 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / July 2009...drip...4 more dead suckers...drip...
4 US soldiers killed in Iraq... ..."we told you so"...drip... > 4 US soldiers killed in Iraq... > > ..."we told you so"...drip... Suckers? Who says the Great Vincent bracketed by "Dr." and "Ph.D."? A man who needs to advertise his resume in every post to lend it... what? Soldiers are not suckers, jerk. They have to obey orders. They can't pick and choose their battles. If you want to criticize their mission or who devised it fair enough, it's fair game. But those soldiers are giving their lives for their country, even if you don't agree with the war policies. And they would do so equally to defend your family, your house, your street and your town, if you lived in one, you f.cking mental hillbilly. Tiglath <temp6@tiglath.net> wrote in news:85d30ad4-0b9d-4dac-b14b- facdebf7f8a7@h8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com: > Who says the Great Vincent bracketed by "Dr." and "Ph.D."? > > A man who needs to advertise his resume in every post to lend it... > what? Johnnie has no degree or title. It is merely a handle assumed as part of his current costume. He has no real substance, imagination or philosophy worthy of notice. He lives for the opportunity to fling feeble insults into the conversations of others. He does not have a deep capacity for reason. > Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in news:85d30ad4-0b9d-4dac-b14b- > facdebf7f...@h8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > feeble insults into the conversations of others. He does not have a deep > capacity for reason. Noted. Not that I hadn't noticed, though. A man who comes here calling himself Dr. Ph.D, and posting such unadulterated raw sewage is begging that we take him in as a football. Happy to oblige. The phony PhD is nothing but a troll. A troll who would've been an apologist for the North Vietnamese back in the day, and was one for Saddam back in OIF-1. Killfile the phony and be done with him. I'd challenge him to spout his nonsense about the military outside any American Legion or VFW post...how long until he's tarred and feathered at least, and lynched at most? On Jul 1, 3:11 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote: > 4 US soldiers killed in Iraq... > > ..."we told you so"...drip... Suckers? Who says the Great Vincent bracketed by "Dr." and "Ph.D."? A man who needs to advertise his resume in every post to lend it... what? Soldiers are not suckers, jerk. They have to obey orders. They can't pick and choose their battles. If you want to criticize their mission or who devised it fair enough, it's fair game. But those soldiers are giving their lives for their country, even if you don't agree with the war policies. And they would do so equally to defend your family, your house, your street and your town, if you lived in one, you f.cking mental hillbilly. >>4 US soldiers killed in Iraq... >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Soldiers are not suckers, jerk. Yes, the U.S. soldiers in Iraq who believed the warmongering lies are indeed suckers, many now dead suckers, a.shole. > They have to obey orders. Not all orders, dipshit. > They can't pick and choose their battles. Yes they can, ya fuckin moron. >If you want to criticize their > mission or who devised it fair enough, it's fair game. But those > soldiers are giving their lives for their country, even if you don't > agree with the war policies. Son, a war and a "policy" are 2 different things. Now we have a war in Iraq that most Americans now agree was wrong "policy", but we also have over 1 million innocent people who are now dead, who otherwise would still be alive except for the immoral *war* we started. Every soldier must *always* evaluate the morality of his actions. The U.S. military has done an outstanding job of convincing shallow minded pricks like you that the U.S. military decides what morality is. >And they would do so equally to defend > your family, your house, your street and your town, As they should. But that would be legitimate defense, not immoral killing of innocent people half way around the world. sheesh, you fuckin moron can't even get that straight. Now eat sh.t, son. ;-) if you lived in > one, you f.cking mental hillbilly. > >>4 US soldiers killed in Iraq... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yes, the U.S. soldiers in Iraq who believed the warmongering lies are > indeed suckers, many now dead suckers, a.shole. This poster is too thick to realize that soldiers beliefs are irrelevant to their SWORN DUTY to obey lawful orders, which is what they do in Iraq, regardless of the merit of their mission. > > They have to obey orders. > > Not all orders, dipshit. No need to sign every lame statement you make. > > They can't pick and choose their battles. > > Yes they can, ya fuckin moron. Our dear doctor is all booster and no warhead. > >If you want to criticize their > > mission or who devised it fair enough, it's fair game. But those > > soldiers are giving their lives for their country, even if you don't > > agree with the war policies. > > Son, a war and a "policy" are 2 different things. "War" and "policy" are two words that can be put together to get "war policy," which is the phrase I used. I see you had to break it down into single words to digest the