How has the Marine Urination fiasco missed Huskerboard?

[carlfense]

What we have here is a massive abilty ro read with comprihension on a large god-damned scale. What I said was...

 

We don't know all the facts leading up to the death of the four Blackwater contractors, but if I was a betting person I would wager on the side that they deserved what they got.

 

I did not say they deserved what they f'ing got, I said that based on the history of their employer it was feasible that they may have acted in such a manner.

What you said was significantly stronger than saying that it was feasible. You said that if you were a betting person you would bet that they deserved what they got. That would imply that you think that it is more likely than not that they earned their fate. That's a far cry from your "feasible" walk-back.

[Sub-Husker]

What you said was significantly stronger than saying that it was feasible. You said that if you were a betting person you would bet that they deserved what they got. That would imply that you think that it is more likely than not that they earned their fate. That's a far cry from your "feasible" walk-back.

 

You're playing semantics.

 

I stand by my original statement, it is both feasible (I don't bet on non-feasible things), and in my opinion more likely than not.

 

And recall, I did say that we did not know.

 

Let's get back to what was actually posted, and not add or change what I had written.

[Cactusboy]

We don't know all the facts leading up to the death of the four Blackwater contractors, but if I was a betting person I would wager on the side that they deserved what they got.

 

And a few posts later you actually tried to climb onto a moral soapbox with a straight face.

 

Pathetic.

 

Blackwater has a HORRIBLE reputation for doing very evil things. Thier own workers have accused them of either murder or planning to murder opponents...I can't remember right now. It's so bad they no longer go by "Blackwater". Just saying that I can see how it can be hard to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Cactusboy]

What you said was significantly stronger than saying that it was feasible. You said that if you were a betting person you would bet that they deserved what they got. That would imply that you think that it is more likely than not that they earned their fate. That's a far cry from your "feasible" walk-back.

 

You're playing semantics.

 

I stand by my original statement, it is both feasible (I don't bet on non-feasible things), and in my opinion more likely than not.

 

And recall, I did say that we did not know.

 

Let's get back to what was actually posted, and not add or change what I had written.

 

 

You are right. They are just lashing out at your lack of tact.

[Sub-Husker]

You are right. They are just lashing out at your lack of tact.

 

That's me... a lack of tact.

 

I try to say what I mean clearly, and not sacrifice clarity for faux politeness.

 

I try to give messages that I am unsure of the benefit of the doubt by asking for further explanation, except in the case where a 'history' has been established.

[Muck]

This is what I originally wrote. With the rage expressed at me and the comment by Walks and Muck, I reaaly doubt that they correctly read it.

 

 

 

Oh it was read correctly.

 

Let's recap:

 

-You strongly implied that the four men deserved what happened to them.

 

-Another poster made the Khobar analogy to illustrate the absurdity of the notion that being associated part with a group (be it the US Military or Blackwater) or merely being in an unwanted location (be it foreign "occupiers" in the home of Mecca & Medina or American "spies" in Fallujah) is sufficient cause to warrant murder.

 

-You reacted with "rage" and Ad hominem.

 

-I commented on your self righteous hypocrisy.

 

-You responded with the message board equivalent of elementary school debating tactics by calling me a troll (with an odd attempt at alliterative wit using a former Buckeye coach).

 

 

Everything following that point boils down to claiming everyone else just didn't understand what you really meant (while at the same time continuing to be completely oblivious to what THEY actually meant) and attempts to justify your position with the same level of completely oblivious reasoning (for example citing the company withholding documents is evidence to support your claim that the employees were likely deserving of their fate....an obstruction that was intended to keep those documents from the very families of those men who were at the time suing the company in an attempt to exonerate their lost husbands/children).

 

There were plenty of threads on

Al7orya and similar boards posting links to stories about alleged abuses of Iraqi civilians used in the exact same manner to 'prove' how the attacks in Al Khobar were justified (sorry I mean...'probably' justified). Of course your guilt by association is completely different than theirs was.

 

Some of us do know what happened on that day and it has been documented enough that those with a desire to try and gain an objective understanding the events can get up to speed if they so desire. The problem isn't a lack of 'tact' on your part, it is a seeming inability to separate your prejudices from an objective viewpoint.

[Sub-Husker]

Oh it was read correctly

 

based on your reacp, that does not speak highly for your ability to process information.

 

Everything following that point boils down to claiming everyone else just didn't understand what you really meant (while at the same time continuing to be completely oblivious to what THEY actually meant) and attempts to justify your position with the same level of completely oblivious reasoning (for example citing the company withholding documents is evidence to support your claim that the employees were likely deserving of their fate....an obstruction that was intended to keep those documents from the very families of those men who were at the time suing the company in an attempt to exonerate their lost husbands/children).

 

There were plenty of threads on

Al7orya and similar boards posting links to stories about alleged abuses of Iraqi civilians used in the exact same manner to 'prove' how the attacks in Al Khobar were justified (sorry I mean...'probably' justified). Of course your guilt by association is completely different than theirs was.

 

Some of us do know what happened on that day and it has been documented enough that those with a desire to try and gain an objective understanding the events can get up to speed if they so desire. The problem isn't a lack of 'tact' on your part, it is a seeming inability to separate your prejudices from an objective viewpoint.

 

If you think you know something, then post it.

 

Because so far you have been nothing but a muck-raking troll.

[walksalone]

The earlier myopic response to what I'd said was made quickly & irrationally, without putting any actual thought into it. So, if I've got this right, if our troops are somewhere they don't belong, they get what they deserved, like the Rangers in Mogadishu.

