[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

So you are saying the American media is trying to spread false information that make the US look bad?

Click Here

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

I was going to answer your question with another question, but I won't. However, it should be noted that Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. That seems to me a bit more extreme example of "ignoring" the Constitution. I'm not say that he was right or wrong for doing it, just pointing it out.

A.K.A. Martial Law. This was a unique situation because it was ciritcal in preservering the Constitution as a whole in the first place. Lincoln had to make a decision without the Congress because it wasn't in session. There was no precedence for what was happening for Lincoln to base his decision on. Lincoln needed to maintain control over the states to preserve the Union and bring the war to a successful conclusion.

I'm pretty damn sure President Bush hasn't enacted Martial Law, and no states are threatening to secede from the Union. That painting is insulting.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

A.K.A. Martial Law. This was a unique situation because it was ciritcal in preservering the Constitution as a whole in the first place. Lincoln had to make a decision without the Congress because it wasn't in session. There was no precedence for what was happening for Lincoln to base his decision on. Lincoln needed to maintain control over the states to preserve the Union and bring the war to a successful conclusion.

I'm pretty damn sure President Bush hasn't enacted Martial Law, and no states are threatening to secede from the Union. That painting is insulting.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia Article

In the early 1870s, President Grant suspended habeas corpus in nine counties in South Carolina, as part of federal civil rights action against the Ku Klux Klan under the 1870 Force Act and 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act.

Lincoln also ignored Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney's order regarding habeas corpus.

I hear what you're saying. Personally, I think Lincoln was correct looking back. I think the same way with Bush.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by itistoday

I could create a computer program that behaves just like you:

Code:
// file: conservative.c

#include <stdio.h>

#include "conservative.h"

main() {
while (1) {
switch (state) {
case LOSING_ARGUMENT:
printf("WOW.  What you say is silly!\n");
break;
default:
printf("Bush rules!  Global warming is teh suck!  Families must die!!\n");
}
}
}

ROFL!!!

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Y3a

and AGAIN YOU MISS THE POINT!!! JEEEZ!

INVADING TERORISTS WHO ARE NOT AMERICANS should not get the same rights of a true american.

"Invading terrorists"? The people in GTMO are mostly Afghans. I don't recall Afghanistan invading the US. And some of them aren't even Afghans but were still shipped off to GTMO. But for you that doesn't matter. Because they are all "Evil Moslems!!".....

in the US, women are not property. Can any Muslim nation claim that?

IIRC Prostitution is allowed in some areas of the US. I could also post various pictures (if I'd be allowed to post images of (half)naked women) of how we treat women in the West that most certainly is both degrading to women and treats them as nothing but a cheap commodity.

As for your question. I'll just name one nation. Bosnia & Herzegovina.

[Spliffdaddy]

lame. you got owned.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

So you are saying the American media is trying to spread false information that make the US look bad?

Well of course.

It's what they do best.

You act as if you didn't know.

Apparently, you must be a foreigner.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by itistoday

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

The other one is one of the dumbest people on this forum!

This coming from the same person that said the Persian Gulf War and the current war in Iraq are the same thing? Never mind my historical introduction!

Oh man, I haven't seen such a cowardly defeat in... well, this is the first one I've seen actually.

The great Zimphire! Beaten! I'm going to relish this occasion and make sure to rub it in.
I've got just the thing to celebrate with too.

No itstoday, I said months ago I will not debate people that have no interest in debating honestly without spin. You made it clear you really didn't care about what was being debated (heck you didn't even know the history because you were barely old enough to remember) but were just in it for the "game"

I asked you many times to quit. You decided to stay on the low road.

So I made a choice to not waste my time. I don't argue with people "playing the game"

So yes, you won "the game". You didn't prove anything, but you sure won it.

Here is your prize

[abe]

Originally Posted by kobi

davesimondot next time that you bend the truth with your falliacy's. Please back it up with something. Anything. Please.

I've listed the facts, I'm still waiting for your facts btw?

Now go along and let the grown-ups have a conversation.

Look up the word fallacy's. That might help you find the truth.

You HAVE to be doing this as a gag, right?

Look up the word yourself and that might help you find the correct spelling!

And it's davesimondotcom!

[abe]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

A.K.A. Martial Law. This was a unique situation because it was ciritcal in preservering the Constitution as a whole in the first place. Lincoln had to make a decision without the Congress because it wasn't in session. There was no precedence for what was happening for Lincoln to base his decision on. Lincoln needed to maintain control over the states to preserve the Union and bring the war to a successful conclusion.

I'm pretty damn sure President Bush hasn't enacted Martial Law, and no states are threatening to secede from the Union. That painting is insulting.

You SHOULD feel insulted.

What you posted opens the door for you to lose this point. It is a tacit admission that the POTUS has to do certain things during wartime that are consistent with his responsibilities and his oath to preserve, protect and defend this country and the Constitution.

