Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Killing a child: 'I did what I had to do'

Killing a child: 'I did what I had to do' (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 01:46 PM
 
Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
And you point?


Did you even read the entire article?

Ok I will post some more to save you the trouble,

"The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is . . . important to our long-term political and economic objectives," Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy wrote in a September 1988 memorandum that addressed the chemical weapons question. "We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis."

Bush administration spokesmen have cited Hussein's use of chemical weapons "against his own people" -- and particularly the March 1988 attack on the Kurdish village of Halabjah -- to bolster their argument that his regime presents a "grave and gathering danger" to the United States.

The Iraqis continued to use chemical weapons against the Iranians until the end of the Iran-Iraq war. A U.S. air force intelligence officer, Rick Francona, reported finding widespread use of Iraqi nerve gas when he toured the Al Faw peninsula in southern Iraq in the summer of 1988, after its recapture by the Iraqi army. The battlefield was littered with atropine injectors used by panicky Iranian troops as an antidote against Iraqi nerve gas attacks.

Far from declining, the supply of U.S. military intelligence to Iraq actually expanded in 1988, according to a 1999 book by Francona, "Ally to Adversary: an Eyewitness Account of Iraq's Fall from Grace." Informed sources said much of the battlefield intelligence was channeled to the Iraqis by the CIA office in Baghdad.

Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation."
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 01:50 PM
 
Quick comments:

1) As for the tired old argument of who is to blame for arming Saddam: just about everyone. In the US you can especially credit everyone's hero Ronnie Reagan and Rumsfeld for ignoring genocide and war crimes when it suited them. Don't forget, Rumsfeld's photo-op happened the same week as the first reports of gas being used against Iran. He should never be allowed to talk about what an evil regime Saddam runs again.

2) As for genocide: Same as above. It happened twenty years ago and with the total apathy of all the western powers including the US. Ronnie Reagan (everybodies super moral hero) personally blocked a congressional attempt to cut off aid to Iraq after the Kurdish massacres.

3) As for the soldier shooting the kid: war is hell. This is precisely the reason why some world leaders actually mean it when they say that war is the last resort. They understand that war puts young men and women in a position to make split second, life & death decisions that may haunt them for life. Even if he had to shoot the kid, it doesn't mean it will be easy to live with.

4) All this talk about strong moral leaders willing to do "what's right" or "what's needed" ignores that that the men making these decisions are the same men who let it all slide for the past 30 years. This isn't some new team with fresh new ideas. This is the same old team that thought it was a better idea to arm Saddam, blame Iran for gas attacks, ignore genocide, and personally make a buck doing business with an dictator that they just can't seem to say enough nasty things about now when it's politically convenient. They act out of interests, just like all other politicians. This isn's a moral choice, this is the aggressive pursuit of interests under the guise of morality with convenient political cover. I doubt another administration would have acted much differently presented with the same opporunity.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 01:50 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The problem with Google as a research is this: If you type in Evil & America & Responsible /10 "All world problems" you will get a slew of hits, all of which will seem utterly convincing to the easily convinced, but most of which will in fact be pure garbage.

LOL!!! Did YOU read the whole post.... the article is from the washington post!!! Is that reputable enough for you?

And yes, google found it for me...

All hail google, oracle of truth.
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 02:02 PM
 
Somehow the country seems to be divided between those who refuse to admit that the US is to blame for anything and those who seem to blame it for everything.

Perhaps those who seem to blame the US for everything would chill out and get more perspective if the rest of you would at least admit to something.

This idea that the US has only done a few minor boo-boos is insulting to anyone who knows anything about history. The US is guilty of some pretty staggering nastiness.

It's also to be credited for some pretty staggering wonderfulness.

Sadly, recent history is more full of the nastiness than wonderfulness so many younger people begin to fall into the "blame for everything" camp than they ought to.

And please don't argue that past atrocities were "the right thing at the time blah blah". Since the mess we face today is directly attributable to those past mistakes, the idea that they were "right" decision is completely unfounded. Ignoring the unintended consequences seems to be quickly becoming a national obsession.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 02:02 PM
 
Originally posted by Nicko:
LOL!!! Did YOU read the whole post.... the article is from the washington post!!! Is that reputable enough for you?

And yes, google found it for me...

All hail google, oracle of truth.
Sorry, that was a general comment, whch is why I didn't post a quote to any post. I didn't read the article at all.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 02:02 PM
 
I thought I was quite polite about asking you to enlighten me with regard to your statement about comparative business dealings, Dave. I never claimed to have facts. I said I had an impression. It so happens that I got this impression from Les Echos (the French equivalent of the FT) which I was reading on the weekend. I tend to respect their article dealing with the Iraqi economy in general a little more than a graphic in a post on MacNN. Unfortunately, I don't have an account with them, so I can't access archived information on their website and even if I could, the French are the root of all evil right? I just scoured the net trying to find out who Iraq's biggest trading partners have been over the past 30 years or so. Every list I found featured Russia, Germany, France and the US in the top five with no order given. Czechoslovakia and Poland (which are on your list) don't feature which is strange don't you think ... unless of course, your list isn't the holy grail. Whatever the case is, the US is one of Iraq's biggest trading partners which isn't an enviable position to be in. I think the article Simey posted in the thread you like so much makes this point.

