• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How much do you know about Abu Ghraib?

Heh, I read Greyhawk too, and saw the "test" earler.

This should be required testing for U.S. Senators, especially Democrats, along with various other howling and screaming leftists.
 
a test created for a purpose of prooving someone correct, not exactly good for anything except talking points
 
Originally posted by: Centinel
Originally posted by: conjur
Bunch of apologist crap. And that site is heavily biased for Bush and against Democrats and anyone on the left.

You want the facts of Abu Ghraib and other cases of the Geneva Conventions being violated?

Start reading:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...5083&enterthread=y
Click to expand...

LOL you call that apologist biased crap, then you post what you did?

Pot, Kettle.
Click to expand...

whats your opinion on the abuse thread?
 
Originally posted by: Centinel
Originally posted by: conjur
Bunch of apologist crap. And that site is heavily biased for Bush and against Democrats and anyone on the left.

You want the facts of Abu Ghraib and other cases of the Geneva Conventions being violated?

Start reading:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...5083&enterthread=y
Click to expand...
LOL you call that apologist biased crap, then you post what you did?

Pot, Kettle.
Click to expand...
What is the basis for your logic? A Magic 8-Ball? Coin flips? Mind-altering drugs?
 
Czar:

Mistakes will happen. There will always be bad apples that screw things up. However, keep in mind that with all the talk of the Geneva Convention, those insurgents in Iraq are NOT covered under the Geneva Convention, so to use the convention as an argument is irrelevant. Was what they did wrong? Yes...but dont use invalid or incorrect arguments. Same way with "constitutional protections" Unless they are US citizens (which I know some where) they DO NOT HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. The Constitution only covers US citizens. The Geneva Convention only covers combatants that are uniformed or part of a regular military organization....or at the least make an attempt to plainly display that they are armed. Terrorists that hide in hospitals and mosques while keeping their weapons hidden until the last moment do not qualify.

Also, much of what was addressed in many of those threads is outlined in the one I posted with DIRECT QUOTES of what was actually said, not interpretation of third parties. I prefer to read the direct quotes of the peope myself and not rely on what a reporter or analyst thinks it means.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Centinel
Originally posted by: conjur
Bunch of apologist crap. And that site is heavily biased for Bush and against Democrats and anyone on the left.

You want the facts of Abu Ghraib and other cases of the Geneva Conventions being violated?

Start reading:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...5083&enterthread=y
Click to expand...
LOL you call that apologist biased crap, then you post what you did?

Pot, Kettle.
Click to expand...
What is the basis for your logic? A Magic 8-Ball? Coin flips? Mind-altering drugs?
Click to expand...


Um, you called my post "bunch of apologist crap" then you link to biased material as well.

Pretty straightforward logic there I would think. That is unless you're saying your material is not biased.
 
Originally posted by: Centinel
Czar:

Mistakes will happen. There will always be bad apples that screw things up. However, keep in mind that with all the talk of the Geneva Convention, those insurgents in Iraq are NOT covered under the Geneva Convention, so to use the convention as an argument is irrelevant. Was what they did wrong? Yes...but dont use invalid or incorrect arguments. Same way with "constitutional protections" Unless they are US citizens (which I know some where) they DO NOT HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. The Constitution only covers US citizens. The Geneva Convention only covers combatants that are uniformed or part of a regular military organization....or at the least make an attempt to plainly display that they are armed. Terrorists that hide in hospitals and mosques while keeping their weapons hidden until the last moment do not qualify.

Also, much of what was addressed in many of those threads is outlined in the one I posted with DIRECT QUOTES of what was actually said, not interpretation of third parties. I prefer to read the direct quotes of the peope myself and not rely on what a reporter or analyst thinks it means.
Click to expand...
Abusing prisoners is ok then as long as the prisoners are not US citizens and are not covered by the Geneva Convention as per the US interpretation of it ?
 
Biased material? BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!

Those are the various news articles from many different sources as the Abu Ghraib scandal unfolded.


Oh wait...this is coming from someone who believes a right-wing website is the be-all, end-all for truth. :roll:
 
left..... right.....

wtf??? hundreds of different cultures epitomized by two words. take your pick, folks. right or left.

gimme a fukin break. the political marauders make the upper echelon of salaries, while the rest of you fight over the scraps and who's bunch of a$$holes is (and this is the clencher) not better, but not the worst thing to ever happen. what a farse.
 
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Centinel
Czar:

Mistakes will happen. There will always be bad apples that screw things up. However, keep in mind that with all the talk of the Geneva Convention, those insurgents in Iraq are NOT covered under the Geneva Convention, so to use the convention as an argument is irrelevant. Was what they did wrong? Yes...but dont use invalid or incorrect arguments. Same way with "constitutional protections" Unless they are US citizens (which I know some where) they DO NOT HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. The Constitution only covers US citizens. The Geneva Convention only covers combatants that are uniformed or part of a regular military organization....or at the least make an attempt to plainly display that they are armed. Terrorists that hide in hospitals and mosques while keeping their weapons hidden until the last moment do not qualify.

Also, much of what was addressed in many of those threads is outlined in the one I posted with DIRECT QUOTES of what was actually said, not interpretation of third parties. I prefer to read the direct quotes of the peope myself and not rely on what a reporter or analyst thinks it means.
Click to expand...
Abusing prisoners is ok then as long as the prisoners are not US citizens and are not covered by the Geneva Convention as per the US interpretation of it ?
Click to expand...


If you believe the interpretation is wrong, please explain the correct interpretation, to include direct quotes from the Convention document.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Biased material? BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!

