Article 45.1

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by insein
He is obviously gay cause hes loving the ass-raping he's getting here. He cant get enough.

It's interesting you accuse me of being gay, when you and Rambo and others are the ones always conjuring up images of anal sex. Perhaps you should explore your feminine side guys, its apparent you like to think of gay sex pretty often.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by spillmind
funny how the original questions NEVER get answered, and it becomes a roundabout bunch of tangents

one little point on one little tangent, and they all think they were totally right about everything all along.

that i can agree with.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Yes, this is America, and in the great Democracy of America, hating specific members of the government for doing things you believe are wrong is the same thing as hating the nation. If you really love your country, you will always agree with the President and always believe what he is doing is right. Your individual thoughts are of no consequence, as in American the President will decide which thoughts you may have and still love your country.

Do I have it righty now?

then what of your 12 signs of Facism post where basically said we live in a facist society? Would you be alive right now if that were true?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by OCA
An analogy: if the roles were reversed and the war was over here in America, considering the fact that the Pentagon is the command and nerve center of all branches of the military but because its in an urban area where any attack on it is sure to kill civilians, that it should not be considered a target? What should they bomb the fucking Grand Canyon?

All 3 of those things you listed are legitimate facts of war and in no way constitute any criminal act by anybody. Unless of course you have irrefutable proof of intentional civilian targeting?

#1 I never said they neccessarily constituted criminal acts

#2 I never said legitimate targets should not be bombed

#3 All I am saying is that the one dropping the bombs is the one responsible for the deaths that result.

You get it now?

Stop making up in your own head what I said to make it easier to argue against me.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Yes, this is America, and in the great Democracy of America, hating specific members of the government for doing things you believe are wrong is the same thing as hating the nation. If you really love your country, you will always agree with the President and always believe what he is doing is right. Your individual thoughts are of no consequence, as in American the President will decide which thoughts you may have and still love your country.

Do I have it righty now?

No. You dont. You can disagree with the President or any other politician with whatever you want. But when you start underminding our nations security and giving morale to the terrorists your walking a fine line.

 

[spillmind]

Why don't you go back and catch the waves bro. You havent added anything to the convo worth reading for awhile.

then why bother quoting the whole damn thing?

just because you don't want to read it, doesn't mean it isn't worth reading. maybe YOU should run for president!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by insein
that would hold true if we were just arbitrarily dropping bombs. All targets have been military targets INCLUDING that TV station. When they incite people to attack the Coalition and that they are here, here and here then they have become a military target. Also you still cant admit that no one was killed in that attack because even your links said the place was closed and all 3 links reported no casualties.

Your whole logic is flawed because you base it on the fact that your intelligent.

Reported no casualties? Tell me sir, how many innocents died in the WTC whose bodies were never found? You can't say civilians didn't die because no bodies were found, that's absolutely ridiculous. Nor can you convince me that a major institution like a TV station does not have at least some people in it at all hours of the day. I will admit there is a possibility no one was hurt, but I maintain my position that it is a reasonable to assume that in a large public building like a TV station there is someone in or near the building at all times.

And in case you weren't aware, the TV station wasn't the only place we bombed. We blew up power stations, for instance. You probably aren't aware that a 2000 lb bomb has a potential kill radius of up to 1 kilometer. Just because we are hitting our targets does not mean innocent people aren't being hurt. You probably also weren't aware that 15%, or 4.2 kilotons, of the munitions dropped during the bombing campaign were conventional "dumb" bombs.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
I do through and through despite your dislike for it. But have you ever read it? There is nothing in the constitution about International law. The highest law of the land is Federal law.

Umm, yes there IS, have YOU read it? Do you know how international laws are made? BY TREATY. Some international organization doesn't does write the law and say "here it is," we have to AGREE to the law BY TREATY. And once we sign and rafify a TREATY is becomes the highest law of the land with the Constitution and Federal law. Care to tell me which part of Article 6 I DON'T understand?

 

[spillmind]

that i can agree with.

ok, prove that you're a straightshooter!

1) did we or did we not drop cluster bombs and carpet bomb, knowing full well we were going to kill civilians. just answer the questions, and don't bring up a bunch of other crap.

2) are we, or are we not violating the geneva convention by not declaring the status of our detainees? and is this breaking the law?

3) if you agree Bush is our current president, do you think he is directly responsible for these stances?

please try and stick to the questions.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Oh and if you are going to bring up the treaties, nice try but treaties can be made and broken. Sorry

You are correct sir. Treaties can be made and broken BY CONGRESS. The PRESIDENT doesn't get to make or break treaties by himself. We have an entire branch of government called the "legislative branch", the President doesn't have all the power. And in this nation, it is the President AND the Congress that gets to decide when to make and break treaties. THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT MAKE THE LAW. Next please.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by OCA
Dammit why didn't I think of that! Jethro do you suck cock down in the French Quarter?

Do you always think of gay sex?

 

[insein]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
#1 I never said they neccessarily constituted criminal acts

#2 I never said legitimate targets should not be bombed

#3 All I am saying is that the one dropping the bombs is the one responsible for the deaths that result.

You get it now?

Stop making up in your own head what I said to make it easier to argue against me.

Now i know who this is. ITs john kerry.

posted by spidythewonderjackass
"I never said they neccessarily constituted criminal acts

#2 I never said legitimate targets should not be bombed"


another post from spideytubaroll
I'm afraid your missing the point. The law is the law, period. And if President Bush is breaking the law, he is breaking the law. If you don't care about the law, that's fine, just say so.


I voted for the 87 billion before i voted against it.

I own 5 Suv's, but i just ride in them their not mine.

Im a war hero but im an anti-war hero too.