There are numerous examples of the POTUS suspending Constitutional rights during wartime.

You may sit down now.

[[email protected]]

once again, I show my ass.

who cares about spelling or what his/her screen name is??

Next time look at the facts and learn something. Other than how not to spell.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No itstoday, I said months ago I will not debate people that have no interest in debating honestly without spin. You made it clear you really didn't care about what was being debated (heck you didn't even know the history because you were barely old enough to remember) buy were just in it for the "game"

I asked you many times to quit. You decided to stay on the low road.

So I made a choice to not waste my time. I don't argue with people "playing the game"

So yes, you won "the game". You didn't prove anything, but you sure won it.

Why do you have to be such a sore loser? Can't you take the humiliation like a man? Overwhelmed by your limited historical knowledge and feeble mental powers?

Denial isn't just a word that sounds similar to a river in Egypt.

You got owned like a little bitch and here you are trying to deny that obvious fact. Run along now little one and go mess with someone down at your level.

[Spliffdaddy]

I hafta hand it to you. Your smack-talking skillz have markedly improved as of late.

Nice going, grasshopper. I'm teaching you well.

It isn't the quality of the message, it's the degree of humiliation that's conveyed.

edited:

Now hurry up and start another global warming thread so I can pwn your ass like I always do.

[abe]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

Lincoln also ignored Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney's order regarding habeas corpus.

I hear what you're saying. Personally, I think Lincoln was correct looking back. I think the same way with Bush.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Why do you have to be such a sore loser? Can't you take the humiliation like a man? Overwhelmed by your limited historical knowledge and feeble mental powers?

Denial isn't just a word that sounds similar to a river in Egypt.

You got owned like a little bitch and here you are trying to deny that obvious fact. Run along now little one and go mess with someone down at your level.

Hi. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the rules that you agreed to when you signed up for this username you're using.

The terms indicate that you aren't to personally attack other members. Disagree, sure. But you've broken that rule three times in this thread. Knock it off.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by kobi

once again, I show my ass.

who cares about spelling or what his/her screen name is??

Next time look at the facts and learn something. Other than how not to spell.

Make sure you point that out to your professors in law school. You know, that "Who cares about spelling?" thing. I'm sure you will win points with that tact.

And honestly, you keep talking about facts while only providing conjecture, supposition and opinion. If you'd like to provide some facts, you may want to get on with it because the life span of this thread is quickly drawing to a close.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Hi. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the rules that you agreed to when you signed up for this username you're using.

The terms indicate that you aren't to personally attack other members. Disagree, sure. But you've broken that rule three times in this thread. Knock it off.

Sorry, it won't happen again.

Should I follow Kevin's example and insult his statements instead of him personally?

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Sorry, it won't happen again.

Should I follow in Kevin's example and insult his statements instead of him personally?

Actually, yes. You can attack statements all you like. That's how grown-up debate works. Attack the idea, not the person.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

Actually, yes. You can attack statements all you like. That's how grown-up debate works. Attack the idea, not the person.

OK, I look forward to learning more about "grown-up" debate.

[Spliffdaddy]

I've always wanted to participate in one of those "grown-up" debates.

[ThinkInsane]

That wasn't meant to be snide, it just is what it is. If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, you'll find that resorting to personal attacks will rarely if ever bolster your position. Instead it just makes you look desperate and uninformed. The impression is that you have nothing to offer the debate, so you resort to vitriol instead of countering the others stance. It's not effective, as a matter of fact it's counterproductive.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

That wasn't meant to be snide, it just is what it is. If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, you'll find that resorting to personal attacks will rarely if ever bolster your position. Instead it just makes you look desperate and uninformed. The impression is that you have nothing to offer the debate, so you resort to vitriol instead of countering the others stance. It's not effective, as a matter of fact it's counterproductive.

Actually I agree with you 100% here, it's just that Kevin was really ticking me off by not... 'absorbing' what I had said, and then running away from the argument claiming that I did not know anything about the history of the situation when I had clearly outlined the historical facts in my post.

[[email protected]]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane
Make sure you point that out to your professors in law school. You know, that "Who cares about spelling?" thing. I'm sure you will win points with that tact.

And honestly, you keep talking about facts while only providing conjecture, supposition and opinion. If you'd like to provide some facts, you may want to get on with it because the life span of this thread is quickly drawing to a close.

Just for you I will. I'll call my profs right now.I'll tell them that a moderator of a forum told me to tell them also. HA!

You must have missed my post at the middle of this page. The time stamp is from 11:31am. Please read it.

That's all the proof a grand jury will need, so it should be enough for this board.

Just in case you don't believe any of it. Which you won't. I have links at the bottom of the post that contain the facts I posted.

