Military medics try to keep Afghan boy alive

reply to post by SLAYER69

Things are different. I guess it's all a matter of perspective no?

I do hear what you are saying. That now it seems, that the U.S. actually wants to help and it seems as though they have committed by actually building up the place this time. Not a bad take on it. Thanks.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
This is getting ridiculous, and I am going to stop responding, as I should have done far earlier. You have done nothing here but throw rhetoric, and try to turn it personal. One thing is quite clear: you are or have been military.

Yep, I'm in the military. That's one you got right!

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)Just like everything else, calling me a liar and hoping that others jump on your bandwagon does not change the facts. Which are plain for anyone interested to see. What's funny, though, is you seem very preoccupied with posting for show-that is, posting catch words and phrases to get responses out of other people, as opposed to speaking of the matter at hand.

Why is that, I wonder?

Dude, you said that I had posted that it was OK for US troops to use human shields like the Taliban does. So far, you haven't come up with any proof of me making that statement. That means you're a liar. Pretty freakin' simple, huh?

Now, is that speaking of the matter at hand or what?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
LOAC. Law of Armed Conflict. When you can explain how the use of depleted uranium, or attacking civilian targets, fits into this, perhaps you can begin to back up your stance that it is at all relevant.

Well, since DU isn't part of this thread, how about taking that somewhere else?

Attacking civilian targets? So, you're under the impressiong that the US military knowingly attacks civilians? Wrong, Craftsman. That's where the Taliban and their habit of using human shields come into play. And where Gen McCrystal and his policies of trying to reduce civilian deaths come into play.

So, see how LOAC is part of this thread? It's something US forces follow to the best of their ability, and the Taliban don't.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Until then you are simply throwing out acronyms and military terms in the hopes that it makes you look smarter and therefore your argument stronger. Good luck with that.

Well, when it comes to LOAC and COIN, I have a hunch that I have a lot more experience in both than you'll ever have.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
3)Still proving my point, and you dont even know it. I'm guessing you aren't someone counted on to make decisions in life.

Still struggling to get out of the hole you dug, huh? Simple question you continue to fail to answer: Is it OK for the Taliban to use human shields?

Yes or no??

Guess you aren't counted on to make the decisions in life, huh?

Go clean up your room.

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
This is getting ridiculous, and I am going to stop responding, as I should have done far earlier. You have done nothing here but throw rhetoric, and try to turn it personal. One thing is quite clear: you are or have been military.

Yep, I'm in the military. That's one you got right!

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)Just like everything else, calling me a liar and hoping that others jump on your bandwagon does not change the facts. Which are plain for anyone interested to see. What's funny, though, is you seem very preoccupied with posting for show-that is, posting catch words and phrases to get responses out of other people, as opposed to speaking of the matter at hand.

Why is that, I wonder?

Dude, you said that I had posted that it was OK for US troops to use human shields like the Taliban does. So far, you haven't come up with any proof of me making that statement. That means you're a liar. Pretty freakin' simple, huh?

Now, is that speaking of the matter at hand or what?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
LOAC. Law of Armed Conflict. When you can explain how the use of depleted uranium, or attacking civilian targets, fits into this, perhaps you can begin to back up your stance that it is at all relevant.

Well, since DU isn't part of this thread, how about taking that somewhere else?

Attacking civilian targets? So, you're under the impressiong that the US military knowingly attacks civilians? Wrong, Craftsman. That's where the Taliban and their habit of using human shields come into play. And where Gen McCrystal and his policies of trying to reduce civilian deaths come into play.

So, see how LOAC is part of this thread? It's something US forces follow to the best of their ability, and the Taliban don't.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Until then you are simply throwing out acronyms and military terms in the hopes that it makes you look smarter and therefore your argument stronger. Good luck with that.

Well, when it comes to LOAC and COIN, I have a hunch that I have a lot more experience in both than you'll ever have.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
3)Still proving my point, and you dont even know it. I'm guessing you aren't someone counted on to make decisions in life.

Still struggling to get out of the hole you dug, huh? Simple question you continue to fail to answer: Is it OK for the Taliban to use human shields?

Yes or no??

Guess you aren't counted on to make the decisions in life, huh?

Go clean up your room.

For some reason I just cant help but respond to your drivel.

