything they get. Saddam said no oil wells would be set on fire, and that promise didn't last long. Just add it to the list. How anyone in the entire world could honestly rationalize the actions of Iraq as moral and just is way beyond me. Regardless of why they are doing it, you cannot honestly excuse them.

astralhaze · 03-23-2003, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tekneek
Those people are animals and deserve everything they get.

Ahhhhhh....nice.

rexalllsc · 03-23-2003, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by astralhaze
Ahhhhhh....nice.

Are you disagreeing with what we saw on TV today?

Tekneek · 03-23-2003, 04:39 PM

I see I probably need to clarify my statement. I was referring to Iraqi government officials, specifically involved with the military, and I won't be making any apologies for it after what they have broadcasted on TV.

astralhaze · 03-23-2003, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rexalllsc
Are you disagreeing with what we saw on TV today?

Huh?

rexalllsc · 03-23-2003, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by astralhaze
Huh?

You seemed to disagree with Tekneek calling those who committed these acts "animals"...I agree with him. Those responsible should be taken down.

You seemed to disagree...

astralhaze · 03-23-2003, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rexalllsc
You seemed to disagree with Tekneek calling those who committed these acts "animals"...I agree with him. Those responsible should be taken down.

You seemed to disagree...

Yes, I disagree with that. The question was did I disagree with what I saw on TV today.

Chief Rum · 03-23-2003, 05:56 PM

That's weak, astralhaze. You're intentionally ignoring the obvious so that you can win some mythical argument point. You know exactly what rexallsc was saying about disagreeing with what was on TV, so don't go semantic on him.

That said, I agree with you that Tekneek's statement need much more clarification.

Chief Rum

astralhaze · 03-23-2003, 05:59 PM

No, I honestly didn't understand his question. Fo da rea g

Chief Rum · 03-23-2003, 06:09 PM

I actually didn't see it either, but my understanding from what I am hearing about now, what I have read on the Internet in news articlers, and from "eyewitness accounts" from those others here (like SkyDog, who started this thread) is that Iraq is and has been doing things that are war crimes. Including using civilians as human shields and hiding them in units and also hiding Iraqi troops in civilian clothes (who would then get passed by and would fire on coalition forces).

And, now recently, al-Jazeera the "unbiased" news agency in Saudi Arabia has released a video of American POWs being put to death by Iraqi soldiers, and there are either threats or fears that those POWs left alive will be used as human shields as well, amd certainly not treated well.

I thought some of this was at least a little bit clear from what SkyDog said, even if you hadn't turned on a TV or read any headlines or articles from news sources on the Internet, which is why I thought your questioning of rexallsc was disengenious.

Chief Rum

Chief Rum · 03-23-2003, 06:10 PM

dola,

Iraqi soldiers are also faking sureendering to get close to coalition troops and then opening fire.

Chief Rum

astralhaze · 03-23-2003, 06:18 PM

I understand what is going on, I just didn't understand the question. He asked if I disagreed with what I saw on television today and I had no idea where that came from and what it meant, in the context of the conversation. Sorry if it seemed disengenious, but I just didn't understand.

Chief Rum · 03-23-2003, 06:30 PM

Tekneek made is "animals" comment.

You said "Ahhh....nice...."--clearly sarcastic

rexallsc quotes your sarcastic response and asks if you disagree with what was broadcast on TV (the details of which I just went over--it seems pretty darn obvious to me that rexallsc is referencing this in relation to Tekneek's comments, considering he quoted your respinse to Tekneek).

Your response: "Huh?"

Then I have been trying to explain it to you. You claim to understand, but the evidence says you don't. Either you understand and you were deliberately being disingenious with rexallsc with your "Huh?" comment, or you didn't understand at all (which you have denied). Which is it?

Chief Rum

Chief Rum · 03-23-2003, 06:32 PM

dola, and once again I understand the point of your original sarcastic response, which called for Tekneek to clarify a comment which could be misconstrued into a racist statement. Fortunately, he also saw your point and clarified.

Chief Rum

Gwalyn · 03-23-2003, 06:32 PM

I have to admit I am pretty ignorant of what is going on. I read an article or two a day and not much else. I will say it is funny to me that people think there are "rules" to war. It is war, a very barbaric and violent matter and either side will do whatever is necessary to gain an edge.