For those of you who don't know what facts are:

Main Entry: fact
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum deed, real happening, something done, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere to do, make
1 : something that has actual existence : a matter of objective reality
2 : any of the circumstances of a case that exist or are alleged to exist in reality : a thing whose actual occurrence or existence is to be determined by the evidence presented at trial —see also finding of fact at FINDING, JUDICIAL NOTICE question of fact at QUESTION, TRIER OF FACT —compare LAW, OPINION

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I hafta hand it to you. Your smack-talking skillz have markedly improved as of late.

Nice going, grasshopper. I'm teaching you well.

I have to admit, when Spliffdaddy is complimenting me that probably means I'm doing something wrong...

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by kobi

Just for you I will. I'll call my profs right now.I'll tell them that a moderator of a forum told me to tell them also. HA!

Um, that's EX-moderator of a forum

emeritus |iˈmerətəs| adjective (of the former holder of an office, esp. a college professor) having retired but allowed to retain their title as an honor : emeritus professor of microbiology | [ postpositive ] the gallery's director emeritus. ORIGIN mid 18th cent.: from Latin, past participle of emereri ‘earn one's discharge by service,’ from e- (variant of ex-) ‘out of, from’ + mereri ‘earn.’

These days I clean up spam, and that's about it.

You must have missed my post at the middle of this page. The time stamp is from 11:31am. Please read it.

Actually, I can't seem to find a post you made at that time at all, on this page or any other. But regardless, I read the whole stupid thread earlier, and I can't recall any instance of you posting supported facts. Just lots of you posting your opinion and stating it's fact. The closest you came, Dave whipped you around pretty good on it, and rightly so in my opinion

That's all the proof a grand jury will need, so it should be enough for this board.

The last time I was on the grand jury, we were shown evidence, supporting depositions, exhibits and testimony, things like that. Please provide those, thank you.

The MacNN Grand Jury will be convening Thursdays from 10:00 A.M. - 2:00 P.M. for the next three months. Prosecutors, please be prepared to present.

Just in case you don't believe any of it. Which you won't. I have links at the bottom of the post that contain the facts I posted.

O rly? You figured that out based on what? Here's a news flash for you, I have yet to offer an opinion on the topic at hand, nor did I intend to. But nice to know you, in your intuitive way, have figured out what I will or will not believe. Guess what? I believe it's possible that this happened the way you think it did, and I also think it's possible that it did not. I'm willing to wait for this to be tried in Court Martial, where the facts will be presented, in a court of law.

For those of you who don't know what facts are:

Main Entry: fact
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum deed, real happening, something done, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere to do, make
1 : something that has actual existence : a matter of objective reality
2 : any of the circumstances of a case that exist or are alleged to exist in reality : a thing whose actual occurrence or existence is to be determined by the evidence presented at trial —see also finding of fact at FINDING, JUDICIAL NOTICE question of fact at QUESTION, TRIER OF FACT —compare LAW, OPINION

I'm familiar with both the term and definition, thanks all the same.

[[email protected]]

if your familiar with the term and the definition; then you would know that 3 sources are all that is needed for a fact to be true.

I have my sources and my facts, NOT opinions, where are yours??

Just as I thought...........the sound of crickets............or is that the sound of your facts??

The post is on page 4 btw.

[abe]

Consider yourself lucky, kobi.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by kobi

if your familiar with the term and the definition; then you would know that 3 sources are all that is needed for a fact to be true.

I have my sources and my facts, NOT opinions, where are yours??

Just as I thought...........the sound of crickets............or is that the sound of your facts??

The post is on page 4 btw.

You mean the post at 12:31 P.M. on the previous page? Is that the one you meant by "...the middle of this page. The time stamp is 11:31am."?

Didn't I, in the post you just responded to, clearly state that I DO NOT HAVE THE FACTS and as such, will concede that the accusations may well be true, while at the same time understanding that they may not be.

I'll also purpose, using your own standard of evidence, that because Pres. Bush provided three (actually more than three and it was Colin Powell presenting them on GWB's behalf) sources to substantiate his claims of weapons of mass destruction, that the claims ARE true?

See, you've decided what I think about this, but you couldn't be more wrong. I'm a Marine vet. I took an oath, same as these Marines accused:

I (state your name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

If they did what they are accused of, they broke that solemn oath. And they deserve to get punished under the U.C.M.J. Have you looked to see what the penalty is for what they are accused of? They have the right to a trial, whether you have made up your mind or not.

In addition, if these Marines did what they are accused of, the have violated the Code of Conduct, specifically Article VI:

I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free.

If these Jarheads broke the Oath and broke the Code, then I hope they are punished to the fullest extent under the U.M.C.J. Have you found out what that penalty is yet?

But if you still doubt my feelings on this, since you obviously know me oh-so-well, I'll tell you a quick story from my youth. When I was in high school, I had to write a paper for Social Studies about an "American Hero". Easy enough, right? Except I was still fairly new to this country at the time, so I had to do some research to pick someone I thought truly a hero. Sure, I knew George Washington and the Revolutionary guys, but everyone was doing them, and I took it as an opportunity to learn a little more about the people that were willing to sacrifice for this country. So I picked Hugh Thompson Jr. Know the name? Probably not. But do a little research, because I assure you it's relevant to the topic at hand.