1)Not touching on the quotes again. keep bringing them up if you feel the need.
2)So, you can use LOAC as a defense for your arguments, but when I bring up it's irrelevance when it comes to US conflict, that has no place here? Quality argument, 'craftsman'. I love it when people cant handle someone using their own argument against them. Need a tissue?
3)Yeah, your 'experience' in throwing around acronyms to try and make yourself look good is fantastic.
4)Still looking for a black and white answer huh. I do notice you changed your question though, and this one I can answer yes or no. No it is not okay to use human shields. However, that is not the question you originally posed, so I 'm not sure what you feel you are proving here....

See, this is why it is not a good thing to primarily recruit the lower third of our graduating classes....you end up with a bunch of cock-sure kids with low IQ's who think they are tough and that their word is law.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
For some reason I just cant help but respond to your drivel.

Drivel. You're funny.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)Not touching on the quotes again. keep bringing them up if you feel the need.

Why not?

You said that I said that US forces should use human shields. I asked for you to come up with a quote of me saying this. This is what you had:

"You do realize, tho, that the insurgents kill more civilians by setting off car bombs, etc, in crowded markets?"

Now, how is that quote by me saying it's OK for US forces to use human shields?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
2)So, you can use LOAC as a defense for your arguments, but when I bring up it's irrelevance when it comes to US conflict, that has no place here? Quality argument, 'craftsman'. I love it when people cant handle someone using their own argument against them. Need a tissue?

Actually, you were bringing up the use of DU. No where in the OP is DU mentioned, so why bring it up here? Because you got caught lying and you need something for deflection. Nice try, Crasftsman. As I said, DU isn't part of this thread, so go make up another covering that. Or jump in on one of the many that are already started.

Now, go back and read up on LOAC and it's uses.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
3)Yeah, your 'experience' in throwing around acronyms to try and make yourself look good is fantastic.

OK, since you're obviously having problems with acronyms, I'll just spell out everything from now ok, Mmmm-kay?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
4)Still looking for a black and white answer huh. I do notice you changed your question though, and this one I can answer yes or no. No it is not okay to use human shields. However, that is not the question you originally posed, so I 'm not sure what you feel you are proving here....

Change my question? Nope. Reword it? Yeah, and that might have confused you. Sorry about that.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
See, this is why it is not a good thing to primarily recruit the lower third of our graduating classes....you end up with a bunch of cock-sure kids with low IQ's who think they are tough and that their word is law.

And now let's bring on the insults!! Cornered in a lie, so you resort to this. Pathetic.

So, what are you basing your VAST amounts of military and Counter Insurgency (COIN) experience on? I mean, since you're smarter than me, General McCrystal, or anyone else in the US Military? I mean, you gotta have all the answers, right?

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
For some reason I just cant help but respond to your drivel.

Drivel. You're funny.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)Not touching on the quotes again. keep bringing them up if you feel the need.

Why not?

You said that I said that US forces should use human shields. I asked for you to come up with a quote of me saying this. This is what you had:

"You do realize, tho, that the insurgents kill more civilians by setting off car bombs, etc, in crowded markets?"

Now, how is that quote by me saying it's OK for US forces to use human shields?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
2)So, you can use LOAC as a defense for your arguments, but when I bring up it's irrelevance when it comes to US conflict, that has no place here? Quality argument, 'craftsman'. I love it when people cant handle someone using their own argument against them. Need a tissue?

Actually, you were bringing up the use of DU. No where in the OP is DU mentioned, so why bring it up here? Because you got caught lying and you need something for deflection. Nice try, Crasftsman. As I said, DU isn't part of this thread, so go make up another covering that. Or jump in on one of the many that are already started.

Now, go back and read up on LOAC and it's uses.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
3)Yeah, your 'experience' in throwing around acronyms to try and make yourself look good is fantastic.

OK, since you're obviously having problems with acronyms, I'll just spell out everything from now ok, Mmmm-kay?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
4)Still looking for a black and white answer huh. I do notice you changed your question though, and this one I can answer yes or no. No it is not okay to use human shields. However, that is not the question you originally posed, so I 'm not sure what you feel you are proving here....

Change my question? Nope. Reword it? Yeah, and that might have confused you. Sorry about that.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
See, this is why it is not a good thing to primarily recruit the lower third of our graduating classes....you end up with a bunch of cock-sure kids with low IQ's who think they are tough and that their word is law.

