Yo, Id’jit
Are those pictures of the Civilians killed by Hezbollah rockets? Oh, that’s right, we’re ignoring what Hezbollah does to Israeli civilians….
“How would Democrats solve war in the Middle East?”
Talk about your rhetorical questions. They couldn’t solve a puzzle on the back of cereal box.
Here’s a fun tip for you, pseudo-Ann… stop keeping the KY in the same drawer as the crazy glue. That way you can be less butt-hurt the next time you play “hide the zucchinis” with yourself.
If you are a rag-tag group of militias who deliberately bomb civilian areas to pressure a government into doing something that you want it to do, that is called terrorism, prosecutable in the jurisdiction where you performed it (provided that jurisdiction actually has a law enforcement capability capable of capturing you and trying you, of course).
If you are a government of a nation that deliberately bombs civilian areas to pressure another government into doing what you want it to do, it is a war crime (provided you lose the war and are held accountable for your actions. Otherwise, it’s just a “regrettable incident”.)
If you are a government of a nation that deliberately bombs civilian areas to pressure a government to pressure a militia group into doing what you want it to do, you are not only guilty of war crimes, you are also guilty of practicing really poor military tactics and misunderstanding modern warfare and diplomacy.
If any of you Republicans could count more than 4 (the number of sweaty balls you high school dropout army “men” can roll around in your mouth), then you could see a slight difference in the number of civilians killed by Hizbollah and the number of civilians killed by Israel. I’m afraid, however, this difference is larger than 4.
IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO KILL CIVILIANS. NO IFS, ANDS, OR BUTS. NONE. WHAT ABOUT THIS IS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, YOU F***ING RETARDS?
Hesbuttla has spent the last two decades targeting civilians. When are we going to see some anger over that?
That’s right, I forgot, the only children and women who are worth saving are Muslim women and children, as the rest of us are simply weapons fodder, due to our status as infidels.
How would the Dems fix the Mid East problem? They would physically take away everyone’s weapons, hand out condoms, and tax the populace so badly that they wouldn’t have time to do anything by work and sleep. Except for the really poor who would spend their time going on reality talk shows like Abu Springer and Mufasa Povitch.
Oh no, the Repug motherf***ers don’t like the pictures. Don’t worry, you sick f***s, there should be lot more pictures, what with over 100 children dying as a result of Israels attack on Hizbullah. Just feel free to support a campaign that does little to weaken Hizbollah, but kills the children of the people you cockgobblers were cheering for last year, when they expelled Syrian forces. Feel free to support a campaign like this till it’s your baby that is missing it’s chest, you f***ing pedophiles.
Hey Sean, I knew you wouldn’t get it. CIVILIANS CANNOT BE KILLED. You want it in baby talk? Say you rape your neighbours daughter, because you enjoy doing things like that. Now, IT DOESNT MATTER THAT YOU DID THIS, THE FATHER CANNOT KILL YOU. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. NO IFS, ANDS, OR BUTS. Say you killed her. THE FATHER CANNOT KILL YOU, NO IFS, ANDS OR BUTS. ITS STILL AGAINST THE LAW. Say your neighbour kills your other neighbour, because you have gone to get an underage hooker, and he can’t find you. REALLY, REALLY AGAINST THE LAW. GEDDIT, F***FACE?
HAHA…That is a GOOD one, Frank J.
How about how would the Republicans bring peace to the middle east?
By dismembering babies, of course. Is there any other way? 🙂
Trying to Apologize for, and sympathize with Hezbullah, really seems to get “Jim’s” panties all bunched in a knot, doesn’t it.
Correct me, if I’m wrong…But, I thought there was something in the Geneva Conventions, that addresses the issue of “Human Shields” ?
How can anyone expect to grab the moral high-ground, by setting up rocket-launchers in the middle of a civilian population?
Or, has hiding behind women’s skirts and babies diapers become fashionable?
Wow, it really is hard for you to understand. Doesn’t matter if Hezbollah breaks the law, Israel breaks the law when it kills civilians, human shield or not. If you agree to calling them both terrorists, then you don’t contradict yourself.
National Health Insurance for terrorist…
Ban firearms in the MiddlEast…send Janet Reno in to enforce the new laws
Increase the minimum wage from .25 to .30
Immediately get Madeline Albright involved…she’ll fix things!
Solve Global Warming…that’s the real problem here!
What’s so vile about thinking it would be good if chimuaha’s children would die, so that, in his own words “they woudln’t have to grow up in his influence.” Oh, oops, they’re American children.
Hey Jizz, why waste your precious time here? Go, brave shemale, go march through the streets & proclaim the truth as you see it! Go, dick-for-lunch, go be mistaken at the top of your lungs to the citizens! You might even make the news, and at least then you will have made something because you have yet to make any sense here. Calling your betters a bunch of retards & repug motherf***ers isn’t making a point, you silly little pseudo-intellectual. Go back to licking Mikey Moores nuts & picking the dingleberries off of your diminutive penis, little man. You think you’re brave, but you’re not. If you had the spine to say this to someone’s face, we’d be reading about how some dumbass anti-war protester got his ass kicked or we’d be listening to the MSM try to label it aws a hate crime. What a coward you are. I bet you father, if you actually know who he is, is ashamed to know he sired someone so weak.
Defending Hezbullah & condemning Isreal, whining that we don’t like the pictures, blah blah blah…what a sissy.
AlanABQ,how ’bout this Jim guy. Any military under his dictatorship would be underfunded, walking on eggshells, and completely vacant of any real leadership or morale, except when it came to killing jews. It’s a good thing that that he is just a nobody soon to be on welfare or so he says. He seems to believe that hez, or hizbolla or whatever the media tells me that they are called, bears no responsibility when they intentionally wage a asymetrical warfare using a civilian population as cover.
What were the words that he used? Oh yeah, F***ING RETARD.
Anonymous,
Republicans would bring peace to the Middle East by dismembering babies? I thought dismembering babies was the main platform for the Democrats?
Have you ever been driving down the road, windows down, radio on, just cruisin’ along and enjoying yourself, when a bug somehow manages to avoid smacking itself on your windshield, and instead, flies in through the open car window? And then starts buzzing around, annoying the crap out of you? And you can’t get after it to swat it or shoo it out the window, cause your busy driving? And so it just keeps buzzing around foolishly against the windshield, too primitive and stupid to notice the wide open window that it just flew in through is still wide open and would make a perfect escape route? Doesn’t that just bug the crap out of you?
Anyway, hi Jim, nice to meet you. We’ve been needing a higher class of troll around here for a while. I guess we’ll just have to make do with you.
Dear Jim, I was inclined to ignore your comments, but I think I can almost detect an argument, or at least a semi-coherent thought, lurking somewhere beneath the projected gay/pedophilic fantasies, so here’s my two cents.
Despite the inherent difficulty with drawing parallels between international law and the criminal justice system’s handling of sex offenders, I’ll go ahead and use your example, since it’s apparently an area with which you have some personal familiarity.
Jim, my friend, you are correct, a citizen cannot kill another citizen in revenge for a crime committed. This is because the protection of citizens and the dispensation of justice fall within the province of the government. Furthermore, the government has the right to act preemptively to prevent injury to its citizens. This is part of just war theory, which you may study in high school civics class in a couple years.
The aspect of just war theory which addresses the traces of sentience that were discernable in your arguments is known as ius in bello and consists of two elements, proportionality and discrimination, both dealing with the appropriate means of prosecuting a war. I discussed proportionality on my blog a few days ago, but the post did not use the word “f*ck” or its derivatives and was written without resort to LARGE CAPS, so you may find it difficult to follow. Therefore, I will summarize the relevant points below:
Proportionality means that military actions must employ the minimal amount of force necessary to accomplish the intended goal, both as a short-term tactical matter and in the context of the strategic aims of the war.
Discrimination “prohibits direct intentional attacks on noncombatants and nonmilitary targets,” according to William V. O’Brien in The Conduct of Just and Limited War. Though you suggest “IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO KILL CIVILIANS,” the relevant issue is actually intent to kill civilians. (Intent is also an important part of criminal law. For example, if a person has a single-digit IQ, he is not considered capable of forming intent. This is good news for you, Jim.)
Because the relevant issue is intent to kill civilians, Israel is acting in accordance with just war theory if it strikes Hezbollah in furtherance of the legitimate (U.N. sanctioned) goal of eradicating the terrorist group, without intentionally targeting civilians or causing unnecessary suffering. Unlike Hezbollah, which shoots unguided munitions armed with ball bearings into civilian centers, Israel has employed guided missiles to target enemy combatants. (Hezbollah’s strategy relies on massive amounts of poorly targeted attacks, in the hopes that something will actually hit the target. Wait. I’m rereading your posts… I just realized I don’t need to explain that strategy to you.)
Unfortunately, members of Hezbollah, being terrorists, intentionally blend into the civilian population and refuse to allow innocent Lebanese to leave the war zone, thus maximizing civilian casualties. However, the moral culpability for these losses rests on Hezbollah, not Israel, which is acting well within the bounds of proportionality in its own defense.
I hope you have found this discussion helpful, Jim. I would not usually have the time to explain these things, but I just had my wisdom teeth removed and I’m having difficulty sleeping. Furthermore, I feel a certain kinship for you, since I too currently have large, empty spaces in my head.
Now that my wife is content, what were you saying Jim. It must have been about one of your assassassassassumptions concerning jews if your like hitler your probably wondering, why won’t they go away? Even though I am not a jew, I will answer for them. I do not want to die by the hands of a fascist(see) The United Nations Charter is the constitution of the United Nations. It was signed at the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco on June 26, 1945 by the 50 original member countries. It entered into force on October 24, 1945, after being ratified by the five founding members–the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States–and a majority of the other signatories.
As a Charter it is a constituent treaty, and all signatories are bound by its articles. Furthermore, it explicitly says that the Charter trumps all other treaty obligations.
Why is it that leftards always want to side with the instigators? It’s not as though Israel went & arbitrarily kidnapped anyone from Lebanon. Did they arrest known terrorists…yeah. Did they attack those who coordinated attacks against them…yeah! Did they send fanatics with bombs strapped to their asses…NO! Does Jim have the faculties to get it… we all know the answer to that one.
Did I post twice, whoops. Maybe Jim won’t notice, but on the other hand who really gives a s^*$. He was always so angry anyway. Does anyone really want sombody like that as a friend anyway. Sorry Jim I will always forget to remember you.
Alan your back, Jim just didn’t have anything to say lately. I really miss him/her. Maybe if we went to commie/pinko/hippie/REDneck.org. we could find his home address.
sorry alan, I just couldn’t stop, Jim is just so easy. I have my email open. I’m sure Jimbo will try to make a joke out of that, but adolescent minds are easy to manipulate.
Yeah, good one AlanABQ. Good to see your rebuttal of, well, nothing. Did the poultry squalking outside your trailer distract you? Please try again.
David V, nice attempt at being intellectual. Stick to “they started it” and you will have a better argument. You cite William O’Brein, and everyone knows what he says about a “just” war must be true. I recommend you google Geneva Conovention, or he is the relevant Paragraph for you:
3. In addition to the grave breaches defined in Article 11, the following acts shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed wilfully, in violation of the relevant provisions of this Protocol, and causing death or serious injury to body or health:
(a) making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack;
(b) launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2 (a)(iii);
You see point (b)? It states that if an attack kills civilians, and you have the knowledge that your attack will do so, it is a breach of convention. So it is not, as you would like to believe, the intent that counts. I have never heard such a stupid thing in my life. Who cares about war theory, we are talking about law, not military strategy. Israel is aware of the consequences of bombing a civilian building, and does so anyway, and this is against the law. The responsiblity lies on Israel, once it has chosen to drop a bomb that will “cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects.” s
Empty spaces in your head? That would imply that there are some spaces which are not empty.
Frank J. philosophy on babies: Killing unborn baby: murder. Blasting away a living ARAB babies chest….We are willing to make that sacrafice. Perhaps I should reiterate….all babies are equal, it’s just some babies are more equal than others.
Here Frank, I hope this is better:
What is the peace in the Middle East strategy of the Republicans?
Kill already born Arab babies.
Also, on the website, love the picture of Israeli girls signing artillery shells. What a cute little sentiment. When Arabs cheer the death of an Israeli…what sick f***s. When Israel girls sign shells that go on to kill mainly civilians….that’s not twisted. These guys are just as sick as the Muslim terrorists.
AlanABQ’s attempt to make a point. Why do we always side with the instigators. Well, we don’t, moron. Will you stop the circle jerk with your army “boys”. Hizbollah are terrorists for killing civilians. The government of Israel are terrorists for killing civilians. Look at the Geneva convention again, not David V’s military strategy. It is NOT intent. It is knowledge that you will be killing civilians. So I am simply saying they are both terrorists, in that they both kill civilians and breach international law.
You want to kill the people who kill your civilians. Fine, that is okay, and I am for it. But kill THEM, not kill maybe 20 of them and 450 civilians.
Jim-bot writes:
“So it is not, as you would like to believe, the intent that counts. I have never heard such a stupid thing in my life. Who cares about war theory, we are talking about law, not military strategy.”
Oh, sorry. I thought we were talking about human rights, which you seem to think do not apply to Israelis. Thanks for setting that one straight.
“all babies are equal, it’s just some babies are more equal than others.”
Here we go with the inequality diatribe…
” love the picture of Israeli girls signing artillery shells. What a cute little sentiment. When Arabs cheer the death of an Israeli…what sick f***s.”
Right. We’ve never seen Palastinian/Arab children dressed in war fatigues, complete with weapons.
“Hizbollah are terrorists for killing civilians. The government of Israel are terrorists for killing civilians.
…because of all the Jews just blowing themselves up in markets & cafes.
“It is knowledge that you will be killing civilians.”
In war? Really!? Who would’ve thought…you should share that insight with Al Qaeda, because I don’t think they realize that, either.
“So I am simply saying they are both terrorists, in that they both kill civilians and breach international law.”
Well, you are simple.
“But kill THEM, not kill maybe 20 of them and 450 civilians.”
And we can just shoot around the civilians the Islamists are hiding behind & among. I didn’t know our military tech was that advanced. Once again, thanks for the insight, ya stupid, whiny bitch.
“It’s all about the law!!! It’s all about international law!!!
Hey smart guy, do terrorists abide by international law? Maybe you should think through the hate first, Moore-on.
Okay, so you had zero arguments again, except for “well, they do it too.”
“do terrorists abide by international law?”
No, but niether does the Israeli govt.
