Coffeehouse Thread

85 posts

The Saga of War Crimes Continues: Rape & Murder

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Shark_M

    SCMcDonnell wrote:
    What else can one imply when you deliberately misquote an article to make it look like soldiers have been charged and convicted of a crime that is only in the investigation phase - just like Haditha?

    Again, I am calling you out on your false statements and you have yet to recognize the ignorance in those statements.

    SM



    They are in the process to being charged. I have no problem , in this day and age where after what we saw what the army is doing and is capable of, of assuming them guilty until proven otherwise.

    Just like Pres. Bush can call those in GTMO killers without giving them assumption of innocence until proven otherwise in a Court of Law.

  • User profile image
    SCMcDonnell

    Shark_M wrote:
    
    SCMcDonnell wrote: What else can one imply when you deliberately misquote an article to make it look like soldiers have been charged and convicted of a crime that is only in the investigation phase - just like Haditha?

    Again, I am calling you out on your false statements and you have yet to recognize the ignorance in those statements.

    SM



    They are in the process to being charged. I have no problem , in this day and age where after what we saw what the army is doing and is capable of, of assuming them guilty until proven otherwise.

    Just like Pres. Bush can call those in GTMO killers without giving them assumption of innocence until proven otherwise in a Court of Law.


    Therein lies the reason why liberals never win elections - their emotions assume truth and their conspiracies become truth.

    And again, you are wrong and making false statements.  The definitions of being investigated does not contain "process of being charged." 

    And since you have "no problem" assuming one is guilty until proven innocent you have shown how your emotions rule you while evidence does not.  You don't happen to be related to Dan Rather do you?

    SM

  • User profile image
    Shark_M

    SCMcDonnell wrote:
    
    Shark_M wrote:
    SCMcDonnell wrote: What else can one imply when you deliberately misquote an article to make it look like soldiers have been charged and convicted of a crime that is only in the investigation phase - just like Haditha?

    Again, I am calling you out on your false statements and you have yet to recognize the ignorance in those statements.

    SM



    They are in the process to being charged. I have no problem , in this day and age where after what we saw what the army is doing and is capable of, of assuming them guilty until proven otherwise.

    Just like Pres. Bush can call those in GTMO killers without giving them assumption of innocence until proven otherwise in a Court of Law.


    Therein lies the reason why liberals never win elections - their emotions assume truth and their conspiracies become truth.

    And again, you are wrong and making false statements.  The definitions of being investigated does not contain "process of being charged." 

    And since you have "no problem" assuming one is guilty until proven innocent you have shown how your emotions rule you while evidence does not.  You don't happen to be related to Dan Rather do you?

    SM


    I have seen enough testimony and reports to satisfy my assumptions. The Iraqi Police wanted to arrest those guilty but US said they will investigate and prosecute them. Now they have done investigation, they US Army now beleives there is sufficient evidence to prosecute those involved.

    You can wait until its official. Its upto you.

  • User profile image
    out180

    Shark_M wrote:
    


    They are in the process to being charged.

    Says who?  Again, unless you are quoting a news source we haven't seen, that is a false statement.  Nothing in the parent article says anyone has been charged.

    Shark_M wrote:

     I have no problem , in this day and age where after what we saw what the army is doing and is capable of, of assuming them guilty until proven otherwise.

    That is your right and if that's is where you're at right now then that's fine.  You shouldn't however, in good conscious, attempt to sell that agenda to others in my opinion.

    Shark_M wrote:

    Just like Pres. Bush can call those in GTMO killers without giving them assumption of innocence until proven otherwise in a Court of Law.

    This is unclear to me.  Are you saying Bush is wrong for this?  If so you proved our point for us.  Bush would be guilty of exactly what we are trying to point out you did.  Putting the cart before the horse so to speak.

    If you are saying he was right in this statement and you share his opinion then fine, that's your right to feel that way.