They all had dealings with Iraq. They all sold weapons and computers and building materials and military intelligence and food and they all bought oil from Iraq. I don't see what point is made by trying to rank the countries, but if you like, I am now officially correcting my impression and thanking you for setting it right. Now, can you remind me what this proves? Is it related at all to the article?
( Last edited by Troll; Apr 8, 2003 at 02:11 PM. )
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 02:09 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Quick comments:

1) As for the tired old argument of who is to blame for arming Saddam: just about everyone. In the US you can especially credit everyone's hero Ronnie Reagan and Rumsfeld for ignoring genocide and war crimes when it suited them. Don't forget, Rumsfeld's photo-op happened the same week as the first reports of gas being used against Iran. He should never be allowed to talk about what an evil regime Saddam runs again.

2) As for genocide: Same as above. It happened twenty years ago and with the total apathy of all the western powers including the US. Ronnie Reagan (everybodies super moral hero) personally blocked a congressional attempt to cut off aid to Iraq after the Kurdish massacres.

3) As for the soldier shooting the kid: war is hell. This is precisely the reason why some world leaders actually mean it when they say that war is the last resort. They understand that war puts young men and women in a position to make split second, life & death decisions that may haunt them for life. Even if he had to shoot the kid, it doesn't mean it will be easy to live with.

4) All this talk about strong moral leaders willing to do "what's right" or "what's needed" ignores that that the men making these decisions are the same men who let it all slide for the past 30 years. This isn't some new team with fresh new ideas. This is the same old team that thought it was a better idea to arm Saddam, blame Iran for gas attacks, ignore genocide, and personally make a buck doing business with an dictator that they just can't seem to say enough nasty things about now when it's politically convenient. They act out of interests, just like all other politicians. This isn's a moral choice, this is the aggressive pursuit of interests under the guise of morality with convenient political cover. I doubt another administration would have acted much differently presented with the same opporunity.
All good points. Well said!
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 04:16 PM
 
1. it isnt the U..s's duty or obligation to 'police' the world to begin with. Why everyone puts responsibility in America's hand, is understandable but not justifable. (especially with US denying/sushing/censoring any links it had to the taliban or the dictators in the Mideast, South America or Africa).

2. The picture with Drumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands only illustrates one thing..... when the dictator is favorable (especially when using WMDs we gave him to use against our enemies AT THAT TIME (ie Iran)) he's ok. (F*&% democracy or freedom in the process)...bear in mind....the same people lobbying against tyrany now are the same ppl who supported Saddam's tyrany 20 years ago. So who do you trust ? this isnt Saddam vs Bush/Drumsfeld. theyre one and the same to me.. i trust neither one of them. both deceive, lie, kill etc...when it's in their interests. lol...how ppl can support either is quite a mystery to me.

3. Maybe if Americans drastically cut their investments into WMD/weapons of any sort/killing-technologies....and, this is a bit overly optomistic but.., stop arming ppl around the world with them, there could be security and stability.

4. People anywhere and everywhere have faught and will fight for what they beleive is good for them...they dont need for example...Saddam or the U.S. Military holding guns to their heads to make them 'act' as though they like what's happening.....ppl anywhere will fight for change...and change for their independance and self improvement.....what's holdingthem back is all this development of WMDs/weapons/etc...

5. There is one place on this earth that has managed to have 'self rule' and self government...without crap like overseas funding, etc..... whether or not their system is 'fair' is up for debate, but they are 'independant'....that place is Iran.... so if i were them, id be afraid...very afraid. cause they have the most succesful military the world hs ever seen (not a compliment) all around them.

6. To me, and many Europeans and Asians ive talked to.....the U.N. has lost all credibility. why ? when the US went against them...(a decision to goto war is a black/white issue, not a grey area where the decision is up for interpretation...if you beleive democracy is worth fighting for....put your resolution to the vote and word it like "we will use all means necessary"/etc, and let the union decide on it. if the majority were in ur favour....good for you. if not....back down) The U.N. has become irrelevant...and you know what that means ?.....

7.if the buying/merging of Rolls Royce, Jaguar, Mersades Benz,etc in the auto industry, and several local soda manufacturers (the ones ive seen so far anyway) having "A product of the Coca-Cola Company" printed on them isnt a sign of whats going on....
maybe the bill to revamp Iraq's wireless/cell-phone technology with CDMA(patents held by an American company based in CA...probably funded the rebuplicans as well), as opposed to GSM (which like 90% of the rest of the world uses, and all of Iraq's neighbours) might hint at what's really going on here.

8. Oh and on 'terrorism'.... i wonder how Britain never invaded Ireland seeing how most pf their 'terrorists' come from there...it would have been in their interests ? right ?
or India invading Pakistan, or Israel(which i support) the rest of the mid-east(or just more of it) ? Premption is such a bad idea..... and it'll probably go down in history as one of the worst decisions ever made. (my opinion)....but seeing how ..'history is written by those who have hanged heroes'...ppl might never know anyway.


just some food for thought...just seems very suspicious to me. oh well....

Peace.
( Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Apr 8, 2003 at 04:27 PM. )
     
daimoni
Occasionally Quoted
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Francisco
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 04:56 PM
 
.
( Last edited by daimoni; Jul 8, 2004 at 04:31 PM. )
.
     
daimoni
Occasionally Quoted
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Francisco
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 05:02 PM
 
.
( Last edited by daimoni; Jul 8, 2004 at 04:32 PM. )
.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 07:04 PM
 
Originally posted by daimoni:
Sorry. But mostly Europe's use of GSM does not constitute '90% of the rest of world'. Neither technology is 'dominant'.
GSM is available in 171 countries worldwide, which is 89.5% of the countries in this world. GSM has 550 million users worldwide.

