Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 dæl wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Both sides have allies.

What would you suggest is more important than the torture of children then?

Isreal's allies don't have the balls to put boots on the ground to help.

Whats more important is survival.

Who needs boots on the ground when you have state of the art equipment giving you a vast tech advantage.

Because an ally who doesn't put boots on the ground is a coward.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:


Even ignoring the vast figure given are you disputing the role of these camps?

Of course not. But misinformed ridiculous hyperbolious factoids tend to come in gang.

It's also disengenuous to think that palestinians wouldn't need actual resistance training, tho...

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Of course not. But misinformed ridiculous hyperbolious factoids tend to come in gang.

Well, if there is anything else that you feel is inaccurate please feel free to point it out.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Both sides have allies.

What would you suggest is more important than the torture of children then?

Isreal's allies don't have the balls to put boots on the ground to help.

Whats more important is survival.

Who needs boots on the ground when you have state of the art equipment giving you a vast tech advantage.

Because an ally who doesn't put boots on the ground is a coward.

Just out of curiosity, which of these are the cowards you reference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_and_Observers#States_involved

And frankly by ally I assume you mean a formal mutual defense agreement exists, who fits that definition and is reneging on their responsibility?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Of course not. But misinformed ridiculous hyperbolious factoids tend to come in gang.

Well, if there is anything else that you feel is inaccurate please feel free to point it out.

Dunno, all I take away from both CIFwatch.com and The Guardian is how both seems to be really gakky sources of information.

And they have a huge hate-boner for each other.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
And they have a huge hate-boner for each other.

That's why I read them both, I figure that the truth is somewhere between them

 Frazzled wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Hold the phone. You can't eat whenever you want in jail?

So much for my crime spree.

Last time I checked jail wasn't preceded by some Kafkaesque military court held in a foreign language while being refused an interpreter, and then, as a child, being threatened with sexual assault, violence and death.

Clearly you haven't been to a Louisiana jail.

I could tell you a story about my day as a witness in a robbery trial in New Orleans that would amuse and horrify while giving an understanding of where the Deep South Judge stereotype came from.

Forgot the minefields in Cuba that's around the US Military Installation there? Its the world largest ACTIVE minefield...around a US Military Installation that was from the beginning a Coal Shoaling Station or something way back in 1920's..when the US Navy still uses coal....hope that guy that's at the Hama's Summer Training Camp keeps forgetting to tell them to pull the "pin" from the RPG round for it to be active.

 Jihadin wrote:
Forgot the minefields in Cuba that's around the US Military Installation there? Its the world largest ACTIVE minefield...around a US Military Installation that was from the beginning a Coal Shoaling Station or something way back in 1920's..when the US Navy still uses coal....hope that guy that's at the Hama's Summer Training Camp keeps forgetting to tell them to pull the "pin" from the RPG round for it to be active.

Or if he settles for telling them to pull out pin and throw

Or to ensure there "backblast" is clear or not near a wall like structure....nothing more funnier then a insurgent flying across the street with a smoking back. No need to mark the target. Just shoot the "smoking insurgent"

The UN has zero credibility. Ethnic cleansing throughout the world, Islamic death cultists murdering and beheading people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Sudan, etc., North Korea engaging in state sponsored executions of minorities, Iran executing homosexuals...

...and all of their resolutions together don't add up to the number passed against Israel. My interest in engaging critics of Israel in intelligent debate is pretty much gone. My response is only, "Too bad...Arabs fought us. They got their asses handed to them. Deal with it. And if you're not from an Arab country, then kindly mind your own fething business. The sun never sets on the hypocrisy of British critics of Israel, and anyone living in the United States is illegally occupying sovereign Iroquois land. Move back to Europe and you'll have a leg to stand on."

Someone going to ppoint out that's bad info due to the 2006 bit at the header.....but the circle diagram make a good kill zone marker....

 Jihadin wrote:
Or to ensure there "backblast" is clear or not near a wall like structure....nothing more funnier then a insurgent flying across the street with a smoking back. No need to mark the target. Just shoot the "smoking insurgent"

"Marking hostile position with smoke...... nevermind"

 Jihadin wrote:
Forgot the minefields in Cuba that's around the US Military Installation there? Its the world largest ACTIVE minefield...

I thought that was the North Korea/South Korea DMZ.

It was. Till South Korea started reclaiming the land for farming....say about 2005ish. They removed most the mines in Western Corrigidor(SP)portion...the one that leads straight to all the American US military Units...besides...best time to invade South Korea....Jan and Feb. Rice paddies are frozen solid to support armor vehicle weight. Literally every road coming south from the DMZ is bottleneck chock point from either end of the valley the road runs down on. They have huge...and I mean huge concrete blocks ready to drop to block the roads.

edit
NOT 2005ish meant 1995

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
My interest in engaging critics of Israel in intelligent debate is pretty much gone. My response is only, "Too bad...Arabs fought us. They got their asses handed to them. Deal with it. And if you're not from an Arab country, then kindly mind your own fething business. The sun never sets on the hypocrisy of British critics of Israel, and anyone living in the United States is illegally occupying sovereign Iroquois land. Move back to Europe and you'll have a leg to stand on."