concept, and still got it wrong. > Now we have a war in > Iraq that most Americans now agree was wrong "policy", but we also > have over 1 million innocent people who are now dead, who otherwise > would still be alive except for the immoral *war* we started. Which has no connection at all with the question of weather soldiers have to follow orders and whether they can choose their battles. Do you get lost THAT easily? > Every soldier must *always* evaluate the morality of his actions. And they do, when shot at they shoot back. > The U.S. military has done an outstanding job of convincing shallow > minded pricks like you that the U.S. military decides what morality is. You don't seem to comprehend the vast difference between the merits of the war and the predicament of our soldiers sworn to obey lawful orders. Who wired your brain that way? > >And they would do so equally to defend > > your family, your house, your street and your town, > > As they should. But that would be legitimate defense, not > immoral killing of innocent people half way around the world. Armed fighters bent on killing soldiers are not innocent people, much as a few innocent people are killed by both sides always. War is hell. And hell is like that burning sensation you feel between the ears when you strain to think. > sheesh, you fuckin moron can't even get that straight. > > Now eat sh.t, son. Why do you keep calling strangers, "son" ? Unable to father your own? Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D has managed to match the size of his intelligence to that of his dick and his bank account. Remarkable scholarship Dr. Ph.D. Just killfile the phony PhD and be done with him. He's just a troll, nothing more. Pissing contests with such vermin are wastes of time and bandwith. Give these creatures an audience of one: themselves. On Jul 2, 4:42 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote: > Tiglath wrote: > > On Jul 1, 3:11 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Yes, the U.S. soldiers in Iraq who believed the warmongering lies are > indeed suckers, many now dead suckers, a.shole. This poster is too thick to realize that soldiers beliefs are irrelevant to their SWORN DUTY to obey lawful orders, which is what they do in Iraq, regardless of the merit of their mission. > > They have to obey orders. > > Not all orders, dipshit. No need to sign every lame statement you make. > > They can't pick and choose their battles. > > Yes they can, ya fuckin moron. Our dear doctor is all booster and no warhead. > >If you want to criticize their > > mission or who devised it fair enough, it's fair game. But those > > soldiers are giving their lives for their country, even if you don't > > agree with the war policies. > > Son, a war and a "policy" are 2 different things. "War" and "policy" are two words that can be put together to get "war policy," which is the phrase I used. I see you had to break it down into single words to digest the concept, and still got it wrong. > Now we have a war in > Iraq that most Americans now agree was wrong "policy", but we also > have over 1 million innocent people who are now dead, who otherwise > would still be alive except for the immoral *war* we started. Which has no connection at all with the question of weather soldiers have to follow orders and whether they can choose their battles. Do you get lost THAT easily? > Every soldier must *always* evaluate the morality of his actions. And they do, when shot at they shoot back. > The U.S. military has done an outstanding job of convincing shallow > minded pricks like you that the U.S. military decides what morality is. You don't seem to comprehend the vast difference between the merits of the war and the predicament of our soldiers sworn to obey lawful orders. Who wired your brain that way? > >And they would do so equally to defend > > your family, your house, your street and your town, > > As they should. But that would be legitimate defense, not > immoral killing of innocent people half way around the world. Armed fighters bent on killing soldiers are not innocent people, much as a few innocent people are killed by both sides always. War is hell. And hell is like that burning sensation you feel between the ears when you strain to think. > sheesh, you fuckin moron can't even get that straight. > > Now eat sh.t, son. Why do you keep calling strangers, "son" ? Unable to father your own? Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D has managed to match the size of his intelligence to that of his dick and his bank account. Remarkable scholarship Dr. Ph.D. >>>>4 US soldiers killed in Iraq... >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > soldiers beliefs are irrelevant to their SWORN DUTY to obey lawful orders, No, son, a soldier's morality is not irrelevant...ever. And, peabrain, no "sworn duty" is an open-ended-anything-goes commitment. Those are two very simple statements, and you are apparently too fuckin stupid to grasp either one. > >>>>4 US soldiers killed in Iraq... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > No, son, a soldier's morality is not irrelevant...ever. Yes sonofabitch, your dim wattage doesn't let you understand that you can't run an army letting soldiers decide on whether follow lawful orders according to their conscience. > And, peabrain, no "sworn duty" is an open-ended-anything-goes commitment. > > Those are two very simple statements, and you are apparently > too fuckin stupid to grasp either one. It's not open-ended idiot. Soldiers don't serve forever, but they MUST serve for the number of years they signed on for. Some Ph.D. you are. Who raised you, wolves? In news:fbd66e10-96d6-471d-bd77-cf81fd2ffbf4@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com Tiglath <temp6@tiglath.net> wrote: > Yes sonofabitch, your dim wattage doesn't let you understand that you > can't run an army letting soldiers decide on whether follow lawful > orders according to their conscience. However, it is up to the individual soldier to decide if an order is in fact lawful.  SignatureBert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com > Innews:fbd66e10-96d6-471d-bd77-cf81fd2ffbf4@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > However, it is up to the individual soldier to decide if an order is in > fact lawful. He can't decide all he wants, but if he is told to go to Iraq and refuses the sky will fall. If he is asked to rape babies and he refuses it's a pretty safe bet, except that anyone issuing such an order may have no qualms executing anyone who refuses. Doctor Ph.D. argues for the former not the latter. In news:65a21741-e3be-4b2e-b5e7-98cbec56398f@g1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com Tiglath <temp6@tiglath.net> wrote: >> Innews:fbd66e10-96d6-471d-bd77-cf81fd2ffbf4@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.c >> om [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > He can't decide all he wants, but if he is told to go to Iraq and > refuses the sky will fall. Oh sure. He has to decide, but if he's going to refuse an order, he'd better get it right. SignatureBert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com >>> Innews:fbd66e10-96d6-471d-bd77-cf81fd2ffbf4@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.c >>> om [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Oh sure. He has to decide, but if he's going to refuse an order, he'd > better get it right. The protocol is to go up the chain-of-command asking, "Is this a lawful order?" In fact, all operations are supposed to have an operations order, signed by the commander. Subordinate commanders get familiar with what the mission is, how it is to be executed, and it usually goes, unless someone points out some tactic that is illegal, improper, or just plain stupid. Down at the troop level where it is just verbal orders, and they may be more immediate, the soldier has to take stock of his fire team mates, and maybe jump over the sergeant to the lieutenant, but the all should know. We all carried a Geneva Convention Card with one side saying what to do, and the other saying what not to do. We never had any problems, even with prisoners - but we were sort of professional MACV/SF (don't think there was a draftee, or non-volunteer in either group.) I turned down a big province-level operation once. It cost me some points on my efficiency report, but my career, otherwise, was solid, so it did not affect me. Even wrote an article about it.... Why I Did Not Get the Pulitzer Prize There is announced another photography contest in the Parade magazine and, again, Eddie Adams is to be one of the judges. Eddie won the Pulitzer Prize for taking a picture of the Saigon chief of police shooting a Viet Cong prisoner in the head. I wondered why Eddie did not do something to stop the atrocity but a newsperson told me that Eddie was justified in recording the incident for posterity but not justified in interfering with the event - becoming part of the problem, so to speak. In 1969 the South Vietnamese operations officer came to me with the plan for an operation that would sweep through a village on the banks of the Mekong River, chasing the Viet Cong into the river where USAF planes would drop napalm on them. In my mind's eye I saw myself on the dike which was Highway 4, and overlooked the village. With my 35mm camera and telephoto lens I could take the picture of the blue sky, the green opposite shore, the blue river, and the nearby brown huts of the village. Overhead the aluminum F-4 fighters descending with full afterburners flaming and the orange burst of the napalm as they destroyed the Viet Cong unit. There was only one little thing wrong with the picture. I knew that the Viet Cong would be smart enough to leave the instant their scouts saw movement toward the village. And I knew that some villages did not pay taxes and that they faced some form of punishment. And I knew that the only people who would be driven into the Mekong would be the women and children. I asked why they were not using VNAF planes, and why planes at all, and I got blank stares. The plan escalated to a confrontation in front of the senior American advisor, and when I asked him to picture a CBS camera crew on the spot I had envisioned on Highway 4, and the picture they would take, he agreed to no American participation. The plan was cancelled. Later he asked me if I was going to be part of the solution or part of the problem. So I did not get the Pulitzer Prize winning picture and if I had been in Saigon I guess I would have run up to shake the chief's hand and asked him if he was sure he wanted his picture taken this way. Well, I feel better now for being part of the problem. If I'd