CDMA is available in 47 countries which is 24% of the world. CDMA has 160 million users of which 80 million are in North America.

I would describe this as a situation where GSM is dominant. I haven't been to a country in the last 5 years where I couldn't use my GSM phone and I've been to Botswana, Nigeria, Mauritius and a few places I didn't expect to have a signal.
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 07:16 PM
 
The irony is that none of us warriors here has ever been in a war. The closest I've ever come to any situation is being shot at once in a demonstration at university in South Africa, but I wasn't armed and there was a lot of teargas around. From what i do know from a lot of my friends who fought in the war in namibia is that the shooting usually happens so quickly that one doesn't think. This child getting killed is on par for most wars. You see someone near the weapons, any weapon and bang he's dead.

It doesn't excuse it though. Stop the war or get it over with quickly so that this sensless orgy of bloodlust, hate and suffering will stop!
weird wabbit
     
sambeau
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 09:19 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Somehow the country seems to be divided between those who refuse to admit that the US is to blame for anything and those who seem to blame it for everything.

Perhaps those who seem to blame the US for everything would chill out and get more perspective if the rest of you would at least admit to something.

This idea that the US has only done a few minor boo-boos is insulting to anyone who knows anything about history. The US is guilty of some pretty staggering nastiness.

It's also to be credited for some pretty staggering wonderfulness.

Sadly, recent history is more full of the nastiness than wonderfulness so many younger people begin to fall into the "blame for everything" camp than they ought to.

And please don't argue that past atrocities were "the right thing at the time blah blah". Since the mess we face today is directly attributable to those past mistakes, the idea that they were "right" decision is completely unfounded. Ignoring the unintended consequences seems to be quickly becoming a national obsession.
     
sambeau
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2003, 09:21 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Quick comments:
As for the tired old argument of who is to blame for arming Saddam:
Only tiring if you don't want to her it anymore.
I however never tire of hearing it.
     
clarkgoble
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Provo, UT
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2003, 01:19 AM
 
I'm more than willing to fess up to US mistakes. I think Pres. Clinton did a horrible thing relative to Ruwanda. I think Bush I made a big mistake by not supporting the Shiites in '91. I think Reagan made a big mistake by tacitly accepting Iraqi attrocities to Iran to help destabilize Iran.

Having said all that so what? The current President wasn't President when those mistakes were made. He's made a few mistakes of his own, but the fact someone has made mistakes does not imply that one is always a hypocrite in ones acts. Right is right. It doesn't matter who does it. It doesn't matter what they did in the past.

This idea that the US is somehow incapable of acting because of a difficult decision regarding Iraq in the early 80's is simply amazing.

If only the perfect are permitted to act then there is only one actor allowed and he ain't likely to be coming back any time soon.
     
torsoboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2003, 03:26 AM
 
Originally posted by Face Ache:
Gee thanks for the condescension. "Not a grocery aisle".

You disappoint me. I figured you were the type of guy I would want in my platoon but I've changed my mind now. I don't want anyone that would kill a kid to save his own arse. That's gutless.

And if I died as a result at least my kids wouldn't remember me as a child killer.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...E26277,00.html

Read that. Let's drop the delusion that these soldiers are well trained elite forces. For the most part they're just ****-scared trigger-happy 19 year olds.
I disagree with you. I would rather be alive with my kids than be someone they can remember. In a war situation if a person aims a weapon at you, or in this case "stoops to pick up" a weapon, you must shoot them. It is a war, and they are trying to kill you.

I seriously doubt anyone would want you in their platoon. No one wants someone in their platoon that is more worried about saving face than saving himself and his buddies. I am glad you are not in Iraq right now, we'd probably have a few more casualties on our side if you were.
     
Face Ache  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2003, 05:23 AM
 
Originally posted by torsoboy:
I seriously doubt anyone would want you in their platoon. No one wants someone in their platoon that is more worried about saving face than saving himself and his buddies. I am glad you are not in Iraq right now, we'd probably have a few more casualties on our side if you were.
I agree. I would be a seriously crap soldier.

I might be useful in a MASH unit though. I'm pretty good at dealing with gory stuff.
     
Face Ache  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2003, 05:27 AM
 
Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
I can tell you where I was, and there is a large portion of America who think this way as well, I was right here in the states for the last 12 years telling anybody who would listen that Saddam should have been taken care in the 1st Gulf war and waiting for a president who would stand up for American interests in the world, fix our Mistakes, and take care Saddam.

The liberals tend to only believe the reality they create for themselves in the Media. They forget that there is a silent majority in the US who go to work everyday, buy into the American dream and every once in awhile rise up against the coastal elitists and take back our country to do the right thing.
Denis Leary, right?



     
Speckledstone
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2003, 05:37 AM
 
Originally posted by Face Ache:
�... http://www.news.com.au/common/story...5E26277,00.html

Read that. Let's drop the delusion that these soldiers are well trained elite forces. For the most part they're just ****-scared trigger-happy 19 year olds.�
Let's drop the generalizations and the insults that evolve from those generalizations.

Read this : 24th MEU (SOC) ROWPU site is scene of action and good deed

Oh, wait a minute, that story came from the USMC website. Therefore it must be lies and propaganda spread around by those ****-scared trigger-happy 19 year olds. Right?
     
daimoni
Occasionally Quoted
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Francisco
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2003, 01:32 PM
 
.
( Last edited by daimoni; Jul 8, 2004 at 04:32 PM. )
.
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2003, 06:22 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
This is the second time in this thread that someone has implied that the kid posed a direct threat to Boggs i.e. he was pointing an RPG launcher at Boggs.
I assumed it was a complete launcher that the kid picked up BECAUSE THE SOLDIER DECIDED TO SHOOT THE KID.