Chief Rum · 03-23-2003, 06:35 PM

Gwalyn,

Believe it or not, there are rules to war, at least international agreements to such. I advise that you go the library and look up the Geneva Convention.

Chief Rum

astralhaze · 03-23-2003, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chief Rum
Tekneek made is "animals" comment.

You said "Ahhh....nice...."--clearly sarcastic

rexallsc quotes your sarcastic response and asks if you disagree with what was broadcast on TV (the details of which I just went over--it seems pretty darn obvious to me that rexallsc is referencing this in relation to Tekneek's comments, considering he quoted your respinse to Tekneek).

Your response: "Huh?"

Then I have been trying to explain it to you. You claim to understand, but the evidence says you don't. Either you understand and you were deliberately being disingenious with rexallsc with your "Huh?" comment, or you didn't understand at all (which you have denied). Which is it?

Chief Rum

I told you I didn't know what he meant, what are you trying to prove here?

Chief Rum · 03-23-2003, 08:09 PM

I don't know really. I just thought it was fairly obvious what he was asking, and knowing that you are a bright individual, I find it very hard to believe that you completely missed that.

If you truly didn't understand, then I guess I'll just apologize and maybe reassess my opinion of the level of thought you put into these things.

If you did understand, though, than my point is that you were excusing rexallsc's question--a very valid one under the circumstances--by feigning miscomprehension, rather than undertaking the more difficult argument that you actually support the idea that Iraqi war criminals should not be punished.

Chief Rum

rexalllsc · 03-23-2003, 08:19 PM

astralhaze is doing the normal contrarian BS. He knows what I meant, but is playing dumb to avoid having to defend the indefensible.

astralhaze · 03-23-2003, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chief Rum
I don't know really. I just thought it was fairly obvious what he was asking, and knowing that you are a bright individual, I find it very hard to believe that you completely missed that.

If you truly didn't understand, then I guess I'll just apologize and maybe reassess my opinion of the level of thought you put into these things.

If you did understand, though, than my point is that you were excusing rexallsc's question--a very valid one under the circumstances--by feigning miscomprehension, rather than undertaking the more difficult argument that you actually support the idea that Iraqi war criminals should not be punished.

Chief Rum

No, I think what you are accomplishing is trying to make me look bad by taking a very simple missunderstanding and twisting it in to either a)me being an asshole or b)avoiding a subject. I found it disturbing to see Tekneek refer to Iraqi's as "animals". rexalllcs then asked me if I didn't believe what I saw on TV today, I understood what he was driving at, but didn't understand the question. I saw, like everyone else, what was on TV. What is there to understand? If he, or you, had asked me what I thought about it I would tell you, but instead you started in on this grilling for no reason. Again, what are you driving at?

astralhaze · 03-23-2003, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rexalllsc
astralhaze is doing the normal contrarian BS. He knows what I meant, but is playing dumb to avoid having to defend the indefensible.

Chief Rum · 03-23-2003, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by astralhaze
No, I think what you are accomplishing is trying to make me look bad by taking a very simple missunderstanding and twisting it in to either a)me being an asshole or b)avoiding a subject. I found it disturbing to see Tekneek refer to Iraqi's as "animals". rexalllcs then asked me if I didn't believe what I saw on TV today, I understood what he was driving at, but didn't understand the question. I saw, like everyone else, what was on TV. What is there to understand? If he, or you, had asked me what I thought about it I would tell you, but instead you started in on this grilling for no reason. Again, what are you driving at?

I don't care if you look bad or anything. The community's opinion of you is not important to me, and never has been.

My point is if you understood what he was driving at, why didn't you respond to it? You instead decided to take the question literally and played it false.

It was clear rexallsc was referring to the war crimes being shown and reported on TV. He basically asked you why you disagreed with punishment for Iraqi war criminals, and you basically just admitted you knew what he was "driving at". So why didn't you answer?

You see, that's the problem. You take a stance, but are unclear on its meaning, leading us to the conclusion you actually support he war crime actions of our enemies. Then when you have a chance to clarify your stance, you instead turn argumentative and try to turn into me trying to make you look bad.

Why don't you just address the concern being leveled against you?

Chief Rum

astralhaze · 03-23-2003, 08:59 PM

Both of you are incorrect actually.