been there Eddie would not have a Pulitzer. ©2000, William Heyman In news:9ffbc$4a4e7307$9440b19b$23305@STARBAND.NET "Billzz" <billzzstring@starband.net> wrote: > The protocol is to go up the chain-of-command asking, "Is this a > lawful order?" In fact, all operations are supposed to have an > operations order, signed by the commander. Subordinate commanders get > familiar with what the mission is, how it is to be executed, and it > usually goes, unless someone points out some tactic that is illegal, > improper, or just plain stupid. There's an interesting article which peripherally addresses this issue in this month's New Yorker magazine: The Kill Company, describing the actions of some 101st Airborne troops under the command of Colonel Michael Steele in Iraq in 2005 and 2006. SignatureBert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com >> The protocol is to go up the chain-of-command asking, "Is this a >> lawful order?" In fact, all operations are supposed to have an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > actions of some 101st Airborne troops under the command of Colonel > Michael Steele in Iraq in 2005 and 2006. This one... http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/07/06/090706fa_fact_khatchadourian No surprise that some units get so carried away with their mission that they go over the line. In Vietnam the VC used to sneak a sniper into a village to fire on passing US patrols, then immediately leave, so the return fire hit the innocent villagers. We worked with the local forces, so less problems. Pure US units, in the Mekong were called "mortar magnets" because the VC felt them to be fair game, while we might have a cousin of theirs working with us. Note that there was an investigation, and there was a reprimand (which, if you are not in the army, you do not know that this is real serious, and the career is probably over, and they did not have enough for a courts-martial.) So they did the right thing, and it was an exception to the rule - not all of the units did that. Just like My Lai. It was wrong, but it was also an exception. Not all of the units did that. > In news:65a21741-e3be-4b2e-b5e7-98cbec56398f@g1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com > Tiglath <temp6@tiglath.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Oh sure. He has to decide, but if he's going to refuse an order, he'd > better get it right. Yep. And it better not be for a trivial matter. > In > news:fbd66e10-96d6-471d-bd77-cf81fd2ffbf4@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > However, it is up to the individual soldier to decide if an order is in > fact lawful. A lawful order can be immoral. Being lawful has nothing to do with morality or conscience, except to the dimwits who do not want their responsibility of morality and conscience. Their "honor" is *only* loyalty and obedience, nothing more. Thug material. >>>>>>4 US soldiers killed in Iraq... >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > you can't run an army letting soldiers decide on whether follow lawful > orders according to their conscience. Yes, son, you can. You think the crime is jaywalking (who cares) while it is murder, and you are too f.cking stupid to see the difference. Your assertion that a soldier's conscience and morality are irrelevant, all "lawful" orders must be followed, put you in the obedient Nazi category, son...no difference whatsoever. >>And, peabrain, no "sworn duty" is an open-ended-anything-goes commitment. >> >>Those are two very simple statements, and you are apparently >>too fuckin stupid to grasp either one. > > It's not open-ended idiot. "open-ended" does not refer to time, ya fuckin pea-brain. > Soldiers don't serve forever, but they > MUST serve for the number of years they signed on for. huh? MUST? of course not you shallow brained moron. When morality and conscience are violated a soldier can choose to do the right thing and retain his honor. Have you heard of honor, son? ;-) > >>>>>>4 US soldiers killed in Iraq... > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > ;-) You are the victim of very bad education, son. Is that why you like to see titles in front of your name of degrees you do not have? When wishful thinking invades your very name it means you carry serious psychological baggage... son. We see a lot of fuckups around here so you are shocking no one. Your education is so limited that you don't even know what murder is. A soldier in combat does not commit murder unless he kills prisoners or other people who do not constitute a threat, INTENTIONALLY and for no good reason. Killing for good reason, including collateral kills, is not murder. It is war. Learn the difference, twit, and stop embarrassing yourself. What morality must soldier's follow? Which book? Who sets it? Dr. Ph.D.? You are gene pool debris, man. Are you brave enough to repeat your inanities against our troops you posted to a few of them face to face? They would probably run away to you for the stink coming from your pants. >>>>>>>>4 US soldiers killed in Iraq... >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >>When morality and conscience are violated a soldier can choose to >>do the right thing and retain his honor. Have you heard of honor, son? apparently not. > What morality must soldier's follow? Which book? Who sets it? Son, this is your basic