“In war? Really!? Who would’ve thought…you should share that insight with Al Qaeda, because I don’t think they realize that, either.”
Excellent. You have just justified Israeli govt. action by comparing them to Al Qaeda actions. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
“Here we go with the inequality diatribe…”
Yeah, and…..
“Right. We’ve never seen Palastinian/Arab children dressed in war fatigues, complete with weapons.”
Again, thank you for comparing the children of Israel to the Muslim children. I didn’t think they were so different either.
when committed wilfully, in violation of the relevant provisions of this Protocol, and causing death or serious injury to body or health:
(a) making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack;
(b) launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects
hey, it was your reference.
“Excellent. You have just justified Israeli govt. action by comparing them to Al Qaeda actions. I couldn’t have said it better myself.”
OK, Mr Burns. You sure figured that one out. That’s exactly what I was doing.
“Again, thank you for comparing the children of Israel to the Muslim children. I didn’t think they were so different either.”
And thank you for for trying to bait & switch the idea of who’s the victim/who’s the instigator by trying to use children as a point in your favor. Seriously, did you have to try to be this ignorant? I really don’t mean to insult you with that, but come on now… {“do terrorists abide by international law?”
No, but niether does the Israeli govt.}
According to who? The UN? YOU? lol!!!And, most importantly, why should they? Israel, like it or not, has every right to defend their own children against terrorists AND those who support their cowardly, underhanded acts. You keep trying to make this asinine comparison between Israelite kids & Arabic kids- as though you were just a pedestrian-, but not once in your rant did you even think of Jewish children before you tried to tie them with Islamist murderers & the “poor victims” of Israeli military strikes.
Go be a coward somewhere else.
I think that we are missing eachothers points again, nowhere have I ever heard of Israelis “Intenionally, and Willfully making the civilian population the object of attack.” or maybe I’m just reading the wrong propoganda. hmm.
“Okay, so you had zero arguments again, except for “well, they do it too.”
Huh? For one, I wasn’t arguing with you, Jim. You didn’t have an argument to begin with, so how could I? Second, the notion that “they did it too” seems presumptive, Jim. When did the government of Israel sanction the blatant murders of non-Israelis with their own “suicide” bombers? I’m sure you have a response to that, but I need to get a little sleep. Feel free to have a Socratic argument with yourself, but be advised: you still lose.
Sean…please read carefully. It is NOT the willful targeting of civilians. It is that what is mentioned in point (b) that is carried out wilfully. It is the attack that is affecting civlian lives, and taking their lives that is carried out wilfully. It is a subtle, but huge point. It is not wilfully making civilians that target of your attacks. That is point (a). It is wilfully carrying out an attack that will kill civilians. Point (b). Try again, pedophile.
Alan:
Yes, according to the UN, and anyone who knows what the Geneva convention is. Why should they abide with it…well, they don’t have to, but then they become terrorists.
What were you doing by comparing Israeli actions that kill civilians to Al Qaeda actions that kill civilians, then?
The “poor victims” of Lebanon. They are no more or less “poor” than the “poor” Israeli civilians or the “poor victims” of 9/11.
Don’t you mean “hey, they do it too”
“When did the government of Israel sanction the blatant murders of non-Israelis with their own “suicide” bombers?”
In Alan’s head:
It is only blatant murder when it is carried out by a suicide bomber. When you kill civilians using an F-16, it is completely different. I mean, have you seen how cool those things look? Come on, using one of those babies to kill civilians isn’t baltant murder, it’s just “coolifying” the Lebanese population.
Also in Alan’s head:
“Ah, time to turn in. Get ready for some action, daddy’s little girl.”
JIM, you do care, all this while I thought that god hath forsaken me. Just for arguments sake, would you agree that killing someone before they killed you would be justified, even in your distorted reality?
No answer, but i can guess what a rational person would say. I’ll go with that. Would you find it hard to argue with someone that committed murder in self defense?
Sean:
So, the 150 children killed were going to gang up on the Israeli Air Force and show them some hurt, huh? Yeah, those brave men were just defending themselves. You know, some of those babies were really loud.
Try again, moron.
Esentially what you are saying is that
Israel(which is in the midst of a fight for their very existence, if you couldn’t tell) Is all but justified in every means which ensures their survival. YOU may not agree with their tactics, but then again how many ruthless murderers have you had to fight off today?
That doesn’t change the situation at all. They are both killing innocents. Apparently you think one of them can be let off the hook for doing so. And for doing so FAR more than the other party. The law would disagree with you.
If you think that children are waging war on israel, you are even more naive than I could have ever imagined, makes me think how I could have ever thought that you were my friend. I really think that we should start seeing other people. I will always remember you jimbeam.
Jim, when your “heroes” hide behind babies and old women (being the pussies they are) then innocents are going to get hurt in the fight! This is not Israels fault. If America was at war here, our soldiers would move the citizens out of harms way or they would themselves vacate civilian areas, these terrorists being cowards and girly men use humans as shields and cause their deaths. Now, it’s early in the morning and your boyfriend just woke up…and…well…he needs some brokeback jimluvin…so go away!!!
huh? Obivously, you don’t know what sarcasm is. The children are not the ones waging war, Sean, but 150 of them (probably many more now, since this was news from 2 days ago) have turned up dead. So, “killing someone before they killed you would be justified” yes. But how does this relate to the children? Or the 300 adult civilians?
I do not know why I should even feel compelled to reply to your last post, but if your life was in danger would you ask the local patrolman if you would be in compliance before reacting to given situation. Say yes and i call you a bullshitter. Now if said patrolman was too far away would you then lie in wait for him to come save you. As much as I know of you and your strict adherence to the “rule of law” apperently that is exactly what you would do.
hippie
jimmycarter….it IS Israels fault. They are ALSO in breach of the Geneva convention by wilfully bombing the civilian structures, which they know WILL kill civilians. I stress the point also. The Hezbollah are in breach of convention. What I don’t get is how you can say it is okay for Israel to break the law. I just keep repeating myself here, but I still haven’t gotten a valid response. You think Israel HAS to do this. Fine, but you still can’t change the fact that the result of this action is breaking the law, in a big way. How can you not see this?
If I knew I would be killing children, then yes, I would. Especially if I would see my past campaigns resulted in the death of far more of them than the people who I want to eliminate. Unlike you, Sean, it would hang on my conscience to kill hundereds of babies, even if they were Lebanese, believe it or not.
Child molester.
C’mon Jim! You need to re-evaluate your starting position. Do you really want to be on the side that is against Israel? This is the side where all of the really bad guys have been through history! Israel has shown remarkable restraint over the past years as these cretins have lobbed rockets into their land…but now they have had enough! I do not believe that Israel is intentionally killing civilians. Once war starts innocent people get hurt and killed. That’s why war is to be avoided if possible…it is ugly business…but Israel must win this. They have gone so far as to drop leavelettes telling the citizens to get out of the area…something that I don’t think the butt-boys from Iran have done! Do you really want to be on the side against Israel, Jimbo?
Yes, jimmy, they are not targeting civlians, but for the umpteenth time, this is not a necessary condition to make them war criminals. It is a sufficient condition, but not a necessary one. Also sufficient is dropping bombs when you know it will kill them, even if you know it is worth it, because you killed one Hezbollah figther.
Dropping leaflets….Perhaps you should be aware of the fact that this means squat, since the highway leading out of South Lebanon have been bombed, the Airport has been bombed, and South Lebanon continues to be bombed, and this includes roads and civilian buildings. The bombing of all major highways makes the once 1 hour journey to leave Beirut now take 5 hours, which needs to be taken on the very roads that are continuously being bomed. How very kind of the IDF. Those brave Israelis. Might as well put the Lebanese in a cell, lock it up, throw the key in the Atlantic, and then send them a message saying their cell will be bombed in the next few hours, so please leave.
In answer to your question, I would not want to be on the Israeli side either, because I have a conscience, again, EVEN when it come to killing Arab children.
Also, jimmycarter, I must say, when this started I was actually on the Israelis side. Really. Now I just want an end to this madness, and I feel a sense of deep sorrow at this whole thing. I just don’t think Israel should be out there killing civilians. Period. I am not taking any sides. I don’t think Hezbollah should be doing this either. Its just, I had always thought more of Israel. I never in my life imagined that they would take such actions, never. I thought this was only possible from Hezbollah. That is what this is about. I thought Israel, like I had mentioned before, would proceed like America did, and does, in Iraq. On the contrary, they are killing many more civilians than anyone else. I just cant stomach the fact that a LEGITIMATE govt continues to act the way it does, even when results like these are achieved. I feel like consoling the mothers of those that have lost children on both sides. The Israelis could direct thier anger at the Hezbollah. I would tell them that they should be destroyed. I would tell them the people who did this WILL be killed. That the people who did this will be made to pay. What would I tell the 100’s of mother’s of the Lebanese children? The people who killed your child are part of a legitimate govt? The people who killed your child will NEVER be punished, let alone killed, for killing your child? What would YOU tell them, Jimmy?
And what do you tell those who were trying to get away, in response to the leaflets, but then were bombed in the process of doing exactly what the leaflets suggested. These kinds of actions are simply beyond comprehension, and I don’t think anyone can explain them. If you tell the civilians to leave, then leave open a safe passage for them. This has been a common complaint from the UN, and regardless of what you think of them, I don’t think anyone can justify behaviour like this. Many in Lebanon are killed on the streets of Lebanon, either due to direct bombings of the streets, or due to bombs dropped on buildings on the streets. How can someone not be terrified and full of animosity when you are caught up in a situation like this? What would you suggest the people do?
“a common complaint of the un”…who gives a rat’s ass what the un thinks! they are a bunch of dorks that sit around and pass meaningless resolutions while people die! get real! if the un had their way without us intervention israel would have been wiped off the face of the map by now…
All excellent points, you could both run for Preznit. And win.
Here is a great clip referring to Stem Cell Research: Simply against murder
The president is “simply against murder.” It is as simple as that. Except for murder of Arab civilians. So , I guess it is as simple as THAT. Scratch the first point made by the White House. We take it back. We never meant it that way, okay!
No one gives a rat’s ass then. Just like no one gives a f*** about the “poor, poor victims” of 9/11. Aww….sometimes, you see, it is okay to kill civilians. When it furthers your goals. War is difficult, and you just have to accept that. So, stop whining about 9/11. Get over it. Those “victims” of the awful Muslims. Boo f***ing hoo.
Jim, thought you were against Killing civilian. Just guess it matters who the civilans are huh?
OT Jim are YOU a civilian? Just wondering. Y’know, no reason.
Well, at least Jim is a persistant troll and I missed all of the fun.
Serves me right when I prioritize keeping my job over IMAO.
FrankJ, I asked you delivered good job.
Jim- Dude, the trick to persuading people is to keep something approaching a coherent point together. I completely disagree with others in this thread that you need prozac. Prozac is for depression, you need Zyprexa which is the gold standard for most psychotic disorders.
Disclaimer, I am not a doctor. But as a pharma manufacturing scientist, if you are on zyprexa please notify your doctor right away, someone may have made a bad batch.
Like I said, spacedoutmonkey, I am just following Republican logic. And in this Republican World, it is okay for some civilians to be killed, whereas the death of others is a crime against humanity. I had repeatedly said both people are suffering, but in Reupblican World, only the suffering of the Israeli’s count, and since it is the only way they can achieve their goal, the loss of civilian Lebanese life is acceptable to you.
I simply say the “poor victims” of 9/11 were also the result of an action that was meant to achieve a ceratin goal. That is why those “victims” lives were very dispensable.
Come on, spacemonkey, even the movies haven’t come up with explosions and destruction on the scale of 9/11. You have to admit, those were some big fireworks.
Spacemonkey, you trying to say something. Like you want to kill me. Isn’t that against the law? I mean, especially considering your aren’t even allowed to you a fake name, if things went Bush’s way. Death threats are a punishible offense, if I remember correctly.
Wow, Jim! I’ve seen leftards throw tantrums before, but I think you’ll definately get the Cindy Sheehan Award for the Most Inane, Shrill & Contradicting Rant.
One thing I like about this type of troll is that they really think they raised hell & told us off like no one ever has before.
“Damn dirty Repugs!!! Why are you so mean? sobbing“
Hi Jim! I was wondering how long it would take before you referred to the Geneva Conventions. First of all, a little clarity on just war theory: It does not deal with military strategy. It is an ethical theory of war dating back to Augustine. The Geneva Conventions exist is large measure to codify the principles established in just war theory.
You quote the Geneva Conventions: “launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects.” You then state, “It states that if an attack kills civilians, and you have the knowledge that your attack will do so, it is a breach of convention.”
While an interesting interpretation, this is, unfortunately, not technically accurate. You are ignoring two key words that are known as modifiers: “indiscriminate” and “excessive.” Modifiers usually serve to moderate statements to make them more accurate, which may explain why you are not familiar with them.
The first issue to consider is that of “an indiscriminate attack.” “Indiscriminate” indicates an attack that is random, or targetless. A military strike with collateral civilian damage would not be indiscriminate.
Second, the convention warns against attacks that “cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects.” This directly contradicts your statement that any attack that kills civilians is illegal, because it actually only proscribes “excessive loss.” Those who crafted the Geneva Conventions lived in the real world and knew that some civilian loss of life in war was inevitable.
Because Hezbollah insists on hiding itself in the civilian population, Israel’s targeted (not indiscriminate) attacks will inevitably kill civilians; even large numbers of civilians. However, the blame for those losses cannot be laid at Israel’s doorstep.
Jim, you lay out a way for Israel to eradicate a determined, dangerous terrorist enemy that is intentionally embedded within a civilian population without relatively high rates of civilian casualties, and then we can talk like intelligent adults. Otherwise, you are nothing but a petulent child, throwing tantrums because you can’t handle life in the real world.
Jim-
The distinction is very simple, possibly even simple enough for the likes of you.
Again assuming for the moment that the Geneva convention applies:
The deliberate (look up the word willful and you may discover there is more than one definition and this is the one that fits the context of your quotes from the convention. This is nuance which you liberals are supposed to understand so much better than us conservatives) targeting of civilians is against the convention. Examples of such are the 9-11 attacks, blowing up busses and pizza parlors like your buddies in Hamas and Hezbolah and quite frankly the air bombardment campaigns conducted by the US and Britian in WWII.
That attacks on Legitimate military targets in or near civilian populations result in civilian deaths is not a good thing, but is not a violation of the Geneva conventions.