And now let's bring on the insults!! Cornered in a lie, so you resort to this. Pathetic.

So, what are you basing your VAST amounts of military and Counter Insurgency (COIN) experience on? I mean, since you're smarter than me, General McCrystal, or anyone else in the US Military? I mean, you gotta have all the answers, right?

1)Yes. Drivel.

2)Now you can't even remember which things you are accusing me of lying about. I wasnt even speaking of human shields. I was speaking of engaging in a civilian populated area. Keep up, kiddo.

3)When you bring up LOAC as a defense of american tactics, then yes, DU is relevant. Does the use of DU fall under the LOAC? No. It doesnt. WHich proves your entire LOAC argument pointless and irrelevant. Get it yet?Classic, though, how you once again discount my argument against LOAC, but in your very next sentence you again use it to defend your stance.

4)When the person I am debating continues to act like an infant and insult me time and time again, then yes, the time comes when I fling it back.

Funny though, theres multiple pages of you insulting me in this thread, yet you feel the need to try and point out the one time i did it.

I'll ask a second time: Why are your posts more about swaying the reader than addressing the debate at hand?

5)Here is your origional question, quoted, since you seem to have memory issues:

Probably is, the Taliban know that, and have a funny habit of engaging US/NATO troops while hiding in civilian areas, etc. Do you think that's OK? You've been dodging that for a while.....

Then, you changed the question to:

Is it right for the Taliban to engage US/NATO forces while using civilians as human shields?

Then it became:

Is it OK for the Taliban to use human shields?

Sorry, but when you leave a trail like this, you cant hide your lies.

5)Since you are so into asking for quotes, please quote where I said I was smarter than McCrystal. Or that I am an expert in COIN.

I expect you to follow up your claims here.

One thing I am sure of is that I am smarter than you, though

[edit on 3-3-2010 by captaintyinknots]

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)Yes. Drivel.

Then why are you bothering to post, Craftsman?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
2)Now you can't even remember which things you are accusing me of lying about. I wasnt even speaking of human shields. I was speaking of engaging in a civilian populated area. Keep up, kiddo.

Keep up with your lies, Craftsman. I know exactly what you were lying about, and so does everyone else. You can't come up with a direct quote saying I said it was OK for US Forces to use civilians as a human shield and you know it. Keep up with the deflection, liar. You're losing ground.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
3)When you bring up LOAC as a defense of american tactics, then yes, DU is relevant. Does the use of DU fall under the LOAC? No. It doesnt. WHich proves your entire LOAC argument pointless and irrelevant. Get it yet?Classic, though, how you once again discount my argument against LOAC, but in your very next sentence you again use it to defend your stance.

Is DU part of the original post? No, it isn't. That makes your bringing it up in this thread irrelevent. Get it? Keep on topic, kiddo. I hate holding your hand.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
4)When the person I am debating continues to act like an infant and insult me time and time again, then yes, the time comes when I fling it back.

Insult you? Get a grip. I called you a liar because you are one. Simple as that. You're using insults because you know you got caught and are trying to worm your way out of it. Too bad you're failing.

Now, if I said something like, "Do you poo flinging somewhere else, Monkeyboy" that would be an insult.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I'll ask a second time: Why are your posts more about swaying the reader than addressing the debate at hand?

Isn't swaying the reader and addressing the debate at hand the same thing? Trying to get the audience to come over to your side?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
5)Here is your origional question, quoted, since you seem to have memory issues:

Probably is, the Taliban know that, and have a funny habit of engaging US/NATO troops while hiding in civilian areas, etc. Do you think that's OK? You've been dodging that for a while.....

Then, you changed the question to:

Is it right for the Taliban to engage US/NATO forces while using civilians as human shields?

Then it became:

Is it OK for the Taliban to use human shields?

Sorry, but when you leave a trail like this, you cant hide your lies.

Lies? Geez, you are reaching. Yep, those are my quotes (funny how you can come up with those, but not one of me saying that it's OK for US Forces to use human shields). And you don't think they are three different ways of asking the same thing? Try again.

Thanks for doing all the leg work proving that I was right.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
5)Since you are so into asking for quotes, please quote where I said I was smarter than McCrystal. Or that I am an expert in COIN.

I expect you to follow up your claims here.

Why? You never seem to.