My original comment was taking issue only with his reference to Iraqi's as animals which I found to be a racist statement. He clarified it, no problem.

rexallsc asked me if I understood what was being shown on TV. I saw them on TV, I knew what he was referencing, I just didn't understand the question. He then asked me if I disagreed with calling them animals, I said I did. Nowhere in this entire thread did anyone ask me what I thought the punishment should be for Iraqi war criminals. Not yet has anyone asked me. At that point, you jumped in and began to show how I was obfuscating and playing semantics, when I originaly didn't understand the question, had it clarified, and answered. What is the problem?

Gwalyn · 03-23-2003, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chief Rum
Gwalyn,

Believe it or not, there are rules to war, at least international agreements to such. I advise that you go the library and look up the Geneva Convention.

Chief Rum

I am aware of the Geneva conventions, but its funny to me. It seems like an attempt to make war appear to be more civilized. It all justs seems like a bunch of BS to sugar coat the goings on in combat.

Chief Rum · 03-23-2003, 09:07 PM

Thank, psjtp20, for the attempt at mediation. I definitely welcome it. I'm not sure your interpretation is accurate, though.

astralhaze was definitely protesting to Tekneek's statement about Iraqis as animals. Tekneek actually was referring to the government/army officials in Iraq who were responsible for the war crimes, but it was conceivable to believe he was referring to all Iraqis. astralhaze took one way of reading it (the general way) and protested in his own manner (with sarcasm). I allowed that Tekneek should have been more clear with what he said, but there was never any doubt, IMO, about the proper interpretation of Teknee's original statement--he was referring to the sepcific war criminals and not Iraqis in general. After astralhaze's sarcastic response, Tekneek further clarified his statement.

rexallsc took the interpretation most people would, IMO, and knew that Tekneek was talking specifics, not in general. So his question was aimed at astralhaze seeming to respond sarcastically to the concept of Iraqi war criminals being animals, and what should happen to them (the essence of Tekneek's original statement).

Instead of responding to rexallsc in the context in which he asked and clarifying his intent with the sarcastic remark, astralhaze chose to play dumb. My fear is that he chose to do so merely because he sees going back on something he said as a failure, but I hope that is not so, and that his motivations were more naively associated.

Further making it look worse was the fact that Tekneek clarified his statement before astralhaze responded to rexallsc's question, thereby eliminating the possible stance that Tekneek was actually referring to Iraqis in general, instead od the speicific war criminals.

Chief Rum

astralhaze · 03-23-2003, 09:18 PM

No, I still stand by the reference to Iraqi's, war criminals or no, as animals. That was my only bone to pick in this whole conversation.

Tekneek · 03-23-2003, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by astralhaze
No, I still stand by the reference to Iraqi's, war criminals or no, as animals. That was my only bone to pick in this whole conversation.

I clarified my statement, clearly enough. If you cannot read it and comprehend it, you are the one with the problem.

People who shoot others directly in the head, pull their pants down, and then film it are animals/savages (you fill in the blank). That's just the way it is. From the sound of it, you consider that a fine way to handle things.

You are a fool if you think it had anything to do with 'race.' It had everything to do with their actions and only that.

astralhaze · 03-23-2003, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tekneek
I clarified my statement, clearly enough. If you cannot read it and comprehend it, you are the one with the problem.

Calling people who shoot others directly in the head, pull their pants down, and then film it are animals. That's just the way it is. From the sound of it, you consider that a fine way to handle things.

You clarified it but I still object to it. I read it and understood it, I still object to it. I think that those criminals should be tried and given their fair justice once they are captured, but I still object to it.

Chief Rum · 03-23-2003, 09:32 PM

Ugh, I started to go into this whole argument about facts and context and other whatnot, but you know what? I don't care. So I won't bother. This is my last post on this.

astralhaze can feel free to act like he meant this or that, no matter what anything or anyone else says, but the way I look at it, he was just as unclear with his responses as Tekneek was with his original statement.

The difference is that Tekneek clarified his staement. astralhaze doesn't bother, and will no doubt flay me, because he doesn't see any way we can possibly misconstrue his responses.

To each his own, I guess. I would only ask that astralhaze please try to be more clear in the future. Or at least refrain from responding if there's anything he doesn't understand about those posting before him (which he clearly did not do tonight).

Later.

Chief Rum

astralhaze · 03-23-2003, 09:41 PM

I quit. I didn't think I was being evasive or anything else in this thread but apparently I have. Sorry if I offended or pissed anyone off. I'm leaving this one alone.