Why on earth would ANY soldier shoot a kid in the street for picking up an RPG round itself? That makes no f*cking sense.

So it remains a mystery, I guess, until we have video tape of the actual event, but I'm willing to give the soldier the benefit of the doubt and say that he perceived a threat. He wouldn't respond to a threat if the kid just picked up a round.

Believe it or not, soldiers are REGULAR FOLKS. They have common sense, and maybe a better sense of self-preservation than the rest of us, but they are JUST PEOPLE. They don't go shooting kids for their jollies.
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2003, 06:27 PM
 
Originally posted by Face Ache:
Let's drop the delusion that these soldiers are well trained elite forces. For the most part they're just ****-scared trigger-happy 19 year olds.
Trigger-happy.

I don't even want to acknowledge the level of contempt that I have for THAT attitude.

Of course, you've been there and done that and therefore feel ultimately qualified to pass judgement and describe their hopes and dreams as well.
( Last edited by finboy; Apr 9, 2003 at 07:13 PM. )
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2003, 05:09 AM
 
Originally posted by finboy:
I assumed it was a complete launcher that the kid picked up BECAUSE THE SOLDIER DECIDED TO SHOOT THE KID.
Some people see what they WANT to see. If you read the words, it says that the kid was shot while STOOPING. He hadn't picked anything up!
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2003, 07:40 AM
 
According to who Troll?
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2003, 11:49 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
According to who Troll?
Refresher for those of us who are a bit slow:
When a young Iraqi boy stooped to pick up a rocket propelled grenade ... US Army Private Nick Boggs ... unloaded machinegun fire and the boy whom he puts at about 10 years old, fell dead.
     
Kitschy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Oklahoma City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2003, 12:46 PM
 
Originally posted by clarkgoble:
I'm more than willing to fess up to US mistakes. I think Pres. Clinton did a horrible thing relative to Ruwanda. I think Bush I made a big mistake by not supporting the Shiites in '91. I think Reagan made a big mistake by tacitly accepting Iraqi attrocities to Iran to help destabilize Iran.

Having said all that so what? The current President wasn't President when those mistakes were made. He's made a few mistakes of his own, but the fact someone has made mistakes does not imply that one is always a hypocrite in ones acts. Right is right. It doesn't matter who does it. It doesn't matter what they did in the past.

This idea that the US is somehow incapable of acting because of a difficult decision regarding Iraq in the early 80's is simply amazing.

If only the perfect are permitted to act then there is only one actor allowed and he ain't likely to be coming back any time soon.
Ah HA!!!

Sooooo true.

This is what I've been thinking about the past several days as people have mentioned all sorts of other atrocities that we didn't (and should have) got involved with, as if THAT is the rule by which we SHOULD NOT go in THIS time.

People continue to refer back to our past as if ignoring atrocities then makes it the right thing to do now, because otherwise it would be "hypocritical."

Thank you, Clark.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2003, 01:58 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
Refresher for those of us who are a bit slow:
Talk about slow, I said according to WHO, not what was said.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2003, 02:30 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Talk about slow, I said according to WHO, not what was said.
Apologies for giving your intelligence too much credit. Thought you couldn't have meant that can't read the word at the end of the first post's quote (REUTERS). Thought your question HAD to be more intelligent than that!

I hear a click. Is that the trap going off. The one where you say that Reuters is lying?
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2003, 02:45 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
Apologies for giving your intelligence too much credit.

Your name fits you well. I asked you WHO it came from, and you post WHAT was said. Then you make such a comment like this to try to save face. Give me a break.

Thought you couldn't have meant that can't read the word at the end of the first post's quote (REUTERS). Thought your question HAD to be more intelligent than that!
Yes, and with sentence structure like that, you sure showed me!

I hear a click. Is that the trap going off. The one where you say that Reuters is lying?
Nope, and now you are projecting. I never said ANYONE was lying. All I asked for was WHO made such a comment. BTW no post I replied to ever said "Reuters" Try again.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2003, 02:56 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
BTW no post I replied to ever said "Reuters" Try again. [/B]
At the end of the quote in the first post in this thread, Zim, it says that the report is by Reuters. Reuters says that the kid was shot while stooping. Do you understand now?
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2003, 03:04 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
At the end of the quote in the first post in this thread, Zim, it says that the report is by Reuters. Reuters says that the kid was shot while stooping. Do you understand now?
And was I replying to that post Troll? No, no I wasn't. The post I read, that I was replying to said nonething of the sort. You are grasping for straws now.
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2003, 03:23 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
Some people see what they WANT to see.
That's obvious.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2003, 05:42 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
And was I replying to that post Troll? No, no I wasn't. The post I read, that I was replying to said nonething (sic) of the sort. You are grasping for straws now.
Oh come on! Okay, I'm sorry for calling you names and insulting your intelligence. Okay? I just thought it was really stupid and rude to come in halfway through a discussion and basically ask what the discussion is about so I got carried away. To explain why I got irritated, the post that you replied to clearly references the article that started this thread and that is referred to countless times in the thread itself. You replied to this:
Originally posted by Troll:
If you read the words, it says that the kid was shot while STOOPING.
This thread is about the facts contained in an article Faceache copied from Reuters. On top of that, you'll also notice that Simey and I had a discussion about Reuters earlier on in the thread. It should be clear to you that "read the words" means read the words of the Reuters article that this thread is about. If you reply to that post, it seems to me to be pretty silly for you not to have "read the words" or at least have made some kind of an attempt to work out which words are being referenced. And if you've read the very first post in the thread, you will have noticed that the words are by Reuters. Can you see how it can be irritating for someone who's been involved in the thread for some time to have to explain to you what the thread is about when you could very easily just read the first post and work that out? I take it as a given that before anyone comments on a thread they have at the very least, read the first post in the thread. Can you understand that my first impulse would be to assume that you knew what the thread was about and were questioning my interpretation of the article rather than really wanting to know who wrote the article?

I apologise for calling you slow, but I think you should apologise for being a tad premature on the reply button! It's a trend that is evidenced by the statements throughout this thread that the kid had "pointed" and "picked up" the RPG. Some people don't READ before they post.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2003, 12:46 PM
 
Oh come on! Okay, I'm sorry for calling you names and insulting your intelligence. Okay? I just thought it was really stupid and rude to come in halfway through a discussion and basically ask what the discussion is about so I got carried away.

Well it's a good thing I never did that. I obviously knew what it was about.

To explain why I got irritated, the post that you replied to clearly references the article that started this thread and that is referred to countless times in the thread itself. You replied to this:


ROFL !!!! Clearly my a$$ you are indeed grabbing for straws now Troll.

This thread is about the facts contained in an article Faceache copied from Reuters. On top of that, you'll also notice that Simey and I had a discussion about Reuters earlier on in the thread. It should be clear to you that "read the words" means read the words of the Reuters article that this thread is about .


Troll, I was responding you YOUR POST ONLY. How many times do I have to say that?


If you reply to that post, it seems to me to be pretty silly for you not to have "read the words" or at least have made some kind of an attempt to work out which words are being referenced. And if you've read the very first post in the thread, you will have noticed that the words are by Reuters. Can you see how it can be irritating for someone who's been involved in the thread for some time to have to explain to you what the thread is about when you could very easily just read the first post and work that out? I take it as a given that before anyone comments on a thread they have at the very least, read the first post in the thread. Can you understand that my first impulse would be to assume that you knew what the thread was about and were questioning my interpretation of the article rather than really wanting to know who wrote the article?
I think this is called overreacting. I just asked for the source of said post. All you had to do is say "Reuters". But no, you made a personal attack about my intelligence, and posted what the person said. When you got busted for it, you tried to somehow make it my fault, trying to cover up the fact you were being a pompus ass, and too wasn't listening to said post.
I apologise for calling you slow, but I think you should apologise for being a tad premature on the reply button! It's a trend that is evidenced by the statements throughout this thread that the kid had "pointed" and "picked up" the RPG. Some people don't READ before they post
I think you are pot kettle blacking.

Let look at your reply.


Originally posted by Zimphire:
According to who Troll?
Originally posted by Troll:
Refresher for those of us who are a bit slow:

When a young Iraqi boy stooped to pick up a rocket propelled grenade ... US Army Private Nick Boggs ... unloaded machinegun fire and the boy whom he puts at about 10 years old, fell dead.
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Talk about slow, I said according to WHO, not what was said.
You was saying? You need to start taking your own advice, and stop knee-jerking and read the post before you reply.
( Last edited by Zimphire; Apr 11, 2003 at 12:52 PM. )
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2003, 11:29 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Troll, I was responding you (sic) YOUR POST ONLY.
Your theory that you were responding to a single post only is undermined by the fact that a) you are posting in a threaded discussion group b) I used the relative pronoun, "IT" c) you didn't quote my post and d) the post which precedes your 'reply' quotes a preceding post that it is replying to. You were in fact responding to a reply to a reply to a reply. It is illogical to notionally separate my last post from the thread! Here are the last 3 posts between Finboy and me. Notice the references to the article.
Originally posted by Troll
This is the second time in this thread that someone has implied that the kid posed a direct threat to Boggs ... The article says ...

Later on the article says ...
In reply to that post, Finboy wrote
Originally posted by Finboy
I assumed it was a complete launcher that the kid picked up BECAUSE THE SOLDIER DECIDED TO SHOOT THE KID.
To which I replied:
Originally posted by Troll
If you read the words, it says that the boy was shot while STOOPING.
Then along you come and, without quoting any of the previous posts, you say:
Originally posted by Zimphire
According to who Troll
(Conceding that this point may very well be lost on you)Your statement that I was "covering up" my mistake, and your assumption that I replied to your initial post incorrectly is based on a lack of understanding of basic English grammar. If we make your initial sentence into a full sentence, then it reads, "According to who is it true that 'if you read the words, it says that the boy was shot while stooping'." THAT question calls my INTERPRETATION of the facts into question which is why you got the reply I gave you first time round. If you meant to ask "According to who was the boy shot while stooping," you should have said that or said "What words are you referring to," or "What is the 'IT' you refer to?" or quoted just the last part of my sentence. Then I might have answered "Reuters" although it's unlikely I wouldn't have been irritated with such a stupid question and not insulted you anyway.