All begining to make sense.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Of course they should bomb the grand canyon then no one gets hurt.

No, what they ought do is bomb the Pentagon and then pretend they didn't hurt anyone!

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Umm, yes there IS, have YOU read it? Do you know how international laws are made? BY TREATY. Some international organization doesn't does write the law and say "here it is," we have to AGREE to the law BY TREATY. And once we sign and rafify a TREATY is becomes the highest law of the land with the Constitution and Federal law. Care to tell me which part of Article 6 I DON'T understand?

Again what part dont you understand. Treaties are made and broken according to the will of the nation involved. Hence making International law as a criminal law virtually irrelevant. There is no body to enforce it. Any nation bound by it, is bound volentarily and essentially can ignore it whenever if feels like it. Again hence the problem with international law.

Ive simply got to be amazed at someone trying to argue with someone who has been studying international law and international community for the last few years and is working on a law degree with an emphasis in international law and simply ignores them. Amazing.

 

[spillmind]

I have to wonder why I even give you credit spilly!

with all due respect, evil

with all the name calling and the sparks going back and forth, i still respect your opinion very much, and i hope that is reciprocated. don't take the remarks meant mostly for OCA and insein directly at you. my error.

he does have a couple points. that's all. *shrugs* sorry if you hate his guts.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by insein
Now i know who this is. ITs john kerry.

Just for a fun laugh. Anyone notice that you can rearrange John Kerrys name to spell Horny Jerk?

 

[insein]

Originally posted by spillmind


ok, prove that you're a straightshooter!

1) did we or did we not drop cluster bombs and carpet bomb, knowing full well we were going to kill civilians. just answer the questions, and don't bring up a bunch of other crap.

2) are we, or are we not violating the geneva convention by not declaring the status of our detainees? and is this breaking the law?

3) if you agree Bush is our current president, do you think he is directly responsible for these stances?

please try and stick to the questions.

1) Yes. Every war plan accounts for possible civilian losses.
2) No. No.
3) I agree Bush is our president yes. He is ultimately the commander in chief so yes he's responsible for everything. A war plan is approved by him and Rumsfield. Casualty estimates are conveyed. War should not be waged by men without a conscience for then those lives that are lost will be in veign. Bush knows whats at stake.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by spillmind
with all due respect, evil

with all the name calling and the sparks going back and forth, i still respect your opinion very much, and i hope that is reciprocated. don't take the remarks meant mostly for OCA and insein directly at you. my error.

he does have a couple points. that's all. *shrugs* sorry if you hate his guts.

No one hates his guts, but i have yet to see any points. been entertaining though.

 

[spillmind]

SpidermanTuba:

you had some great points, and you should stick to your guns. don't let some of the posters drag you down into the denial name calling quagmire. and to to refrain from drawing analogies that hit that close to home. i also think it should be fair, but some of these dudes are highly sensitive sometimes. you make good points without partaking in the flaming. consider it 'higher ground'

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by eric
An excerpt from the "Just War Theory", commonly held as the unofficial rules of war.

Warfare sometimes unavoidably involves civilians. Whilst the principle of discrimination argues for their immunity from war, the practicalities of war provoke the need for a different model. The doctrine of double effect offers a justification for killing civilians in war, so long as their deaths are not intended but are accidental. Targeting a military establishment in the middle of a city is permissible according to the doctrine of double effect, for the target is legitimate. Civilian casualties are a foreseeable but accidental effect. Whilst the doctrine provides a useful justification of ‘collateral damage’ to civilians, it raises a number of issues concerning the justification of foreseeable breaches of immunity, as well as the balance to strike between military objectives and civilian casualties.

Another problem arises in defining who is a combatant and who is not. Usually combatants carry arms openly, but guerrillas disguise themselves as civilians. Civilians are just as necessary causal conditions for the war machine as are combatants, therefore, they claim, there is no moral distinction in targeting an armed combatant and a civilian involved in arming or feeding the combatant. The distinction is, however, not closed by the nature of modern economies, since a combatant still remains a very different entity from a non-combatant, if not for the simple reason that the former is presently armed (and hence has renounced rights or is prepared to die, or is a threat), whilst the civilian is not. On the other hand, it can be argued that being a civilian does not necessarily mean that one is not a threat and hence not a legitimate target. If Mr Smith is the only individual in the nation to possess the correct combination that will detonate a device, then he becomes not only causally efficacious in the firing of a weapon of war, but also morally responsible; reasonably he also becomes a legitimate military target. His job effectively militarizes his status. The underlying issues that ethical analysis must deal with involve the logical nature of an individual’s complicity, or aiding and abetting the war machine, with greater weight being imposed on those logically closer than those logically further from the war machine in their work. At a deeper level, one can consider the role that civilians play in supporting an unjust war; to what extent are they morally culpable, and if they are culpable to some extent, does that mean they may become legitimate targets?

"Civilian casualties are a foreseeable but accidental effect."

That's a contradiction in terms. If it is foreseeable it is no accident. If I drink a 5th of Jack Daniel's and take off down the interstate at 100 mph at night with my headlights off, when I kill someone it is hardly "accidental" merely because I did not want kill someone.


Other than your above contradictory statement, I agree with yo 100%. I'm in no way saying that killing civilians isn't justified, I'm merely saying its fool to pretend that's not what happens, that's all.

I acknowledge there is a difference between us and them in this regard. With the enemy, their primary purpose is to kill civilians because they hate us. With us, civilians die because we drop bombs on, for the most part, legitimate military targets. There is difference, a big difference. They have less respect for human life than we do, that is apparent.

But the similarity is this - both the terrorists and US have comitted acts that they knew would result in the death of innocents. That's all. That's all I'm trying to say, and nothing more.