Human shield gets Fined?

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Munkii
Why not? It works in the US.. from both sides.

Really?  Give me an example.

[Munkii]

Originally posted by Martlet
Really?  Give me an example.

Okay, Right wing example.

WMD's in IRAQ.  So far, no basis in fact other than some faked intelligence report.  Was accepted as fact long enough to send us to war in Iraq.


Okay Left wing example.

Clinton had plenty of things he told the US that was accepted, later it turned out it wasn't true.  I'm going to go into specific example's, but we all know they are here.  We could go with he didn't have sexual relations.  Was accepted as fact until he admitted recieving oral sex.  Everything always goes back to that.

You see the reason is, 95% of American's* believe anything their political affiliation tells them too with blind loyalty out of hatred for the other party.  A good 20%* believe everything everyone tells them.


*Reflect's personal opinion on % no formal stuides given.

[Rude]

Originally posted by Torque
All of a sudden it's a moral question, although when Reagan was protecting Saddam's regime for years it was just good economics.

Nice try....compare apples to apples, or does convenience drive your arguments?

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Munkii
Okay, Right wing example.

WMD's in IRAQ.  So far, no basis in fact other than some faked intelligence report.  Was accepted as fact long enough to send us to war in Iraq.


Okay Left wing example.

Clinton had plenty of things he told the US that was accepted, later it turned out it wasn't true.  I'm going to go into specific example's, but we all know they are here.  We could go with he didn't have sexual relations.  Was accepted as fact until he admitted recieving oral sex.  Everything always goes back to that.

You see the reason is, 95% of American's* believe anything their political affiliation tells them too with blind loyalty out of hatred for the other party.  A good 20%* believe everything everyone tells them.


*Reflect's personal opinion on % no formal stuides given.

Apparently, you need to take the same remedial English course before you start flapping your gums.  I said "Maybe in Finland you can throw out an accusation with out any basis and have it be accepted as fact. "

In your first example, they specifically said "WMD".  The accusation may or may not turn out to be wrong, but it was a direct accusation and had a basis.

Your second example wasn't an accusation at all.  It was a lie in defense of an accusation.

[Munkii]

Originally posted by Martlet
Apparently, you need to take the same remedial English course before you start flapping your gums.  I said "Maybe in Finland you can throw out an accusation with out any basis and have it be accepted as fact. "

In your first example, they specifically said "WMD".  The accusation may or may not turn out to be wrong, but it was a direct accusation and had a basis.

Your second example wasn't an accusation at all.  It was a lie in defense of an accusation.

Okay.. here we go.  Let's look at your quote,  "Maybe in Finland you can throw out an accusation with out any basis and have it accepted as fact"  Okay exaclty what I thought it said.  I said WMD in Iraq, there was no proof, therefore it was an accusation.  Following me?  Okay after the accusation, we were continually goaded into accepting it as fact after the SotU speech.  We eventually sent out troops to Iraq, in lieu of weapons inspectors reporting that there were no WMD, to find the WMD.  This is an obvious case of this happening.

Point to me where you said "Maybe in Finland you can throw out an accusation with out any basis and have it accepted as fact until Jesus comes back and sends you all to hell"  There was no time restraint.  It's been proven people believed it as fact.  If we find WMD then it is a fact, until then it's still just an accusation.

I admit I had a hard time finding an example for the Left wing, probably because I'm more left wing in my views.  But that alone prove's my point, because I know everything I've been told by the Left wing isn't fact, but I cannot come up with a specific example because I believed it.  I'm sure you could come up with many.

[Puke]

Okay exaclty what I thought it said. I said WMD in Iraq, there was no proof, therefore it was an accusation.  -Munkii

Not really.  After Gulf War 1 Iraq had to report all its weapons and then show that they had been destroyed.  Iraq could not (would not) provide evidence of the destruction of many of the items listed in their own report and thus were actually in violation of the cease fire (Gulf War 1 never truly ended, it just paused if you read the wording.)  
And similar to what Lazs once stated, we cannot locate Bin Ladin or Saddam Hussein but does that mean they do not exist?  Biological agents can hide in a hole indefinitely but people cannot.  We may never find the missing WMD's, but that does not mean they do not exist and again, the burdeon of proof was on Iraq to show they had been destroyed which they never did.  I wish people would wise up to that.