Craptacular · 03-23-2003, 11:46 PM

M.O.A.B.

Rinse.
Repeat.

Butter · 03-24-2003, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SkyDog
The irrational who hate America across the globe...

Do you really think you have to be irrational to hate America? Look at our track record... it's not pretty. This war is in a gray area as far as justification goes, but I believe that it is warranted, since Saddam had clearly violated the terms of Iraq's disarmament.

It has also always amused me that there are "rules of war". Iraq, for years, has clearly operated many parts of their government and country outside the bounds of international law... and now we are expecting them to abide by it, when our intent is to remove the ruling regime from power? Laughable. The Bush administration's threat of trying those violating the Geneva convention as war criminals is the last of their worries, I imagine.

CHEMICAL SOLDIER · 03-24-2003, 10:02 PM

The war is projected now to last 120 days instead of the pre war projected 8 days .

Tekneek · 03-24-2003, 10:08 PM

Support for the war is going to take a dive on that kind of news, and continue to drop away as time goes on. As more soldiers are caught/killed, and then shown on TV, the problems will increase. A lot of people, and the government especially, will refuse to pull out no matter how badly things may start to go.

Here's my hopes that this thing doesn't continue to get uglier and uglier by the day.

Alf · 03-25-2003, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER
The war is projected now to last 120 days instead of the pre war projected 8 days .

How can I say that this is no big news to me... Did you expect Iraqis to let foreign armies in without fighting ? These guys are fighting against invaders.

I really hope that this conflict will end soon and have as little casualties as possible, but I really doubt it.

03-23-2003, 12:07 PM	#2
Tarkus High School Varsity Join Date: Jun 2001	I agree that all of that is possible. What I'm hoping is that as we get to Baghdad we do more shock and awe, only this time it'd include tons of tank fire as well. Just spot from where the resistance is coming and use lasers or some other method to identify and quickly eliminate the threat. Don't know how realistic that might be, but that's the type of thing for which I'd hope. Tarkus __________________ Winning may not be everything, but losing isn't anything.

03-23-2003, 04:39 PM	#9
Tekneek Pro Rookie Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: USA	I see I probably need to clarify my statement. I was referring to Iraqi government officials, specifically involved with the military, and I won't be making any apologies for it after what they have broadcasted on TV. Last edited by Tekneek : 03-23-2003 at 04:40 PM.

03-23-2003, 05:56 PM	#13
Chief Rum Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Where Hip Hop lives	That's weak, astralhaze. You're intentionally ignoring the obvious so that you can win some mythical argument point. You know exactly what rexallsc was saying about disagreeing with what was on TV, so don't go semantic on him. That said, I agree with you that Tekneek's statement need much more clarification. Chief Rum __________________ . . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready.

03-23-2003, 05:59 PM	#14
astralhaze College Prospect Join Date: Dec 2002	No, I honestly didn't understand his question. Fo da rea g __________________ I can understand Brutus at every meaning, but that parahraphy threw me for a loop.

03-23-2003, 06:09 PM	#15
Chief Rum Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Where Hip Hop lives	I actually didn't see it either, but my understanding from what I am hearing about now, what I have read on the Internet in news articlers, and from "eyewitness accounts" from those others here (like SkyDog, who started this thread) is that Iraq is and has been doing things that are war crimes. Including using civilians as human shields and hiding them in units and also hiding Iraqi troops in civilian clothes (who would then get passed by and would fire on coalition forces). And, now recently, al-Jazeera the "unbiased" news agency in Saudi Arabia has released a video of American POWs being put to death by Iraqi soldiers, and there are either threats or fears that those POWs left alive will be used as human shields as well, amd certainly not treated well. I thought some of this was at least a little bit clear from what SkyDog said, even if you hadn't turned on a TV or read any headlines or articles from news sources on the Internet, which is why I thought your questioning of rexallsc was disengenious. Chief Rum __________________ . . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready.

03-23-2003, 12:14 PM	#3
rexalllsc Banned Join Date: Feb 2003	It's time for some serious 'Shock and Awe'...break those who are on the fringes' spirit.

03-23-2003, 02:43 PM	#5
GrantDawg World Champion Mis-speller Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Covington, Ga.	You summed up the same worries I've had all day. Of course, none of this can be called surprising.

