18
   

WikiLeaks video "Collateral Murder" depicts US military killing civilians in Baghdad

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 04:23 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:

You are lying about my views.


I don't think I am. I think I am describing your views very accurately.

Cycloptichorn
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 04:26 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Oralloy's signature line:

America needs to start killing Italy's honors students -- one for every day that Amanda Knox spends in prison

-----------------------------------

Might this be anywhere close to an indictable offence?


Not in America.

If any Italian officials want to come here and try though, I welcome the attempt. I'll shove a copy of the First Amendment so far up their scumbag asses that they'll be sneezing confetti for the next decade.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 04:27 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
oralloy wrote:

I don't recall saying Iraqis are not people.


Every time you refer to them as 'collateral damages,' that's exactly what you are doing.


No, what I am doing is using a term from the laws of war.




Cycloptichorn wrote:
It is a phrase specifically designed to minimize the importance of killing people.


No, it is a term used to refer to the unintended deaths of civilians in a strike on a military target.




Cycloptichorn wrote:
Besides, it's inaccurate. Collateral damage refers to targets which are damaged outside of the intended target of the attacker; in this case, the intended targets WERE successfully hit. They just were the wrong targets.


See, you do know what it means.

The term collateral damage is broad enough to cover both sorts of incidents.
old europe
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 04:32 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It is a phrase specifically designed to minimize the importance of killing people.


No, it is a term used to refer to the unintended deaths of civilians in a strike on a military target.


In this case, though, no legitimate military target even existed.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 04:33 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:


The term collateral damage is broad enough to cover both sorts of incidents.


It provides a moral cloak for neither.

I don't know why I bother engaging people with such a poorly developed moral compass in conversations like this - you'll never admit that anything we did was wrong, you don't give a **** about civilian deaths, and you don't think we should have done anything different. The ultimate self-justifying mentality. It's rather sociopathic.

Cycloptichorn
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 04:33 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Oralloy wrote:

You are lying about my views.


I don't think I am. I think I am describing your views very accurately.

Cycloptichorn


You are wrong. At least regarding Iraqis.

I don't want to derail this thread with a discussion of Amanda Knox, but your description of my views would be more accurate regarding what I think of citizens of Italy.

(Note: if anyone tries to engage me on the Amanda Knox case in this thread, I will post my reply in the proper thread and only post a link to my reply here.)
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 04:40 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It is a phrase specifically designed to minimize the importance of killing people.


No, it is a term used to refer to the unintended deaths of civilians in a strike on a military target.


In this case, though, no legitimate military target even existed.


But they thought one existed. They were called to the area specifically because American soldiers on the ground reported taking small arms fire from that position. When they got there they saw what appeared to be insurgents preparing to fire a bazooka at the American soldiers who had called in their help.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 04:41 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Oralloy wrote:

The term collateral damage is broad enough to cover both sorts of incidents.


It provides a moral cloak for neither.


Well, it is a legal term. It really has to do with whether the killings were legal or illegal.

Everyone has their own set of moral values, so the question of whether this is moral or immoral is pretty subjective.




Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't know why I bother engaging people with such a poorly developed moral compass in conversations like this - you'll never admit that anything we did was wrong, you don't give a **** about civilian deaths, and you don't think we should have done anything different. The ultimate self-justifying mentality. It's rather sociopathic.

Cycloptichorn


The fact that I do not share your moral values on some issues does not mean I have a poorly developed moral compass.
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 04:45 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
The fact that I do not share your moral values on some issues does not mean I have a poorly developed moral compass.


You are correct, your poorly developed moral compass is not revealed by it's relation to my personal sense of morality. However, it is revealed by your complete lack of caring for the lives of innocents and civilians. This puts you in opposition with 90% of humanity, and it isn't something to be proud of.

I am forced to agree with JTT - your sig is in poor taste and just another sign that you aren't exactly the most moral person in the world...

Cycloptichorn
rabel22
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 07:30 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Speaking of moral compasses where were all you moral people when Busch and company switched from afganistan to Iraq when we all knew he was lieing about weapons of mass destruction. the people at the U. N. were telling everyone who would listen that the Bush people were lieing. The bastards wanted a war and wanted Sadam and were willing to do anything to get him. Well they did so all you moral people should be happy. Talk about being brain washed the U.S citizens dont have anything on the china government. They also extended the Afgan war to at least 10 years and trillions of dollars for nothing but supporting our military industries. We as a people get to pay more taxes for nothing.
dlowan
 
  4  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 08:18 pm
@rabel22,
I don't know where you were, but I was as actively involved as I could be in opposing the war.

Where were you?
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 11:06 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
You are lying about my views.


I think that Cycloptichorn has described you and Finn in a manner that is far far too generous for what you two really are.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 11:09 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Everyone has their own set of moral values,


You missed out completely.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 11:11 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
Everyone has their own set of moral values,


You missed out completely.

Are you kidding? His came with an on/off switch. (It sticks sometimes though...)

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 11:55 pm
@dlowan,
Damn right! I have been against our little wars since vietnaum. And so has my nephew who is going back for his third tour of duty. Some of the military pay a hell of a lot more of a personal price for our "duty" than the majority. One reason I am for the draft. If everyone was involved instead a minority there might be more opposition to our sweet little wars.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 07:39 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I am forced to agree with JTT - your sig is in poor taste and just another sign that you aren't exactly the most moral person in the world...


Nope. My sig is a sign that my moral values are superior to yours.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 07:42 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
You are lying about my views.


I think that Cycloptichorn has described you and Finn in a manner that is far far too generous for what you two really are.


Yes, but you're an evil kook, so you don't count.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 07:56 am
@oralloy,
I'm an evil kook; you, Oralboy support the numerous mass murderers, the numerous war criminals that reside in the US. Given your total disregard for human life, you could well be one yourself. Were you by chance in the military during the Vietnam debacle?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 08:54 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
I'm an evil kook; you, Oralboy support the numerous mass murderers, the numerous war criminals that reside in the US. Given your total disregard for human life, you could well be one yourself. Were you by chance in the military during the Vietnam debacle?


Collateral damage is seldom either murder or a war crime. It certainly isn't in this case.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 09:18 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Collateral damage is seldom either murder or a war crime. It certainly isn't in this case.


We aren't talking about the cases where it isn't. But it must be noted, completely morally bankrupt person that you are, that you even support those situations where it is, a "okay, so my gangster father is a murderer but he gives some money to the church".
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/16/2022 at 03:58:22