How has the Marine Urination fiasco missed Huskerboard?

knapplc said:
Perhaps you should read the definition of Genocide.
http://www.merriam-w...ionary/genocide

We are not intent on destroying a culture. We are targeting specific persons whom we believe are our enemies. If we were engaging in genocide we would simply march through each valley, round up everyone we see, and shoot them.

Dropping bombs from drones is not genocide. It is surgical warfare.
Click to expand...
It seems that I have to keep reposting what I wrote, because poeple who think they are responding to it are really responding to something else.

Sub-Husker said:
If that is what you are saying, then that would be OKaying the genosidal approach to peace.
Click to expand...
By the way Knapplc... The Congress of the United States of America had ratified the Geneva Conventions. Please refer to the definition of Genocide that is part of that treaty, and the list of nations that have approved it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can you give me the Cliff's Notes version of that definition? I don't want to wade through the entire Geneva Convention.

 
I typed a response to Sub's post but it's not here. I must have closed the window before hitting Submit.

Anyway.... Genocide has nothing to do with what we're doing in Afghanistan. We're targeting specific people, not a whole population. If we were intent on genocide we'd round up whole villages and put them to the sword.

Implying that the U.S. is engaged in genocide in Afghanistan is like saying anyone who commits murder is guilty of genocide. It's not the same thing.

 
knapplc said:
Sub-Husker said:
Sub-Husker said:
We don't know all the facts leading up to the death of the four Blackwater contractors, but if I was a betting person I would wager on the side that they deserved what they got.
Click to expand...
knapplc said:
I don't think anyone is having trouble comprehending your statement. It seems as if you intended to say something other than what you said. The phrase "they deserved what they got" is not ambiguous. It's not a reading comprehension problem, but it probably is a miscommunication in some way.
Click to expand...
Really... I give the f#*k up.
Click to expand...
I, along with many other people, do not see how I am misinterpreting what you're saying here.

Maybe you just need a reset? Rephrase? I don't get it.
Click to expand...
You are ignoring that he said "IF I WAS A BETTING MAN". that means he doesn't know they did something to deserve it, but he thinks chances are better that they did than didn't. BW has behaved very poorly in it's past, so that's why he'd bet against them. So he is between 51-99% sure they deserved it. Many here are assuming he meant 99% or close to it...that's not a fair assumption. If you want him to clarify, then simply ask for it.

People are simply putting words in his mouth. Go by what he actuallly said and what it technically means and not what you want it to mean.

There is nothing more to this...it's THIS simple.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We really need to parse words to this degree to make a point? Are we going to debate the meaning of "is" next? :facepalm:

 
knapplc said:
We really need to parse words to this degree to make a point? Are we going to debate the meaning of "is" next? :facepalm:
Click to expand...

well he went on to explain what he meant and it was you guys that wouldn't accept it. you guys really owe him an appolgy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cactusboy said:
knapplc said:
We really need to parse words to this degree to make a point? Are we going to debate the meaning of "is" next? :facepalm:
Click to expand...

well he went on to explain what he meant and it was you guys that wouldn't accept it. you guys really owe him an apolgy.
Click to expand...

You gotta be kidding me.

blues-brothers.gif


 
knapplc said:
Cactusboy said:
knapplc said:
We really need to parse words to this degree to make a point? Are we going to debate the meaning of "is" next? :facepalm:
Click to expand...

well he went on to explain what he meant and it was you guys that wouldn't accept it. you guys really owe him an apolgy.
Click to expand...

You gotta be kidding me.

blues-brothers.gif
Click to expand...

LOL well didn't he try over and over to explain what he meant, the same thing I just explained, right after the outraged started and everyone just looked past it?

 
His explanation was saying the same thing over and over, and claiming people didn't get it. And your 51%-99% explanation was silly.

 
knapplc said:
Anyway.... Genocide has nothing to do with what we're doing in Afghanistan. We're targeting specific people, not a whole population. If we were intent on genocide we'd round up whole villages and put them to the sword.
Click to expand...
Did you read Article Two?

knapplc said:
Implying that the U.S. is engaged in genocide in Afghanistan is like saying anyone who commits murder is guilty of genocide. It's not the same thing.
Click to expand...
Few people cause the murder of thousands of people, so it is not like that.

 
Back
Top