The point is I had the decency to apologise for the mild insult to your intelligence that I implied. I conceded my fault. You might say this kettle washed itself but the pot is still black. By carrying on, you're only proving that I was right in calling you slow the first time round.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2003, 11:40 AM
 
Your theory that you were responding to a single post only is undermined by the fact that a) you are posting in a threaded discussion group b) I used the relative pronoun, "IT" c) you didn't quote my post and d) the post which precedes your 'reply' quotes a preceding post that it is replying to. You were in fact responding to a reply to a reply to a reply. It is illogical to notionally separate my last post from the thread! Here are the last 3 posts between Finboy and me. Notice the references to the article.
Ah, so you actually think your personal "forum rules" means anything in this discussion Troll? How pretentious. No, this is just you again, trying to cover your rear for responding the irrational way you did. Sorry, still didn't work.
(Conceding that this point may very well be lost on you)Your statement that I was "covering up" my mistake, and your assumption that I replied to your initial post incorrectly is based on a lack of understanding of basic English grammar. If we make your initial sentence into a full sentence, then it reads, "According to who is it true that 'if you read the words, it says that the boy was shot while stooping'." You were calling my interpretation of the facts into question which is why you got the reply I gave you first time round. If you meant to ask "According to who was the boy shot while stooping," you should have said that or said "What words are you referring to," or "What is the 'IT' you refer to?" or quoted just the last part of my sentence. Then I might have answered "Reuters" although it's unlikely I wouldn't have been irritated with such a stupid question and not insulted you anyway.
LOL!!! I was told by someone recently to watch you, that you like to try to turn your words around, and twist things in the middle of a argument to look in "The Right" I guess they was right.

I just asked where you got your source. You responded with a lame immature personal attack (Your still posting them now) telling me I was slow, at the same time, you gave me a answer to someone I never asked. I never asked WHAT was said, but WHO said it.

The point is I had the decency to apologise for the mild insult to your intelligence that I implied. I conceded my fault. You might say this kettle washed itself but the pot is still black. By carrying on, you're only proving that I was right in calling you slow the first time round. And you wonder why so many people ignore you!

No you were not right calling me slow. I asked a simple question, got attacked and got a answer I was not asking for.And you are now getting pissy because someone has busted you for it.

Take a big bit of that crow pie. You only have to swallow once.

BTW there is a long list of people that have you on ignore as well. Is that because you are "slow" also?

You have a habit of when given a arguement in a forum, personally attacking people with baseless accusations. It's immature, and silly. Stop with the nonsense and you wont get into quabbles like this one.

If anyone deserves this.. it's you.

( Last edited by Zimphire; Apr 14, 2003 at 11:49 AM. )
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2003, 01:42 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Ah, so you actually think your personal "forum rules" means anything in this discussion Troll?
Now you're the kettle. These are not my rules! We all know that does not mean "I am replying only to Troll's post now."
Originally posted by Zimphire:
I just asked where you got your source ... I asked a simple question, got attacked and got a (sic) answer I was not asking for.
I thought my point about grammar would be lost on you. You have a very strange way of asking me for my source (actually Faceache's source) aside from the fact that the source couldn't have been more obvious. That aside, I explained why I 'misunderstood' what you said AND I apologised to you for the WAY in which I replied to your question. For the life of me I don't understand why you're harping on and on. I've tried to get you to be reasonable about this ...

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BTW there is a long list of people that have you on ignore as well. Is that because you are "slow" also?
As well as who? Did I say anything about ignore lists? You sound very defensive about this. This is the most personal 'attack' I've ever been involved in on MacNN. The fact that I'm not on your ignore list, suggests I'm not on anyone's list, but you clearly have many friends that share their lists with you, so you obviously know better.
Originally posted by Zimphire:
You have a habit of when (sic) given a (sic) arguement (sic) in a forum, personally attacking people with baseless accusations.
I had a basis for calling you slow . You apparently read three pages of posts carefully and still managed to miss the fact that we were talking about a Reuters article. Your favourite idiom pops up again though (hello kettle). You make a baseless accusation while accusing me of one.

Here's an accusation for you. You could have spent the time you have spent "busting" me (lol), reading the posts other people TOOK TIME to write before posting a question that everyone who had read the first post knew the answer to. That way, you might have contributed something valuable to this thread.

I'm not going to carry on with this mindless discussion. I've wasted a long time explaining my position and trying to get you to understand why you were insulted. I've apologised what three four times for calling you slow. There's not much more I can do than that.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2003, 01:36 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
Now you're the kettle. These are not my rules! We all know that does not mean "I am replying only to Troll's post now."

Troll, yes those were YOUR RULES. If I post a reply, and I am directing it towards you, yes indeed I am replying to just you silly.

I thought my point about grammar would be lost on you.

Heh another silly personal attack.

You have a very strange way of asking me for my source (actually Faceache's source) aside from the fact that the source couldn't have been more obvious.

Of course, it's not like it was listed in your post or anything.

That aside, I explained why I 'misunderstood' what you said AND I apologised to you for the WAY in which I replied to your question. For the life of me I don't understand why you're harping on and on. I've tried to get you to be reasonable about this ...
You're kidding me right? You apologized, but in the SAME posts personally attacked me again. Just like you are doing again in this post. See why I find this amusing?

As well as who? Did I say anything about ignore lists? You sound very defensive about this.


And you wonder why so many people ignore you!
What else would you be talking about?


This is the most personal 'attack' I've ever been involved in on MacNN. The fact that I'm not on your ignore list, suggests I'm not on anyone's list,

No, I have no ignore list. That proves nothing. Believe me.

but you clearly have many friends that share their lists with you, so you obviously know better. I had a basis for calling you slow .

Yet another lame immature personal attack. Boy, those apologies seem so sincere now.

You apparently read three pages of posts carefully and still managed to miss the fact that we were talking about a Reuters article. Your favourite idiom pops up again though (hello kettle). You make a baseless accusation while accusing me of one.
Uh, who said I read all 3 pages? Assuming again? I said I was replying to YOUR post only.

