• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Traitor Accosts Karl Rove at Book Signing

Again, who is the "other side"?

Since you have to ask, you obviously don't have any factual documentation on the matter. Just your hyper-partisan opinion.

Which means exactly zero.
 
Since you have to ask, you obviously don't have any factual documentation on the matter. Just your hyper-partisan opinion.

Which means exactly zero.





If your are punching me in my awesome handsome face and people came to the aid of the other side?


Who would they be helping? duh.
 
If your are punching me in my awesome handsome face and people came to the aid of the other side?

Who would they be helping? duh.

Your attempt to save face by introducing an entirely unconnected and irrelevant scenario ALSO means zero.

Keep dancin'.
 
Your attempt to save face by introducing an entirely unconnected and irrelevant scenario ALSO means zero.

Keep dancin'.




It's called an "analogy", the scenario is apt, except the stakes are much higher in Falujah. :shrug:
 
It's called an "analogy", the scenario is apt, except the stakes are much higher in Falujah. :shrug:

Your absurd analogies are worthless here, and your attempts to deflect from the topic at hand would be embarrassing to anyone with a shred of dignity.

We are discussing who received benefit from Code Pink's money.

You simply do not and cannot know, for a fact, exactly who did receive benefit from the money, and neither does anyone else except Code Pink and the individuals that received it.

If and when they come out and say, explicitly, how the money was used/distributed, we'll have our answer. Until then, your pretentious assertions are nothing but partisan hackery.

And they mean exactly zero.
 
Your absurd analogies are worthless here, and your attempts to deflect from the topic at hand would be embarrassing to anyone with a shred of dignity.

We are discussing who received benefit from Code Pink's money.

You simply do not and cannot know, for a fact, exactly who did receive benefit from the money, and neither does anyone else except Code Pink and the individuals that received it.

If and when they come out and say, explicitly, how the money was used/distributed, we'll have our answer. Until then, your pretentious assertions are nothing but partisan hackery.

And they mean exactly zero.






Who is the as they said "the other side"


Please, answer the question.
 
Who is the as they said "the other side"

Please, answer the question.

I don't have the answer, and neither do you. Stop pretending that your biased conjecture is fact.
 
Hmmm. Who is "the other side?"

From the U.S. Army Field Manual “Law of War Handbook”, referring to the Geneva Conventions

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/law-war-handbook-2005.pdf

VIII. CATEGORIES OF WOUNDED AND SICK.
A. Protected Persons (Article 13) -same as Article 4, GPW
1. Members of armed forces of a Party to the conflict, . . . militias [and] volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict . . . provided [they] fulfill the following conditions:

a. that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
b. that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
c. that of carrying arms openly;
d. that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

1. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
2. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof . . . provided they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany. ...
3. Members of crews ...of the merchant marine and . ..civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favorable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces ...provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. Civilians.
1. Not expressly covered by GWS -but have general protection as noncombatants -may not be targeted (unless they abrogate their status by their actions.)
2. Express coverage is found, however, in the Geneva Conventions on Civilians (GC), Article 16: "The wounded and sick, as well as the infirm, and expectant mothers, shall be the object of particular protection and respect." See G.I.A.D. Draper, THEREDCROSS CONVENTIONS
OF 1949 74 (1958).
3. Article 8(a), Protocol I (GP I) expressly included civilians within its definition of "wounded and sick."

53 1 ~I;I/'~, '
/.c, I/ Xi.. I," {-;(

4. Thus, as a practical matter, all wounded and sick, military and civilian, in the hands of the enemy must be respected and protected. FM 27-10, at para. 208; FM 4-02, para. 4-4.
IX. THE HANDLING OF THE WOUNDED AND SICK.
A. Protection (Article 12).
1. General -"Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances."
a. Respect -to spare, not to attack.
(1)During the Vietnam conflict there were several examples of violations of this prohibition, e.g., dwing the November 1965 battle in Ia Drang Valley pitting regular North Vietnamese (NVA) units against units of the 1" Cavalry Division there were several accounts of NVA personnel shooting wounded Americans lying on the battlefield. Moore, WE WERE SOLDIERSONCEANDYOUNG(1993).
(2)During the Falklands War, international humanitarian law was generally well followed but there was an incident where two lightly armed British helicopters accompanying a supply ship were shot down and Argentinean forces continued to fire on the helicopter crewmen as they struggled in the water. Three of the crewmen were killed, and the fourth was wounded. Soon after this incident an Argentinean flyer was shot down. British leadership ensured proper treatment despite some reprisal suggestions. Robert Higginbotham, Case Studies in the Law ofLand Warfare 11:The Campaign in the Falklands, Military Review 52-53 (Oct 1984).
b. Protect -to come to someone's defense; to lend help and support.
(1)An excellent example of this concept occurred in the Falklands when a British soldier came upon a gravely wounded Argentinean whose brains were leaking into to his helmet. The British soldier scooped the extruded material back into the soldier's skull and evacuated him. The Argentinean survived. Higginbotham at 50.
(2)Extent of Obligation -It is "unlawful for an enemy to attack, kill, ill treat or in any way harm a fallen and unarmed soldier, while at the same time . . . the enemy [has] an obligation to come to hs aid and give him such care as his condition require." Pictet at 135.
B. Care (Article 12).
1. Standard is one of humane treatment -"[Elach belligerent must treat his fallen adversaries as he would the wounded of his own army." Pictet at 137
 
Your strawman is the FAIL



Who is "the other side"....


Answer the question.

I just did.

Anyone can be the "other side." Even enemy combatants. The U.S. military gives them, and civilians who sympathize with them, medical care routinely. Until you find more information from Code Pink, that's about all we know.

You tell me why you are implying that the U.S. military are a bunch of traitors.
 
I just did.

Anyone can be the "other side." Even enemy combatants. The U.S. military gives them, and civilians who sympathize with them, medical care routinely. Until you find more information from Code Pink, that's about all we know.

You tell me why you are implying that the U.S. military are a bunch of traitors.




I love how anti-troop types like yourself have no issue using troops as fodder for thier debate.


I think you need to find a new strawman, because as a Veteran, which you are not, All I can do is look at your posts and laugh at its asinine contention. :shrug:
 
I love how anti-troop types like yourself have no issue using troops as fodder for thier debate.

I'm not anti-troop. I'm pro-troops.

You, however, are busy accusing them of committing treason. You're the anti-troop one here.
 
I'm not anti-troop. I'm pro-troops.


This is a lie. :shrug:

You, however, are busy accusing them of committing treason. You're the anti-troop one here.



This is another lie.



Show some respect. If you were pro troop,you wouldn't be lying about me, a Veteran. :ssst:



Besides, I thought you cried yesterday that you were "done"....




Now, are you going to continue this childish back and forth, or are we going to get back to the topic of the treasonous code pink bitches, who should be shot? :thumbs:
 
This is a lie. :shrug:

I know what I believe. Not you. So you're the liar.

Show some respect. If you were pro troop,you wouldn't be lying about me, a Veteran. :ssst:

You have to earn respect. Even veterans can dishonor themselves.

Besides, I thought you cried yesterday that you were "done"....

I guess that really was a lie.

Now, are you going to continue this childish back and forth, or are we going to get back to the topic of the treasonous code pink bitches, who should be shot? :thumbs:

If you have reason to believe someone has committed treason, you really ought to bring it to the attention of the authorities, don't you think? Not doing so is aiding and abetting traitors. I urge you to take this to the FBI. Let us know how it turns out. And when they laugh you out of their offices, be sure to call them "anti-troop" and liars and all that stuff, and that you're a veteran.
 
So I guess we can take three things from this.


1. You will use Troops as fodder for your asinine strawmen.

2. You admit you are lying.

3. You have nothing intelligent to add....




Great. Good show! :thumbs:
 
Anyway, back to the topic.


code pink, who are admitted traitors, (giving 600k to "the other side", you know the people who killed Americans in Falujah), accost Rove.