 

If our troops are in a combat zone, or seen as an occupying force, then it should be expected that someone would want to harm them. To not expect that would be, as you said, "myopic".

 

next time, don't forget to include my entire statement.

 

Those 4 blackwater guys deserved what happened to them, as much as the kids at Khobar Towers, or on the USS Cole. Simple fact is, that they didn't.

 

That was the major point of what I was trying to stay. Be wary of what you pick and choose...

[walksalone]

I find it interesting that you are OK with the deaths of Americans because they worked for a company that has done bad things. The implication being that they are guilty by association

 

What we have here is a massive abilty ro read with comprihension on a large god-damned scale. What I said was...

 

We don't know all the facts leading up to the death of the four Blackwater contractors, but if I was a betting person I would wager on the side that they deserved what they got.

 

I did not say they deserved what they f'ing got, I said that based on the history of their employer it was feasible that they may have acted in such a manner.

 

[knapplc]

Seriously... can we get back to reading what was actually written in a post before we criticize?

 

If we quoted what we were resoponding to and the words were there to see, we could eliminate alot of assuming and misrepresentation.

 

I find it interesting that you are OK with the deaths of Americans because they worked for a company that has done bad things. The implication being that they are guilty by association

 

What we have here is a massive abilty ro read with comprihension on a large god-damned scale. What I said was...

 

We don't know all the facts leading up to the death of the four Blackwater contractors, but if I was a betting person I would wager on the side that they deserved what they got.

 

I did not say they deserved what they f'ing got, I said that based on the history of their employer it was feasible that they may have acted in such a manner.

 

Yet in the Drone thread you are decrying the deaths of "innocent" civilians, despite knowing that those drones do not target civilians, meaning they are either enemy combatants or hanging with enemy combatants, yet the guilt-by-association idea doesn't surface in that conversation.

 

How familiar are you with the demographics and the culture of the Pashtun people?

 

It is a tribal society, and most men in the countrside are armed. We have classified them as "militants" on their own land, doing what they have always done. And because they are classified as militants, are you saying that they and anyoneone near them deserves to be killed?

 

If that is what you are saying, then that would be OKaying the genosidal approach to peace.

 

I don't think anyone is having trouble comprehending your statement. It seems as if you intended to say something other than what you said. The phrase "they deserved what they got" is not ambiguous. It's not a reading comprehension problem, but it probably is a miscommunication in some way.

 

I'm somewhat familiar with the Pashtun people - probably decently so, considering I've never gone over there and never met any of them. I am well aware that they are all armed. But that's irrelevant to why the bombs fall on the dwellings. We're not simply bombing everyone we see with a gun, indiscriminately from the sky. We're using eyes and ears on the ground to guide drones to particular areas. We're using information from locals and our own intelligence folks to identify specific targets. We're only launching missiles when the intelligence we receive gives us a very high probability of hitting a very specific target.

 

What we are NOT doing is engaging in genocide. That term belongs nowhere in this conversation. Hyperbole is one thing, but the word you chose is about the antithesis of what's going on over there.

[Sub-Husker]

We don't know all the facts leading up to the death of the four Blackwater contractors, but if I was a betting person I would wager on the side that they deserved what they got.

 

I don't think anyone is having trouble comprehending your statement. It seems as if you intended to say something other than what you said. The phrase "they deserved what they got" is not ambiguous. It's not a reading comprehension problem, but it probably is a miscommunication in some way.

 

Really... I give the f#*k up.

[knapplc]

We don't know all the facts leading up to the death of the four Blackwater contractors, but if I was a betting person I would wager on the side that they deserved what they got.

 

I don't think anyone is having trouble comprehending your statement. It seems as if you intended to say something other than what you said. The phrase "they deserved what they got" is not ambiguous. It's not a reading comprehension problem, but it probably is a miscommunication in some way.

 

Really... I give the f#*k up.

 

I, along with many other people, do not see how I am misinterpreting what you're saying here.

 

Maybe you just need a reset? Rephrase? I don't get it.

[Sub-Husker]

If that is what you are saying, then that would be OKaying the genosidal approach to peace.

 

What we are NOT doing is engaging in genocide. That term belongs nowhere in this conversation. Hyperbole is one thing, but the word you chose is about the antithesis of what's going on over there.

 

Perhaps you should read this section from treaty ratified by the Congress of the United States of America...

 

http://www.hrweb.org...l/genocide.html

 

http://en.wikipedia....eva_Conventions

[knapplc]

Perhaps you should read the definition of Genocide.

 

http://www.merriam-w...ionary/genocide

 

 

 

We are not intent on destroying a culture. We are targeting specific persons whom we believe are our enemies. If we were engaging in genocide we would simply march through each valley, round up everyone we see, and shoot them.

 

Dropping bombs from drones is not genocide. It is surgical warfare.

[Sub-Husker]

Perhaps you should read the definition of Genocide.

 

http://www.merriam-w...ionary/genocide

 

We are not intent on destroying a culture. We are targeting specific persons whom we believe are our enemies. If we were engaging in genocide we would simply march through each valley, round up everyone we see, and shoot them.

 

Dropping bombs from drones is not genocide. It is surgical warfare.

 

It seems that I have to keep reposting what I wrote, because poeple who think they are responding to it are really responding to something else.

 

If that is what you are saying, then that would be OKaying the genosidal approach to peace.

 

By the way Knapplc... The Congress of the United States of America had ratified the Geneva Conventions. Please refer to the definition of Genocide that is part of that treaty, and the list of nations that have approved it.