  • User profile image
    SCMcDonnell

    Shark_M wrote:
    
    SCMcDonnell wrote: 
    Shark_M wrote: 
    SCMcDonnell wrote: What else can one imply when you deliberately misquote an article to make it look like soldiers have been charged and convicted of a crime that is only in the investigation phase - just like Haditha?

    Again, I am calling you out on your false statements and you have yet to recognize the ignorance in those statements.

    SM



    They are in the process to being charged. I have no problem , in this day and age where after what we saw what the army is doing and is capable of, of assuming them guilty until proven otherwise.

    Just like Pres. Bush can call those in GTMO killers without giving them assumption of innocence until proven otherwise in a Court of Law.


    Therein lies the reason why liberals never win elections - their emotions assume truth and their conspiracies become truth.

    And again, you are wrong and making false statements.  The definitions of being investigated does not contain "process of being charged." 

    And since you have "no problem" assuming one is guilty until proven innocent you have shown how your emotions rule you while evidence does not.  You don't happen to be related to Dan Rather do you?

    SM


    I have seen enough testimony and reports to satisfy my assumptions. The Iraqi Police wanted to arrest those guilty but US said they will investigate and prosecute them. Now they have done investigation, they US Army now beleives there is sufficient evidence to prosecute those involved.

    You can wait until its official. Its upto you.


    If/when it becomes official you are still wrong in assuming guilt in a public thread.  It's just immature.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    SCMcDonnell wrote:
    
    Shark_M wrote: 
    SCMcDonnell wrote: What else can one imply when you deliberately misquote an article to make it look like soldiers have been charged and convicted of a crime that is only in the investigation phase - just like Haditha?

    Again, I am calling you out on your false statements and you have yet to recognize the ignorance in those statements.

    SM



    They are in the process to being charged. I have no problem , in this day and age where after what we saw what the army is doing and is capable of, of assuming them guilty until proven otherwise.

    Just like Pres. Bush can call those in GTMO killers without giving them assumption of innocence until proven otherwise in a Court of Law.


    Therein lies the reason why liberals never win elections - their emotions assume truth and their conspiracies become truth.

    whoa, Whoa, WHOA, hold up there, trigger. 

    Do not assume that the rabid rantings of a few are an accurate representation of liberal ideas, thoughts, or beliefs. 

    Argue with the person.

    SCMcDonnell wrote:
    

    And again, you are wrong and making false statements.  The definitions of being investigated does not contain "process of being charged." 

    Exactly.  Suspision does not mean guilt.
    SCMcDonnell wrote:
    
    And since you have "no problem" assuming one is guilty until proven innocent you have shown how your emotions rule you while evidence does not.  You don't happen to be related to Dan Rather do you?

    And you, to Ann Coulter? 

    See, it isn't so nice to question someone's geneology.
    SCMcDonnell wrote:
    
    SM

    Shark, regarless of your suspicions, beliefs, whatever, you are wrong to assume guilt until there is a full investigation.  At that point, you can invent all the conspiracy theories that you wish.

    We (Amereicans, and the UK, I think) we assume innocence until guilt is proven.  Sometimes, the bad guys slip through the cracks (OJ, for example), but that is the price we pay to avoid putting innocent people in jail.

    It is also a good reason why Gitmo is an abuse of civil rights.  Regardless of their standing (combatants, soldiers, terrorists, whatever), these people need to be charged with something.  Otherwise, they are simply being abused under false pretenses.

  • User profile image
    blindlizard

    I disagree, you do not have to charge prisioners of war with anything.  If they were picked up on the battle field, they can be detained until the war is over.  we didn't charge German POWs with anything or give them lawyers.

    ScanIAm wrote:

    It is also a good reason why Gitmo is an abuse of civil rights.  Regardless of their standing (combatants, soldiers, terrorists, whatever), these people need to be charged with something.  Otherwise, they are simply being abused under false pretenses.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    blindlizard wrote:
    I disagree, you do not have to charge prisioners of war with anything.  If they were picked up on the battle field,

    They weren't.  Many were turned in to the military by unscrupulous countrymen.  That's my story, but you probably have a different one.  Since we don't actually have any evidence, neither you nor I can prove one way or the other.
    blinklizard wrote:

    they can be detained until the war is over. 