problem in this entire thread, you don't know what morality is so you think it irrelevant. Again no surprise, pea-brain. You may use a dictionary, son. (look up murder too, son. morality and murder are related.) ;-) On Jul 4, 12:45 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote: > >>>>>>>>4 US soldiers killed in Iraq... > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Son, this is your basic problem in this entire thread, you don't > know what morality is so you think it irrelevant. Again no surprise, pea-brain. It's so easy to stump our learned Dr. Ph.D. He dodges the question because he doesn't know the answer. He could have said, "The Ten Commandments," the Code of Hammurabi," or any of the moral systems in between people have used. > You may use a dictionary, son. > > (look up murder too, son. morality and murder are related.) > ;-) Practice what you preach, Murder is unjustified intentional killing. So you are out of luck. In war it is perfectly justified to kill your enemy before he kills you, and as collateral damage is not intentional it is not murder either. Our military prosecutes murderers. As to morality, the dictionary is no use. It merely tells you that is the distinction between good and evil. Which still leaves you to decide what is good and what is evil. I ask again, What morality must soldier's follow? Which book? Who sets it? Unless you can answer this question, you are just showing how full of beans you are. How is a soldier supposed to know if you, HIS SCHOLARLY CRITIC, doesn't know either? Doctor heal thyself. And then go f.ck yourself. ... son. > On Jul 4, 12:45 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > "The Ten Commandments," the Code of Hammurabi," or > any of the moral systems in between people have used. Son, your assignment was learn what morality is, not make a list of law codes. you completely ignorant horse's a.s > Murder is unjustified intentional killing. Ok, I'll accept that. However, you don't need the word "intentional". Murder is unjustified killing. But who decides "justified"? May an individual judge for himself if a particular killing is justified? The answer is yes, so now you may look up "individual morality", since you are apparently hung up on institutional authorized morality only. Cutting to the chase, son, may a soldier decide his lawful order would, if carried out, result in "unjustified killing" (e.g. participating in an "unjustified" war), and would therefore be murder if he followed said "lawful" order? Yes, he may. But you stupidly insist the soldier, knowing he will be committing murder, must follow that "lawful" and "unjustified" order to murder. Enough...go do your homework, son. > In war it is perfectly justified to kill your enemy before he kills you, Son, no one here is disputing that, as we are not talking about an in-the-heat-of-combat decision process. Damn you are dense. Just stupid. >and as collateral damage is not intentional it is not murder either. *very* disputable, as U.S. soldiers certainly do routinely *intentionally* kill innocent people in "acceptable levels" of collateral killing. But let it go for now... > I ask again, > What morality must soldier's follow? Which book? Who sets it? son, go do your homework, if you still can't answer, then I'll answer. > And then go f.ck yourself. oh you too may eat sh.t, son. ;-) > > On Jul 4, 12:45 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > oh you too may eat sh.t, son. > ;-) Jeez doc, too bad you don't know a damn thing about the military. Must be hard, out of work with a useless PhD, stuck to using public access computers in a library. They let you bring in your shopping cart? > > > On Jul 4, 12:45 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > > - Show quoted text - He's just a troll from the loony left. Ignore him if you are on a public computer or access NGs via google, and put him in killfile on your home PC. Pissing contests with these creatures are a waste of time and bandwith. Though I will admit that he needs either a smack on the a.s with a two-by-four (administered by numerous vets), or a good tarring and feathering (done outside a VFW or American Legion Post). On Jul 4, 10:03 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote: > > On Jul 4, 12:45 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > Murder is unjustified killing. Wrong. You were raised by wolves. If you kill without justification and unintentionally it's just a homicide not murder, or maybe manslaughter, twit, not murder. Deliberate intention to kill is as essential as lack of justification to be murder. Kicking your doctoral a.s with patient corrections is all that makes it worth to converse with you Dr. Ph.D. > But who decides "justified"? May an individual judge for himself if > a particular killing is justified? > > The answer is yes, Dr Dr. talks to himself now. Good show. > Cutting to the chase, son, may a soldier decide his lawful order would, > if carried out, result in "unjustified killing" (e.g. participating in > an "unjustified" war), and would therefore be murder if he followed said > "lawful" order? Man you are thick. The war may be unjustified but the killings need not be. If someone points and his weapon at you and you kill him before he shoots you the killing is absolutely justified, regardless of what war happens in. The