I don't have a direct quote, and a man enough to admit it, unlike you. That's the impression I'm getting from the page after page of your BS and lies.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
One thing I am sure of is that I am smarter than you, though

Smarter? I doubt that. Geez, you're not even a good liar.

1)Simple. The psychology behind someone like you is a subject I find fascinating.

2)You obviuously dont, as you are jumping back and forth between topics. I never accused you of saying US forces can use human shields. I challenged you on the killing of civilians by american forces. Again, keep up, at least with your OWN accusation.

3)Ugh, do you really not understand that DU is relevant when speaking of the LOAC? If you dont, perhaps its time to go back to boot camp. See, DU is against the LOAC(which is something you brought up). Yet america uyses it. Which proves your argument that "america follows the LOAC" a lie, and irrelevant. ANd, by your own reasoning, since LOAC was not part of the origional thread, I expect it to not be mentioned again.

Get it yet?

4)I guess if your purpose here is to address the audience, and not the person you are debating, so be it. It's quite obvious you are simply spewing garbage at this point.

5)SO, you saying things like "intelligent? I guess that counts you out" is not an insult? Are you really that dense? Or do you think if you tell yourself it didnt happen, then that makes it true?

6)Whats funny is I quoted what you asked for 3 times, and you still dont get it. Actually, its kind of sad.

7)So, you admit there are 3 different versions of the question there,but you wont admit that they reference different things? I answered the Final question. the other one is not yes/no.

8)So, in other words, you are talking out of your ass, lying, and now refuse to attempt to back it up? Fantastic. And, if you brush =up on your reading skills, and then go back and look, you'll see that I said immediately when you asked that i dont have a direct quote.

Apparently that answer is only acceptable for you?

Bottom third ladies and gents. Bottom third.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by captaintyinknots]

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)Simple. The psychology behind someone like you is a subject I find fascinating.

Then at least format your quotes and responses better.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
2)You obviuously dont, as you are jumping back and forth between topics. I never accused you of saying US forces can use human shields. I challenged you on the killing of civilians by american forces. Again, keep up, at least with your OWN accusation.

This is your initial quote:

"I love how out of one side of your mouth you use the 'so if they did it that doesnt make it okay' argument, then, 2 paragraphs later you argue that, since insurgents kill civilians, its perfectly okay that troops do.

Quality"

"Perfectly okay that troops do." Hmmm...don't recall saying that, yet here's your quote accusing me of such things. Shame.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
3)Ugh, do you really not understand that DU is relevant when speaking of the LOAC? If you dont, perhaps its time to go back to boot camp. See, DU is against the LOAC(which is something you brought up). Yet america uyses it. Which proves your argument that "america follows the LOAC" a lie, and irrelevant. ANd, by your own reasoning, since LOAC was not part of the origional thread, I expect it to not be mentioned again.

Get it yet?

Once again, DU isn't part of this thread. Never has been, never will be. Get it yet??

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
4)I guess if your purpose here is to address the audience, and not the person you are debating, so be it. It's quite obvious you are simply spewing garbage at this point.

Multitasking. Addressing you and whoever is bored and reading the crap we're slinging against each other.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
5)SO, you saying things like "intelligent? I guess that counts you out" is not an insult? Are you really that dense? Or do you think if you tell yourself it didnt happen, then that makes it true?

I forgot about that one! That was funny.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
6)Whats funny is I quoted what you asked for 3 times, and you still dont get it. Actually, its kind of sad.

Yeah, and I'm still not "getting" the quote I keep asking for. Forget it. It doesn't exist, so don't sweat it. I never said it, and you aren't going to find it.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
7)So, you admit there are 3 different versions of the question there,but you wont admit that they reference different things? I answered the Final question. the other one is not yes/no.

Three different versions of the same question. I was trying to get it across to you, since you obviously weren't understanding what I was trying to say.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
8)So, in other words, you are talking out of your ass, lying, and now refuse to attempt to back it up? Fantastic. And, if you brush =up on your reading skills, and then go back and look, you'll see that I said immediately when you asked that i dont have a direct quote.

Yeah, I guess that when you get the impression of something from someone, in your world that's "talking out your ass". Geez......

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Bottom third ladies and gents. Bottom third.

Yeah. Right. Quick, look behind you! The fries are burning! I guess you didn't hear the "ding" when they were done.