And since you started of this thread blaming the wrong branch of the service, excuse me if I don't take your sources as gospel. I can wait for a jury to pass judgement, it's really not my place, nor is it yours.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by abe

my god abe! what OS is that!?

Findings counter claims by Marines

WASHINGTON - A military investigator uncovered evidence in February and March that contradicted repeated claims by Marines that Iraqi civilians killed in Haditha last November had been the victims of a roadside bomb, according to a senior military official in Iraq.

Among the evidence that conflicted with the Marines' story were death certificates that showed all the victims had gunshot wounds, mostly to the head and chest, the official said.

The inquiry, being led by Col. Gregory Watt, an Army officer in Baghdad, was the first official investigation into an episode first uncovered by Time magazine in January and that American military officials now say appears to have been an unprovoked attack by the Marines that killed 24 Iraqi civilians. The results of Watt's investigation have not previously been disclosed.

When Watt described the findings on March 9 to Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, senior ground commander in Iraq, it raised enough questions about the Marines' veracity that Chiarelli referred the matter to the senior Marine commander, who ordered a criminal investigation.

The findings by Watt also prompted Chiarelli to order a parallel investigation into whether senior Marine officers and enlisted personnel had engaged in a cover-up.

i'm glad the official investigation is under way. this kind of behaviour (which, sadly, some on this forum have pre-emptively condoned or actively called for) will not be tolerated and those responsible will be brought to justice.

what's done is done and our only hope, my only hope is that justice will be served and that every effort will be taken that this sort of vigilante 'judge, jury, executioner'-type action does not occur again.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Why is it that the same folks who are bitching about an alleged Marine shooting are conveniently silent whenever insurgents blow up children and women[/url]?

The reason for this is that the terrorists have stated as their goal and tactic, the killing of civilians for the purpose of revenge and spreading fear, while the US-marines have not.

So the killing of civilians by terrorists as gruesome as it is, is their normal state of action and behaviour and within their own rules, while the killing of civilians by marines is not only gruesome but also an anormal state of action and behaviour and a violation of their own rules.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Is this true, have the marines really gone on a revenge-rampage against innocent civilians, a whole 24 of them for one (!) marine that was killed by a roadsidebomb?

These aren't just the run of the mill army-soldiers, these are the marines, the supposedly most disciplined and best trained soldiers the US-military has, and despite this they went on a rampage?

If true, this is really sick, and by this act they would have placed themselves on the same level as the terrorists (even lower, because they violated their own rules).

But there is another thing that is even much worse. Yes, murdering civilians for the need of taking revenge is bad enough on its own merit, but worse is the coverup that followed and the lies (that the civilians died in the roadsidebombing).

By this coverup, the rescpective bureaucracies and administration would have made themselves complices of this act of revenge against civilians, and giving out the signal that it isn't that bad to do this, and equally a very bad signal to send to the iraqis and their new government, as well as to the whole islamic world.

The invasion in Iraq was justified in the name of freedom, democracy, human rights... that's why the american military, the marines, the navy, the airforce, the Pentagon and the administration has to conduct with the highest possible ideals, honesty and justice, and if the case happens that some snapping marines overreact and trespass, everything must be done to bring it to light, to punish the guilty and to ask for forgivance, so that everyone knows that the act was an out of the norm act, not in any way condoned by the US...

Unfortunately that's not what happened.

(This above has only merit, if the investigation reveals that the marines were indeed guilty of manslaughter.)

Taliesin

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by kobi

That's all the proof a grand jury will need, so it should be enough for this board.

No, what a grand jury (under the UCMJ, it is called an Article 32 hearing) would need is the completed official investigation. You can't indict someone based on a newspaper article.

Journalists are often wildly wrong and a newspaper article is not "reasonable suspicion." A petit jury (under the UCMJ it is called a courts martial) would require a lot more evidence, even above and beyond that needed to launch an indictment. The standard then is beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm curious about your background, since you seem to have an un-lawyerly indifference to legal process. Would you mind filling us in? I have figured out that J-1 means that you are here on a student visa. Are you an LLM student, or a JD?

If you are an international LLM student, I would urge you to take as many regular JD classes as possible. It was my observation in law school that many international LLM students like to take mostly international law or business classes. That is fine, but after a year of those you still aren't equipped with the basic differences between the US legal system and the system they knew from their home systems. I had to tutor a group of civil law students in their last class before graduation because they still didn't understand the common law concept of precedent. Without that understanding (covered in first year JD classes), American law is a mystery to a civil law lawyer.

Here, you might want to talk to some JD students or your professors about the US criminal justice system. The UCMJ replicates most of the civilian procedures, and all of the civilian constitutional protections. If you understood that, you would not say what you said above.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

I can wait for a jury to pass judgement, it's really not my place, nor is it yours.