Those are the various news articles from many different sources as the Abu Ghraib scandal unfolded.


Oh wait...this is coming from someone who believes a right-wing website is the be-all, end-all for truth. :roll:
Click to expand...

Ok, so then I have it correct. If the "liberal left" posts it, it is news and fact. If the "conservative right" posts it, it is biased trash.

Interesting premise. I at least acknowledged those articles, read a good bit of them, and then responded with my criticisms of what was reported.

you just respond with "AHAHAHHAHAHAHA biased trash!!"
 
Originally posted by: Centinel
Originally posted by: conjur
Biased material? BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!

Those are the various news articles from many different sources as the Abu Ghraib scandal unfolded.


Oh wait...this is coming from someone who believes a right-wing website is the be-all, end-all for truth. :roll:
Click to expand...
Ok, so then I have it correct. If the "liberal left" posts it, it is news and fact. If the "conservative right" posts it, it is biased trash.

Interesting premise. I at least acknowledged those articles, read a good bit of them, and then responded with my criticisms of what was reported.

you just respond with "AHAHAHHAHAHAHA biased trash!!"
Click to expand...
What "liberal left"?

Why don't you try reading through that whole thread. I don't think you have. I know it's full of tons of information and that may be too much for you to bear but give it the ol' college try.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Centinel
Originally posted by: conjur
Biased material? BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!

Those are the various news articles from many different sources as the Abu Ghraib scandal unfolded.


Oh wait...this is coming from someone who believes a right-wing website is the be-all, end-all for truth. :roll:
Click to expand...
Ok, so then I have it correct. If the "liberal left" posts it, it is news and fact. If the "conservative right" posts it, it is biased trash.

Interesting premise. I at least acknowledged those articles, read a good bit of them, and then responded with my criticisms of what was reported.

you just respond with "AHAHAHHAHAHAHA biased trash!!"
Click to expand...
What "liberal left"?

Why don't you try reading through that whole thread. I don't think you have. I know it's full of tons of information and that may be too much for you to bear but give it the ol' college try.
Click to expand...

I did. Most of those articles were from the NYT, Washington Post, and AP....not to mention several weblogs with less than sympathetic outlooks at the Bush Administration.

Did you even bother to read what I posted? If you dead, please provide a critique as I did with what you posted.
 
Originally posted by: Centinel
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Centinel
Czar:

Mistakes will happen. There will always be bad apples that screw things up. However, keep in mind that with all the talk of the Geneva Convention, those insurgents in Iraq are NOT covered under the Geneva Convention, so to use the convention as an argument is irrelevant. Was what they did wrong? Yes...but dont use invalid or incorrect arguments. Same way with "constitutional protections" Unless they are US citizens (which I know some where) they DO NOT HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. The Constitution only covers US citizens. The Geneva Convention only covers combatants that are uniformed or part of a regular military organization....or at the least make an attempt to plainly display that they are armed. Terrorists that hide in hospitals and mosques while keeping their weapons hidden until the last moment do not qualify.

Also, much of what was addressed in many of those threads is outlined in the one I posted with DIRECT QUOTES of what was actually said, not interpretation of third parties. I prefer to read the direct quotes of the peope myself and not rely on what a reporter or analyst thinks it means.
Click to expand...
Abusing prisoners is ok then as long as the prisoners are not US citizens and are not covered by the Geneva Convention as per the US interpretation of it ?
Click to expand...


If you believe the interpretation is wrong, please explain the correct interpretation, to include direct quotes from the Convention document.
Click to expand...
I am not qualified to do that, I will leave that up to the experts. As long as there is a debate about it then this should be talked about and no one should have reached a conclusion.

 
Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
Originally posted by: Czar
a test created for a purpose of prooving someone correct, not exactly good for anything except talking points
Click to expand...

So the truth is just talking points?
Click to expand...
talking points are true, but the never tell the whole story, they are only parts of the whole picture put in a context that fits a certain perspective

 
Ok Czar, let me rephrase:

If you believe the American interpretation is the incorrect one, then explain why it is incorrect, or at least post the actual document so that we may draw our own conclusions.

You cant just say something is an incorrect interpretation then leave it at that. Hell, if it were that simple I can uniformly say that anything posted that doesnt agree with my outlook is false.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
You've posted nothing in that thread. What am I supposed to be reading? 😕
Click to expand...

Ok, let me try this again since you seem to have trouble with comprehension today.

CLICK THE LINK IN MY FIRST POST.

Thanks.
 
Originally posted by: Centinel
Ok Czar, let me rephrase:

If you believe the American interpretation is the incorrect one, then explain why it is incorrect, or at least post the actual document so that we may draw our own conclusions.

You cant just say something is an incorrect interpretation then leave it at that. Hell, if it were that simple I can uniformly say that anything posted that doesnt agree with my outlook is false.
Click to expand...
where did I say it is incorrect in this thread?
The thing is the "experts" in the big world dont agree in the US interpretation, if its right or wrong.


the people on this forum generaly assume way too much regarding whats happening in the world and what other people post here, that is the main reason why we have so many pointless flames and arguments here
 
Originally posted by: Centinel
Originally posted by: conjur
You've posted nothing in that thread. What am I supposed to be reading? 😕
Click to expand...

Ok, let me try this again since you seem to have trouble with comprehension today.

CLICK THE LINK IN MY FIRST POST.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
You merely posted a link to a highly biased site. Want me post some links to some *real* leftist sits like Mother Jones or wsws.org?

Get real.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top