I thought from you previous contributions on other threads you had some measure of intelligence. However, I fully realize based on the rest of this thread that you are probably incapable of understanding the distinction or reading for context at this point so the above was probably wasted effort.
Just in case I was right before, ponder this truth:
War is always a bad option, but war is sometimes the least bad option
Here’s a fun activity you can do, Jim. Your boyfriend will need to help, or you can use your trusty zucchini as a, ahem, stand-in. When you’re in your pillow-biting position (which is on your hands & knees, as you almost always are), pretend you are a hezbollah fighter, and your boyfriend is the IDF. Then you can say to yourself “See what I have to put up with for the glory of Islam! Damn Jooooos!!!” You’ll need to kidnap his Lhasa Apso or destroy his Cher CD collection to “provoke” him first.
I only suggest it because you seem to enjoy roll-playing, like the way you were pretending to know what the f**k you were talking about.
“That attacks on Legitimate military targets in or near civilian populations result in civilian deaths is not a good thing, but is not a violation of the Geneva conventions.”
Yes it is. When you know that this attack will cause the loss of civilian life, it is. Try again. Or buy some prescription glasses.
Once again, you’re right, Jim. They should just wait for Hezbollah to come out into the open, away from any civilians. I’m SURE that’ll happen, what with the staightforward approach that is the hallmark of terrorist organizations.
Alan: Dude, remember military strategy- always attack the opponent’s weak spot. Tasteless gay jokes are Jim’s specialty. When attacking trolls, always go for the weakest point- the brain.
“Yes it is. When you know that this attack will cause the loss of civilian life, it is.” -Jim
See, the arguments are working. The troll has stopped trying to respond and it’s just repeating stuff, kind of like a Furby. It’s the Jim-Furby.
Nice try again, DavidV. Your attempts at pretending to be someone who knows what they are talking about fools only your fellow Repugs.
It is the loss of civilian lives that make the attacks indiscriminate. There is a difference between indiscriminate and deliberate. Deliberate is what Hezbollah does, and it mean targeting civilians. Indiscriminate is what Israel does, because it kills both civilians and Hezbollah fighters. Accidental, which is NOT against the law, means you do not have prior knowledge of the fact that your actions will result in civilian life. When you know your attacks will cause a loss of militant AND civilian life, they are indiscriminate. They fail to make distinction between civilians and soldiers, in that they kill both. Excessive, well, only a pedophile like you would think that the loss of hundereds of children is not an “excessive loss of life.”
Let me tell you this. The loss of 5000 or more American civlian lives is not an “excessive loss of life” either.
Alan, ol buddy, ol pal. You’re up! I presume this means you have now stopped showing your daughter your special brand of “fatherly love”.
“I presume this means you have now stopped showing your daughter your special brand of “fatherly love”.”
Jim must have been taking lessons from Deb Frisch. When the left is losing, they tend to resort to comments like that one.
“Accidental, which is NOT against the law, means you do not have prior knowledge of the fact that your actions will result in civilian life.”
Wait, I’m confused, are we talking about cloning now?
I’m getting bored. I don’t mind ignorance, but you are quite simply misdefining words, and publishing a treatise on military ethics in the IMAO comments section to clarify matters seems somewhat pointless.
Have a pleasant day.
“I presume this means you have now stopped showing your daughter your special brand of “fatherly love”
LOL! No, Jim. I’m not like the pedophile Mohammed…peace be denied him.
Is that what you really think about, Jim; pedophilia? Is that what happened to you when you were even smaller than you are now? You keep mentioning it while trying- and failing- to take the moral high ground about what’s legal & ethical in a combat situation where one side recognizes NO law but sharia law, and where their sense of ethics comes from a social structure based on oppression of women & the eradication of Jews & eventually all non-muslims, as commanded by the Quran.
You’re a Dhimmist, Jim. It’s as though you would apologize to them for not being subservient or a non-Muslim.
BTW, what union (aside from NAMBLA) do you belong to? Say it loud & proud if you do. Is it IATSE?
Come on DavidV, enlighten me. I am sure your military “ethics” are the defining rules on war crimes in yours, and William V. O’Brien’s World. However, in the real world, the Geneva Conventions define the rules.
INdiscriminate: Fails to DISCRIMINATE, or fails to MAKE DISTINCTIONS. When attacks kill both civilians and militans, and the loss of civilian life is not an accident, then the attacks FAILED to DISCRIMINATE between civilian and militant, in that they killed both. Can it be simpler than this. No, and that is why DavidVs simple mind simply cannot comprehend this.
Here’s an idea. Get Alan’s (in Alan’s words) AHEM scrotum off your eyes, FrankJ’s cock out of your mouth, and try to make yourself comprehend.
And Alan: how many times must your daughter tell you: NO MEANS NO!!!
“LOL”
LOL. I hate Mohammed too. But you know, I think you have a place in your heart that Mohammed would be happy in. It’s that part of you which thinks it is okay for children to be murdered. Mohammed also believed in murdering anyone who didn’t share his beliefs, and that the loss of one of his kind was far greater than the loss of one of the “other” kind.
And actually, Mohammed was a pedophile, and he married the girl. You, on the other hand, fathered the girl. I’m guessing you take what you get, since your wife obviously left you, and your just left to enjoy “quality time” with your daughter, who you see on alternate weekends.
DavidV
Well said! Thanks for what amounted to a short informative treatise on the ethical considerations surrounding the use of force. I’m afraid it has fallen on deaf ears in Jim’s case and of like minded people. Context and Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions mean little to Jim. His line of argument is primarily emotive and personal rather than legalistic. His sense of moral outrage allows him to freely interpret (distort) legal statutes to suite his own purposes. Also, he acts as if these arguments about the morality and legality of strategic and tactical bombing are something new and had never before considered. Forget the fact that this has been agued for some time and a large body of literature exists on the subject. Of course this is really about Jim’s moral outrage not any real abrogation of the Geneva conventions.
Jim
By the way Jim, your not very good at insults. Such obscene flailing impresses no one.
Wow, in Jim’s world it’s fun to be at war with the US or Israel. No one gets hurt by us, but our enemy can blow up our children and be forgiven.
Sorry to point out the obvious Jim, but war is supposed to be ugly and children are supposed to die. That’s why it’s so important that measures are taken to prevent war. The UN said they’d take those measures to prevent this war, like disbanding Hezbollah, but unfortunately, Hezbollah started a war, and so now we have war. Sticking flowers in the ends of their guns is not going to stop the war, idiot.
Son of Bob.
Have you counted the relative deaths of Israeli and Lebanese civlians in this conflict. Perhaps then you will realise that it is much more fun to be Israel. You can kill 150 children, in return for losing a total of 20 civilians of your own.
It’s fun being an Israeli pilot. You can kill the Lebanese children, but proclaim self-defense and be forgiven.
Congratulations, Jim. You went from stupidity to just plain ol’ ignorant hatred. Keep up the pettiness, little man. Show us just how pathetic & sorry liberals are. You just keep on showing everyone your true colors. Call us names, disparage anyone you don’t agree with, etc… it changes nothing, because in reality, America is still the greatest nation, and Israel will still get our support; terrorists & the civilians they hide amongst will still get blown to itty bits.
Does that make feel good, Jim? To know that there’s nothing you can do to change it. Even their children will die because, much like you hide behind cheap insults & your anonyminity, the terrorists hide like little cowards behind their own children.
See ya, punkin’.
No, I never said such a thing. I said that in war people die. You’re the idiot that thinks that only Arab children are dying.
Maybe someday you lame liberals will realize that that countries have to defend themselves, or else only Israeli children die, Jim. Innocent Israeli children have been being blown up by terrorist organizations for a long, long time…and yet, no posts from Jim.
Obviously, you can’t reason or negotiate with terrorists, so the only alternative is to fight back. The coward terrorists are operating amongst civilians and the civilians continually support the terrorists, so in your world you’d just keep pretending that your wives and children weren’t being randomly blown up, huh Jim?
Jim, what of the missiles being lobbed into the civilian population of Israel. Judging by your posts, as long as the Hezbollah had killed more Israeli children, you’d be happy.
Alan, you old pole smoker, you. Oh, ooops, my mistake, you don’t have a son, do you?
Come on, Alan. There are better things than seeing Lebanese children being blown up. How about China being able to wipe the US off the map with its nuclear arsenal, if it wanted to. How about the fact that in less than 10 years, China will have the worlds largest economy? How about the fact that it already has the worlds largest army? How about people jumping to their deaths from the top of the WTC? How about the beheadings of American soldiers? How about the videos of Snipers taking down American troops? How about two planes taking down two skyscrapers, all with a bunch of box cutter? LOL! How about the bright fireballs seen in the sky on 9/11? (Those guys should have really done it on the 4th of July!) Man alive, it sure is great to watch reruns of that festival of light and sound!
No Boh. I have repeatedly said niether side can be allowed to kill children. You are the one who says the Israel IS allowed to do so, to achieve its goals. Well, I say, then so is Hezbollah. Simple as that.
“Wow, in Jim’s world it’s fun to be at war with the US or Israel.”
No. No. You don’t understand.
Jim is doing it all “FOR THE CHILDREN”
Jim isn’t against the Israeli’s or the US per say. In Jim’s world of moral equivalence Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Israel, US, Jews, Republicans are all morally equivalent. Never mind that the goal of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah is to liquidate the Jewish state and all of its citizens. Never mind that they repeat their intent against Israel daily. Never mind that Hezbollah is a non governmental military organization that is set up as an Iranian war proxy. Never mind that the Lebanese government doesn’t have it within it’s power to remove Hezbollah. Never mind Syria has become the launch point of dozens of terrorist groups.
Never mind that they consider the US to be their greatest enemy. Finally, never mind that the destruction of the US and it’s populous is also a clearly stated ultimate goal.
You see it’s not really about Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Israel, and the US. It’s about JIM.
It’s about the screams of the dying children rattling around in Jims hollow head. Jim isn’t against us, he’s above us all. Jim’s the great moral pontificate speaking down to the lowly slime. Were all a moral Hezbollah by Jim’s reckoning.
ITS: PAPAL JIM VS. MORALY EQUIVALENT SLIME: ROUND 1
By the way Jim, that’s how you insult someone!
And, at least now the Lebanese PEOPLE would have justification to launch rockets into Israel. I mean, they killed their children, so if as a result the people, not Hezbollah, start to launch rockets into Israel, hoping as it (Israel) does, that maybe one of them will strike an IDF force, they are totally justified. Any civlian casulaties incurred would simply be unfortunate collateral damage. They would be defending what is left of their family, much as Israel is supposedly doing.
And, at least now the Lebanese PEOPLE would have justification to launch rockets into Israel. I mean, they killed their children, so if as a result the people, not Hezbollah, start to launch rockets into Israel, hoping as it (Israel) does, that maybe one of them will strike an IDF force, they are totally justified. Any civlian casulaties incurred would simply be unfortunate collateral damage. They would be defending what is left of their family, much as Israel is supposedly doing.
“Never mind that they repeat their intent against Israel daily.”
Umm…they either repeat their actions daily, or they repeatedly voice their intentions. It is not hard to be above you, my subterranean friend.
Hezbollah != Lebanon
WELL DAMN,
No sooner do I anoint Jim the pontificate of moral equivalence than he slips and falls off his throne. “LOL! How about the bright fireballs seen in the sky on 9/11? (Those guys should have really done it on the 4th of July!) Man alive, it sure is great to watch reruns of that festival of light and sound!”
Cheering for the 9/11 murders are you? You sick piece of shit!!!
There you had everybody with all your concerns with “the children”, but it turns out to be just a moral crutch to allow your hatred of the United States.
I once had a conversation along these lines about the “laws of war”. The reality is the only real “law of war” is that only the winners get to hold war crime trials.
To argue anything else makes one appear either very naive or incredibly stupid.
I would bet in your case it is both.
Military units that choose to take up positions intermixed with civilians are legitimate targets, that is simply a fact by any no moronic reading of the Geneva Convention.
The WTC was not a legitimate military target and the 9/11 attack would violate the convention even if it had been carried out by a legitimate military organization. The attack on the USS Cole on the other hand was a legitimate military target and had the boat that attacked it carry any distinguishing marks to show it was a combat vehicle such an attack would fall completely within the convention — even if a cleaning crew of innocent children were clearly visible on the deck.
To put it simply you ignorant (little pup/hippy twit(choose appropriately based upon age)) there is no way to read the Geneva conventions that suggest that a force cannot fire on a legitimate target based on the possibility of civilian harm.
Now please do everyone a favor and test your theory by running over to Lebanon and making a citizens arrest of an Israeli tank.
Jim or Mohammed or whatever that hell your name is,
Your really not very good under pressure are you?
For your sake, I hope Israeli intelligence never gets hold of you. A few pokes with the “soft cushions” and five minutes in “the comfy chair” will be about all it takes for you to tell them everything you know.
The Geneva Convention is not supposed to a document that cripples any countries ability to defend themselves. With most civilized countries, we measure the amount of possible civilian casualties against the value of the target, and scrap missions if the costs outweigh the benifit. Which is exactly what the GC means by discriminate.
Jim’s wife left him a few years back & took the kids with her, so he’s still kinda bitter about it. Maybe that’s why he has to be so fixated on projecting his pedophilia on others; his wife took the objects of his desire! He has no recourse but to indentify with others he sees as victims like him.
I think he’s also mad at God for not letting him be able to stand tall without a step ladder. All he has now is his tiny genitalia, his Union comrades and, well, us. Maybe he just needs a hug…
Hey Jim,
It took me awhile to get back to this post. Why is it that people who don’t have a point continue to try to make it using foul and filthy language. Do you really think that using F*** over and over again is going to make your argument anymore believable. Is it going to convince anyone that your right, is it going to encourage anyone to even listen to anything you have to say?
Those who resort to that kind of language and violent behavior need help. You might call on Deb Fritch, I’m sure she’ll be able to give the names of some capable people who deal with psychosis. I’ve wasted enough of my valuable time on you. Get some help.
Jim you ignorant pickle smoker. Cry me a river you bleeding heart fag. Abortion is okey dokey, but civilian deaths, especially Muslim ones, are solely a Jewish crime. Bite my ass, and btw, weren’t you one of those psycho hose bags predicting the EU would be the world’s largest economy a couple of years ago. And you are a doo doo head too.
Well, guess Jim had to go burn a flag. I’m sure they’d allow him to spew politics in the countries he so adores…and I’m sure the terrorists wouldn’t blow him up…after all, he’s on their side and I’m sure they’d really appreciate him. Meanwhile, while doing nothing to ever help anyone, he spends his life hating the US and our allies with such venom. What an idiot.
