All those burning Afghans...

[Dr Adequate]

I see you have now abandoned trying to refute my points[/i]

You are a halfwitted liar. I have refuted your "points" --- that is, your self-pitying whining, lies, and hypocrisy. I have also pointed out that you have said nothing relevant.

, and have moved on to simply making up new ones for me.

You are a halfwitted liar. I attributed no claims to you whatsoever.

I have never said that those five statements are false.

No, of course you don't dare disagree with the factual content of my posts. How could you challenge me? I'm right. Why else do you substitute whining and lying for actual argument?

Meanwhile, the statement that you actually made, that this is illegal, remains completely unsupported.

Have I not yet convinced you that war crimes are illegal? Really? It would be the word "crimes" that would tip you off if you were not a whining, drivelling, petulant halfwit.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Are you still whining on?

Do you have any actual arguments against the following propositions:

(1) Desecrating Afghan bodies and then boasting about it is stupid.
(2) Not caring about the problems this will cause in Afghanistan is dumb.
(3) Desecrating the bodies of your enemies is a war crime.
(4) War crimes are illegal.
(5) The "Islamic world" was not indifferent to 9/11.

Or do you prefer to repeat your pitiable exhibition of gibberish, lies, hypocrisy, and distortion?

Or then again, you could decide that you've made enough of a clown of yourself, and keep your stupid mouth shut.

Me, I'm betting on the second possibility. But do feel free to surprise us all.

I won my bet.

 

[kittynh]

quick note from my step sister (who has served 2 tours in Afghanistan). Burning your wife alive is a wonderful pastime in Afghanistan. For a long time the Afgans blamed these burning deaths on "suicide from the women becoming dissatified with their lot after interacting with American service women." Usually the women did not die at first, they instead lingered for days and even weeks in hospital in terrible pain. There was a hope from the AFghans that all US service women would be removed from Afghanistan, which is why they rumors were started. When the truth outed, that most of these deaths were commited by husbands, the whole get rid of the servicewomen was dropped. They need the females for search and intelligence.

And the women rarely blamed their husbands, because of fear for their children and families. Better to claim YOU set yourself on fire.

So I don't see that they have a real problem with burning bodies, but I guess these women were alive when they were burned.

And hey, my step sister loves the Afghans and the Afghani culture. But there are some dark sides to any culture.

When we first went into Afghanistan we had MEN searching women. Even a quick pat down by a male could mean death from the family later on. So, the US quickly brought in servicewomen. The funny part is that the women there would always ask my step sister, "Is that your husband? Your father? Well, where is your father ?" So, yeah, she was an influence, because they could not believe a woman could be on her own without a male family member and still be treated with respect.

 

[epepke]

quick note from my step sister (who has served 2 tours in Afghanistan). Burning your wife alive is a wonderful pastime in Afghanistan. For a long time the Afgans blamed these burning deaths on "suicide from the women becoming dissatified with their lot after interacting with American service women." Usually the women did not die at first, they instead lingered for days and even weeks in hospital in terrible pain. There was a hope from the AFghans that all US service women would be removed from Afghanistan, which is why they rumors were started. When the truth outed, that most of these deaths were commited by husbands, the whole get rid of the servicewomen was dropped. They need the females for search and intelligence.

And the women rarely blamed their husbands, because of fear for their children and families. Better to claim YOU set yourself on fire.

[sarcasm]
Well, at least it's not like India, where instances of suttee are reported as "cooking accidents." (Honestly, Sir. We only wanted to cook her medium-rare.)

So I guess that means that all the horror, approved of by right-thinking people everywhere, had to do with the bodies' having penes.

Besides, at least they're not Jews.
[/sarcasm]

 

[Art Vandelay]

You are a halfwitted liar. I attributed no claims to you whatsoever.

So what was the purpose of the post? Merely to list a bunch of non sequiturs? Claiming that you were not implying that I held opposing positions is just more dishonesty from you.

No, of course you don't dare disagree with the factual content of my posts. How could you challenge me? I'm right.

What factual content?

Have I not yet convinced you that war crimes are illegal?

What you have failed to convince me of is that burning bodies is a war crime. Which even a "whining, drivelling, petulant halfwit" should have been able to figure out. Do you really think that "it's a illegal because it's a crime" is not an utterly inane "argument"? Yes or no?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Ooh! I only just saw this one!

* rubs hands *

So what was the purpose of the post? Merely to list a bunch of non sequiturs? Claiming that you were not implying that I held opposing positions is just more dishonesty from you.

I clearly stated that I did not expect you to oppose those five points, and that I bet that you'd substitute lies, whining, and hysteria. I was bang on.

In particular, you stated that you do not hold an opposing position to, inter alia, my point (3): "Desecrating the bodies of your enemies is a war crime".

Which makes the following little temper tantrum rather strange, to say the least.

What you have failed to convince me of is that burning bodies is a war crime. Which even a "whining, drivelling, petulant halfwit" should have been able to figure out.

There you have the advantage over me.

If by: "Ah, so the reason that it's illegal is because it's a crime. Thank you so much for that piece of elucidation," you actually meant "Please, Dr Adequate, it seems that I am ignorant of the statutes governing war crimes. I think it has something to do with Switzerland, but I can't quite remember what. Please can you help?", then perhaps you should have said that. What is it, in English and not Vandalese, that you'd like to say?

Do you really think that "it's a illegal because it's a crime" is not an utterly inane "argument"? Yes or no?

You are a liar. I did not say "It's illegal because it's a crime". I said: "Desecrating the bodies of your enemies is a war crime".

 

[Art Vandelay]

Ooh! I only just saw this one!
I clearly stated that I did not expect you to oppose those five points, and that I bet that you'd substitute lies, whining, and hysteria.

No, you said that you didn't expect me to have arguments against them. Implying that I would oppose them, just not in a logically valid manner.

See how I didn't call you a liar, even though I disagreed with your statement? You should try it some time.

In particular, you stated that you do not hold an opposing position to, inter alia, my point (3): "Desecrating the bodies of your enemies is a war crime".

Which makes the following little temper tantrum rather strange, to say the least.

So you don't understand the difference between "You haven't presented a convincing argument why it's a war crime" and "I'm convinced it's not a war crime"? If you can't even distinguish between such basic distinctions, you have no business trying to engage in logical debate.

What is it, in English and not Vandalese, that you'd like to say?

I believe I've already answered that: your answer was inane. So stop posting strawmen.

You are a liar. I did not say "It's illegal because it's a crime". I said: "Desecrating the bodies of your enemies is a war crime".

You said that the actions are illegal because desecrating the bodies of your enemies is a war crime. I believe my paraphrase was accurate, and you are, as Regnad Kcin would say, making a distinction without a difference. You said that it's illegal, and the reason you give is that it's crime. Therefore, you are saying that it's illegal because it's a crime.

 

[Dr Adequate]

No, you said that you didn't expect me to have arguments against them. Implying that I would oppose them, just not in a logically valid manner.

You are a liar. Your halfwitted gibberish about how my posts "imply" the exact opposite of what they say is a poor disguise for dishonesty. If you are going to puke out trash like this, why don't you just decide, in the privacy of your own head, that my posts "imply" a worshipful respect for the Great Bushy One and all his works? It's equally a fantasy world, but it has the effect that you don't have to go on whining, babbling, and humiliating yourself in public.

So you don't understand the difference between "You haven't presented a convincing argument why it's a war crime" and "I'm convinced it's not a war crime"? If you can't even distinguish between such basic distinctions, you have no business trying to engage in logical debate.

I understand the difference betwen those phrases. I also understand the meaning of the phrase "It's illegal because it's a crime", which was the moronic gibberish which you actually posted.

I believe my paraphrase was accurate

Ooh, look, today's word for "spewing out moronic lies", is "paraphrasing"!

You said that it's illegal, and the reason you give is that it's crime.

You are a liar. That is not the reason I gave. The reason I gave was "Desecrating the bodies of your enemies is a war crime". This is perfectly adequate information for anyone who knows what a war crime is.

Therefore, you are saying that it's illegal because it's a crime.

You are a liar. I have said repeatedly "Desecrating the bodies of your enemies is a war crime". What is the point of gabbling out halfwitted posts about what I wrote? Everyone can see what a demented liar you are.

 

[Earthborn]

Guys, stop bickering. There is no reason for any of you to pretend like you don't know what the other means or expects. There is also no need to start accusing the other of lying.

Dr. Adequate of course refers to the Geneva Conventions, particularly
GC3 Article 120 or GC4 Article 130. I'm sure someone will come up with some excuses why they don't apply.

FYI, according to the ICC statute it isn't considered a 'war crime'. But it doesn't apply to the United States anyway, so it doesn't matter.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Dr A, the postion that you did not imply that I opposed those points is an opinion. An utterly absurd opinion completely at odds with normal reading comprehension, but an opinion nonetheless. Similarly, the position that there is something wrong with my paraphrase (which you suddenly are taking exception too, even though you let it go without question when I first posted it), is an opinion (and one for which you have offered no explanation). That you would call a difference of opinion a "lie" shows just how irrational you are, and how desperate you are to distract from the issue of fact. You said "I clearly stated that I did not expect you to oppose those five points", which is not true. It is a fact that you did not say that. Which makes you a liar. All you have to do to dispute that is point out where the word "oppose" appears in your post. But you can't do that; instead you whine about the fact that I don't share your opinions.

Guys, stop bickering. There is no reason for any of you to pretend like you don't know what the other means or expects. There is also no need to start accusing the other of lying.

Dr. Adequate of course refers to the Geneva Conventions, particularly
GC3 Article 120 or GC4 Article 130. I'm sure someone will come up with some excuses why they don't apply.

I'm not pretending. When he referred to them as illegal, it was likely that he was talking about the Geneva Conventions. But he could have been talking about a different treaty, or simply presenting his own opinion. To find out, I asked him what his position was based on, and he gave a completely useless answer. Once I knew he thought that they were illegal, the fact that he thought they were war crimes added absolutely no information. Either he was being intentionally evasive, or he is an idiot.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Dr A, the postion that you did not imply that I opposed those points is an opinion. An utterly absurd opinion completely at odds with normal reading comprehension, but an opinion nonetheless. Similarly, the position that there is something wrong with my paraphrase (which you suddenly are taking exception too, even though you let it go without question when I first posted it), is an opinion (and one for which you have offered no explanation). That you would call a difference of opinion a "lie" shows just how irrational you are, and how desperate you are to distract from the issue of fact. You said "I clearly stated that I did not expect you to oppose those five points", which is not true. It is a fact that you did not say that. Which makes you a liar. All you have to do to dispute that is point out where the word "oppose" appears in your post. But you can't do that; instead you whine about the fact that I don't share your opinions.

You are a halfwitted liar living in an insane fantasy world. I have never "whined about the fact that you don't share my opinions". I have, on the other hand, mocked you for your ludicrous and witless lies. Perhaps in your insane dreamworld, these concepts are identical. In particular, I have pointed out that it is not possible for you to successfully lie to me about the contents of my own posts, a concept you seem too mentally disturbed to appreciate.

Now wipe the drool of your chin, and see if you have anything to say about ... ooh, let's say the real world, rather than your demented fantasies about me.

I'm betting against it.

By the way, did it really take five days for you to think up your latest batch of hysterical nonsense? Only I can't help noticing that it's in essence the same witless mishmash of lies and dementia that you served up previously.