Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
fucking neocon propaganda...but what about israel?

Home // Israel Corner


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2222

PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
jusdeadphunky wrote:

what do you mean in regards to this?

they dropped it from helicopters with the intent to burn people alive


Trying to burn military targets is okay (under geneva).
Trying to burn civilians isn't.


yes i shot my machine gun into a crowd of people leaving the patriots game...i was trying to hit "terrorists"
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The plea for that one is 'not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect'.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
jusdeadphunky wrote:

in the dirty bomb scenario, a conventional explosion would occur inflicting immediate damage, but the most significant damage would occur from the radiological matter that would be disbursed by the explosion, rendering a certain radius from the explosion uninhabitable for thousands of years waiting for the half life to occur.


I know what a dirty bomb is. Thanks.

Quote:

the same thing happens with DU, except no one wants to admit this.


No, not "the same thing". As ive said before, it's definitely an environmental hazard. But it's not on par with dirty bombs. Different substances emit radiation at different rates.

Quote:

there are already areas of iraq documented to be so polluted from DU that they are unsafe for humans to be in them


I don't doubt it.
Back to top
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2222

PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
The plea for that one is 'not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect'.


if that were the case one would hope to have swallowed sianaid before making it to a court room, you know what i meant.
Back to top
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2222

PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:

No, not "the same thing". As ive said before, it's definitely an environmental hazard. But it's not on par with dirty bombs. Different substances emit radiation at different rates.


you are stubborn like an old man...

if DU accumulation has made certain areas of iraq unsafe for humans to be in, and these areas will remain unsafe for humans either until they get buried by meters of non-contaminated dirt, or the half like of i believe 4,600 years comes, then doesn't it effectively have the same end result as a "dirty bomb" something emitting harmful radiation is something emitting harmful radiation, different rate or not.
Back to top
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2222

PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
im going to bed. sweet dreams & goodnight!
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oh thats right, I don't participate in this thread.
Back to top
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2222

PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
Oh thats right, I don't participate in this thread.


why not?
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
jusdeadphunky wrote:
Lester wrote:
Oh thats right, I don't participate in this thread.


why not?


I don't know, just haven't found anything to comment on yet.
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
If used to coerce through fear, then a war is terrorism by definition.

Not as defined by Geneva.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:
exton wrote:
If used to coerce through fear, then a war is terrorism by definition.

Not as defined by Geneva.


I'll stick with the dictionary on this one.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
See, theres another big problem with a war on terror, terror is not suitably defined.
Back to top
Raibeart
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 533

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
See, theres another big problem with a war on terror, terror is not suitably defined.


Hmmmmm,
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0112-02.htm
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
TrespassersW wrote:
exton wrote:
If used to coerce through fear, then a war is terrorism by definition.

Not as defined by Geneva.

I'll stick with the dictionary on this one.

That's your right of course, but it seems out of character for you. I think it could be argued that a primary function of all armed conflict is to instill a sufficient level of fear of the repercussions of continuing the conflict that the enemy will choose to surrender. That means your definition of war as terrorism could easily be extended to all war, and while that might appeal to any person who considers all war a bad thing, it renders the distinction between a war waged according to Geneva Convention rules and one waged without the safeguards Geneva affords civilians, health workers, journalists, etc. moot. I for one, believe that we need to be able to make that distinction, so for me your extension of the definition of terrorism to include war is untenable. (That's not to say that some acts of war can't be considered terrorism, but that your statement to that effect is too broad.)
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:

That's your right of course, but it seems out of character for you. I think it could be argued that a primary function of all armed conflict is to instill a sufficient level of fear of the repercussions of continuing the conflict that the enemy will choose to surrender.


That's certainly the way a lot of people think of war.

I don't agree, personally. Maybe that's why i don't think war is very useful in most instances. I don't consider war to be a method of coercion, i consider it to be a method of destruction. Have a problem with other people and their civilization? Kill them in sufficient numbers that they can no longer cause a problem, and destroy their infrastructure such that they can't try it again. That's what war is for - not to scare people into submission, but to make sure there's no one left to resist.
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Israel Corner All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 6 of 9

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo!

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites