It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
Never said anything about soldiers are the only ones working for America.
I simply stated that since you don't like the way we do things that maybe you should lace up your boots and show us how it is done.
You can't lead by example from the rear.
You sure about that? There are pleny of armchair generals aroung here.
Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
Never said anything about soldiers are the only ones working for America.
I simply stated that since you don't like the way we do things that maybe you should lace up your boots and show us how it is done.
You can't lead by example from the rear.
You are silly man. You said that all I am doing is sitting back and criticising, and that the only way for me to be productive is to lace em up.
The flaw in your logic is that people like me work toward positive action, not violence. I am not a hypocrite, and therefore, could not join the armed services.
There are plenty of ways to take positive action without engaging in violence.
Originally posted by jd140
Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
Yuo critisize soldiers stating you can do a better job, but you refuse to do so. The only way to lead a group of soldiers and show them the right way is to lace them up.
So yes, if you think you can do better then you should join up and show us the way.
That is why one of the NCO mantras is follow me. Because you can only lead from the front.
Calling me a silly man is very rude when I am extending you a hand in friendship so that you may show us a differant way.
Show me where I said I could do better. Even moreso, tell me where I criticized soldiers. Go on, I am waiting. I CRITICIZED TORTURE, yet you all want to take that personally.
You are silly. You are trying to make this personal, you are putting words in my mouthy, and YOU ARE FLAT OUT LYING about what I said. Hardly lending friendship to anything.
Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
Never said anything about soldiers are the only ones working for America.
I simply stated that since you don't like the way we do things that maybe you should lace up your boots and show us how it is done.
You can't lead by example from the rear.
You sure about that? There are pleny of armchair generals aroung here.
You guys are sad. The line of thinking that only soldiers have a right to speak on these subjects is pathetic.
I weep for the state of this country.
Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Just FYI
The constitution has NOTHING to do with enemy combatants. These guys were NOT in uniform, they had NO insignia , so they are not subject to the Geneva Convention.
Originally posted by drwizardphd
Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Just FYI
The constitution has NOTHING to do with enemy combatants. These guys were NOT in uniform, they had NO insignia , so they are not subject to the Geneva Convention.
Read my post earlier. They are not protected under the Geneva Convention, but they are still protected under UDHR and UNCAT. Source
If you don't understand international law, please don't post pretending that you do. You only make yourself look stupid.
Originally posted by mahtoosacks
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
ithinkilljustwritemessageshowiseefithowabouthat
justusingthegramarcardhasbeenwayyyyoverdoneandbecauseyoupullitdoesntmeanyouarerightinanyway
Just as I was about to comment back into what was about to become a war of words and pointless insults, I proceeded to check if, in fact, you were the person of whom I had first replied to. Upon notice that, in fact, you were not the original person of my reply, I will move to just ignoring everything you say from here on out. Seeing as how you have, somehow miraculously just skipped every sentence except for the ones that have so made your day, I will point out, that if you had actually gotten the word of cessation of the OP's original thought, then he wouldn't be once again REPEATING HIMSELF!!
so not only did you not read what i said and proceeded to insult my grammatical laziness as well as calling me disgusting for even JOKING like that, you just missed the point altogether.
awesome. really....
anyone can believe what they want. Torture included. but dont come crying back when someone tortures you.
Originally posted by drwizardphd
Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Just FYI
The constitution has NOTHING to do with enemy combatants. These guys were NOT in uniform, they had NO insignia , so they are not subject to the Geneva Convention.
Read my post earlier. They are not protected under the Geneva Convention, but they are still protected under UDHR and UNCAT. Source
If you don't understand international law, please don't post pretending that you do. You only make yourself look stupid.