    A war against terrorism has no end.  By your reasoning, they can be detained forever.  They may not deserve better, but we should be taking the high road whenever possible.
    blinklizard wrote:

    we didn't charge German POWs with anything or give them lawyers.

    We didn't start a war with germany, either.
    blinklizard wrote:


    ScanIAm wrote:
    It is also a good reason why Gitmo is an abuse of civil rights.  Regardless of their standing (combatants, soldiers, terrorists, whatever), these people need to be charged with something.  Otherwise, they are simply being abused under false pretenses.

  • User profile image
    Ian2006

    It's "with what you mix is what you face and get".
    Just relax ...

  • User profile image
    blindlizard

    The countries they were picked up in (Afganistan and Iraq) are still war zones with our military still activly engaged, at this point I don't think they have been detained too long.

    ScanIAm wrote:
    
    blinklizard wrote:
    they can be detained until the war is over. 

    A war against terrorism has no end.  By your reasoning, they can be detained forever.  They may not deserve better, but we should be taking the high road whenever possible.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    blindlizard wrote:
    The countries they were picked up in (Afganistan and Iraq) are still war zones with our military still activly engaged, at this point I don't think they have been detained too long.
    ScanIAm wrote: 
    blinklizard wrote:
    they can be detained until the war is over. 

    A war against terrorism has no end.  By your reasoning, they can be detained forever.  They may not deserve better, but we should be taking the high road whenever possible.

    And since there are no formal charges, we have no idea why they were picked up.  Proximity to a war zone does not mean you are a combatant.

    Obviously, we disagree on this, but I'm right and you are wrong.

  • User profile image
    maniac78

    Ok. So some US soldiers are charged with a crime and if found guilty will go to jail possibly even be executed. Meanwhile Iraqi insurgent terrorists are going around killing innocent people. Their goal is to kill as many innocent people as possible. US soldiers want to kill as few innocent civilians as possible to the point where they put themselves in personal danger to avoid killing innocent people.

    It's clear to any reasonable, rational individual who the bad guys really are.

  • User profile image
    raymond

    Shark_M wrote:
    
    blindlizard wrote: The difference is that the Saddam rape rooms were government sanctioned.  Also, when American service memebers brake the law like this, they get prosecuted.  This should improve the US view in the world.  


    yeah, a slap in the hand. Look at Abu-Ghraib. And how do we know these soldiers were not told that its ok to break the law?


    If convicted those charged would end up in Leavenworth.

    Anyone who has served in the military knows that any time in Leavenworth is not a slap on the hand.

    http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/leavenworth.htm

    If you do the crime be prepared to do the time!

  • User profile image
    pacelvi

    SCMcDonnell wrote:
    
    Shark_M wrote: 
    SCMcDonnell wrote: You have yet to to make changes to your comments.  You make statements with no credibility.  You make sh|t up to benefit your world view and anti-Americanism.  It's shameful.What does any of this have to do with DHS?  Stay on topic rather than trying to avoid taking responsibility for your lies and deceipt.SM
    So to be not Anti-American, I have to cheer and clap and dance for the war crimes committed in the Name of America by the US Armed Forces, and say good job , like Pres. Bush is doing and saying.A young girl was raped and burned alive by those ba$tard$, and you talk about Anti-Americanism.


    Again, you're missing the point.  I am not defining what is "American" but you need to tell the truth about the article and what it says.  Yes, a young girl was raped and the people who did that deserve death.  However, you have made false statements regarding the content of the article to fit what you HOPE the outcome of nothing but an "investigation."  It's not smart and shows lack of credibility in anything you say.