Here's an accusation for you. You could have spent the time you have spent "busting" me (lol), reading the posts other people TOOK TIME to write before posting a question that everyone who had read the first post knew the answer to. That way, you might have contributed something valuable to this thread.

No, I just asked a question. Had you not went off into your little personal attack tangent, this would have not started. You have a bad habit of this. Obviously, you apologized, but are STILL doing it. You'll get into more arguments like this until it stops I am sure. So get used to it.

I'm not going to carry on with this mindless discussion. I've wasted a long time explaining my position and trying to get you to understand why you were insulted. I've apologised what three four times for calling you slow. There's not much more I can do than that.
But continue to personal attack me Give me a break.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2003, 02:25 PM
 
I'm going to have to side with Troll here -- it really sounded as if Zimphere wasn't up to speed with what this whole thread is about.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2003, 07:22 AM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
I'm going to have to side with Troll here -- it really sounded as if Zimphere wasn't up to speed with what this whole thread is about.
iCruise I never said otherwise, that is why I was asking see.

Instead of getting a answer, I got a personal attack, and a answer to something I wasn't asking.

Had he just gave me a link, without the silly chest beating of a personal attack, non of this would have happened. Troll has a habit of being overly defensive and abusive. He will run into more arguements like this if he keeps it up. And from the looks of it, he probably will. Apologizing for personally attacking me, and personally attacking me again in the same post shows there is a deep problem sprouting there.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2003, 09:55 AM
 
Originally posted by iCruise:
it really sounded as if Zimphere wasn't up to speed with what this whole thread is about

Originally posted by Zimphire:
iCruise I never said otherwise, that is why I was asking see. (sic)Instead of getting a (sic) answer, I got a personal attack, and a (sic) answer to something I wasn't asking.

Had he just gave (sic) me a link, without the silly chest beating of a personal attack, non (sic) of this would have happened. Troll has a habit of being overly defensive (sic) and abusive. He will run into more arguements like this if he keeps it up. And from (sic) the looks of it, he probably will. Apologizing for personally attacking me, and personally attacking me again in the same post shows there is a deep problem sprouting there.
What's worse? Someone calling someone else 'slow', or someone posting without knowing what the thread is about?

In my opinion, the second is far worse and in your last post you've now admitted to doing that (although for iCruise's benefit I would point out that you did deny it a few posts back - "I obviously knew what it was about"). By not even reading other people's posts (notably Faceache's first post), you showed disregard for the time and effort people had put into researching and formulating considered posts! You complain about being ignored and yet that's precisely what you did to everyone who had posted here before you. The whole point of a forum is to collect consequentially, posts that lead a discussion forward. If we are polite to people who pretend that nothing else went before them and if we encourage them to waste our time, the fora will descend into anarchy with everyone talking without listening. So I called you 'slow.' Now, considering some of the other things I've read in these fora, some of the other names YOU'VE called people, I consider 'slow' not only a well-deserved but a rather mild rebuke ... which I apologised for. By contrast, in this thread you've called me "slow", "abusive", "pretentious", "irrational", "immature", "lame", etc. and I haven't heard any kind of apology from you.

Your saying that I'm being abusive is completely over the top and your statements that I have a history of attacking people are "baseless." Whatever your motivation is for your own "personal attack", you've added almost a page to this discussion now and none of it is relevant. I don't want to ignore you because I'm ever hopeful that at some point you will say something that pertains to the topic, but at the moment, I just can't see that I have any choice.

To show my goodwill, I am hereby unconditionally apologising for any names that I called you explicit or implied in this or any preceding posts. But, I expect you to apologise unconditionally for posting before reading the first post in this thread and for ignoring my posts subsequent thereto. Then perhaps we can both apologise to everyone that has had to read all of the drivel that followed the last post in this thread that had any relevance at all. For my part, apologies to all of you.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2003, 10:20 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
iCruise I never said otherwise, that is why I was asking see.

Instead of getting a answer, I got a personal attack, and a answer to something I wasn't asking.

Had he just gave me a link, without the silly chest beating of a personal attack, non of this would have happened. Troll has a habit of being overly defensive and abusive. He will run into more arguements like this if he keeps it up. And from the looks of it, he probably will. Apologizing for personally attacking me, and personally attacking me again in the same post shows there is a deep problem sprouting there.
What I (an Troll, apparently) don't understand is why you couldn't be bothered to read the first post in the thread. Common courtesy dictates that you don't just come to a thread that is dozens of posts long and say "so what's going on?" If you want to participate, you should read the thread, or at least have a basic grasp of the main point of the first poster.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2003, 10:25 AM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
What I (an Troll, apparently) don't understand is why you couldn't be bothered to read the first post in the thread. Common courtesy dictates that you don't just come to a thread that is dozens of posts long and say "so what's going on?" If you want to participate, you should read the thread, or at least have a basic grasp of the main point of the first poster.
or, as some (and I ) have done on occasion, considerately preface your remarks with "I haven't read the entire thread, but to respond to this one post...." At least then people know where are and why you might have missed previous points.
     
Face Ache  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2003, 11:12 AM
 
G'Day!

So... what's this thread all about then?

Oh yeah. I started it.

Oh well it didn't turn out the way I thought it would.

Never mind.

Thanks for your input.

Have a nice day.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2003, 01:51 PM
 
What's worse? Someone calling someone else 'slow', or someone posting without knowing what the thread is about?
No I knew what the thread was about, just didn't know every detail. And guess which one is against the rules Troll.