No….no one with half a brain said the EU would be the world’s largest economy. China, however, has already gone up several spots and is now number 2. And has a growth rate that dwarves the American one. Also, it is showing no signs of slowing down, and neither is the trend of practically every developed country using it’s labour force.
No, Alan, I don’t need a hug. Especially not from a pedophile like you. Get away from me with those filthy hands of yours. GET AWAY! What do you mean, they’re not filthy. I don’t care…just get aw….Hey, where your hands have been is between you and your daughter, buddy!!!
“ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ–––
Sound of frogs and crickets”
Sound of crickets….don’t you mean chickens?
How would you interpret part(b) of the excerpt of the Geneva Convention. Keep in mind the definition of the word indiscriminate, moron. It doesn’t mean benefits outweigh costs. It mean does not make distinctions. Grab a dictionary, jackass.
“The WTC was not a legitimate military target…”
Neither is a civilian Airport.
You know what else was a case of “poor victims” really being collateral damage. It was the case of hundereds of Repuglicon larvae being obliterated into (in Alan’s choice words) itty bitty pieces in Oklahoma City.
Collateral damage, because Timmy was really going for this one person in the building, and it was not an indiscriminate attack, since the benefits outweighed the cost. Hell, the cost was really the profit, I guess. LOL LOL
I’m really bored with the last debate, yawn. I thought that discrimination was a bad thing. However I did see something that piqued my interest. Have you ever heard of the law of diminishing returns? Of course you haven’t, if you ever took an economics class you wouldn’t be a socialist.
I agree. It would be interesting to see a comment from “jim” that actually stated what he was FOR without resorting to trash-talking to those who didn’t agree with what he might have been trying to say. Maybe I’m just not as bright as a liberal…
“Hey Sean, I knew you wouldn’t get it. CIVILIANS CANNOT BE KILLED. You want it in baby talk? Say you rape your neighbours daughter, because you enjoy doing things like that. Now, IT DOESNT MATTER THAT YOU DID THIS, THE FATHER CANNOT KILL YOU. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. NO IFS, ANDS, OR BUTS. Say you killed her. THE FATHER CANNOT KILL YOU, NO IFS, ANDS OR BUTS. ITS STILL AGAINST THE LAW.”
Not in my state Motherf***er. A proud papa can gun down the bastard and get off scott Free. Even though our Governor is Queen Douche Libtard, we still have a smart enough legislature.
Open your eyes asswipe. Hezbollah is hiding behind these people and lobbing death at Isreal. Your refusal to accept this fact and Israel’s right to take out the bastards that are going after them prove you are a heartless genocidal motherf***er that is hiding his homocidal tendencies behind “the children”. Yup, you and Hezbollah are like two peas in the same pod. Goat f***er.
“Son of Bob.
Have you counted the relative deaths of Israeli and Lebanese civlians in this conflict. Perhaps then you will realise that it is much more fun to be Israel. You can kill 150 children, in return for losing a total of 20 civilians of your own.
It’s fun being an Israeli pilot. You can kill the Lebanese children, but proclaim self-defense and be forgiven.”
Um, and this is the grand total of Israeli Children and Women lost in all of the years of Arab/Persian Agression?? What an absolutely emptyheaded twat you are. Just because Lebanon has suffered such losses in such short time doesn’t mean that Israel has ONLY suffered the loss of 20 people. Ever heard of “The Straw That Broke The Camel’s Back”? Hezbollah was the one to put it on the pile.
Here’s an Idea… tell me where you live, I’ll take refuge in the nearest hospital and lob mortars at your house non-stop for days, weeks, months. We’ll see how proportional your reaction then.
Additionally, there have been several very well worded, on-point, legally correct answers to your misguided diatribe. Just because you haven’t been able to comprehend the answers doesn’t mean they haven’t been given. You Genocidal Tosspot.
“Say you rape your neighbours daughter, because you enjoy doing things like that. Now, IT DOESNT MATTER THAT YOU DID THIS, THE FATHER CANNOT KILL YOU.”
Now there’s a conversation starter if there ever was one. Right!!!
desertelephant, your thoughts are about as unorganised as… JIM its you again. I’ve broken the code! Maybe if you would let the emotional response subside, you could become somewhat more rational. I’m still not sure if your agreeing with me or not. You might need to reorganize some of your words.
Thank you for those pictures of over 100 dead civilian terrorists. And might I remind you, Israel, that since the dhimmis are going to complain anyway, you could get this whole war over with a lot faster if you just nuked them. Hypothetically speaking, of course.
If any of you have more pictures of dead terrorists, feel free to pass those along. The casualty count in Lebanon is so low, we need to be reminded from time to time that the IDF is still kicking ass.
Quixote,
I am certainly not Jim. I support Israel and understand that they are not war crminals. My thoughts were actually decently organzed and placed in paragrah(ish) form to denote seperation of thoughts.
Oh, who cares what some mentally challenged liberal thinks, if you can it thinking at all. No need to be divided amongst each other on any issue. The minute we become nasty to one another, they start thinking they’ve accomplished something. All they can do is talk trash from their keyboards & try to f*** things up.
Of course, they can’t be as effective as the IDF at kicking the crap outta Hezbollah, or the US at beating the Taliban & Saddam’s regime into a bloody pulp.
Frank,
I thought the idea of this post was FUN Trivia. I stopped having fun quite a few post ago. Maybe a better name would be:
Frustrating post
Furious post
Flaming idiot post (and you know who you are)
Facetious post
Flippant post
Frivolous posts
of course there are other words that would fit but some of us don’t have to sink to the level of adolescents and perverts to make our point.
Yes I know I’m beating a dead horse but it’s better than beating on a real person, so it will have to do.
DesertElephant,
I don’t think that seanQuixote picked up on the quotation marks around the first paragraph.
I quoted from it, but didn’t attribute it to Jim either, thus adding to the confusion.
Truth is I didn’t look it up, and figured you were quoting Jim. Who else would it be?
Are you saying that a troll would post as someone else with emotion like a sock puppet? That’s all they can do! If they really felt the conviction of what they were slurring about, they still wouldn’t have the spine to follow through, not unlike Cindy Sheeham…or Soddom’s…”hunger strikes”.
Neo, you know that there’s no way a libtroll would ever be honest or forthcoming about who they are. They can’t be honest with themselves.
They’re bitter to the end, so they will disguise themselves in any facade they can. To attribute any credibility to anything they have to say is to give them an inch -which, in terms of manhood, gives them exactly one inch,- and they’ll take it a mile, albeit a very short mile.
In real life, a mile is the median distance between their parole/probation officer’s base & the closest elementary school to mommy’s spare room or basement.
DAMN!! See what happens when you don’t have internet for a whole weekend!!!
Jim Sux…
That’s all I have cause everybody else already verbally whupped up on him pretty good, well done, folks.(enthusiastic applause!!)
I repeat… I AM NOT JIM. Oy. Anyhow, I guess I should have attributed the quotes I used as Jim’s before laying in to him. Sorry for the confusion, ya’ll.
Wow, I missed out on a fun one. Or maybe it’s not over yet. You know how libs are. You can crush them, prove them wrong, provide a legitamate argument, it really doesn’t matter. They’ll get over it or yell the same phrase about something. You know, like roaches, but not as high up on the evolutionary chain.
But enough random trash talking, albiet not very trashy. For all of you who didn’t want to read the ungodly amount of text on here, or if you just wanted to skip all the pedophile crap, here’s a recap.
According to Jim (hey, I think that was a TV show on Fox or something):
Isreal is unjustified in bombing the targets they have because they are civilian structures. Under this clause in the Geneva Convention:
“launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2 (a)(iii);”
means that if an attack damages anything civilian in anyway, more specifically refering to civilian life, the party is either guilty of a war crime or an act of terrorism. That is, in short, to say that Hezbolah is guilty of terrorism because they have legitamatly attacked Israeli troops and civilians, and that the nation of Israel is guilty of war crimes because they attacked a civilan structure which resulted in the deaths of however so many Lebonese civilians, either children, adults, or whoever. The word indiscriminant in the context of the clause means that the attack doesn’t discriminate between killing millitary personel and civilans, which makes sense under the definition of the word indiscriminate.
Note: Indiscriminate adj. To make no distinction between two or more parties.
Ex: A bomb is indiscriminate in that it only blows up. It doesn’t blow up and stop if something it doesn’t want to blow it happens to be in its way.
According to… well, just about everyone else:
That line in the in the context of that clause in the Geneva convention actually means that the attacks are indiscriminate, meaning that Israel didn’t pick a target. It just launched bombs into Lebenon with no regard as to what the bombs would hit, millitary or civilian. Israel picked a target where they knew Hezbolah troops were and attacked. Civilian casualties being, albeit horrible concequence, a part of war that happens, makes the action justified because the Hezbolah troops hid among the civilians, meaning that Israel couldn’t make a counter attack against Hezbolah without killing the civilans.
Now, to put in my two cents:
Yes, Israel bombed a civilan target in an attack on Hezbolah and it resulted in Lebonese civilan deaths. It’s a horrible thing, but it was a nessesary thing. No one at any point said that the Lebonese deaths were a good thing, or even an ok thing. Killing innocents is bad, plain and simple under any circumstances. Going back to the rape analogy, it is true that is the perp completes the crime, you can be convicted for murder if you kill him for revenge later. However, if you kill him in the act or before, it’s self defense because you’re preventing something from happening or continuing. Now, as a more accurate comparison, lets say that the rapist is in the middle of his crime, as Hezbolah is in the middle of attacking Israel, and you run in with your 12 gauge shotgun and point it at the guy. you get right up to his head and then he holds up your daughters arm between him and the barrel of the gun. You move the gun, he moves her arm. You can’t shoot him without shooting her and possibly rendering her arm useless for her entire life. So what do you do? For this, you are Israel, your daughter is both Israel and Lebenon because Hezbolah hurts both of them, the rapist is Hezbolah, and your daughter’s arm is Lebonese civilians. If you don’t shoot, he’s going to keep raping your daughter and then most likely kill her to keep her quiet, or possibly kidnap her to keep both you and her from talking. Either way, you lose your daughter, as Israel and Lebenon will both be gone as we know them if Israel does nothing. If you do shoot, you’re going to hurt your daughter, possibly change her life forever anyway. Is it worth it? I can tell you I would shoot. The entirity of her being is worth more than her arm, as Israel and a free Lebenon as a whole are more important than some civilians. It should have never come to that. Tohse people shouldn’t have died, and her arm shouldn’t have been shot, but what’s worse? That, or the alternative?
But that’s ideology, and ideology is always up for debate. Let’s go back to the clause. the use of “indiscriminate” is up for interpretation within the context of the sentence. However, in this situation, that isn’t improtant. Note the line,
“affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects,”
See “in the knowledge”? This means that in order for an action to be considered a violation of this part of the Geneva convention, the attacking
party must:
A) Attack a civilan object that is going to result in excessive loss of civilian life.
B) Have knoledge that this attack will cause the excessive deaths of civilians.
Under this, Israel is only guilty of a war crime if they were aware that an attack would cause mass civilian deaths. “Excessive” can’t be defined absolutly, as it varies by situation. Believing that a building may or may not contain civilians isn’t close enough. They have to know for a fact that there are many civilians in the building. One guy isn’t excessive, no matter how tragic his death may be. Did Israel know their were people there? Possibly. I wouldn’t know, I’m not there. They may have bombed thinking that Hezbolah had driven the people out so as to use the equipment better. I don’t know. But I’m pretty sure that the Hezbolah soldiers didn’t send a message to Israel saying, “If you bomb us, you’ll kill all these people as well.” As far as I can tell, Israel had no definate knoledge that any civilians were there. And it being common sense for where it was doesn’t count, as that’s only a hunch.
Sorry for that being so long, but if you have a lot of input, you have to have a lot of output. And before Jim comes back and starts insulting me and trash talking:
I’m a minor, so I can’t be a pedophile, and I have no children. I’m straight. And, finally, I’m not a republican, I’m an independent. I’m actually closest to Libertarian. So if you call me a child molester, accuse me of having sex with my own child, or any of your previous names, it’s makes you both a liar and a jackass.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Yo, Id’jit
Are those pictures of the Civilians killed by Hezbollah rockets? Oh, that’s right, we’re ignoring what Hezbollah does to Israeli civilians….
“what Hezbollah does to Israeli civilians….” is not funny.
Ann Coulter on July 28, 2006 04:06 PM says:
What part of “human sheilds” doesn’t register in your li’l vacuous pea-brain?
Ann Coulter’s drag queen impersonator supports genocide. There’s a measured response for you.
“How would Democrats solve war in the Middle East?”
Talk about your rhetorical questions. They couldn’t solve a puzzle on the back of cereal box.
Here’s a fun tip for you, pseudo-Ann… stop keeping the KY in the same drawer as the crazy glue. That way you can be less butt-hurt the next time you play “hide the zucchinis” with yourself.
If you are a rag-tag group of militias who deliberately bomb civilian areas to pressure a government into doing something that you want it to do, that is called terrorism, prosecutable in the jurisdiction where you performed it (provided that jurisdiction actually has a law enforcement capability capable of capturing you and trying you, of course).
If you are a government of a nation that deliberately bombs civilian areas to pressure another government into doing what you want it to do, it is a war crime (provided you lose the war and are held accountable for your actions. Otherwise, it’s just a “regrettable incident”.)
If you are a government of a nation that deliberately bombs civilian areas to pressure a government to pressure a militia group into doing what you want it to do, you are not only guilty of war crimes, you are also guilty of practicing really poor military tactics and misunderstanding modern warfare and diplomacy.
If any of you Republicans could count more than 4 (the number of sweaty balls you high school dropout army “men” can roll around in your mouth), then you could see a slight difference in the number of civilians killed by Hizbollah and the number of civilians killed by Israel. I’m afraid, however, this difference is larger than 4.
IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO KILL CIVILIANS. NO IFS, ANDS, OR BUTS. NONE. WHAT ABOUT THIS IS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, YOU F***ING RETARDS?
Hesbuttla has spent the last two decades targeting civilians. When are we going to see some anger over that?
That’s right, I forgot, the only children and women who are worth saving are Muslim women and children, as the rest of us are simply weapons fodder, due to our status as infidels.
How would the Dems fix the Mid East problem? They would physically take away everyone’s weapons, hand out condoms, and tax the populace so badly that they wouldn’t have time to do anything by work and sleep. Except for the really poor who would spend their time going on reality talk shows like Abu Springer and Mufasa Povitch.