If those are your arguments, no gak, no one could keep serious while being told that.

A) The Jewish Legion was part of the conquering British force in 1917
B) British rule was mandated by the League of Nations, and the formation of the Israel State was supervised by the UNSCOP, explaining the increased UN interest, since, you know, they were the ones who set up the deal
C) Not being a party to the conflict doesn't invalidate, or diminish the value of your input.
D) Native americans seldom had a concept of land ownership. Most of them had 'track ownership', having dealt with neighbouring communities which herd and which tracks they could each hunt on. Which explains why, when native nations makes request for land ownership, they make ridiculous demands, such as the Wendake chief Big Louis (a VERY moderate indian chief) of the Huron/Wendat nation requesting land the size of France for a population of 8,900 people.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:


If those are your arguments, no gak, no one could keep serious while being told that.

A) The Jewish Legion was part of the conquering British force in 1917
B) British rule was mandated by the League of Nations, and the formation of the Israel State was supervised by the UNSCOP, explaining the increased UN interest, since, you know, they were the ones who set up the deal
C) Not being a party to the conflict doesn't invalidate, or diminish the value of your input.
D) Native americans seldom had a concept of land ownership. Most of them had 'track ownership', having dealt with neighbouring communities which herd and which tracks they could each hunt on. Which explains why, when native nations makes request for land ownership, they make ridiculous demands, such as the Wendake chief Big Louis (a VERY moderate indian chief) of the Huron/Wendat nation requesting land the size of France for a population of 8,900 people.

A) only bolsters the position of Israel's legitimacy.
B) happened a long time ago. What's your point? Times have changed. Israel is now a thriving Democracy in a sea of Arab despotism and Islamic theocracies.
C) yes...it actually does. When you're willing to actually DO something about your position (like I did, when I packed my bags to travel across the Atlantic ocean to fight for something I believed in), I will take your input seriously. For Americans, this means leaving the US and returning to Europe. Sorry...that's the way it is. Anything less is the mere spitballing of impotent hypocrites.
D) so that makes it OK to murder them with biological weapons, and shovel the survivors onto reservations? That's fething grand.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:


If those are your arguments, no gak, no one could keep serious while being told that.

A) The Jewish Legion was part of the conquering British force in 1917
B) British rule was mandated by the League of Nations, and the formation of the Israel State was supervised by the UNSCOP, explaining the increased UN interest, since, you know, they were the ones who set up the deal
C) Not being a party to the conflict doesn't invalidate, or diminish the value of your input.
D) Native americans seldom had a concept of land ownership. Most of them had 'track ownership', having dealt with neighbouring communities which herd and which tracks they could each hunt on. Which explains why, when native nations makes request for land ownership, they make ridiculous demands, such as the Wendake chief Big Louis (a VERY moderate indian chief) of the Huron/Wendat nation requesting land the size of France for a population of 8,900 people.

A) only bolsters the position of Israel's legitimacy.
B) happened a long time ago. What's your point? Times have changed. Israel is now a thriving Democracy in a sea of Arab despotism and Islamic theocracies.
C) yes...it actually does. When you're willing to actually DO something about your position (like I did, when I packed my bags to travel across the Atlantic ocean to fight for something I believed in), I will take your input seriously. For Americans, this means leaving the US and returning to Europe. Sorry...that's the way it is. Anything less is the mere spitballing of impotent hypocrites.
D) so that makes it OK to murder them with biological weapons, and shovel the survivors onto reservations? That's fething grand.

This is just all over the place, you can't dismiss something for happening a long time ago immediately after claiming greater legitimacy for an incident a century ago. To not accept input from anyone not intimately involved is rather silly as well, as there doesn't seem much of a conclusion to the situation being reached in house, just an ever decreasing spiral of hostility. And besides, without Britain and the US Israel would not exist, so there is a measure of responsibility there. And as for murdering and shovelling onto reservations, well, lets just say that not only the British/US are guilty of that kind of thing.

 Frazzled wrote:
Just as an aside 17 year olds are not children.

Just as an aside, torture is reprehensible regardless of the age of the victim. Just sayin.

Some 17 year olds are definitely children in regard to their emotional development. Chronological age is not a good indicator of developmental maturity, especially below the age range of early twenties.

Since the US has routinely tortured people using the same techniques of torture that we condemned the Soviets for using in the fifties, and in violation of the Geneva Convention, we dont exactly have the moral high ground on this issue as a nation anymore. That was one victory the terrorists achieved against us.

JWhex wrote:
Some 17 year olds are definitely children in regard to their emotional development.

And some 40 year olds as well.

A) only bolsters the position of Israel's legitimacy.

Not really. Right of Conquest isn't a valid argument anymore, and hasn't been for quite a while now. It really only goes to show that in the long Isreali-Palestinian conflict, the zionists were actually and indubitably the first to attack.