Normally I would think the same, wait till the judgment passes, but from what I've heard, it was the military itself that leaked this informations we are discussing here in order to prepare the public of the probable condemning outcome of the judgment.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

That wasn't meant to be snide, it just is what it is. If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, you'll find that resorting to personal attacks will rarely if ever bolster your position. Instead it just makes you look desperate and uninformed. The impression is that you have nothing to offer the debate, so you resort to vitriol instead of countering the others stance. It's not effective, as a matter of fact it's counterproductive.

And that is why I stopped replying.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by kobi

I can't believe spliffdaddy's post. Why would any person say something like that? It's thinking like that causes hate. The hated of Americans around the world. Here's a clue guys, it's not our job to police the world. It's not our right to kill because we can. It's not our right to build nations when we can't take care of our own.

Because doing something like that WILL save the lives of our troops. It's much like that NBC video trying to paint our soldier who killed a wounded INSURGENT. Why? So none of his comrads could possibly get killed by a bomb that the insurgent may detonate so he could not only kill himself but more of our soldiers. Causes hate? The US doesn't need to go to war to cause hate for us in this world. They just look at our decadance, our immorality, our freedoms and they HATE the US. We don't need to start a war with them to hate us. You are right it is NOT our right to kill because we can. We Kill because 1. IT'S A WAR. In a war people get killed. 2. Unfortunately in a war collateral damage WILL occur. Is it sad? YES. Does it Happen? YES.

If the media we had today reported during WW2 our soldiers would have been made out to look like criminals. During on incident durring WW2 I believe it was on Okinawa or one of the smaller Islands the US troops slaughtered an entire Japanese village so that they could KILL the Japanese soldiers who were hiding in the town. If the media of today was reporting that those troops would be brought up on charges while they were only doing their job and trying to NOT get killed themselves.

You are right it is NOT our job to polilce the world. The interesting thing is while the USA is so "hated" who is one of if not THE first country countries turn to when countries need help? Not Poland, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or many other countries. They turn to the US. If we need to take care of out own country first we should stop giving "AID" to other countries. We could use the BILLIONS we send to other countries to help our own. Why help anyone else?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Actually I agree with you 100% here, it's just that Kevin was really ticking me off by not... 'absorbing' what I had said,

No, I absorbed it fine. I just don' t agree with you. I Mean no ill will towards you. But come on, you were being a bit obnoxious.

and then running away from the argument claiming that I did not know anything about the history of the situation when I had clearly outlined the historical facts in my post.

Run away? No. I left. After requesting you to stop the childishness and dishonesty over and over again. And you ADMITTED that you weren't old enough at that time to know what was going on.

Reading it real quick wont gain you any real insight BTW. And you weren't attacking me with facts, BUT SPIN and personal attacks. As others in here pointed out.

I have on problem with you as a person. This is the first time I think I have seen you react this way as far as I know.

If you'd like to continue the discussion in a civilized manner, I am all for it.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by typoon

Because doing something like that WILL save the lives of our troops. It's much like that NBC video trying to paint our soldier who killed a wounded INSURGENT. Why? So none of his comrads could possibly get killed by a bomb that the insurgent may detonate so he could not only kill himself but more of our soldiers. Causes hate? The US doesn't need to go to war to cause hate for us in this world. They just look at our decadance, our immorality, our freedoms and they HATE the US. We don't need to start a war with them to hate us. You are right it is NOT our right to kill because we can. We Kill because 1. IT'S A WAR. In a war people get killed. 2. Unfortunately in a war collateral damage WILL occur. Is it sad? YES. Does it Happen? YES.

If the media we had today reported during WW2 our soldiers would have been made out to look like criminals. During on incident durring WW2 I believe it was on Okinawa or one of the smaller Islands the US troops slaughtered an entire Japanese village so that they could KILL the Japanese soldiers who were hiding in the town. If the media of today was reporting that those troops would be brought up on charges while they were only doing their job and trying to NOT get killed themselves.

You are right it is NOT our job to polilce the world. The interesting thing is while the USA is so "hated" who is one of if not THE first country countries turn to when countries need help? Not Poland, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or many other countries. They turn to the US. If we need to take care of out own country first we should stop giving "AID" to other countries. We could use the BILLIONS we send to other countries to help our own. Why help anyone else?

Blind patriotism at it's worst. But then, that all you guys have left unfortunately,

[[email protected]]

Amen Von. It's clear that the blind are leading the blind. All they have left to say are personal attacks.

It's quite sad in fact. I thought this is America. The land of the free. Let me amend that. It's the land of the free; as long as your on their(right wing) side. Such bulls*it.

You could speak truth until your blue in the face. (Yes, water is wet. It is. Feel it.) Some people on here wouldn't see it.

Everybody read the news today. The White House has gotten involved in the Haditha story. Wow, I can't wait the spin from them on the subject. Tony Snow should get a raise for this spin story.

