A Sad Day in Iraq...

[Gonz]

After 40+ years (how old am I anyway?) of paying attention & seeing too much, may have have the blue pill?

 

[Winky]

To conclude that liberalism is a mental illness, or a spiritual dysfunction, is to accurately conclude that the liberal worldview is at odds with the way the universe works, and at odds with health social behavior.

 

[freako104]

and all this time I thought it was just a way a person perceived the world. Never knew it to be a mental illness. Ill have to check the DSM IV

 

[ResearchMonkey]

may want to look at the projected DSM-V

 

[freako104]

when is it going to be released to the public?

 

[Winky]

If you don't get help here
get help somewhere

 

[freako104]

erm no. I dont need help.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Nice try, but if you're being fired upon, you fire back. That's all the proof you need.

please show me how that has anything to do with what I said thanks. Of course you fire on people who are firing on you. where did I argue against that? What I was saying was that no not EVERY arab you run across in this conflict is by definition a war criminal. And NO you cant shoot people simply because they ARE war criminals. That’s why I gave that anecdote about slaughtering allied WAR PRISONERS in word war II. Why do I always have to carefully re-explain my point to you every time? Its usually not that difficult to grasp really.

It's not pretty, and it's not nice, but it's not supposed to be. Too many people have this idea in their heads that war is supposed to be civilized. It's not.

its amazing to me that you will write a post deriding me for being wrong and then say the exact same thing I just said. Yeah I know… war is hell. Thanks again for pointing that out after I did.

we have things like the Geneva Convention, the Laws Of Armed Conflict and the Rules Of Engagement, not to prevent war crimes, but to punish war crimes when the war is over.

again we agree. But we also have these conventions and laws so that our troops will be cognizant AT THE TIME that certain actions are beyond the pale and if you engage in them you risk being considered a war criminal yourself. Shooting a man who you think may be seeking to harm you ISNT (as I said) necessarily within this scope. But killing war criminals arbitrarily as gonz suggested certainly is. And I was simply pointing out no you cant go there. Seems to me that is also what YOU were saying rather vehemently earlier in the thread yourself. So remind me why we are arguing again?

Now guess who get's to prosecute those war crimes? That's right...the ones who win the war. Of course, they're going to minimize their crimes and maximize the enemies, and only a few on either side is going to be honest about how their side acted.

sure. History is written by the victors after all as we all know.

1. McNamara was the one who started all that trouble with war crimes in Vietnam, wasn't he? Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.

eh? he was saying HE was responsible for war crimes. So its more like the pot calling the pot black.

While no person is completely free of blame when it comes to an actual war, McNamara is the last person I'd use in a quote disparaging anybody elses 'war crimes'...especially when that quote was used during his defense of actions during the Vietnam war.

so because he had issues in Vietnam he cant point out that HE thought HE committed war atrocities during world war two? Yer saying hes not in the best position of anyone to say what HE did in retrospect was monstrous and more deserving to be called a war crime then many things that HAVE been called that since then? youll have to explain the logic on this one again im afraid. I don’t really see it. whether or not he committed war crimes in Vietnam is irrelevant to the point being made about world war II.

2. Comparing WWII with the wars being fought today is a big stretch, even for you, TD. Warfare today is (I hate this phrase) much more 'efficient'. The amount of civilian deaths attributed to actual warfare is exponentially smaller than in WWII.

so then you are saying its perfectly reasonable to fire bomb 100,000 civilians in their beds over night but shooting an insurgent who may or may not be threatening you is much more deserving of a war crime investigation? And the logic behind this reasoning is because today we have better more accurate weapons?

Speak your piece. Some will listen, some will ignore, and some will go out and do the exact opposite of what you say. What is upsetting is not the message, but how the message is delivered. If I send you a singing telegram telling you that your father died, along with a box of chocolates and a stripper, I'm quite sure you'd be upset. If I sent a bouquet of flowers to the funeral home, you'd still be upset, but you would acknowledge my sympathetic overture.

if you are offended by straight forward no holds barred delivery then I suggest you don’t read my posts. Take your advice and “ignore”. When I see an injustice ill comment exactly the way I feel. Im not running for office or looking to win popularity contests. If someone makes a ridiculous comment EVEN when filled with anger and passion ill still call em on it if its clearly wrong or over the line. Youll just have to accept this about me. I have no problem when people do the same to me. Of course you’ve gotten to the point where you simply see my posts as a reason to disagree. Irregardless of their content. And frankly I find that to be your problem not mine.

 

[Gato_Solo]

please show me how that has anything to do with what I said thanks. Of course you fire on people who are firing on you. where did I argue against that? What I was saying was that no not EVERY arab you run across in this conflict is by definition a war criminal. And NO you cant shoot people simply because they ARE war criminals. That’s why I gave that anecdote about slaughtering allied WAR PRISONERS in word war II. Why do I always have to carefully re-explain my point to you every time? Its usually not that difficult to grasp really.