I thought for them "dissent was the highest form of patriotism....


If I was rove, I would sue those bitches for unlawful imprisonment.
 
1. You will use Troops as fodder for your asinine strawmen.

No, you do. You are accusing our troops of treason.

I'll give you another shot at this.

Tell us, how did what Code Pink did (mostly in your imagination, since we have very little evidence to go on) differ in any way from what the military does? You're the veteran, you should know. You tell how it differed - and how you know it differed (i.e. your evidence).

This is my challenge to you.

2. You admit you are lying.

:lol:
 
No, you do. You are accusing our troops of treason.


This is a lie. Show some class. Your anti-troop shennenigans won't get you far.



I'll give you another shot at this.

Tell us, how did what Code Pink did (mostly in your imagination, since we have very little evidence to go on) differ in any way from what the military does? You're the veteran, you should know. You tell how it differed - and how you know it differed (i.e. your evidence).

This is my challenge to you.



When did we give money to the enemy in Falujah, You never proved this. You keep FAILing.


Miserably....


:lol:[/QUOTE]
 
When did we give money to the enemy in Falujah, You never proved this.

Code Pink didn't say the "enemy" either. They said the "other side." Which could mean civilians - the people we were liberating, remember?

The military and U.S. government gave money, in-kind donations, medical supplies, and volunteer labor to rebuild Fallujah, including undoubtedly some former fighters, sympathizers, or their families. And they gave combatants medical care.

Navy League of the United States - Citizens in Support of the Sea Services

Navy Individual Augmentees Help Rebuild Al Anbar Province

US, Iraq pledge funds to rebuild Fallujah. 09/12/2004. ABC News Online

Marines trying dairy diplomacy around war-torn Fallujah - The Boston Globe

In Fallujah, Marines bring goodwill, but trouble can follow / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

FOXNews.com - Iraq Preparing Fallujah Gov't - U.S. & World

Look - American schoolchildren are traitors too:

Helping Fallujah
 
Code Pink didn't say the "enemy" either. They said the "other side." Which could mean civilians - the people we were liberating, remember?



That is retarded. "the other side" is the side opposing US forces, I.e. the Enemy....


FAIL






Yes, this was all controlled rebuilding of the civillian infrastucture and peoples in falujah, they were never "the other side".....



Code pink like jane fonda, bragged about aiding and abbetiing the enemy... Sorry you don't get this. The fail is all yours.
 
That is retarded. "the other side" is the side opposing US forces, I.e. the Enemy....

Still insisting that your biased conjecture is fact, I see.

I don't give a rip about Code Pink, but you are not a mind reader. Stop pretending otherwise.

The horse is dead, Rev, and the wee cudgel you're waving about is flaccid. Let it go. :roll:
 
That is retarded. "the other side" is the side opposing US forces, I.e. the Enemy....

1. Don't use the term retarded, it's insulting to the mentally retarded.

2. You have no ****ing idea what "the other side" meant.

3. The U.S. military gives medical care to opposint U.S. forces in battle.

4. The aid to Fallujah fro the military almost certainly is going to the families of enemy combatants, and quite possibly to some of them too.

Yes, this was all controlled rebuilding of the civillian infrastucture and peoples in falujah, they were never "the other side".....

You don't know that.
 
1. Don't use the term retarded, it's insulting to the mentally retarded.


Cry much? Retardation is a condition like blindnes or deafness. Calling your post retarded is apropos.

2. You have no ****ing idea what "the other side" meant.


Sure I do, so did code pink, that's why they scrubbed it.

3. The U.S. military gives medical care to opposint U.S. forces in battle.


Irrellevant



4. The aid to Fallujah fro the military almost certainly is going to the families of enemy combatants, and quite possibly to some of them too.


Links? again I keep asking and you keep jawing...




You don't know that.



I know everything. :pimpdaddy:
 
Back
Top Bottom