I'm over this topic, I won't be commenting from here out.

Thanks for the banter it for the most part has been fun.

I'm just sick of the personal attacks. I shouldn't have to prove my background or my character to anyone. I'll leave it at that.

Feel proud boys, your doing just what the Bush regime wants you to do. Supress the truth. If you say a lie enough times, it can become the truth.

What's going to happen when the left stops asking questions?? Did anybody read 1984? Or did we burn all the copies??

Learn from history and don't make the same mistakes. Simple huh? Hopefully the future won't make the same mistakes this country has made this time. Wait didn't we say that same thing about Germany after WWII?? Wasn't that was the reason that the UN was started?? To prevent one country from getting having too much power?? And here we are. I guess we didn't learn at all.

Have fun guys, fight the good fight. I'm out.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Normally I would think the same, wait till the judgment passes, but from what I've heard, it was the military itself that leaked this informations we are discussing here in order to prepare the public of the probable condemning outcome of the judgment.

Taliesin

I understand that Tal, but I would still rather wait until they are tried and the evidence is presented before I I start clamoring for them to be hung. As I stated above, I wasn't even a part of this debate, partly because I had nothing to say on the matter, the investigation into whether or not the event took place as reported as well as an investigation into the possible cover-up were already underway, but mostly because this thread was pretty low in the gutter form the start.

It wasn't until I called Kobi on his "spelling doesn't matter" thing, which is ridiculous, and the "I "presented all the facts" thing, which he had come nowhere close to doing, and he gladly pointed out that I wouldn't believe the facts anyway (he knows me so well ) that I offered an opinion on the topic.

Even if these guys are acquitted, I'll still base my judgement on the evidence. They are entitled to due process.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by kobi

Amen Von. It's clear that the blind are leading the blind. All they have left to say are personal attacks.

It's quite sad in fact. I thought this is America. The land of the free. Let me amend that. It's the land of the free; as long as your on their(right wing) side. Such bulls*it.

You could speak truth until your blue in the face. (Yes, water is wet. It is. Feel it.) Some people on here wouldn't see it.

Everybody read the news today. The White House has gotten involved in the Haditha story. Wow, I can't wait the spin from them on the subject. Tony Snow should get a raise for this spin story.

I'm over this topic, I won't be commenting from here out.

Thanks for the banter it for the most part has been fun.

I'm just sick of the personal attacks. I shouldn't have to prove my background or my character to anyone. I'll leave it at that.

Feel proud boys, your doing just what the Bush regime wants you to do. Supress the truth. If you say a lie enough times, it can become the truth.

What's going to happen when the left stops asking questions?? Did anybody read 1984? Or did we burn all the copies??

Learn from history and don't make the same mistakes. Simple huh? Hopefully the future won't make the same mistakes this country has made this time. Wait didn't we say that same thing about Germany after WWII?? Wasn't that was the reason that the UN was started?? To prevent one country from getting having too much power?? And here we are. I guess we didn't learn at all.

Have fun guys, fight the good fight. I'm out.

Personal Attacks? Who did I personally attack? I just attacked the Idea. Suppress the truth? Um sorry... A personal attack is too easy.

Just today there is an article that has the headline "Drone's Video May Aid Marine Inquiry." Sorry we need to let all the facts play out before letting our kneejerk reactions take over.

So we don't make the same mistakes again? What mistakes did we make in WW2? We defeated hitler and his allies How is that a mistake? Maybe you are suggesting we made the mistake of joining the war. Why should we have fought against Hitler since it was only Japan that attacked us. You are right we do need to learn from history so we don't make the same mistakes again like letting someone like Adolf Hitler come to power or waiting so long before we enter a war like WW2.

The UN is a useless organization. Run by a bunch of corrupt politicians.

[typoon]

Drone's Video May Aid Marine Inquiry

Footage Shot on Day of Iraq Incident

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 30, 2006; A03

Military investigators piecing together what happened in the Iraqi town of Haditha on Nov. 19 -- when Marines allegedly killed two dozen civilians -- have access to video shot by an unmanned drone aircraft that was circling overhead for at least part of that day, military defense lawyers familiar with the case said in interviews.

It is unclear whether the video obtained from that day's flight captured the violence, said the lawyers, who have consulted with Marines who were there. One lawyer said investigators have reviewed surveillance footage taken hours after the shootings, which showed the Marines returning to the town to remove the bodies of the Iraqis.

Yesterday, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said charges will be issued against troops if the evidence merits it. For now, however, "it would be premature for me to judge" the outcome of the two U.S. military investigations, Pace said on CBS's "The Early Show." "We'll get to the bottom of the investigation and take the appropriate action."

Iraqis who say they witnessed the violence in Haditha have said U.S. troops shot men, women and children at close range in retaliation for the death of a Marine lance corporal in a roadside bombing. The two investigations -- one into the incident and another into allegations that military personnel tried to cover it up -- began this year after news reports challenged an early military statement that the civilians were killed in the bombing.