In my opinion, the second is far worse and in your last post you've now admitted to doing that (although for iCruise's benefit I would point out that you did deny it a few posts back - "I obviously knew what it was about").

Again, I knew what it was about, didn't know the details. That is WHY I was asking. I didn't EXPECT a personal attack out of the blue from you. Now I will expect it, but then I didn't. Again, doesn't matter what one you thought was worse. You was breaking the forum rules, I wasn't.

By not even reading other people's posts (notably Faceache's first post), you showed disregard for the time and effort people had put into researching and formulating considered posts! You complain about being ignored and yet that's precisely what you did to everyone who had posted here before you.

BZZZZZZZT wrong. I don't complain about being ignored, I complain about people who respond to my post, ignoring what I said. You are again, trying to twist and squirm your way out of this Troll. You've already put your foot in your mouth one too many times. Looks as if you like the taste of it.

The whole point of a forum is to collect consequentially, posts that lead a discussion forward. If we are polite to people who pretend that nothing else went before them and if we encourage them to waste our time, the fora will descend into anarchy with everyone talking without listening. So I called you 'slow.' Now, considering some of the other things I've read in these fora, some of the other names YOU'VE called people, I consider 'slow' not only a well-deserved but a rather mild rebuke ...
Please show within context when I called you those things. It surely wasn't because you asked a simple question out of the blue. But I will be waiting for you to show the forum, within context, me calling you those names.

Your saying that I'm being abusive is completely over the top and your statements that I have a history of attacking people are "baseless." Whatever your motivation is for your own "personal attack", you've added almost a page to this discussion now and none of it is relevant. I don't want to ignore you because I'm ever hopeful that at some point you will say something that pertains to the topic, but at the moment, I just can't see that I have any choice.
LOL! I WAS originally talking about the topic. Guess who derailed it with lame personal attacks Troll? Guess who. Guess who if he never made such a comment, this wouldn't be going on. Time to take responsibilities for your actions Troll. Don't like this sort of thing? Stop the silly personal attacks. It would be different if that was the ONLY time you personally attacked me in this thread. But you did it over and over again, apologized and then did it over and over again. Do you see what I am saying? How am I supposed to take your apology seriously, when you do it again in the next sentence? Sounds like to me, you really weren't sorry. That you said it just to make yourself look good.

To show my goodwill, I am hereby unconditionally apologising for any names that I called you explicit or implied in this or any preceding posts. But, I expect you to apologise unconditionally for posting before reading the first post in this thread
That isn't breaking the rules Troll. I did nothing wrong. Again, you are going back to "Troll's rules of forum etiquette" which only apply to YOU. I am talking about the MacNN rules. Again, if you would have just posted the link, nothing would have been said.

Originally posted by Icruise:
What I (an Troll, apparently) don't understand is why you couldn't be bothered to read the first post in the thread. Common courtesy dictates that you don't just come to a thread that is dozens of posts long and say "so what's going on?" If you want to participate, you should read the thread, or at least have a basic grasp of the main point of the first poster.
No this happens all the time in MacNN. This isn't against the rules. This surely isn't something to get personally attacked for. BTW I did skim the topic looking for a link, and I must have glanced over it. What Troll is mad about is, I asked for a link. He replied calling me slow, and at the same time, replied not with a link, but with what was said. When I replied to him showing that he needed to read my post before calling ME slow, he got a little miffed he was busted for also "not reading" That is why he got so defensive. His personal attack backfired on him.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2003, 02:17 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
No I knew what the thread was about, just didn't know every detail. ... blah blah blah[/B]
For interest's sake, which "forum rule" prohibits me from calling you "slow"?

Just so you know, neither iCruise nor myself were referring to any MacNN rules. Rather we were referring to rules of common courtesy. As I've said before, I think there are circumstances where you earn an insult and I think this was one such circumstance. It wasn't a "personal attack", it was a mild rebuke for not having paid attention.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2003, 02:31 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
For interest's sake, which "forum rule" prohibits me from calling you "slow"?

Personal attacks are not allowed in MacNN. Go ask a mod.

Just so you know, neither iCruise nor myself were referring to any MacNN rules. Rather we were referring to rules of common courtesy. As I've said before, I]
Let review the start of this.

Originally posted by Troll:
Some people see what they WANT to see. If you read the words, it says that the kid was shot while STOOPING. He hadn't picked anything up!
Originally posted by Zimphire:
According to who Troll?
Originally posted by Troll:
Refresher for those of us who are a bit slow:

When a young Iraqi boy stooped to pick up a rocket propelled grenade ... US Army Private Nick Boggs ... unloaded machinegun fire and the boy whom he puts at about 10 years old, fell dea
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Talk about slow, I said according to WHO, not what was said.
See, now what started that Troll? If you would have not posted the slow silliness, none of this would be going on now. Maybe next time you'll be a bit more leery before slinging the mud.

I think there are circumstances where you earn an insult and I think this was one such circumstance.

See, attacking me again. You really have no control over it do you? You aren't one to judge as to who "earns" a personal attack and who doesn't. It doesn't matter how you feel on the matter.

It wasn't a "personal attack", it was a mild rebuke for not having paid attention.
LOL!!!! come on Troll, spin spin spin some more.

BTW you aren't here to rebuke people either.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2003, 06:05 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:

Personal attacks are not allowed in MacNN. Go ask a mod.
I asked you which rule not WHO to ask
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2003, 10:51 PM
 
Uh, the no personal attack rule.. what other rule would I be talking about?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:55 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,