    SM


    Save your breath.. you're arguing with someone who posted a link to the Jamie MacBeth or whatever-his-name-was's fraudulant video claiming he killed hundreds of people in Iraq, and then when told of its unrefutable falseness still claimed that even if it was fake it was true.

  • User profile image
    Shark_M

    pacelvi wrote:
    
    SCMcDonnell wrote:
    Shark_M wrote: 
    SCMcDonnell wrote: You have yet to to make changes to your comments.  You make statements with no credibility.  You make sh|t up to benefit your world view and anti-Americanism.  It's shameful.What does any of this have to do with DHS?  Stay on topic rather than trying to avoid taking responsibility for your lies and deceipt.SM
    So to be not Anti-American, I have to cheer and clap and dance for the war crimes committed in the Name of America by the US Armed Forces, and say good job , like Pres. Bush is doing and saying.A young girl was raped and burned alive by those ba$tard$, and you talk about Anti-Americanism.


    Again, you're missing the point.  I am not defining what is "American" but you need to tell the truth about the article and what it says.  Yes, a young girl was raped and the people who did that deserve death.  However, you have made false statements regarding the content of the article to fit what you HOPE the outcome of nothing but an "investigation."  It's not smart and shows lack of credibility in anything you say.

    SM


    Save your breath.. you're arguing with someone who posted a link to the Jamie MacBeth or whatever-his-name-was's fraudulant video claiming he killed hundreds of people in Iraq, and then when told of its unrefutable falseness still claimed that even if it was fake it was true.



    Aha, so your logic is that if someone makes a claim, that claim is false because there is a problem with the claimant? that is a fallacious argument (ad homenim). He was speaking form what he experianced. What incentives does he have to lie? More importantly, even if there is a problem with the claimant, others have said essentially the same thing. So the claims are supported by stories of other soldiers. Which makes it highly probable that it is true. Especially in the aftermath of Abu-Ghraib and Haditha and others.

  • User profile image
    pacelvi

    Shark_M wrote:
    

    Aha, so your logic is that if someone makes a claim, that claim is false because there is a problem with the claimant? that is a fallacious argument (ad homenim). He was speaking form what he experianced. What incentives does he have to lie? More importantly, even if there is a problem with the claimant, others have said essentially the same thing. So the claims are supported by stories of other soldiers. Which makes it highly probable that it is true. Especially in the aftermath of Abu-Ghraib and Haditha and others.


    I dont remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure they guy said he killed either "hundreds" or "countless" civilians. 

    Please identify similar substantiated claims where individual servicemen have done any amount of killing on that scale, since you claim that this liar's experience is one that others in Iraq have had as well.  Who are these other people?

    How many people were killed at Abu-Gharib?



  • User profile image
    blindlizard

    Go away unless you have something to add.  We are having a perfectly adult debate on this.  The Coffeehouse is not just for software, at least from what I have read in the rules.

    vistawillship wrote:
    

    Do I need to bring out the mod colors?

    Turn this back into a software discussion. Have you tried the latest Visual Studio? Have you checked out Vista Beta? I encourage you to do so.

  • User profile image
    blindlizard

    That argument is not fallacious, it is how the US court sstem has word for over 200 years, at it makes common sense.  If someone says something, and they turn out to be a serial liar, then the likely hood they are lying about this is high.  If this guy was not in Iraq, then he has no idea what is gong on there.  Therefore without some other evidence there is nothing showing that the US is directly targeting civillians.  Now, this doesn't mean that a few reckless soldiers haven't done things that are illegal, but that is a far cry from the thought the the military is commanded to directly target civillians or harm prisoners.

    Shark_M wrote:
    
    Aha, so your logic is that if someone makes a claim, that claim is false because there is a problem with the claimant? that is a fallacious argument (ad homenim). He was speaking form what he experianced. What incentives does he have to lie? More importantly, even if there is a problem with the claimant, others have said essentially the same thing. So the claims are supported by stories of other soldiers. Which makes it highly probable that it is true. Especially in the aftermath of Abu-Ghraib and Haditha and others.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.