1)More personal attacks? But I thought you didn't do that?
2)All this time you've been hung up on the fact that I was being dramatic with the 'perfectly ok" statement? Good lord. So, I admit fully that you never said it was perfectly okay. Do you deny the fact that you were using the insurgents killing of civilians to JUSTIFY americans doing it?
3)Keep on trucking'
4)As long as you bring up the LOAC, I'll keep bringing up DU. It's called a counter argument. Someone who knows what they are talking about addresses counter arguments, they don't brush them off.
5)In your eyes there is not a difference between using human shields and seeking a firefight, and being fired upon in a civilian occupied zone?
6)Fries? Are you kidding me? I would hope you can do better than that....oh wait, nevermind, good one kiddo!

[edit on 3-3-2010 by captaintyinknots]

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
2)All this time you've been hung up on the fact that I was being dramatic with the 'perfectly ok" statement? Good lord. So, I admit fully that you never said it was perfectly okay. Do you deny the fact that you were using the insurgents killing of civilians to JUSTIFY americans doing it?

Dramatic? Is that the new word on ATS for lying?

Once again, come up with a quote saying I even justified the killing of civilians by US forces since the Taliban were doing it. You won't find that, either.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
3)Keep on trucking'

Whatever.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
4)As long as you bring up the LOAC, I'll keep bringing up DU. It's called a counter argument. Someone who knows what they are talking about addresses counter arguments, they don't brush them off.

A counter argument usually pertains to the argument at hand. Once again, DU isn't part of it. Go ahead, take a few minutes to read the OP. Is DU mentioned in it? Nope.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
5)In your eyes there is not a difference between using human shields and seeking a firefight, and being fired upon in a civilian occupied zone?

Using human shields and firing on opposition forces while in a civilian occupied area, knowing civilians will be in harms way, are pretty much the same thing.

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
2)All this time you've been hung up on the fact that I was being dramatic with the 'perfectly ok" statement? Good lord. So, I admit fully that you never said it was perfectly okay. Do you deny the fact that you were using the insurgents killing of civilians to JUSTIFY americans doing it?

Dramatic? Is that the new word on ATS for lying?

Once again, come up with a quote saying I even justified the killing of civilians by US forces since the Taliban were doing it. You won't find that, either.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
3)Keep on trucking'

Whatever.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
4)As long as you bring up the LOAC, I'll keep bringing up DU. It's called a counter argument. Someone who knows what they are talking about addresses counter arguments, they don't brush them off.

A counter argument usually pertains to the argument at hand. Once again, DU isn't part of it. Go ahead, take a few minutes to read the OP. Is DU mentioned in it? Nope.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
5)In your eyes there is not a difference between using human shields and seeking a firefight, and being fired upon in a civilian occupied zone?

Using human shields and firing on opposition forces while in a civilian occupied area, knowing civilians will be in harms way, are pretty much the same thing.

1)Already did plenty. Either you are too dumb to understand, or you think these deflection tactics actually work. Either way, its sad.

You didnt answer the question I posed(surprise). Do you deny that you were using that to justify the actions of americans?

Yes or No?

2)So where in the OP is the LOAC mentioned? See, you used the LOAC as a counter to the OP. I used DU as a counter to your counter. Are you really this stupid? Or are you just trolling?

3)So, you are saying that in your opinion they are the same? Nuff said.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)Already did plenty. Either you are too dumb to understand, or you think these deflection tactics actually work. Either way, its sad.

It's sad that the Mods allow a liar here on ATS. So, you can't duff up a quote. That makes you a liar. Simple. Get use to it, maybe even make it your cute little Karma title.

So, keep deflecting. Everyone knows you're writing checks your ass can't cash and you (once again) have been caught lying.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
You didnt answer the question I posed(surprise). Do you deny that you were using that to justify the actions of americans?

Yes or No?

No. The Taliban using human shields does not justify Americans doing the same. And US forces aren't doing that.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
2)So where in the OP is the LOAC mentioned? See, you used the LOAC as a counter to the OP. I used DU as a counter to your counter. Are you really this stupid? Or are you just trolling?

Wow, more name calling. Pathetic. Feeling backed in the corner? Once again, let me explain it to you. DU isn't mentioned in this OP. LOAC is the rules that US forces engage the enemy under. That means it's used to clear up any questions or concerns for someone that seems to have trouble understanding that the US military does not use civilians as human shields. Get the connection????