Oh no, the Repug motherf***ers don’t like the pictures. Don’t worry, you sick f***s, there should be lot more pictures, what with over 100 children dying as a result of Israels attack on Hizbullah. Just feel free to support a campaign that does little to weaken Hizbollah, but kills the children of the people you cockgobblers were cheering for last year, when they expelled Syrian forces. Feel free to support a campaign like this till it’s your baby that is missing it’s chest, you f***ing pedophiles.
Hey Sean, I knew you wouldn’t get it. CIVILIANS CANNOT BE KILLED. You want it in baby talk? Say you rape your neighbours daughter, because you enjoy doing things like that. Now, IT DOESNT MATTER THAT YOU DID THIS, THE FATHER CANNOT KILL YOU. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. NO IFS, ANDS, OR BUTS. Say you killed her. THE FATHER CANNOT KILL YOU, NO IFS, ANDS OR BUTS. ITS STILL AGAINST THE LAW. Say your neighbour kills your other neighbour, because you have gone to get an underage hooker, and he can’t find you. REALLY, REALLY AGAINST THE LAW. GEDDIT, F***FACE?
HAHA…That is a GOOD one, Frank J.
How about how would the Republicans bring peace to the middle east?
By dismembering babies, of course. Is there any other way? 🙂
Trying to Apologize for, and sympathize with Hezbullah, really seems to get “Jim’s” panties all bunched in a knot, doesn’t it.
Correct me, if I’m wrong…But, I thought there was something in the Geneva Conventions, that addresses the issue of “Human Shields” ?
How can anyone expect to grab the moral high-ground, by setting up rocket-launchers in the middle of a civilian population?
Or, has hiding behind women’s skirts and babies diapers become fashionable?
franksballsucker…please read the comment above about comparison to criminal law….it applies here too.
Wow, it really is hard for you to understand. Doesn’t matter if Hezbollah breaks the law, Israel breaks the law when it kills civilians, human shield or not. If you agree to calling them both terrorists, then you don’t contradict yourself.
ok…so jim, why don’t you go back over to DKOS and share your vile skreed with people who care what you think…we don’t…moron!
National Health Insurance for terrorist…
Ban firearms in the MiddlEast…send Janet Reno in to enforce the new laws
Increase the minimum wage from .25 to .30
Immediately get Madeline Albright involved…she’ll fix things!
Solve Global Warming…that’s the real problem here!
What’s so vile about thinking it would be good if chimuaha’s children would die, so that, in his own words “they woudln’t have to grow up in his influence.” Oh, oops, they’re American children.
Hey Jizz, why waste your precious time here? Go, brave shemale, go march through the streets & proclaim the truth as you see it! Go, dick-for-lunch, go be mistaken at the top of your lungs to the citizens! You might even make the news, and at least then you will have made something because you have yet to make any sense here. Calling your betters a bunch of retards & repug motherf***ers isn’t making a point, you silly little pseudo-intellectual. Go back to licking Mikey Moores nuts & picking the dingleberries off of your diminutive penis, little man. You think you’re brave, but you’re not. If you had the spine to say this to someone’s face, we’d be reading about how some dumbass anti-war protester got his ass kicked or we’d be listening to the MSM try to label it aws a hate crime. What a coward you are. I bet you father, if you actually know who he is, is ashamed to know he sired someone so weak.
Defending Hezbullah & condemning Isreal, whining that we don’t like the pictures, blah blah blah…what a sissy.
Is it a full moon or something? Or, did somebody get a day pass from the “hospital”.
Jim,
Is this guy one of yours?
AlanABQ,how ’bout this Jim guy. Any military under his dictatorship would be underfunded, walking on eggshells, and completely vacant of any real leadership or morale, except when it came to killing jews. It’s a good thing that that he is just a nobody soon to be on welfare or so he says. He seems to believe that hez, or hizbolla or whatever the media tells me that they are called, bears no responsibility when they intentionally wage a asymetrical warfare using a civilian population as cover.
What were the words that he used? Oh yeah, F***ING RETARD.
Anonymous,
Republicans would bring peace to the Middle East by dismembering babies? I thought dismembering babies was the main platform for the Democrats?
Frank J. democrats don’t want to dismember babies, they only want to poke a hole in their heads and suck their brains out.
Have you ever been driving down the road, windows down, radio on, just cruisin’ along and enjoying yourself, when a bug somehow manages to avoid smacking itself on your windshield, and instead, flies in through the open car window? And then starts buzzing around, annoying the crap out of you? And you can’t get after it to swat it or shoo it out the window, cause your busy driving? And so it just keeps buzzing around foolishly against the windshield, too primitive and stupid to notice the wide open window that it just flew in through is still wide open and would make a perfect escape route? Doesn’t that just bug the crap out of you?
Anyway, hi Jim, nice to meet you. We’ve been needing a higher class of troll around here for a while. I guess we’ll just have to make do with you.
Dear Jim, I was inclined to ignore your comments, but I think I can almost detect an argument, or at least a semi-coherent thought, lurking somewhere beneath the projected gay/pedophilic fantasies, so here’s my two cents.
Despite the inherent difficulty with drawing parallels between international law and the criminal justice system’s handling of sex offenders, I’ll go ahead and use your example, since it’s apparently an area with which you have some personal familiarity.
Jim, my friend, you are correct, a citizen cannot kill another citizen in revenge for a crime committed. This is because the protection of citizens and the dispensation of justice fall within the province of the government. Furthermore, the government has the right to act preemptively to prevent injury to its citizens. This is part of just war theory, which you may study in high school civics class in a couple years.
The aspect of just war theory which addresses the traces of sentience that were discernable in your arguments is known as ius in bello and consists of two elements, proportionality and discrimination, both dealing with the appropriate means of prosecuting a war. I discussed proportionality on my blog a few days ago, but the post did not use the word “f*ck” or its derivatives and was written without resort to LARGE CAPS, so you may find it difficult to follow. Therefore, I will summarize the relevant points below:
Proportionality means that military actions must employ the minimal amount of force necessary to accomplish the intended goal, both as a short-term tactical matter and in the context of the strategic aims of the war.
Discrimination “prohibits direct intentional attacks on noncombatants and nonmilitary targets,” according to William V. O’Brien in The Conduct of Just and Limited War. Though you suggest “IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO KILL CIVILIANS,” the relevant issue is actually intent to kill civilians. (Intent is also an important part of criminal law. For example, if a person has a single-digit IQ, he is not considered capable of forming intent. This is good news for you, Jim.)
Because the relevant issue is intent to kill civilians, Israel is acting in accordance with just war theory if it strikes Hezbollah in furtherance of the legitimate (U.N. sanctioned) goal of eradicating the terrorist group, without intentionally targeting civilians or causing unnecessary suffering. Unlike Hezbollah, which shoots unguided munitions armed with ball bearings into civilian centers, Israel has employed guided missiles to target enemy combatants. (Hezbollah’s strategy relies on massive amounts of poorly targeted attacks, in the hopes that something will actually hit the target. Wait. I’m rereading your posts… I just realized I don’t need to explain that strategy to you.)
Unfortunately, members of Hezbollah, being terrorists, intentionally blend into the civilian population and refuse to allow innocent Lebanese to leave the war zone, thus maximizing civilian casualties. However, the moral culpability for these losses rests on Hezbollah, not Israel, which is acting well within the bounds of proportionality in its own defense.
I hope you have found this discussion helpful, Jim. I would not usually have the time to explain these things, but I just had my wisdom teeth removed and I’m having difficulty sleeping. Furthermore, I feel a certain kinship for you, since I too currently have large, empty spaces in my head.
I have not done enough research for a follow up. Well played.
My wife is finally asleep. I’ll be right back.
Now that my wife is content, what were you saying Jim. It must have been about one of your assassassassassumptions concerning jews if your like hitler your probably wondering, why won’t they go away? Even though I am not a jew, I will answer for them. I do not want to die by the hands of a fascist(see) The United Nations Charter is the constitution of the United Nations. It was signed at the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco on June 26, 1945 by the 50 original member countries. It entered into force on October 24, 1945, after being ratified by the five founding members–the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States–and a majority of the other signatories.
As a Charter it is a constituent treaty, and all signatories are bound by its articles. Furthermore, it explicitly says that the Charter trumps all other treaty obligations.
Hey Sean, where are you? I think we all scared Jim-bot away…
Including the constitution. Now who’s being the conspiracy theorist.
I think that he’s just sad. Maybe he didn’t suckle enough.
Why is it that leftards always want to side with the instigators? It’s not as though Israel went & arbitrarily kidnapped anyone from Lebanon. Did they arrest known terrorists…yeah. Did they attack those who coordinated attacks against them…yeah! Did they send fanatics with bombs strapped to their asses…NO! Does Jim have the faculties to get it… we all know the answer to that one.
I think that he’s just sad. Maybe he didn’t suckle enough.
LOL! I bet he is right now!!!
And not on a female…
Did I post twice, whoops. Maybe Jim won’t notice, but on the other hand who really gives a s^*$. He was always so angry anyway. Does anyone really want sombody like that as a friend anyway. Sorry Jim I will always forget to remember you.
Or remember to forget you, one or the other.
Wait til you see what amazed brit/MFL post. Truly classy “induviduals”.
ygm, sean.
Alan your back, Jim just didn’t have anything to say lately. I really miss him/her. Maybe if we went to commie/pinko/hippie/REDneck.org. we could find his home address.
Heh… More likely NAMBLA’s website.
I forgot homo/fag.login
Dude, check your in-box.
sorry alan, I just couldn’t stop, Jim is just so easy. I have my email open. I’m sure Jimbo will try to make a joke out of that, but adolescent minds are easy to manipulate.
Yeah, good one AlanABQ. Good to see your rebuttal of, well, nothing. Did the poultry squalking outside your trailer distract you? Please try again.
David V, nice attempt at being intellectual. Stick to “they started it” and you will have a better argument. You cite William O’Brein, and everyone knows what he says about a “just” war must be true. I recommend you google Geneva Conovention, or he is the relevant Paragraph for you:
3. In addition to the grave breaches defined in Article 11, the following acts shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed wilfully, in violation of the relevant provisions of this Protocol, and causing death or serious injury to body or health:
(a) making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack;
(b) launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2 (a)(iii);
You see point (b)? It states that if an attack kills civilians, and you have the knowledge that your attack will do so, it is a breach of convention. So it is not, as you would like to believe, the intent that counts. I have never heard such a stupid thing in my life. Who cares about war theory, we are talking about law, not military strategy. Israel is aware of the consequences of bombing a civilian building, and does so anyway, and this is against the law. The responsiblity lies on Israel, once it has chosen to drop a bomb that will “cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects.” s
Empty spaces in your head? That would imply that there are some spaces which are not empty.
Frank J. philosophy on babies: Killing unborn baby: murder. Blasting away a living ARAB babies chest….We are willing to make that sacrafice. Perhaps I should reiterate….all babies are equal, it’s just some babies are more equal than others.
Here Frank, I hope this is better:
What is the peace in the Middle East strategy of the Republicans?
Kill already born Arab babies.
Also, on the website, love the picture of Israeli girls signing artillery shells. What a cute little sentiment. When Arabs cheer the death of an Israeli…what sick f***s. When Israel girls sign shells that go on to kill mainly civilians….that’s not twisted. These guys are just as sick as the Muslim terrorists.
AlanABQ’s attempt to make a point. Why do we always side with the instigators. Well, we don’t, moron. Will you stop the circle jerk with your army “boys”. Hizbollah are terrorists for killing civilians. The government of Israel are terrorists for killing civilians. Look at the Geneva convention again, not David V’s military strategy. It is NOT intent. It is knowledge that you will be killing civilians. So I am simply saying they are both terrorists, in that they both kill civilians and breach international law.
You want to kill the people who kill your civilians. Fine, that is okay, and I am for it. But kill THEM, not kill maybe 20 of them and 450 civilians.
Jim-bot writes:
“So it is not, as you would like to believe, the intent that counts. I have never heard such a stupid thing in my life. Who cares about war theory, we are talking about law, not military strategy.”
Oh, sorry. I thought we were talking about human rights, which you seem to think do not apply to Israelis. Thanks for setting that one straight.
“all babies are equal, it’s just some babies are more equal than others.”
Here we go with the inequality diatribe…
” love the picture of Israeli girls signing artillery shells. What a cute little sentiment. When Arabs cheer the death of an Israeli…what sick f***s.”
Right. We’ve never seen Palastinian/Arab children dressed in war fatigues, complete with weapons.
“Hizbollah are terrorists for killing civilians. The government of Israel are terrorists for killing civilians.
…because of all the Jews just blowing themselves up in markets & cafes.
“It is knowledge that you will be killing civilians.”
In war? Really!? Who would’ve thought…you should share that insight with Al Qaeda, because I don’t think they realize that, either.
“So I am simply saying they are both terrorists, in that they both kill civilians and breach international law.”
Well, you are simple.
“But kill THEM, not kill maybe 20 of them and 450 civilians.”
And we can just shoot around the civilians the Islamists are hiding behind & among. I didn’t know our military tech was that advanced. Once again, thanks for the insight, ya stupid, whiny bitch.
“It’s all about the law!!! It’s all about international law!!!
Hey smart guy, do terrorists abide by international law? Maybe you should think through the hate first, Moore-on.
Okay, so you had zero arguments again, except for “well, they do it too.”
“do terrorists abide by international law?”
No, but niether does the Israeli govt.
“In war? Really!? Who would’ve thought…you should share that insight with Al Qaeda, because I don’t think they realize that, either.”
Excellent. You have just justified Israeli govt. action by comparing them to Al Qaeda actions. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
“Here we go with the inequality diatribe…”
Yeah, and…..
“Right. We’ve never seen Palastinian/Arab children dressed in war fatigues, complete with weapons.”
Again, thank you for comparing the children of Israel to the Muslim children. I didn’t think they were so different either.
when committed wilfully, in violation of the relevant provisions of this Protocol, and causing death or serious injury to body or health:
(a) making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack;
(b) launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects
hey, it was your reference.
“Excellent. You have just justified Israeli govt. action by comparing them to Al Qaeda actions. I couldn’t have said it better myself.”
OK, Mr Burns. You sure figured that one out. That’s exactly what I was doing.
“Again, thank you for comparing the children of Israel to the Muslim children. I didn’t think they were so different either.”