03-23-2003, 04:35 PM	#6
Tekneek Pro Rookie Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: USA	It's the same old same old for the peace loving administration in Iraq. Poor Saddam, the unfortunate target of an imperialistic USA, who would otherwise treat everyone well and be peaceful. Him and anyone who works for him are thugs. I hope he goes down, along with his droogs, by any means necessary now. I don't give a damn what some smelly long-haired granola chomping peaceniks think about it anymore, or the French, or the Germans. It's not like the French have any particular insight on military actions over the past century, and it isn't like Germany has any moral highroad to take given their own history over the past century. Facts are, the US does not treat captured Iraqis the way that Iraq does. Those people are animals and deserve everything they get. Saddam said no oil wells would be set on fire, and that promise didn't last long. Just add it to the list. How anyone in the entire world could honestly rationalize the actions of Iraq as moral and just is way beyond me. Regardless of why they are doing it, you cannot honestly excuse them.

03-23-2003, 06:10 PM	#16
Chief Rum Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Where Hip Hop lives	dola, Iraqi soldiers are also faking sureendering to get close to coalition troops and then opening fire. Chief Rum __________________ . . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready.

03-23-2003, 06:18 PM	#17
astralhaze College Prospect Join Date: Dec 2002	I understand what is going on, I just didn't understand the question. He asked if I disagreed with what I saw on television today and I had no idea where that came from and what it meant, in the context of the conversation. Sorry if it seemed disengenious, but I just didn't understand. __________________ I can understand Brutus at every meaning, but that parahraphy threw me for a loop.

03-23-2003, 06:30 PM	#18
Chief Rum Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Where Hip Hop lives	Tekneek made is "animals" comment. You said "Ahhh....nice...."--clearly sarcastic rexallsc quotes your sarcastic response and asks if you disagree with what was broadcast on TV (the details of which I just went over--it seems pretty darn obvious to me that rexallsc is referencing this in relation to Tekneek's comments, considering he quoted your respinse to Tekneek). Your response: "Huh?" Then I have been trying to explain it to you. You claim to understand, but the evidence says you don't. Either you understand and you were deliberately being disingenious with rexallsc with your "Huh?" comment, or you didn't understand at all (which you have denied). Which is it? Chief Rum __________________ . . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready. Last edited by Chief Rum : 03-23-2003 at 06:31 PM.

03-23-2003, 06:32 PM	#19
Chief Rum Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Where Hip Hop lives	dola, and once again I understand the point of your original sarcastic response, which called for Tekneek to clarify a comment which could be misconstrued into a racist statement. Fortunately, he also saw your point and clarified. Chief Rum __________________ . . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready.

03-23-2003, 06:32 PM	#20
Gwalyn Mascot Join Date: Oct 2000	I have to admit I am pretty ignorant of what is going on. I read an article or two a day and not much else. I will say it is funny to me that people think there are "rules" to war. It is war, a very barbaric and violent matter and either side will do whatever is necessary to gain an edge. __________________ Htuifoda (229341) Home of the All-Injury Team

03-23-2003, 06:35 PM	#21
Chief Rum Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Where Hip Hop lives	Gwalyn, Believe it or not, there are rules to war, at least international agreements to such. I advise that you go the library and look up the Geneva Convention. Chief Rum __________________ . . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready.

03-23-2003, 08:09 PM	#23
Chief Rum Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Where Hip Hop lives	I don't know really. I just thought it was fairly obvious what he was asking, and knowing that you are a bright individual, I find it very hard to believe that you completely missed that. If you truly didn't understand, then I guess I'll just apologize and maybe reassess my opinion of the level of thought you put into these things. If you did understand, though, than my point is that you were excusing rexallsc's question--a very valid one under the circumstances--by feigning miscomprehension, rather than undertaking the more difficult argument that you actually support the idea that Iraqi war criminals should not be punished. Chief Rum __________________ . . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready.

03-23-2003, 08:19 PM	#24
rexalllsc Banned Join Date: Feb 2003	astralhaze is doing the normal contrarian BS. He knows what I meant, but is playing dumb to avoid having to defend the indefensible.

