knapplc Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Can you give me the Cliff's Notes version of that definition? I don't want to wade through the entire Geneva Convention. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Can you give me the Cliff's Notes version of that definition? I don't want to wade through the entire Geneva Convention. OK, so you didn't open the link I provided. Everything you need to see is visible on the front page without any scrolling. However it does not cut-n-paste well, so here is the link again: http://www.hrweb.org...l/genocide.html Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Can you give me the Cliff's Notes version of that definition? I don't want to wade through the entire Geneva Convention. Um, I'll take "the Killing of everyone of a similar race or ideology" for 200 Alex Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I typed a response to Sub's post but it's not here. I must have closed the window before hitting Submit. Anyway.... Genocide has nothing to do with what we're doing in Afghanistan. We're targeting specific people, not a whole population. If we were intent on genocide we'd round up whole villages and put them to the sword. Implying that the U.S. is engaged in genocide in Afghanistan is like saying anyone who commits murder is guilty of genocide. It's not the same thing. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 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. You are ignoring that he said "IF I WAS A BETTING MAN". that means he doesn't know they did something to deserve it, but he thinks chances are better that they did than didn't. BW has behaved very poorly in it's past, so that's why he'd bet against them. So he is between 51-99% sure they deserved it. Many here are assuming he meant 99% or close to it...that's not a fair assumption. If you want him to clarify, then simply ask for it. People are simply putting words in his mouth. Go by what he actuallly said and what it technically means and not what you want it to mean. There is nothing more to this...it's THIS simple. Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 We really need to parse words to this degree to make a point? Are we going to debate the meaning of "is" next? Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 We really need to parse words to this degree to make a point? Are we going to debate the meaning of "is" next? well he went on to explain what he meant and it was you guys that wouldn't accept it. you guys really owe him an appolgy. Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 We really need to parse words to this degree to make a point? Are we going to debate the meaning of "is" next? well he went on to explain what he meant and it was you guys that wouldn't accept it. you guys really owe him an apolgy. You gotta be kidding me. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 We really need to parse words to this degree to make a point? Are we going to debate the meaning of "is" next? well he went on to explain what he meant and it was you guys that wouldn't accept it. you guys really owe him an apolgy. You gotta be kidding me. LOL well didn't he try over and over to explain what he meant, the same thing I just explained, right after the outraged started and everyone just looked past it? Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 His explanation was saying the same thing over and over, and claiming people didn't get it. And your 51%-99% explanation was silly. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Can you give me the Cliff's Notes version of that definition? I don't want to wade through the entire Geneva Convention. Um, I'll take "the Killing of everyone of a similar race or ideology" for 200 Alex Is that from the Geneva Conventions, which was approved by the US Congress? Or is that from the Miriam Webster dictionary, which was not? Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Anyway.... Genocide has nothing to do with what we're doing in Afghanistan. We're targeting specific people, not a whole population. If we were intent on genocide we'd round up whole villages and put them to the sword. Did you read Article Two? Implying that the U.S. is engaged in genocide in Afghanistan is like saying anyone who commits murder is guilty of genocide. It's not the same thing. Few people cause the murder of thousands of people, so it is not like that. Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Yes, I read Article Two. Doesn't say what you're implying. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 His explanation was saying the same thing over and over, and claiming people didn't get it. Unfortunately many still don't. My words were clearly written on Blackwater in Fallujah and on Genocidal Approach, as to not be ambiguous. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Yes, I read Article Two. Doesn't say what you're implying. I expect disagreement on policy and execution, but this is getting beyond ridiculous. To be honest, I am very disappointed in this Clintonian haggling over words. Link to comment
Recommended Posts