And thank you for for trying to bait & switch the idea of who’s the victim/who’s the instigator by trying to use children as a point in your favor. Seriously, did you have to try to be this ignorant? I really don’t mean to insult you with that, but come on now… {“do terrorists abide by international law?”
No, but niether does the Israeli govt.}
According to who? The UN? YOU? lol!!!And, most importantly, why should they? Israel, like it or not, has every right to defend their own children against terrorists AND those who support their cowardly, underhanded acts. You keep trying to make this asinine comparison between Israelite kids & Arabic kids- as though you were just a pedestrian-, but not once in your rant did you even think of Jewish children before you tried to tie them with Islamist murderers & the “poor victims” of Israeli military strikes.
Go be a coward somewhere else.
I think that we are missing eachothers points again, nowhere have I ever heard of Israelis “Intenionally, and Willfully making the civilian population the object of attack.” or maybe I’m just reading the wrong propoganda. hmm.
try again hippie.
“Okay, so you had zero arguments again, except for “well, they do it too.”
Huh? For one, I wasn’t arguing with you, Jim. You didn’t have an argument to begin with, so how could I? Second, the notion that “they did it too” seems presumptive, Jim. When did the government of Israel sanction the blatant murders of non-Israelis with their own “suicide” bombers? I’m sure you have a response to that, but I need to get a little sleep. Feel free to have a Socratic argument with yourself, but be advised: you still lose.
Should i use umlauts. Would that make you more comfortable.
Sean…please read carefully. It is NOT the willful targeting of civilians. It is that what is mentioned in point (b) that is carried out wilfully. It is the attack that is affecting civlian lives, and taking their lives that is carried out wilfully. It is a subtle, but huge point. It is not wilfully making civilians that target of your attacks. That is point (a). It is wilfully carrying out an attack that will kill civilians. Point (b). Try again, pedophile.
Alan:
Yes, according to the UN, and anyone who knows what the Geneva convention is. Why should they abide with it…well, they don’t have to, but then they become terrorists.
What were you doing by comparing Israeli actions that kill civilians to Al Qaeda actions that kill civilians, then?
The “poor victims” of Lebanon. They are no more or less “poor” than the “poor” Israeli civilians or the “poor victims” of 9/11.
Don’t you mean “hey, they do it too”
Jim, JIM, please don’t dispoint me again. You never seem to care. PLEASE i beg of you, don’t go into the sweet night.
“When did the government of Israel sanction the blatant murders of non-Israelis with their own “suicide” bombers?”
In Alan’s head:
It is only blatant murder when it is carried out by a suicide bomber. When you kill civilians using an F-16, it is completely different. I mean, have you seen how cool those things look? Come on, using one of those babies to kill civilians isn’t baltant murder, it’s just “coolifying” the Lebanese population.
Also in Alan’s head:
“Ah, time to turn in. Get ready for some action, daddy’s little girl.”
JIM, you do care, all this while I thought that god hath forsaken me. Just for arguments sake, would you agree that killing someone before they killed you would be justified, even in your distorted reality?
No answer, but i can guess what a rational person would say. I’ll go with that. Would you find it hard to argue with someone that committed murder in self defense?
Sean:
So, the 150 children killed were going to gang up on the Israeli Air Force and show them some hurt, huh? Yeah, those brave men were just defending themselves. You know, some of those babies were really loud.
Try again, moron.
Esentially what you are saying is that
Israel(which is in the midst of a fight for their very existence, if you couldn’t tell) Is all but justified in every means which ensures their survival. YOU may not agree with their tactics, but then again how many ruthless murderers have you had to fight off today?
????????????????????????????????????
I really really really want to know.
That doesn’t change the situation at all. They are both killing innocents. Apparently you think one of them can be let off the hook for doing so. And for doing so FAR more than the other party. The law would disagree with you.
If you think that children are waging war on israel, you are even more naive than I could have ever imagined, makes me think how I could have ever thought that you were my friend. I really think that we should start seeing other people. I will always remember you jimbeam.
Jim, when your “heroes” hide behind babies and old women (being the pussies they are) then innocents are going to get hurt in the fight! This is not Israels fault. If America was at war here, our soldiers would move the citizens out of harms way or they would themselves vacate civilian areas, these terrorists being cowards and girly men use humans as shields and cause their deaths. Now, it’s early in the morning and your boyfriend just woke up…and…well…he needs some brokeback jimluvin…so go away!!!
huh? Obivously, you don’t know what sarcasm is. The children are not the ones waging war, Sean, but 150 of them (probably many more now, since this was news from 2 days ago) have turned up dead. So, “killing someone before they killed you would be justified” yes. But how does this relate to the children? Or the 300 adult civilians?
I do not know why I should even feel compelled to reply to your last post, but if your life was in danger would you ask the local patrolman if you would be in compliance before reacting to given situation. Say yes and i call you a bullshitter. Now if said patrolman was too far away would you then lie in wait for him to come save you. As much as I know of you and your strict adherence to the “rule of law” apperently that is exactly what you would do.
hippie
jimmycarter….it IS Israels fault. They are ALSO in breach of the Geneva convention by wilfully bombing the civilian structures, which they know WILL kill civilians. I stress the point also. The Hezbollah are in breach of convention. What I don’t get is how you can say it is okay for Israel to break the law. I just keep repeating myself here, but I still haven’t gotten a valid response. You think Israel HAS to do this. Fine, but you still can’t change the fact that the result of this action is breaking the law, in a big way. How can you not see this?
If I knew I would be killing children, then yes, I would. Especially if I would see my past campaigns resulted in the death of far more of them than the people who I want to eliminate. Unlike you, Sean, it would hang on my conscience to kill hundereds of babies, even if they were Lebanese, believe it or not.
Child molester.
C’mon Jim! You need to re-evaluate your starting position. Do you really want to be on the side that is against Israel? This is the side where all of the really bad guys have been through history! Israel has shown remarkable restraint over the past years as these cretins have lobbed rockets into their land…but now they have had enough! I do not believe that Israel is intentionally killing civilians. Once war starts innocent people get hurt and killed. That’s why war is to be avoided if possible…it is ugly business…but Israel must win this. They have gone so far as to drop leavelettes telling the citizens to get out of the area…something that I don’t think the butt-boys from Iran have done! Do you really want to be on the side against Israel, Jimbo?
Jimbo, in my short but neverending corrispondence with you, have never seen even a subtle hint of sarcasm expressed by the Jimbozo.
get a job hippie
Yes, jimmy, they are not targeting civlians, but for the umpteenth time, this is not a necessary condition to make them war criminals. It is a sufficient condition, but not a necessary one. Also sufficient is dropping bombs when you know it will kill them, even if you know it is worth it, because you killed one Hezbollah figther.
Dropping leaflets….Perhaps you should be aware of the fact that this means squat, since the highway leading out of South Lebanon have been bombed, the Airport has been bombed, and South Lebanon continues to be bombed, and this includes roads and civilian buildings. The bombing of all major highways makes the once 1 hour journey to leave Beirut now take 5 hours, which needs to be taken on the very roads that are continuously being bomed. How very kind of the IDF. Those brave Israelis. Might as well put the Lebanese in a cell, lock it up, throw the key in the Atlantic, and then send them a message saying their cell will be bombed in the next few hours, so please leave.
In answer to your question, I would not want to be on the Israeli side either, because I have a conscience, again, EVEN when it come to killing Arab children.
Also, jimmycarter, I must say, when this started I was actually on the Israelis side. Really. Now I just want an end to this madness, and I feel a sense of deep sorrow at this whole thing. I just don’t think Israel should be out there killing civilians. Period. I am not taking any sides. I don’t think Hezbollah should be doing this either. Its just, I had always thought more of Israel. I never in my life imagined that they would take such actions, never. I thought this was only possible from Hezbollah. That is what this is about. I thought Israel, like I had mentioned before, would proceed like America did, and does, in Iraq. On the contrary, they are killing many more civilians than anyone else. I just cant stomach the fact that a LEGITIMATE govt continues to act the way it does, even when results like these are achieved. I feel like consoling the mothers of those that have lost children on both sides. The Israelis could direct thier anger at the Hezbollah. I would tell them that they should be destroyed. I would tell them the people who did this WILL be killed. That the people who did this will be made to pay. What would I tell the 100’s of mother’s of the Lebanese children? The people who killed your child are part of a legitimate govt? The people who killed your child will NEVER be punished, let alone killed, for killing your child? What would YOU tell them, Jimmy?
And what do you tell those who were trying to get away, in response to the leaflets, but then were bombed in the process of doing exactly what the leaflets suggested. These kinds of actions are simply beyond comprehension, and I don’t think anyone can explain them. If you tell the civilians to leave, then leave open a safe passage for them. This has been a common complaint from the UN, and regardless of what you think of them, I don’t think anyone can justify behaviour like this. Many in Lebanon are killed on the streets of Lebanon, either due to direct bombings of the streets, or due to bombs dropped on buildings on the streets. How can someone not be terrified and full of animosity when you are caught up in a situation like this? What would you suggest the people do?
“a common complaint of the un”…who gives a rat’s ass what the un thinks! they are a bunch of dorks that sit around and pass meaningless resolutions while people die! get real! if the un had their way without us intervention israel would have been wiped off the face of the map by now…
Can someone with access to this thread please fix the formatting so we don’t have to scroll to read the posts?
Thanks.
Jim,
stop breaking the prozac in half
All excellent points, you could both run for Preznit. And win.
Here is a great clip referring to Stem Cell Research:
Simply against murder
The president is “simply against murder.” It is as simple as that. Except for murder of Arab civilians. So , I guess it is as simple as THAT. Scratch the first point made by the White House. We take it back. We never meant it that way, okay!
No one gives a rat’s ass then. Just like no one gives a f*** about the “poor, poor victims” of 9/11. Aww….sometimes, you see, it is okay to kill civilians. When it furthers your goals. War is difficult, and you just have to accept that. So, stop whining about 9/11. Get over it. Those “victims” of the awful Muslims. Boo f***ing hoo.
And how about that 9/11 huh. I mean, if you’re going to breach Geneva convention, you might as well do it in style. And boy, was that stylish. 🙂
Jim, thought you were against Killing civilian. Just guess it matters who the civilans are huh?
OT Jim are YOU a civilian? Just wondering. Y’know, no reason.
Well, at least Jim is a persistant troll and I missed all of the fun.
Serves me right when I prioritize keeping my job over IMAO.
FrankJ, I asked you delivered good job.
Jim- Dude, the trick to persuading people is to keep something approaching a coherent point together. I completely disagree with others in this thread that you need prozac. Prozac is for depression, you need Zyprexa which is the gold standard for most psychotic disorders.
Disclaimer, I am not a doctor. But as a pharma manufacturing scientist, if you are on zyprexa please notify your doctor right away, someone may have made a bad batch.
Like I said, spacedoutmonkey, I am just following Republican logic. And in this Republican World, it is okay for some civilians to be killed, whereas the death of others is a crime against humanity. I had repeatedly said both people are suffering, but in Reupblican World, only the suffering of the Israeli’s count, and since it is the only way they can achieve their goal, the loss of civilian Lebanese life is acceptable to you.
I simply say the “poor victims” of 9/11 were also the result of an action that was meant to achieve a ceratin goal. That is why those “victims” lives were very dispensable.
Come on, spacemonkey, even the movies haven’t come up with explosions and destruction on the scale of 9/11. You have to admit, those were some big fireworks.
Spacemonkey, you trying to say something. Like you want to kill me. Isn’t that against the law? I mean, especially considering your aren’t even allowed to you a fake name, if things went Bush’s way. Death threats are a punishible offense, if I remember correctly.
Wow, Jim! I’ve seen leftards throw tantrums before, but I think you’ll definately get the Cindy Sheehan Award for the Most Inane, Shrill & Contradicting Rant.
One thing I like about this type of troll is that they really think they raised hell & told us off like no one ever has before.
“Damn dirty Repugs!!! Why are you so mean? sobbing“
Hi Jim! I was wondering how long it would take before you referred to the Geneva Conventions. First of all, a little clarity on just war theory: It does not deal with military strategy. It is an ethical theory of war dating back to Augustine. The Geneva Conventions exist is large measure to codify the principles established in just war theory.
You quote the Geneva Conventions: “launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects.” You then state, “It states that if an attack kills civilians, and you have the knowledge that your attack will do so, it is a breach of convention.”
While an interesting interpretation, this is, unfortunately, not technically accurate. You are ignoring two key words that are known as modifiers: “indiscriminate” and “excessive.” Modifiers usually serve to moderate statements to make them more accurate, which may explain why you are not familiar with them.
The first issue to consider is that of “an indiscriminate attack.” “Indiscriminate” indicates an attack that is random, or targetless. A military strike with collateral civilian damage would not be indiscriminate.
Second, the convention warns against attacks that “cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects.” This directly contradicts your statement that any attack that kills civilians is illegal, because it actually only proscribes “excessive loss.” Those who crafted the Geneva Conventions lived in the real world and knew that some civilian loss of life in war was inevitable.
Because Hezbollah insists on hiding itself in the civilian population, Israel’s targeted (not indiscriminate) attacks will inevitably kill civilians; even large numbers of civilians. However, the blame for those losses cannot be laid at Israel’s doorstep.
Jim, you lay out a way for Israel to eradicate a determined, dangerous terrorist enemy that is intentionally embedded within a civilian population without relatively high rates of civilian casualties, and then we can talk like intelligent adults. Otherwise, you are nothing but a petulent child, throwing tantrums because you can’t handle life in the real world.
Who cares, Hellbender that is what is important
Jim-
The distinction is very simple, possibly even simple enough for the likes of you.
Again assuming for the moment that the Geneva convention applies:
The deliberate (look up the word willful and you may discover there is more than one definition and this is the one that fits the context of your quotes from the convention. This is nuance which you liberals are supposed to understand so much better than us conservatives) targeting of civilians is against the convention. Examples of such are the 9-11 attacks, blowing up busses and pizza parlors like your buddies in Hamas and Hezbolah and quite frankly the air bombardment campaigns conducted by the US and Britian in WWII.
That attacks on Legitimate military targets in or near civilian populations result in civilian deaths is not a good thing, but is not a violation of the Geneva conventions.
I thought from you previous contributions on other threads you had some measure of intelligence. However, I fully realize based on the rest of this thread that you are probably incapable of understanding the distinction or reading for context at this point so the above was probably wasted effort.