People familiar with the case say they expect that charges of murder, dereliction of duty and making a false statement will be brought against several Marines.

In addition to video from the drone, investigators have records of radio message traffic between the Marines and a command center, said military defense lawyers who have discussed the investigation with Marines who were at Haditha but who have not yet been formally retained by them.

"There's a ton of information that isn't out there yet," said one lawyer, who, like the others, would speak only on the condition of anonymity because a potential client has not been charged. The radio message traffic, he said, will provide a different view of the incident than has been presented by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and other members of Congress. For example, he said, contrary to Murtha's account, it will show that the Marines came under small-arms fire after the roadside explosion.

Two of the lawyers said the message traffic will show officers in higher headquarters knew early on that a large number of civilians had been killed and that they did not raise alarms.

"The chain of command knew about it," said one, and "the number of deaths was reported" by the commander of the company involved, Capt. Lucas M. McConnell of Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion of the 1st Regiment of the 1st Marine Division.

Lt. Col. Scott Fazekas, a Marine spokesman, said yesterday he could not comment on the reports of drone-aircraft video or other aspects of the case because "the investigation isn't complete." Last month, the Marines relieved of command the battalion commander, Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani, as well as McConnell and another company commander, citing a lack of confidence in their leadership.

The presence of the drone is potentially significant because such surveillance craft are in high demand in Iraq and their use is supervised by senior officers -- which could indicate there was interest among higher officers about what was occurring in Haditha.

One of the military lawyers said Nov. 19 was the 3rd Battalion's "hottest day" in Iraq, and was unusually violent even for al Anbar Province, which is where the insurgency began and where it remains extremely active.

In addition to drone surveillance that day, AV-8 Harriers were dropping bombs, helicopters were evacuating wounded, and a large firefight occurred about one-third of a mile from the site of the civilian shootings, said several people familiar with the investigation.

Also yesterday, the Los Angeles Times reported that a Marine said he photographed at least 15 bodies after the attack, which he said he was not involved in. Lance Cpl. Roel Ryan Briones, the first member of the unit to speak publicly about the incident, told the newspaper that after he took the pictures he helped remove bodies, including that of a young girl who had been shot in the head.

Briones indicated that since returning home to Hanford, Calif., he has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from the corpses he saw and carried that day. "They ranged from little babies to adult males and females," the Times quoted him as saying.

Less than two days after coming home he was charged with stealing a pickup truck, leaving the scene of the accident, driving under the influence of alcohol and resisting arrest, the newspaper said.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by typoon

Maybe you are suggesting we made the mistake of joining the war. Why should we have fought against Hitler since it was only Japan that attacked us.

I'm a little unsure as to exactly what side of this argument you're taking (whether you view this as kobi's point, or your own), but just as an slightly relevent aside: the US fought against Hitler because Germany and the US were at war. It was indeed Japan who attacked first at Pearl Harbour, and the United States wavered on whether to include Germany in their declaration of war. Hitler ended any confusion (against the will of some of his advisors) by joining Japan in declaring war on the United States a short time later. To add to this, the U-boat campaign off the eastern seaboard of the States following this was as clear an attack at the US as any.

So...yeah. There isn't any confusion whether the US should've joined the war, or fought Germany - it was made quite clear that both the West and East were "American Fronts." Perhaps the only confusion is the one you allude to - whether the States waited far too late to join in the first place.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by itistoday

I could create a computer program that behaves just like you:

Code:
// file: conservative.c

#include <stdio.h>

#include "conservative.h"

main() {
while (1) {
switch (state) {
case LOSING_ARGUMENT:
printf("WOW.  What you say is silly!\n");
break;
default:
printf("Bush rules!  Global warming is teh suck!  Families must die!!\n");
}
}
}

Alright, this may have been quoted a few times already, but man...I've got to say this is one of the funniest MacNN posts I've read in a long time. There was another one a few years back - I can't remember who did it, but it was about a concept STD-preventing condom that covered one's balls as well...there was something about a crackhouse in there too I think - that was hilarious as hell, but this runs up there pretty high too.

greg

[abe]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Alright, this may have been quoted a few times already, but man...I've got to say this is one of the funniest MacNN posts I've read in a long time. There was another one a few years back - I can't remember who did it, but it was about a concept STD-preventing condom that covered one's balls as well...there was something about a crackhouse in there too I think - that was hilarious as hell, but this runs up there pretty high too.

greg

Boy, you guys are a laff riot.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by kobi

davesimondot next time that you bend the truth with your falliacy's. Please back it up with something. Anything. Please.

As long as you promise to do the same!

Actually, if you would provide me with a single instance where I posted something false, I'd love to see it.

Originally Posted by kobi

I've listed the facts, I'm still waiting for your facts btw?