03-23-2003, 08:59 PM	#28
astralhaze College Prospect Join Date: Dec 2002	Both of you are incorrect actually. My original comment was taking issue only with his reference to Iraqi's as animals which I found to be a racist statement. He clarified it, no problem. rexallsc asked me if I understood what was being shown on TV. I saw them on TV, I knew what he was referencing, I just didn't understand the question. He then asked me if I disagreed with calling them animals, I said I did. Nowhere in this entire thread did anyone ask me what I thought the punishment should be for Iraqi war criminals. Not yet has anyone asked me. At that point, you jumped in and began to show how I was obfuscating and playing semantics, when I originaly didn't understand the question, had it clarified, and answered. What is the problem? __________________ I can understand Brutus at every meaning, but that parahraphy threw me for a loop.

03-23-2003, 09:07 PM	#30
Chief Rum Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Where Hip Hop lives	Thank, psjtp20, for the attempt at mediation. I definitely welcome it. I'm not sure your interpretation is accurate, though. astralhaze was definitely protesting to Tekneek's statement about Iraqis as animals. Tekneek actually was referring to the government/army officials in Iraq who were responsible for the war crimes, but it was conceivable to believe he was referring to all Iraqis. astralhaze took one way of reading it (the general way) and protested in his own manner (with sarcasm). I allowed that Tekneek should have been more clear with what he said, but there was never any doubt, IMO, about the proper interpretation of Teknee's original statement--he was referring to the sepcific war criminals and not Iraqis in general. After astralhaze's sarcastic response, Tekneek further clarified his statement. rexallsc took the interpretation most people would, IMO, and knew that Tekneek was talking specifics, not in general. So his question was aimed at astralhaze seeming to respond sarcastically to the concept of Iraqi war criminals being animals, and what should happen to them (the essence of Tekneek's original statement). Instead of responding to rexallsc in the context in which he asked and clarifying his intent with the sarcastic remark, astralhaze chose to play dumb. My fear is that he chose to do so merely because he sees going back on something he said as a failure, but I hope that is not so, and that his motivations were more naively associated. Further making it look worse was the fact that Tekneek clarified his statement before astralhaze responded to rexallsc's question, thereby eliminating the possible stance that Tekneek was actually referring to Iraqis in general, instead od the speicific war criminals. Chief Rum __________________ . . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready.

03-23-2003, 09:18 PM	#31
astralhaze College Prospect Join Date: Dec 2002	No, I still stand by the reference to Iraqi's, war criminals or no, as animals. That was my only bone to pick in this whole conversation. __________________ I can understand Brutus at every meaning, but that parahraphy threw me for a loop.

03-23-2003, 09:32 PM	#34
Chief Rum Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Where Hip Hop lives	Ugh, I started to go into this whole argument about facts and context and other whatnot, but you know what? I don't care. So I won't bother. This is my last post on this. astralhaze can feel free to act like he meant this or that, no matter what anything or anyone else says, but the way I look at it, he was just as unclear with his responses as Tekneek was with his original statement. The difference is that Tekneek clarified his staement. astralhaze doesn't bother, and will no doubt flay me, because he doesn't see any way we can possibly misconstrue his responses. To each his own, I guess. I would only ask that astralhaze please try to be more clear in the future. Or at least refrain from responding if there's anything he doesn't understand about those posting before him (which he clearly did not do tonight). Later. Chief Rum __________________ . . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready.

03-23-2003, 09:41 PM	#35
astralhaze College Prospect Join Date: Dec 2002	I quit. I didn't think I was being evasive or anything else in this thread but apparently I have. Sorry if I offended or pissed anyone off. I'm leaving this one alone. __________________ I can understand Brutus at every meaning, but that parahraphy threw me for a loop.

03-23-2003, 11:46 PM	#36
Craptacular College Starter Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: The Mad City, WI	M.O.A.B. Rinse. Repeat.

03-24-2003, 10:02 PM	#38
CHEMICAL SOLDIER College Starter Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Henderson, Nevada	The war is projected now to last 120 days instead of the pre war projected 8 days . __________________ Toujour Pret

03-24-2003, 10:08 PM	#39
Tekneek Pro Rookie Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: USA	Support for the war is going to take a dive on that kind of news, and continue to drop away as time goes on. As more soldiers are caught/killed, and then shown on TV, the problems will increase. A lot of people, and the government especially, will refuse to pull out no matter how badly things may start to go. Here's my hopes that this thing doesn't continue to get uglier and uglier by the day.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)