Just in case I was right before, ponder this truth:
War is always a bad option, but war is sometimes the least bad option
Here’s a fun activity you can do, Jim. Your boyfriend will need to help, or you can use your trusty zucchini as a, ahem, stand-in. When you’re in your pillow-biting position (which is on your hands & knees, as you almost always are), pretend you are a hezbollah fighter, and your boyfriend is the IDF. Then you can say to yourself “See what I have to put up with for the glory of Islam! Damn Jooooos!!!” You’ll need to kidnap his Lhasa Apso or destroy his Cher CD collection to “provoke” him first.
I only suggest it because you seem to enjoy roll-playing, like the way you were pretending to know what the f**k you were talking about.
SkyeChild,
Fixed. Rant all you want, but please don’t break the comments.
My very first editorial was on this subject, so I don’t know why there is still debate.
“That attacks on Legitimate military targets in or near civilian populations result in civilian deaths is not a good thing, but is not a violation of the Geneva conventions.”
Yes it is. When you know that this attack will cause the loss of civilian life, it is. Try again. Or buy some prescription glasses.
Once again, you’re right, Jim. They should just wait for Hezbollah to come out into the open, away from any civilians. I’m SURE that’ll happen, what with the staightforward approach that is the hallmark of terrorist organizations.
Alan: Dude, remember military strategy- always attack the opponent’s weak spot. Tasteless gay jokes are Jim’s specialty. When attacking trolls, always go for the weakest point- the brain.
“Yes it is. When you know that this attack will cause the loss of civilian life, it is.” -Jim
See, the arguments are working. The troll has stopped trying to respond and it’s just repeating stuff, kind of like a Furby. It’s the Jim-Furby.
Nice try again, DavidV. Your attempts at pretending to be someone who knows what they are talking about fools only your fellow Repugs.
It is the loss of civilian lives that make the attacks indiscriminate. There is a difference between indiscriminate and deliberate. Deliberate is what Hezbollah does, and it mean targeting civilians. Indiscriminate is what Israel does, because it kills both civilians and Hezbollah fighters. Accidental, which is NOT against the law, means you do not have prior knowledge of the fact that your actions will result in civilian life. When you know your attacks will cause a loss of militant AND civilian life, they are indiscriminate. They fail to make distinction between civilians and soldiers, in that they kill both. Excessive, well, only a pedophile like you would think that the loss of hundereds of children is not an “excessive loss of life.”
Let me tell you this. The loss of 5000 or more American civlian lives is not an “excessive loss of life” either.
Alan, ol buddy, ol pal. You’re up! I presume this means you have now stopped showing your daughter your special brand of “fatherly love”.
“I presume this means you have now stopped showing your daughter your special brand of “fatherly love”.”
Jim must have been taking lessons from Deb Frisch. When the left is losing, they tend to resort to comments like that one.
“Accidental, which is NOT against the law, means you do not have prior knowledge of the fact that your actions will result in civilian life.”
Wait, I’m confused, are we talking about cloning now?
I’m getting bored. I don’t mind ignorance, but you are quite simply misdefining words, and publishing a treatise on military ethics in the IMAO comments section to clarify matters seems somewhat pointless.
Have a pleasant day.
“I presume this means you have now stopped showing your daughter your special brand of “fatherly love”
LOL! No, Jim. I’m not like the pedophile Mohammed…peace be denied him.
Is that what you really think about, Jim; pedophilia? Is that what happened to you when you were even smaller than you are now? You keep mentioning it while trying- and failing- to take the moral high ground about what’s legal & ethical in a combat situation where one side recognizes NO law but sharia law, and where their sense of ethics comes from a social structure based on oppression of women & the eradication of Jews & eventually all non-muslims, as commanded by the Quran.
You’re a Dhimmist, Jim. It’s as though you would apologize to them for not being subservient or a non-Muslim.
BTW, what union (aside from NAMBLA) do you belong to? Say it loud & proud if you do. Is it IATSE?
…for not being subservient or being a non-Muslim.
Come on DavidV, enlighten me. I am sure your military “ethics” are the defining rules on war crimes in yours, and William V. O’Brien’s World. However, in the real world, the Geneva Conventions define the rules.
INdiscriminate: Fails to DISCRIMINATE, or fails to MAKE DISTINCTIONS. When attacks kill both civilians and militans, and the loss of civilian life is not an accident, then the attacks FAILED to DISCRIMINATE between civilian and militant, in that they killed both. Can it be simpler than this. No, and that is why DavidVs simple mind simply cannot comprehend this.
Here’s an idea. Get Alan’s (in Alan’s words) AHEM scrotum off your eyes, FrankJ’s cock out of your mouth, and try to make yourself comprehend.
And Alan: how many times must your daughter tell you: NO MEANS NO!!!
“LOL”
LOL. I hate Mohammed too. But you know, I think you have a place in your heart that Mohammed would be happy in. It’s that part of you which thinks it is okay for children to be murdered. Mohammed also believed in murdering anyone who didn’t share his beliefs, and that the loss of one of his kind was far greater than the loss of one of the “other” kind.
And actually, Mohammed was a pedophile, and he married the girl. You, on the other hand, fathered the girl. I’m guessing you take what you get, since your wife obviously left you, and your just left to enjoy “quality time” with your daughter, who you see on alternate weekends.
Shorter FrankJ:
I am against the killing of babies…..if and only if they are unborn white babies.
DavidV
Well said! Thanks for what amounted to a short informative treatise on the ethical considerations surrounding the use of force. I’m afraid it has fallen on deaf ears in Jim’s case and of like minded people. Context and Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions mean little to Jim. His line of argument is primarily emotive and personal rather than legalistic. His sense of moral outrage allows him to freely interpret (distort) legal statutes to suite his own purposes. Also, he acts as if these arguments about the morality and legality of strategic and tactical bombing are something new and had never before considered. Forget the fact that this has been agued for some time and a large body of literature exists on the subject. Of course this is really about Jim’s moral outrage not any real abrogation of the Geneva conventions.
Jim
By the way Jim, your not very good at insults. Such obscene flailing impresses no one.
Wow, in Jim’s world it’s fun to be at war with the US or Israel. No one gets hurt by us, but our enemy can blow up our children and be forgiven.
Sorry to point out the obvious Jim, but war is supposed to be ugly and children are supposed to die. That’s why it’s so important that measures are taken to prevent war. The UN said they’d take those measures to prevent this war, like disbanding Hezbollah, but unfortunately, Hezbollah started a war, and so now we have war. Sticking flowers in the ends of their guns is not going to stop the war, idiot.
“children are supposed to die”
No, just Lebanese children are supposed to die.
No, you’re the only idiot that keeps saying that.
Son of Bob.
Have you counted the relative deaths of Israeli and Lebanese civlians in this conflict. Perhaps then you will realise that it is much more fun to be Israel. You can kill 150 children, in return for losing a total of 20 civilians of your own.
It’s fun being an Israeli pilot. You can kill the Lebanese children, but proclaim self-defense and be forgiven.
“children are supposed to die”
classic!
So, in other words you’re mad because they’re winning? Maybe they should kill some of their own to make it even, huh?
Congratulations, Jim. You went from stupidity to just plain ol’ ignorant hatred. Keep up the pettiness, little man. Show us just how pathetic & sorry liberals are. You just keep on showing everyone your true colors. Call us names, disparage anyone you don’t agree with, etc… it changes nothing, because in reality, America is still the greatest nation, and Israel will still get our support; terrorists & the civilians they hide amongst will still get blown to itty bits.
Does that make feel good, Jim? To know that there’s nothing you can do to change it. Even their children will die because, much like you hide behind cheap insults & your anonyminity, the terrorists hide like little cowards behind their own children.
See ya, punkin’.
No, you’re the only idiot that keeps saying that.
Really? Hmmm. I thought you just said Israels actions are justified, and Hezbollah’s are not.
No, I never said such a thing. I said that in war people die. You’re the idiot that thinks that only Arab children are dying.
Maybe someday you lame liberals will realize that that countries have to defend themselves, or else only Israeli children die, Jim. Innocent Israeli children have been being blown up by terrorist organizations for a long, long time…and yet, no posts from Jim.
Obviously, you can’t reason or negotiate with terrorists, so the only alternative is to fight back. The coward terrorists are operating amongst civilians and the civilians continually support the terrorists, so in your world you’d just keep pretending that your wives and children weren’t being randomly blown up, huh Jim?
Jim, what of the missiles being lobbed into the civilian population of Israel. Judging by your posts, as long as the Hezbollah had killed more Israeli children, you’d be happy.
Alan, you old pole smoker, you. Oh, ooops, my mistake, you don’t have a son, do you?
Come on, Alan. There are better things than seeing Lebanese children being blown up. How about China being able to wipe the US off the map with its nuclear arsenal, if it wanted to. How about the fact that in less than 10 years, China will have the worlds largest economy? How about the fact that it already has the worlds largest army? How about people jumping to their deaths from the top of the WTC? How about the beheadings of American soldiers? How about the videos of Snipers taking down American troops? How about two planes taking down two skyscrapers, all with a bunch of box cutter? LOL! How about the bright fireballs seen in the sky on 9/11? (Those guys should have really done it on the 4th of July!) Man alive, it sure is great to watch reruns of that festival of light and sound!
“America is still the greatest nation”
This deserves a good, hearty Laugh Out Loud.
No Boh. I have repeatedly said niether side can be allowed to kill children. You are the one who says the Israel IS allowed to do so, to achieve its goals. Well, I say, then so is Hezbollah. Simple as that.
“Wow, in Jim’s world it’s fun to be at war with the US or Israel.”
No. No. You don’t understand.
Jim is doing it all “FOR THE CHILDREN”
Jim isn’t against the Israeli’s or the US per say. In Jim’s world of moral equivalence Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Israel, US, Jews, Republicans are all morally equivalent. Never mind that the goal of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah is to liquidate the Jewish state and all of its citizens. Never mind that they repeat their intent against Israel daily. Never mind that Hezbollah is a non governmental military organization that is set up as an Iranian war proxy. Never mind that the Lebanese government doesn’t have it within it’s power to remove Hezbollah. Never mind Syria has become the launch point of dozens of terrorist groups.
Never mind that they consider the US to be their greatest enemy. Finally, never mind that the destruction of the US and it’s populous is also a clearly stated ultimate goal.
You see it’s not really about Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Israel, and the US. It’s about JIM.
It’s about the screams of the dying children rattling around in Jims hollow head. Jim isn’t against us, he’s above us all. Jim’s the great moral pontificate speaking down to the lowly slime. Were all a moral Hezbollah by Jim’s reckoning.
ITS: PAPAL JIM VS. MORALY EQUIVALENT SLIME: ROUND 1
By the way Jim, that’s how you insult someone!
And, at least now the Lebanese PEOPLE would have justification to launch rockets into Israel. I mean, they killed their children, so if as a result the people, not Hezbollah, start to launch rockets into Israel, hoping as it (Israel) does, that maybe one of them will strike an IDF force, they are totally justified. Any civlian casulaties incurred would simply be unfortunate collateral damage. They would be defending what is left of their family, much as Israel is supposedly doing.
And, at least now the Lebanese PEOPLE would have justification to launch rockets into Israel. I mean, they killed their children, so if as a result the people, not Hezbollah, start to launch rockets into Israel, hoping as it (Israel) does, that maybe one of them will strike an IDF force, they are totally justified. Any civlian casulaties incurred would simply be unfortunate collateral damage. They would be defending what is left of their family, much as Israel is supposedly doing.
“Never mind that they repeat their intent against Israel daily.”
Umm…they either repeat their actions daily, or they repeatedly voice their intentions. It is not hard to be above you, my subterranean friend.
Hezbollah != Lebanon
WELL DAMN,
No sooner do I anoint Jim the pontificate of moral equivalence than he slips and falls off his throne.
“LOL! How about the bright fireballs seen in the sky on 9/11? (Those guys should have really done it on the 4th of July!) Man alive, it sure is great to watch reruns of that festival of light and sound!”
Cheering for the 9/11 murders are you? You sick piece of shit!!!
There you had everybody with all your concerns with “the children”, but it turns out to be just a moral crutch to allow your hatred of the United States.
Hezbollah != Lebanon
Jim != Mohammed or whatever the hell your name is.
I once had a conversation along these lines about the “laws of war”. The reality is the only real “law of war” is that only the winners get to hold war crime trials.
To argue anything else makes one appear either very naive or incredibly stupid.
I would bet in your case it is both.
Military units that choose to take up positions intermixed with civilians are legitimate targets, that is simply a fact by any no moronic reading of the Geneva Convention.
The WTC was not a legitimate military target and the 9/11 attack would violate the convention even if it had been carried out by a legitimate military organization. The attack on the USS Cole on the other hand was a legitimate military target and had the boat that attacked it carry any distinguishing marks to show it was a combat vehicle such an attack would fall completely within the convention — even if a cleaning crew of innocent children were clearly visible on the deck.
To put it simply you ignorant (little pup/hippy twit(choose appropriately based upon age)) there is no way to read the Geneva conventions that suggest that a force cannot fire on a legitimate target based on the possibility of civilian harm.
Now please do everyone a favor and test your theory by running over to Lebanon and making a citizens arrest of an Israeli tank.
Jim or Mohammed or whatever that hell your name is,
Your really not very good under pressure are you?
For your sake, I hope Israeli intelligence never gets hold of you. A few pokes with the “soft cushions” and five minutes in “the comfy chair” will be about all it takes for you to tell them everything you know.
Mohammed needs to think for a while!!
HEHE!!!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ–––
Sound of frogs and crickets
Hell, this is as good as duck hunting!
The Geneva Convention is not supposed to a document that cripples any countries ability to defend themselves. With most civilized countries, we measure the amount of possible civilian casualties against the value of the target, and scrap missions if the costs outweigh the benifit. Which is exactly what the GC means by discriminate.
Jim’s dead
An Israeli F-16 missed the children an killed Jim.
Your morally relative definition is bs.
Damn, I had those kids in my sights to. At least it wasn’t a complete waste of ammo.
I’m waiting with my shot gun just in case he pops up!
Here Trolly, Trolly, Trolly
Damn–
I hope it was obvious that my last comment was addressed to Jim.
Jim’s wife left him a few years back & took the kids with her, so he’s still kinda bitter about it. Maybe that’s why he has to be so fixated on projecting his pedophilia on others; his wife took the objects of his desire! He has no recourse but to indentify with others he sees as victims like him.