fact that I have to explain this basic notions to you, shows the mental midget you are, Dr. Ph.D. I think you should reduce your title to Associate Degree. Ph.D. is too good for you even as a fake title. On reflection, Pond Scum is something you could carry convincingly . > >and as collateral damage is not intentional it is not murder either. > > *very* disputable, as U.S. soldiers certainly do routinely *intentionally* > kill innocent people in "acceptable levels" of collateral killing. But > let it go for now... Shooting blanks again. > > I ask again, > > What morality must soldier's follow? Which book? Who sets it? > > son, go do your homework, if you still can't answer, then I'll answer. Readers note that Dr. Ph.D. dodge the question again. He does NOT know the answer. Hilarious. Since I asked the question you should answer. Unlike you, I don't answer my own question. > On Jul 4, 10:03 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > If you kill without justification and unintentionally it's just a > homicide not murder, or maybe manslaughter, twit, not murder. No, dipshit, we are talking *morality* not your hometown legal system. As I told you, you are hung up on institutionally authorized morality. Go re-read the last post and do your homework dickhead. (btw, pea-brain, killing unintentionally (an accidental killing) is not murder because it is justified; unfortunate but justified. Son, until you learn what morality is (particularly, *individual* morality) you will not know what "justified" means, and you will depend on some authority telling you what to think.) On Jul 5, 11:44 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote: > > On Jul 4, 10:03 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > will not know what "justified" means, and you will depend on some > authority telling you what to think.) Dr. Ph.D misses another opportunity to answer a simple question. WHAT MORALITY? WHERE IS IT EXPLAINED? WHO IS THE SOURCE? I am waiting for you to enlighten me and the readers, since you claim you know. What's keeping you from answering. Thank you for writing that an accidental killing is "justified." That goes to show who we are dealing with here. Since in this context "justification" is "something that shows an action would be reasonable or necessary," Dr. Ph.D is actually saying that an accidental killing is an action that is reasonable or necessary. I don't need to insult your intelligence doctor you are beating me at it. > On Jul 5, 11:44 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] >>will not know what "justified" means, and you will depend on some >>authority telling you what to think.) Do your homework ya fuckin pea-brain. You will learn something and you won't have to make up strawman arguments. ;-) > > On Jul 5, 11:44 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > you won't have to make up strawman arguments. > ;-) The doctor expects soldiers to know that which he can't even explain. Damage goods would be a kind description of you. >>>On Jul 5, 11:44 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> >>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > The doctor expects soldiers to know that which he can't even > explain. pea-brain, many soldiers certainly do know which morality to follow: http://www.couragetoresist.org http://ivaw.org http://vvaw.org http://www.militaryproject.org http://vvawai.org you're the one in the dark about morality, son. ;-) >>>> On Jul 5, 11:44 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] > you're the one in the dark about morality, son. > ;-) or http://www.veteransforpeace.org ;-) TEXAS SOLDIER VICTOR AGOSTO REFUSES AFGHANISTAN DEPLOYMENT As President Obama increases the number of troops in Afghanistan from 32,000 to 68,000, members of the military are beginning to resist the Afghanistan surge like they did in Iraq. And they need your support! Victor Agosto is one of those who resisting his deployment to Afghanistan. On the bottom of his military counseling statement he wrote the following: "There is no way I will deploy to Afghanistan. The occupation is immoral and unjust. It does not make the American people any safer. It has the opposite effect." Agosto has served in the Army since 2005 and has served one tour in Iraq. But he is now openly resisting the deployment to Afghanistan and is ready to face the consequences of his actions. --------------------------------------------------- > >>>> On Jul 5, 11:44 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> > >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 132 lines] > As President Obama increases the number of troops in Afghanistan > from 32,000 to 68,000, members of the military are beginning to This lunatic's argument is that the best way to stop a bad war is by the individual insurrection of every troop, airman, marine and sailor from the ground up. A million individual crossings of the Rubicon. He is too dumb to remember that Americans already stopped on bad war and they did it by pressuring the top ranks of the war machine not the bottom ones. Dr. Ph.D. offers little substance and insight but anyone curious to see an idiot in action will be amply rewarded. > resist the Afghanistan surge like they did in Iraq. And they > need your support! Victor Agosto is one of those who resisting [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > actions. > --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>On Jul 5, 11:44 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> >>>>>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 140 lines] > and they did it by pressuring the top ranks of the war machine not the > bottom ones. son, you are indeed a small brain. pea-brain, a part of what those soldiers are doing is keeping their honor. They know it is murder to unjustifiably (and intentionally too) kill a person. They refuse to continue being a part of murder. ;-) > Dr. Ph.D. offers little substance and insight but anyone curious to > see an idiot in action will be amply rewarded. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>actions. >>--------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>On Jul 5, 11:44 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> > >>>>>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 148 lines] > They refuse to continue being a part of murder. > ;-) Yawn. A doctor who never learn to capitalize the beginning of paragraphs. Ignorance oozes out of you in what you write and how you write it. You are also utterly boring, > > >>>>>>On Jul 5, 11:44 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> > > >>>>>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 156 lines] > > You are also utterly boring, It helps (in fact it will cause a chuckle I find) if you visual and auditor-ialize an image of the cartoon Foghorn Leghorn delivering these blowhard pronouncements of the fatous Dr. Quin, medicine woman, PhD.. "I say, I say boy!" >>>>>>>>>On Jul 5, 11:44 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> >>>>>>>>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 164 lines] > > "I say, I say boy!" Is Foghorn available on youtube? >>>>>>> On Jul 5, 11:44 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> >>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 145 lines] > They refuse to continue being a part of murder. > ;-) I love these guys. War Resistors League...since 1923! http://www.warresisters.org/ You couldn't shine their boots on your best day. The irony is they died in service because they swore to uphold your rights, even to write something so totally inane. That you have no understanding of that does not reflect well on you or the cause you attempt to advance. he sure wouldn't do it in front of their families > You couldn't shine their boots on your best day. The irony is they > died in service because they swore to uphold your rights, even to > write something so totally inane. That you have no understanding of > that does not reflect well on you or the cause you attempt to advance. > he sure wouldn't do it in front of their families Or outside an American Legion or VFW Post, off-base GI hangout, let alone a military funeral (like that Fred Phelps scumbag). He's just a troll. Killfile the misbegotten sod and be done with him. If killfile is not possible, ignore the sorry piece of trash. > > You couldn't shine their boots on your best day. The irony is they > > died in service because they swore to uphold your rights, even to > > write something so totally inane. That you have no understanding of > > that does not reflect well on you or the cause you attempt to advance.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > he sure wouldn't do it in front of their families I certainly wouldn't seek them out to do so, but I must admit I was tempted when some military fuckwit lamented online that his son had been killed by the resistance in Iraq and asumed that everyone felt sorry for him and would agree that the fighters who killed his son should burn in hell. What a clown! I did not do it though. SignatureHistory is not what it used to be. > > he sure wouldn't do it in front of their families > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > -- > History is not what it used to be. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It depends on whether the adversary is an Iraqi or an Al Qaeda imported trooper. If an Iraqi killed the man's soldier son, it's the same scenario as the Yank at Shiloh who asked the Confederate prisoner "Why are you fighting us? " The Johnny Reb replied, "Because you're here." David H ~~~~~~~ > they died in service because they swore to uphold your rights, Son, it's a mercenary army, they mostly signed up for pay, benefits, and bonuses. Or the chance to leave home, or the adventure, or to prove to themselves they are men, but defending the Constitution is down the list. They took their chances and lost. They became murderers. f.ck 'em. You delude yourself, son. ;-) > > they died in service because they swore to uphold your rights, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You delude yourself, son. > ;-) On my knee I thank the Lord I am not thee. > You couldn't shine their boots on your best day. The irony is they > died in service because they swore to uphold your rights, Did you ask them or are you merely assuming? In my experience people join the army for a lot of different reasons and wars a rarely fought for single clearcut reasons. > even to > write something so totally inane. That you have no understanding of > that does not reflect well on you or the cause you attempt to advance. Agreed SignatureHistory is not what it used to be. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.