How has the Marine Urination fiasco missed Huskerboard?

I know a guy in the army over there. Never once heard him mention anything about targeting every male Pashtun. Works in Intelligence, so he'd have a pretty good idea who the targets are.

It just seems very odd that we would blow a gasket over the term "anti-Semite" yet so casually toss out - and defend - an accusation that American troops are engaged in an atrocity like genocide. Double-standard.

 
Sub-Husker said:
Pashtuns have been targeted, to the point where every male in the countryside is considered a hostile militant.
Click to expand...
knapplc said:
I know a guy in the army over there. Never once heard him mention anything about targeting every male Pashtun. Works in Intelligence, so he'd have a pretty good idea who the targets are.
It just seems very odd that we would blow a gasket over the term "anti-Semite" yet so casually toss out - and defend - an accusation that American troops are engaged in an atrocity like genocide. Double-standard.
Click to expand...
I stand by what I said.

1) I did not say all Pastuns, but that the population in general has been targeted.

2) I used the world considered to be a militant, not targeted for assassination.

Sure you could a$$-u-me that I meant something stronger than what I said. You seem overly zealous to assume the worst meaning that fits the agenda of what you can easily reply to. How about you take a deep breath ank ask for clarification first? But if I were a betting man, I'd guess that you won't.

 
Sub, you used the word "genocide." You directed me to the Geneva Convention definition. When I questioned why, you asserted that I had to read it, and specifically Article 2. I'm not putting any other meaning on that word than what you said.

:dunno

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
Sub, you used the word "genocide." You directed me to the Geneva Convention definition. When I questioned why, you asserted that I had to read it, and specifically Article 2. I'm not putting any other meaning on that word than what you said.
Click to expand...
Actually the words I used were "genocidal approach". That differs from outright genocide, to which the Geneva Conventions (approved by congress) differs from the Mirriam Webster dictionary (thier definition not approved by congress).

Never did I say that the entire ethinic group was targeted for extermination, but that the attacks on them fit the GC language.

Until we see a printed version of the rules of engagement and case studies of how they were applied, we won't know for sure.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sub-Husker said:
Sub-Husker said:
Pashtuns have been targeted, to the point where every male in the countryside is considered a hostile militant.
Click to expand...
knapplc said:
I know a guy in the army over there. Never once heard him mention anything about targeting every male Pashtun. Works in Intelligence, so he'd have a pretty good idea who the targets are.
It just seems very odd that we would blow a gasket over the term "anti-Semite" yet so casually toss out - and defend - an accusation that American troops are engaged in an atrocity like genocide. Double-standard.
Click to expand...
I stand by what I said.

1) I did not say all Pastuns, but that the population in general has been targeted.

2) I used the world considered to be a militant, not targeted for assassination.

Sure you could a$$-u-me that I meant something stronger than what I said. You seem overly zealous to assume the worst meaning that fits the agenda of what you can easily reply to. How about you take a deep breath ank ask for clarification first? But if I were a betting man, I'd guess that you won't.
Click to expand...

#1 is really funny. That is like Al qaeda saying I didn't say all Americans just the American population. If you are going to target the population in general wouldn't that be all of them? Maybe you need to rethink what you are trying to say. If they are militants wouldn't we target them for assassination? Or are you one of those who feel we just target women and children? :dunno

 
Sub-Husker said:
Because so far you have been nothing but a muck-raking troll.
based on your reacp, that does not speak highly for your ability to process information.

Because so far you have been nothing but a muck-raking troll.
Click to expand...
Please feel free to explain it to those who lack your apparently keen ability to process information.

Throw in what you believe the definition of troll to be as well as yours seems to differ somewhat from the majority of us who don't subsist on breathing gas. Pointing out your hypocrisy is hardly trolling.

 
Muck said:
Sub-Husker said:
Because so far you have been nothing but a muck-raking troll.
based on your reacp, that does not speak highly for your ability to process information.

Because so far you have been nothing but a muck-raking troll.
Click to expand...
Please feel free to explain it to those who lack your apparently keen ability to process information.

Throw in what you believe the definition of troll to be as well as yours seems to differ somewhat from the majority of us who don't subsist on breathing gas. Pointing out your hypocrisy is hardly trolling.
Click to expand...
Muck, look out the other half of the dynamic duo will be gunning for you....heh

 
Muck said:
Sub-Husker said:
Because so far you have been nothing but a muck-raking troll.
based on your reacp, that does not speak highly for your ability to process information.

Because so far you have been nothing but a muck-raking troll.
Click to expand...
Please feel free to explain it to those who lack your apparently keen ability to process information.

Throw in what you believe the definition of troll to be as well as yours seems to differ somewhat from the majority of us who don't subsist on breathing gas. Pointing out your hypocrisy is hardly trolling.
Click to expand...

You must rate pretty high to be called a muck-raking troll twice. I am guessing when the new polls comes out on Monday you may be #1. Wooheeey, congratulations!! :wasted

 
Back
Top