I think he’s also mad at God for not letting him be able to stand tall without a step ladder. All he has now is his tiny genitalia, his Union comrades and, well, us. Maybe he just needs a hug…
Hey Jim,
It took me awhile to get back to this post. Why is it that people who don’t have a point continue to try to make it using foul and filthy language. Do you really think that using F*** over and over again is going to make your argument anymore believable. Is it going to convince anyone that your right, is it going to encourage anyone to even listen to anything you have to say?
Those who resort to that kind of language and violent behavior need help. You might call on Deb Fritch, I’m sure she’ll be able to give the names of some capable people who deal with psychosis. I’ve wasted enough of my valuable time on you. Get some help.
Maybe Jim really was a Mohammad.
Congratulations on clobbering the nitwit.
Actually, I think we can thank DavidV for the brain work. The rest of it was hammering it through Jimbo’s head.
The Israeli F-16 finished the job.
God, I really need to get a life.
Time to walk the dog.
Over and out, Neo
Jim you ignorant pickle smoker. Cry me a river you bleeding heart fag. Abortion is okey dokey, but civilian deaths, especially Muslim ones, are solely a Jewish crime. Bite my ass, and btw, weren’t you one of those psycho hose bags predicting the EU would be the world’s largest economy a couple of years ago. And you are a doo doo head too.
Well, guess Jim had to go burn a flag. I’m sure they’d allow him to spew politics in the countries he so adores…and I’m sure the terrorists wouldn’t blow him up…after all, he’s on their side and I’m sure they’d really appreciate him. Meanwhile, while doing nothing to ever help anyone, he spends his life hating the US and our allies with such venom. What an idiot.
If I were the democrats, I would just use the secret powers and awesomeness of Aquaman to solve the war.
Do you suppose that Jim is our Monkey Faced Liberal? Time for some Monkey-faced Liberal punchin!
Jim-
How did you manage to type all those posts with a straight jacket on?
No….no one with half a brain said the EU would be the world’s largest economy. China, however, has already gone up several spots and is now number 2. And has a growth rate that dwarves the American one. Also, it is showing no signs of slowing down, and neither is the trend of practically every developed country using it’s labour force.
No, Alan, I don’t need a hug. Especially not from a pedophile like you. Get away from me with those filthy hands of yours. GET AWAY! What do you mean, they’re not filthy. I don’t care…just get aw….Hey, where your hands have been is between you and your daughter, buddy!!!
“ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ–––
Sound of frogs and crickets”
Sound of crickets….don’t you mean chickens?
How would you interpret part(b) of the excerpt of the Geneva Convention. Keep in mind the definition of the word indiscriminate, moron. It doesn’t mean benefits outweigh costs. It mean does not make distinctions. Grab a dictionary, jackass.
“The WTC was not a legitimate military target…”
Neither is a civilian Airport.
Kkidfnv!! gvnruuihjt, kjrnn…Geneva Convention ightri’hg, p %$%@#!%!!! Gtrhghoeor vnm, kjfhghp7p Israeli poopyheads vnuyroiut, @$&#%@$#!!! Mnhyew nvygrithvgdy nc vhriug osmlsk Hizbula Durka durka screeech!
You know what else was a case of “poor victims” really being collateral damage. It was the case of hundereds of Repuglicon larvae being obliterated into (in Alan’s choice words) itty bitty pieces in Oklahoma City.
Collateral damage, because Timmy was really going for this one person in the building, and it was not an indiscriminate attack, since the benefits outweighed the cost. Hell, the cost was really the profit, I guess. LOL LOL
I’m really bored with the last debate, yawn. I thought that discrimination was a bad thing. However I did see something that piqued my interest. Have you ever heard of the law of diminishing returns? Of course you haven’t, if you ever took an economics class you wouldn’t be a socialist.
I agree. It would be interesting to see a comment from “jim” that actually stated what he was FOR without resorting to trash-talking to those who didn’t agree with what he might have been trying to say. Maybe I’m just not as bright as a liberal…
Well anyway… Jim, here’s a hug:
HUG
All that nastiness, & I can still pray for you. God really is great! God bless you, Jim.
Rick – I somehow manage to type with a straight jacket on AND with only one hand, while the other is pleasuring myself as I dream of Helen Thomas.
And all this time, I thought “Raise taxes” was the Dems’ answer to everything.
“Hey Sean, I knew you wouldn’t get it. CIVILIANS CANNOT BE KILLED. You want it in baby talk? Say you rape your neighbours daughter, because you enjoy doing things like that. Now, IT DOESNT MATTER THAT YOU DID THIS, THE FATHER CANNOT KILL YOU. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. NO IFS, ANDS, OR BUTS. Say you killed her. THE FATHER CANNOT KILL YOU, NO IFS, ANDS OR BUTS. ITS STILL AGAINST THE LAW.”
Not in my state Motherf***er. A proud papa can gun down the bastard and get off scott Free. Even though our Governor is Queen Douche Libtard, we still have a smart enough legislature.
Open your eyes asswipe. Hezbollah is hiding behind these people and lobbing death at Isreal. Your refusal to accept this fact and Israel’s right to take out the bastards that are going after them prove you are a heartless genocidal motherf***er that is hiding his homocidal tendencies behind “the children”. Yup, you and Hezbollah are like two peas in the same pod. Goat f***er.
“Son of Bob.
Have you counted the relative deaths of Israeli and Lebanese civlians in this conflict. Perhaps then you will realise that it is much more fun to be Israel. You can kill 150 children, in return for losing a total of 20 civilians of your own.
It’s fun being an Israeli pilot. You can kill the Lebanese children, but proclaim self-defense and be forgiven.”
Um, and this is the grand total of Israeli Children and Women lost in all of the years of Arab/Persian Agression?? What an absolutely emptyheaded twat you are. Just because Lebanon has suffered such losses in such short time doesn’t mean that Israel has ONLY suffered the loss of 20 people. Ever heard of “The Straw That Broke The Camel’s Back”? Hezbollah was the one to put it on the pile.
Here’s an Idea… tell me where you live, I’ll take refuge in the nearest hospital and lob mortars at your house non-stop for days, weeks, months. We’ll see how proportional your reaction then.
Additionally, there have been several very well worded, on-point, legally correct answers to your misguided diatribe. Just because you haven’t been able to comprehend the answers doesn’t mean they haven’t been given. You Genocidal Tosspot.
“Say you rape your neighbours daughter, because you enjoy doing things like that. Now, IT DOESNT MATTER THAT YOU DID THIS, THE FATHER CANNOT KILL YOU.”
Now there’s a conversation starter if there ever was one. Right!!!
desertelephant, your thoughts are about as unorganised as… JIM its you again. I’ve broken the code! Maybe if you would let the emotional response subside, you could become somewhat more rational. I’m still not sure if your agreeing with me or not. You might need to reorganize some of your words.
Thank you for those pictures of over 100 dead civilian terrorists. And might I remind you, Israel, that since the dhimmis are going to complain anyway, you could get this whole war over with a lot faster if you just nuked them. Hypothetically speaking, of course.
If any of you have more pictures of dead terrorists, feel free to pass those along. The casualty count in Lebanon is so low, we need to be reminded from time to time that the IDF is still kicking ass.
Quixote,
I am certainly not Jim. I support Israel and understand that they are not war crminals. My thoughts were actually decently organzed and placed in paragrah(ish) form to denote seperation of thoughts.
Oh, who cares what some mentally challenged liberal thinks, if you can it thinking at all. No need to be divided amongst each other on any issue. The minute we become nasty to one another, they start thinking they’ve accomplished something. All they can do is talk trash from their keyboards & try to f*** things up.
Of course, they can’t be as effective as the IDF at kicking the crap outta Hezbollah, or the US at beating the Taliban & Saddam’s regime into a bloody pulp.
Frank,
I thought the idea of this post was FUN Trivia. I stopped having fun quite a few post ago. Maybe a better name would be:
Frustrating post
Furious post
Flaming idiot post (and you know who you are)
Facetious post
Flippant post
Frivolous posts
of course there are other words that would fit but some of us don’t have to sink to the level of adolescents and perverts to make our point.
Yes I know I’m beating a dead horse but it’s better than beating on a real person, so it will have to do.
DesertElephant,
I don’t think that seanQuixote picked up on the quotation marks around the first paragraph.
I quoted from it, but didn’t attribute it to Jim either, thus adding to the confusion.
Truth is I didn’t look it up, and figured you were quoting Jim. Who else would it be?
Are you saying that a troll would post as someone else with emotion like a sock puppet? That’s all they can do! If they really felt the conviction of what they were slurring about, they still wouldn’t have the spine to follow through, not unlike Cindy Sheeham…or Soddom’s…”hunger strikes”.
Neo, you know that there’s no way a libtroll would ever be honest or forthcoming about who they are. They can’t be honest with themselves.
They’re bitter to the end, so they will disguise themselves in any facade they can. To attribute any credibility to anything they have to say is to give them an inch -which, in terms of manhood, gives them exactly one inch,- and they’ll take it a mile, albeit a very short mile.
In real life, a mile is the median distance between their parole/probation officer’s base & the closest elementary school to mommy’s spare room or basement.
DAMN!! See what happens when you don’t have internet for a whole weekend!!!
Jim Sux…
That’s all I have cause everybody else already verbally whupped up on him pretty good, well done, folks.(enthusiastic applause!!)
I repeat… I AM NOT JIM. Oy. Anyhow, I guess I should have attributed the quotes I used as Jim’s before laying in to him. Sorry for the confusion, ya’ll.
Wow, I missed out on a fun one. Or maybe it’s not over yet. You know how libs are. You can crush them, prove them wrong, provide a legitamate argument, it really doesn’t matter. They’ll get over it or yell the same phrase about something. You know, like roaches, but not as high up on the evolutionary chain.
But enough random trash talking, albiet not very trashy. For all of you who didn’t want to read the ungodly amount of text on here, or if you just wanted to skip all the pedophile crap, here’s a recap.
According to Jim (hey, I think that was a TV show on Fox or something):
Isreal is unjustified in bombing the targets they have because they are civilian structures. Under this clause in the Geneva Convention:
“launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2 (a)(iii);”
means that if an attack damages anything civilian in anyway, more specifically refering to civilian life, the party is either guilty of a war crime or an act of terrorism. That is, in short, to say that Hezbolah is guilty of terrorism because they have legitamatly attacked Israeli troops and civilians, and that the nation of Israel is guilty of war crimes because they attacked a civilan structure which resulted in the deaths of however so many Lebonese civilians, either children, adults, or whoever. The word indiscriminant in the context of the clause means that the attack doesn’t discriminate between killing millitary personel and civilans, which makes sense under the definition of the word indiscriminate.
Note: Indiscriminate adj. To make no distinction between two or more parties.
Ex: A bomb is indiscriminate in that it only blows up. It doesn’t blow up and stop if something it doesn’t want to blow it happens to be in its way.
According to… well, just about everyone else:
That line in the in the context of that clause in the Geneva convention actually means that the attacks are indiscriminate, meaning that Israel didn’t pick a target. It just launched bombs into Lebenon with no regard as to what the bombs would hit, millitary or civilian. Israel picked a target where they knew Hezbolah troops were and attacked. Civilian casualties being, albeit horrible concequence, a part of war that happens, makes the action justified because the Hezbolah troops hid among the civilians, meaning that Israel couldn’t make a counter attack against Hezbolah without killing the civilans.
Now, to put in my two cents:
Yes, Israel bombed a civilan target in an attack on Hezbolah and it resulted in Lebonese civilan deaths. It’s a horrible thing, but it was a nessesary thing. No one at any point said that the Lebonese deaths were a good thing, or even an ok thing. Killing innocents is bad, plain and simple under any circumstances. Going back to the rape analogy, it is true that is the perp completes the crime, you can be convicted for murder if you kill him for revenge later. However, if you kill him in the act or before, it’s self defense because you’re preventing something from happening or continuing. Now, as a more accurate comparison, lets say that the rapist is in the middle of his crime, as Hezbolah is in the middle of attacking Israel, and you run in with your 12 gauge shotgun and point it at the guy. you get right up to his head and then he holds up your daughters arm between him and the barrel of the gun. You move the gun, he moves her arm. You can’t shoot him without shooting her and possibly rendering her arm useless for her entire life. So what do you do? For this, you are Israel, your daughter is both Israel and Lebenon because Hezbolah hurts both of them, the rapist is Hezbolah, and your daughter’s arm is Lebonese civilians. If you don’t shoot, he’s going to keep raping your daughter and then most likely kill her to keep her quiet, or possibly kidnap her to keep both you and her from talking. Either way, you lose your daughter, as Israel and Lebenon will both be gone as we know them if Israel does nothing. If you do shoot, you’re going to hurt your daughter, possibly change her life forever anyway. Is it worth it? I can tell you I would shoot. The entirity of her being is worth more than her arm, as Israel and a free Lebenon as a whole are more important than some civilians. It should have never come to that. Tohse people shouldn’t have died, and her arm shouldn’t have been shot, but what’s worse? That, or the alternative?
But that’s ideology, and ideology is always up for debate. Let’s go back to the clause. the use of “indiscriminate” is up for interpretation within the context of the sentence. However, in this situation, that isn’t improtant. Note the line,
“affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects,”
See “in the knowledge”? This means that in order for an action to be considered a violation of this part of the Geneva convention, the attacking
party must:
A) Attack a civilan object that is going to result in excessive loss of civilian life.
B) Have knoledge that this attack will cause the excessive deaths of civilians.
Under this, Israel is only guilty of a war crime if they were aware that an attack would cause mass civilian deaths. “Excessive” can’t be defined absolutly, as it varies by situation. Believing that a building may or may not contain civilians isn’t close enough. They have to know for a fact that there are many civilians in the building. One guy isn’t excessive, no matter how tragic his death may be. Did Israel know their were people there? Possibly. I wouldn’t know, I’m not there. They may have bombed thinking that Hezbolah had driven the people out so as to use the equipment better. I don’t know. But I’m pretty sure that the Hezbolah soldiers didn’t send a message to Israel saying, “If you bomb us, you’ll kill all these people as well.” As far as I can tell, Israel had no definate knoledge that any civilians were there. And it being common sense for where it was doesn’t count, as that’s only a hunch.
Sorry for that being so long, but if you have a lot of input, you have to have a lot of output. And before Jim comes back and starts insulting me and trash talking:
I’m a minor, so I can’t be a pedophile, and I have no children. I’m straight. And, finally, I’m not a republican, I’m an independent. I’m actually closest to Libertarian. So if you call me a child molester, accuse me of having sex with my own child, or any of your previous names, it’s makes you both a liar and a jackass.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Masashi-
Wow! Hope to see you in the other comment pages.