Can't make it any simplier that that even if I used crayons.

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)Already did plenty. Either you are too dumb to understand, or you think these deflection tactics actually work. Either way, its sad.

It's sad that the Mods allow a liar here on ATS. So, you can't duff up a quote. That makes you a liar. Simple. Get use to it, maybe even make it your cute little Karma title.

So, keep deflecting. Everyone knows you're writing checks your ass can't cash and you (once again) have been caught lying.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
You didnt answer the question I posed(surprise). Do you deny that you were using that to justify the actions of americans?

Yes or No?

No. The Taliban using human shields does not justify Americans doing the same. And US forces aren't doing that.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
2)So where in the OP is the LOAC mentioned? See, you used the LOAC as a counter to the OP. I used DU as a counter to your counter. Are you really this stupid? Or are you just trolling?

Wow, more name calling. Pathetic. Feeling backed in the corner? Once again, let me explain it to you. DU isn't mentioned in this OP. LOAC is the rules that US forces engage the enemy under. That means it's used to clear up any questions or concerns for someone that seems to have trouble understanding that the US military does not use civilians as human shields. Get the connection????

Can't make it any simplier that that even if I used crayons.

1)You still arent keeping up. The quote you are asking for, the question in general has nothing to so with human shields. It has to do with the killing of civilians. So sad when you cant even keep up with your own drivel. So, again:
Did you speak of insurgents killings civilians as a justification for americans doing it(afterall, it was only in response to a comment about americans doing it that you said it)? And if not, why did you say it? And furthermore, how is that not off topic, as you keep trying to say my posts are?

Oops, that bottom third IQ is showing.

2)Asking 'are you that stupid' is the same as calling a name? Go back to school kiddo. This is getting pathetic.

Let me spell it out for YOU again: The LOAC is not in the OP. If you are going to use it as a counter argument, then I will use the actions of America that go against the LOAC as a counter.

I am not going to ask if you get it. You obviously dont.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)You still arent keeping up. The quote you are asking for, the question in general has nothing to so with human shields. It has to do with the killing of civilians. So sad when you cant even keep up with your own drivel. So, again:
Did you speak of insurgents killings civilians as a justification for americans doing it(afterall, it was only in response to a comment about americans doing it that you said it)? And if not, why did you say it? And furthermore, how is that not off topic, as you keep trying to say my posts are?

Well, Von Braun, I didn't say that the insurgents killing civilians is a justification for Americans doing it. And, as I've said several times, the US forces in A-stan aren't killing civilians for the sake of killing them, or using them as a human shield as the Taliban are.

I think I've said that in several posts, but you must not be reading them and just waiting for your turn to write.

Off topic? This whole BS back and forth argument we are having is off topic.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Oops, that bottom third IQ is showing.

Damn it. The cheese goes on TOP of the burger, not the bottom of the patty. Get it right or it's back to the French Fry station for you.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
2)Asking 'are you that stupid' is the same as calling a name? Go back to school kiddo. This is getting pathetic.

Actually, you're right. It isn't. It's called "trolling". I mean, calling you a greasy douchnozzle is name calling. Asking if you are one isn't.

Hey, thanks for the tip!

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Let me spell it out for YOU again: The LOAC is not in the OP. If you are going to use it as a counter argument, then I will use the actions of America that go against the LOAC as a counter.

I guess your reading comp is lacking. Let me try it again. I'm not using LOAC as a counter argument, it's being used as a reference for how US forces operate on the battlefield. Get it now?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I am not going to ask if you get it. You obviously dont.

Well, everyone knows you sure don't.

thanks for posting this, people never hear about the good things...the schools we've built, the libraries we've built, and yes filled with books...and not "propaganda" everything from Dr. Suess to the quaran. Nothing ever gets told about our medics, doctors and nurses who treat American, civillian and believe it or not...ENEMY soldiers who have been hit, burned, blasted, crushed or any other part of the hell that war is.

But theres also some good points here, how come because I get shot at and I shoot back Im the bad guy? Doesnt make sense to me, kind of saddens me actually that we're doing good for these people, yet all the people stateside hear about is the freak incidents of guys being stupid and cruel...so we're all horrible killing machines (that save kids)