You haven't listed facts. Go back and read my post. You posted SOME facts. But you also sprinkled in opinion and pure speculation.

But then again, these days, it's awfully hard to tell the difference since news organizations don't. So I don't blame you.

Originally Posted by kobi

Now go along and let the grown-ups have a conversation.

I think if you ask around I have a pretty good reputation as a grown-up on this board, whether people agree with me or not.

I doubt the same could be said for you. Nice ad hominem, though. Not even subtle with the personal attack.

Read the rules, yet? You might want to.

Originally Posted by kobi

Look up the word fallacy's. That might help you find the truth.

Take your own advice. Look up the word FACT.

Hell, in one post you said you hadn't convicted the Marines and then you turned around and called them murderers. Think about that for a second.

[davesimondotcom]

OK, I'm not going to quote ThinkInsane's specific post where he pwned, but, suffice it to say, TI pwned.

I particularly liked the definition of "emeritus." I, literally, LOLed.

BTW, to those who care, as far as I can see, all of the "right wing" posters on here are saying virtually the same thing, and it can be summed up as this:

"Wait for the facts, and if the Marines in this case broke military code, punish them to the fullest extent of the law."

Seems to make perfect sense.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, I absorbed it fine. I just don' t agree with you. I Mean no ill will towards you. But come on, you were being a bit obnoxious.

You say you absorbed it, but your replies clearly showed you did not. For example, you were in such a rush to refute every single thing I said that you started arguing with a section of my post that had completely agreed with you, and then when I pointed that out, instead of acknowledging it, you told me to re-read the section. Yes, I was being fairly obnoxious to you, but that was only because you had consistently exhibited a complete unwillingness to hear me out.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Run away? No. I left. After requesting you to stop the childishness and dishonesty over and over again. And you ADMITTED that you weren't old enough at that time to know what was going on.

You're still going on about that after I had already addressed this? See, here you go again, forcing me to remind you that we had already discussed this:

Originally Posted by itistoday

I only "admitted" because I was indeed young, and I currently *thought* I knew what the deal was back then from reading history, and here you come spouting nonsense. I have since refreshed my memory and see that you are indeed spouting nonsense.

One doesn't even have to be alive during a period of time to know what had happened.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Reading it real quick wont gain you any real insight BTW. And you weren't attacking me with facts, BUT SPIN and personal attacks. As others in here pointed out.

No one has "pointed out" that I did not use facts. You are the only person in this thread that claims this, and again, this just aggravates me even further. Perhaps if you stopped this lying and denial then I'd debate with you in a more "civilized" manner.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I have on problem with you as a person. This is the first time I think I have seen you react this way as far as I know.

If you'd like to continue the discussion in a civilized manner, I am all for it.

I'll only be civilized with a person who absorbs what he reads and considers it. So far you have only demonstrated that you cannot do this, and you follow it up with lies, saying I don't use facts in my arguments.

If you agree to not do this anymore then perhaps we can try again, although as you pointed out in the other thread, I am indeed trying to escape these forums.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

... the killing of civilians by marines is not only gruesome but also an anormal state of action and behaviour and a violation of their own rules.

No doubt about that. Those proven guilty must face justice. However, I am still amazed at the negative spews I am hearing from folks who never speak of the insurgents' tactics with the same tone.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

Originally Posted by Wikipedia Article

In the early 1870s, President Grant suspended habeas corpus in nine counties in South Carolina, as part of federal civil rights action against the Ku Klux Klan under the 1870 Force Act and 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act.

Grant isn't portrayed in the picture. Even so, that wasn't against the Constitution. Ex-parte Milligan protects State legislation from Military involvement as long as it is capable of functioning. In this case, it wasn't. Racism and biggotry was so rampant in those counties that no member of the Ku Klux Klan would ever be held accountable for any actions of hatred.

Grant was within the Constitution to enact martial law in those counties to protect its citizens.

Originally Posted by placebo1969

Lincoln also ignored Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney's order regarding habeas corpus.

Again, this was a unique situation. Not only was there no presedence for the situation, but it was aboslutely ciritcal to maintain control and order so the Union would not fall apart. There is absolutely no basis for comparison between what Lincoln did (and even Grant) and what Bush is doing.

Originally Posted by placebo1969

I think the same way with Bush.

Perhaps, but I just hope you're not basing your decision on what Lincoln and Grant did. This isn't just Bush, it's been going on for over a decade. Using places like the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp is unconstitutional. Period. There is no justification.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by abe

What you posted opens the door for you to lose this point. It is a tacit admission that the POTUS has to do certain things during wartime that are consistent with his responsibilities and his oath to preserve, protect and defend this country and the Constitution.

Wrong. The Bush Administration is ignoring the Geneva Convention and avoiding the Constitution, not for the protection of U.S. citizens, but for the exploitation of the enemy. There is a very big distinction here.

I will die a free man, by terrorists or by old age; but to hell with a government that takes those freedoms away from me.