B) happened a long time ago. What's your point? Times have changed. Israel is now a thriving Democracy in a sea of Arab despotism and Islamic theocracies.

Hum, wait, so something which happened in 1917 bolster the Israeli's claim, but something which happened in 1947 is too long ago to matter?

C) yes...it actually does. When you're willing to actually DO something about your position (like I did, when I packed my bags to travel across the Atlantic ocean to fight for something I believed in), I will take your input seriously. For Americans, this means leaving the US and returning to Europe. Sorry...that's the way it is. Anything less is the mere spitballing of impotent hypocrites.

Wow, how ridiculously self-righteous of you. I'm guessing your difficulty at engaging and maintaining a conversation on this subject has a lot more to do with how poor your argumentative skills are then it has to do with the positions of those you engage.

D) so that makes it OK to murder them with biological weapons, and shovel the survivors onto reservations? That's fething grand.

No, but it does make it perfectly acceptable to install yourself on an unclaimed territory. There's also that thing about guilt not being a genetic factor...

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:


If those are your arguments, no gak, no one could keep serious while being told that.

A) The Jewish Legion was part of the conquering British force in 1917
B) British rule was mandated by the League of Nations, and the formation of the Israel State was supervised by the UNSCOP, explaining the increased UN interest, since, you know, they were the ones who set up the deal
C) Not being a party to the conflict doesn't invalidate, or diminish the value of your input.
D) Native americans seldom had a concept of land ownership. Most of them had 'track ownership', having dealt with neighbouring communities which herd and which tracks they could each hunt on. Which explains why, when native nations makes request for land ownership, they make ridiculous demands, such as the Wendake chief Big Louis (a VERY moderate indian chief) of the Huron/Wendat nation requesting land the size of France for a population of 8,900 people.

A) only bolsters the position of Israel's legitimacy.
B) happened a long time ago. What's your point? Times have changed. Israel is now a thriving Democracy in a sea of Arab despotism and Islamic theocracies.
C) yes...it actually does. When you're willing to actually DO something about your position (like I did, when I packed my bags to travel across the Atlantic ocean to fight for something I believed in), I will take your input seriously. For Americans, this means leaving the US and returning to Europe. Sorry...that's the way it is. Anything less is the mere spitballing of impotent hypocrites.
D) so that makes it OK to murder them with biological weapons, and shovel the survivors onto reservations? That's fething grand.

I'm sorry, but what? For an American to have a view on Israel, they need to move to Europe or their position will be hypocritical? Do you have any idea how absolutely pants on head-running in circles shouting "oogly-boogly"-crazy that is? I mean for feths sake.

Well done, you've gone and fought somewhere; now, here in "big boy debate land" that doesn't mean squat, but you can keep insisting to yourself that because you fought somewhere that means your rhetoric has more impact (here's a hint: it doesn't).

And would you be able to explain how the fact that the Jewish legion was part of the British force in any way bolsters Israel's claim? Just because Jewish people helped fight the Ottoman Empire doesn't just mean that any Jewish claim has more legitimacy; there were plenty of Muslim soldiers fighting in the British army during WWI too.

And hey! Your Point D just supported the Palestinians! All you have to do is switch 'Biological Weapons' for 'Overwhelming Military Superiority' and 'Reservations' for 'The Gaza Strip and The Western Bank'! See, discussions can be easy if you don't call everyone on the opposite side hypocrites.

Since the US has routinely tortured people using the same techniques of torture that we condemned the Soviets for using in the fifties, and in violation of the Geneva Convention, we dont exactly have the moral high ground on this issue as a nation anymore. That was one victory the terrorists achieved against us.

Jeez.....we need to start torturing those individuals that are from other nations that are copy catting us....USA leads everyone on torture....no one does torture better the USA....but if we really want info we just threaten them with turning over to the "ANA"......Afghan National Army or the Iraq Army depending on the operation...


edit

Wops also forgot after questioning we were making them swear on the Quran/Koran at Bagram....

edit 2

We stopped that in 07 since it was considered "Religious Torture".....we never know though since the true extent of US torture hasn't been "revealed"

Edit three

You know as a wounded Enemy Combatant. I'm only allowed to give you water and motrin (ibuprofen) and that's it. No matter the extent of the injury. I actually might be brought up on "torture charges" if I gave you a percoset or something. For bribing you with pain meds to talk.

You know the Bagram Detention Building had a riot in summer of '07. We still provided water and food but shut down the AC. The rioters were informed they needed someone in charge to handle distro of water and food. OIC and NCOIC were relieved of command for trying to get the "Ring Leaders" using the environment against the containee's

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Says a lot right there. One picture really is worth a thousand words.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

and anyone living in the United States is illegally occupying sovereign Iroquois land. Move back to Europe and you'll have a leg to stand on."

I live in Texas. The Comanches would have eaten the Iroqois alive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

JWhex wrote:
Some 17 year olds are definitely children in regard to their emotional development.

And some 40 year olds as well.

Some people never develop emotionally. I'm living proof!