[Munkii]

Originally posted by Puke
Not really.  After Gulf War 1 Iraq had to report all its weapons and then show that they had been destroyed.  Iraq could not (would not) provide evidence of the destruction of many of the items listed in their own report and thus were actually in violation of the cease fire (Gulf War 1 never truly ended, it just paused if you read the wording.)  
And similar to what Lazs once stated, we cannot locate Bin Ladin or Saddam Hussein but does that mean they do not exist?  Biological agents can hide in a hole indefinitely but people cannot.  We may never find the missing WMD's, but that does not mean they do not exist and again, the burdeon of proof was on Iraq to show they had been destroyed which they never did.  I wish people would wise up to that.

Well Gulf War 1 wasn't a Gulf War if you read the wording, but that's not the point.  I agreed that Sadam had WMD, I also agree that he may still and probably does have WMD, but have we found any yet? No, therefore it was an accusation used to send us into battle that was accepted as fact.  The burden of proof was on Iraq to show they had been destroyed yes, but now the burden of proof is on us to show they weren't, we attacked him not the other way around this time.  Really though, I guess we don't need to justify any of our actions do we?  I've never agreed on the war on Iraq on any level, not because I think war is wrong, but I don't like the timing of it and I don't like looking like the aggressor.



*pardon any spelling mistakes and the huge paragraph but I'm typing with one hand and eating with the other.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Munkii
Okay.. here we go.  Let's look at your quote,  "Maybe in Finland you can throw out an accusation with out any basis and have it accepted as fact"  Okay exaclty what I thought it said.  I said WMD in Iraq, there was no proof, therefore it was an accusation.  Following me?  Okay after the accusation, we were continually goaded into accepting it as fact after the SotU speech.  We eventually sent out troops to Iraq, in lieu of weapons inspectors reporting that there were no WMD, to find the WMD.  This is an obvious case of this happening.

Point to me where you said "Maybe in Finland you can throw out an accusation with out any basis and have it accepted as fact until Jesus comes back and sends you all to hell"  There was no time restraint.  It's been proven people believed it as fact.  If we find WMD then it is a fact, until then it's still just an accusation.

I admit I had a hard time finding an example for the Left wing, probably because I'm more left wing in my views.  But that alone prove's my point, because I know everything I've been told by the Left wing isn't fact, but I cannot come up with a specific example because I believed it.  I'm sure you could come up with many.

WMD was an accusation, correct.  However, it had basis, as Puke said below.  It was also based on fact.

Fact=Iraq had WMD.
Fact=They were required to show proof of their destruction or use.
Fact=They didn't.

Whether or not they have WMD is irrelevant, the accusation had a basis.

Care to try again, or was your comment just a "hit and run"?

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Martlet
I HAVE been to Guantanamo Bay, have you?

You love to dance, don't you?  You bounce around without answering the question.  Am I speaking at a reading level that is too high for you?

WHAT HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS HAVE BEEN BROKEN?

I obviously meant about being there as a prisoner, not as a visitor of some kind.
I doubt you were held there against your will and cuffed and chained at times.

You're getting rather childish, mr. troll.

[miko2d]

It appears all the woman did was visit the country. She did not give any help or cooperation to the government, etc. By being a "human shield" she did not affect US plans in the least, so the pretext under which she was there is irrelevant to the charges against her.

 An intersting implication comes to my mind. A government claims that a regime is evil and deserves punishment, but the citisens are forbidden under threat of punishment to visit that country and see for themselves if the information is correct.
 The only people who can have first-hand information are now intelligence and special forces operatives in employ of teh government.

 Sounds like Iron Curtain to me.

 Should the citizens have a right to independently verify what their government is telling them? It would have come in handy at times.

 miko

[Munkii]

Originally posted by Martlet
WMD was an accusation, correct.  However, it had basis, as Puke said below.  It was also based on fact.