Problem is...they will shoot, and scurry into a mosque/school/hospital, and that's supposed to be the end of our shooting back. Different times would have led to just leveling the hospital/school/mosque...even the whole city. We don't do that any more.

its amazing to me that you will write a post deriding me for being wrong and then say the exact same thing I just said. Yeah I know… war is hell. Thanks again for pointing that out after I did.

You didn't point out anything...just that your view of how wars are fought is viewed from a person who has only watched TV for their opinion. Besides. I never meant to says you were wrong. Misguided, perhaps, but not wrong.

again we agree. But we also have these conventions and laws so that our troops will be cognizant AT THE TIME that certain actions are beyond the pale and if you engage in them you risk being considered a war criminal yourself. Shooting a man who you think may be seeking to harm you ISNT (as I said) necessarily within this scope. But killing war criminals arbitrarily as gonz suggested certainly is. And I was simply pointing out no you cant go there. Seems to me that is also what YOU were saying rather vehemently earlier in the thread yourself. So remind me why we are arguing again?

To correct any misconceptions you may have.

eh? he was saying HE was responsible for war crimes. So its more like the pot calling the pot black.

But that's not within the context of this argument. You brought this out to strengthen your point on what's happening today, so I put it back within it's context.

so because he had issues in Vietnam he cant point out that HE thought HE committed war atrocities during world war two? Yer saying hes not in the best position of anyone to say what HE did in retrospect was monstrous and more deserving to be called a war crime then many things that HAVE been called that since then? youll have to explain the logic on this one again im afraid. I don’t really see it. whether or not he committed war crimes in Vietnam is irrelevant to the point being made about world war II.

Thinking you did something and knowing you did something are two totally different things. We both know that, and should judge what happens as it happens, and leave it within the context of when it happens.

so then you are saying its perfectly reasonable to fire bomb 100,000 civilians in their beds over night but shooting an insurgent who may or may not be threatening you is much more deserving of a war crime investigation? And the logic behind this reasoning is because today we have better more accurate weapons?

Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. If you know your target, and can hit your target, with better accuracy, then you are more responsible for the fallout of your actions.

if you are offended by straight forward no holds barred delivery then I suggest you don’t read my posts. Take your advice and “ignore”. When I see an injustice ill comment exactly the way I feel. Im not running for office or looking to win popularity contests. If someone makes a ridiculous comment EVEN when filled with anger and passion ill still call em on it if its clearly wrong or over the line. Youll just have to accept this about me. I have no problem when people do the same to me. Of course you’ve gotten to the point where you simply see my posts as a reason to disagree. Irregardless of their content. And frankly I find that to be your problem not mine.

Fine, but, as I've said throughout this thread...you can't judge todays science with yesterdays forensics. That is exactly what you're doing, and why I am correcting what I see to be an error in judgement.

 

[MrBishop]

Two words "Medulla Oblongata.
From all I've been taught, when the brain is dead, that is dead.
Parts severed from the "Medulla" they do not move.
I'd have to see it to believe it.
and
when a person is dead the "Medulla" is dead.

Bio 101 - take a frog, bend its head forward to about 60%, insert a pin through the Medulla Omblagata and into the brain...stir vigorously.

Place frog on its stomach. Place a bit of tissue with an acidic solution on it's back...the legs will attempt to remove the tissue.

Its a very siliar reaction to someone's hand pulling away from a fire. The signal goes from the hand to the spinal column and immediatly back again. The hand pulls back before the signal reaches the brain.

Scrambling a frogs brain is a good way of doing a vivisection and being able to see the lungs inflate and deflate, the heart beating and the motion of muscles pre-mortem without the skin in the way.

All these examples are in brain-dead animals only.

In the case of dead bodies...the exhalation is a sign of the muscle contraction caused during death (rigor mortis) relaxing. In the case of sitting up, its a case of intestinal gasses caused through bacterial death in the bowels causing a disturbance in the muscles related to bowel movements. The muscles contract automatically.

It's nasty to see.

 

[catocom]

http://dimondandsons.com/qanda.mv?show+28

 

[Gato_Solo]

LOAC, and Geneva Convention details, and their uses in this case...

 

[Gonz]

On Nov. 15, the very day the story of the Fallujah mosque shooting (search) was put into heavy rotation, Lance Cpl. Jeramy Ailes (search) was checking on a group of prisoners, some of whom were wounded, when an insurgent feigning death gunned down the Marine as he approached.

The Fallujah Marines stood mere feet from what they believed to be a live man attempting to pass himself off as dead — precisely the same thing Ailes encountered moments before he was killed. It is that belief that prevents the killing from being treated as an instance of murder. The Marines simply lacked the requisite mental state to have murdered the man on the floor.

Sound familiar?