Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Vienna clearly thinks that the actions of those soldiers were acceptable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'll post it again, have you people seen the video against this sickening?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    oh what rubbish.
    you cant all other views rubbish if you refuse to give a view which effective in this case equates to no condoming the actions which are quite clearly well out of order.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Vienna clearly thinks that the actions of those soldiers were acceptable.
    do i? anything else i dont know?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHANDY)
    I'll post it again, have you people seen the video against this sickening?
    silence generally equates to "NO, so drop it".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    do i? anything else i dont know?
    Yes you do. You're doing as much as you can to not distance yourself from these actions, which is, in all honesty, quite dispicable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    you cant all other views rubbish if you refuse to give a view which effective in this case equates to no condoming the actions which are quite clearly well out of order.
    i ) so you agree that the US condones the actions because it "signifies that these sorts of things are not actively discouraged by the powers-that-be" ? and you believe that this a logical and probable conclusion?

    ii) what has my rubbishing of such sensational anti-americanism got to do with my opinion on this topic?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It wouldn't surprise me if a small percentage of soldiers joined the army because they actually liked the idea of killing and torturing and generally trying to feel powerful and of worth. I don't agree with what was done, but when you train people to be devoid of emotion you must be aware that these things will go on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Yes you do. You're doing as much as you can to not distance yourself from these actions, which is, in all honesty, quite dispicable.
    hehe, youre talking as if i were responsible for them! what am i 'distancing' myself from?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    hehe, youre talking as if i were responsible for them! what am i 'distancing' myself from?
    I'm just asking you to give your opinion on the matter. Nothing more. Your refraining from doing so indicates that you support their actions (i wouldnt be surprised, coming from you).

    You can't be expected to be taken seriously when you are making one-off patronising one-liners to those who are constructively involvong themselves in the debate.

    It seems as though you've been slipping in standards recently.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    I'm just asking you to give your opinion on the matter.
    this is the first time.

    Nothing more. Your refraining from doing so indicates that you support their actions
    i dont see how that works.
    will you be addressing every other member who has visited this thread?

    (i wouldnt be surprised, coming from you).
    *sigh*

    You can't be expected to be taken seriously when you are making one-off patronising one-liners to those who are constructively involvong themselves in the debate.

    It seems as though you've been slipping in standards recently.
    it seems a few people are getting a little bit too pre-occupied(readbsessed) with my 'status', standards and who and what im meant to be.

    im touched, i didnt think u cared.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    this is the first time.



    i dont see how that works.
    will you be addressing every other member who has visited this thread?



    *sigh*



    it seems a few people are getting a little bit too pre-occupied(readbsessed) with my 'status', standards and who and what im meant to be.
    If you're going to defend your political title, then you must.

    I only ask for your opinion because I am constantly amazed at how low you can go with your views.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    If you're going to defend your political title, then you must.

    I only ask for your opinion because I am constantly amazed at how low you can go with your views.
    Don't I amaze you with my views any longer? I'm disapointed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Don't I amaze you with my views any longer? I'm disapointed.
    It's your spelling that amazes me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    If you're going to defend your political title, then you must.
    isnt that for you to speculate over? you and i both know, for me to obtain such a title was the stuff of miracles in the first place bearing in mind anyone with a hint of support for the US is generally in the mire as far as support goes. my knowledge makes little difference. as howard will testify, humour and indifference are our only saviours.

    I only ask for your opinion because I am constantly amazed at how low you can go with your views.
    is that relative or absolute?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    It's your spelling that amazes me.
    thats abit newbie for you isnt it?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3674355.stm

    It's been updated.

    I particularly like:

    "Mr Bush said he was disgusted and vowed that those responsible would be "taken care of". "

    I wonder if he will be doing it personally.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    thats abit newbie for you isnt it?
    Nothing's too anything for me.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I don't think it does. The Geneva convention (I think I'm right in saying this) relates to the treatment of enemy combatant POWs. In other words the treatment of prisoners from an enemy Army. A regular army that is. Strictly speaking it does not apply to insurgents.
    SNow surely, this is a rather desperate excuse. Ok, so they are Insurgents and not soldiers, does this mean you are allowed to treat them in a way that would have been in complete contradiction with the Geneva convention if they were soldiers? Even if some technicallity would say yes, all moral standards would say no. If this is not prohibited in teh Geneva convention it i sonly because of a technical ambiguity.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    well done to Vienna, managing to avoid the obvious issue extremely well here.

    If you want to critise us critising americans then you must also defend their actions rather than just critise us when we revoke your calms.
 
 
 
Poll
Who do you think it's more helpful to talk about mental health with?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.