Fact=Iraq had WMD.
Fact=They were required to show proof of their destruction or use.
Fact=They didn't.

Whether or not they have WMD is irrelevant, the accusation had a basis.

Care to try again, or was your comment just a "hit and run"?

Okay, but we were told they were actively producing WMD, and that they were an immediate threat to the US.  Again it has not been founded, but was accepted as fact.  Your of course going to disagree with this.  This is why political debate's never work.  Candidate's never win or lose based on issue's they win based on voter turn out.

The statement I made earlier remain's in my mind true.. does it make it a fact? No it's a personal opinion that you are trying to argue with me as a fact.  Neither of us will win, although I'm sure you will claim to because I'm "giving up".  Truth of the matter is neither of us will ever give up ground because the whole issue is one of wording.

I'm not going to bring up issues for us to argue about when neither of us will give in.  We will either argue or agree, there will be no concessions made on either side.  Neither of us are trying to learn from the other we are just spewing forth things that have been told to us by our political affiliations.  Arguing politics is pointless.  Everyone does it to change the other and it always just turns into a name calling match with never any "enlightenment occuring".  I fully expect you to see this as a win for your side, and expect the gloating to commence.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Munkii
Okay, but we were told they were actively producing WMD, and that they were an immediate threat to the US.  Again it has not been founded, but was accepted as fact.  Your of course going to disagree with this.  This is why political debate's never work.  Candidate's never win or lose based on issue's they win based on voter turn out.

The statement I made earlier remain's in my mind true.. does it make it a fact? No it's a personal opinion that you are trying to argue with me as a fact.  Neither of us will win, although I'm sure you will claim to because I'm "giving up".  Truth of the matter is neither of us will ever give up ground because the whole issue is one of wording.

I'm not going to bring up issues for us to argue about when neither of us will give in.  We will either argue or agree, there will be no concessions made on either side.  Neither of us are trying to learn from the other we are just spewing forth things that have been told to us by our political affiliations.  Arguing politics is pointless.  Everyone does it to change the other and it always just turns into a name calling match with never any "enlightenment occuring".  I fully expect you to see this as a win for your side, and expect the gloating to commence.

See, I don't think this is a "win", because I don't think you fully understand what I'm trying to say.  The origin of my part in this discussion was that Fishu made the claim that the US was violating civil rights laws.  I asked for a specific example of which law was being broken, and how.  He couldn't provide it, so I said it was an accusation without basis.  You said both sides do that here in the US, too, so I asked for examples.

Whether or not I agree with the presence of WMD is irrelevant to this discussion.  The fact remains that when the accusation of WMD was made, we had a basis for doing so in the form of past experiences and intelligence sources.  Regardless of the accuracy of those sources, they did provide a basis for our accusations.  So it isn't that I disagree with your points, but that the discussion has gone into a place that is no longer relevant to my question.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Fishu
I obviously meant about being there as a prisoner, not as a visitor of some kind.
I doubt you were held there against your will and cuffed and chained at times.

You're getting rather childish, mr. troll.

Childish?  We are getting ready to hit page 3 and you still have yet to validate your accusation.  I'm coming to the conclusion that you are just regurgitating what you hear your mother say, and can't back it up.  Oddly, that is exactly what you accuse us of doing.

[ccvi]

Originally posted by Martlet
See, I don't think this is a "win", because I don't think you fully understand what I'm trying to say.  The origin of my part in this discussion was that Fishu made the claim that the US was violating civil rights laws.  I asked for a specific example of which law was being broken, and how.  He couldn't provide it, so I said it was an accusation without basis.  You said both sides do that here in the US, too, so I asked for examples.

The afghan POWs. If I remember correctly.

According to the US they were no POWs. The rights granted to POWs were not applied to them (e.g. not to show them for public amusement). So they were civilians. But they were not treated as civilians either.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by ccvi
The afghan POWs. If I remember correctly.

According to the US they were no POWs. The rights granted to POWs were not applied to them (e.g. not to show them for public amusement). So they were civilians. But they were not treated as civilians either.

And what human rights laws are being broken in GTMO?