You know what I call people who fought in Iraq, Suckers (Reply #35)

In the discussion thread: If the U.S. military fires upon someone, is that all the proof needed that the target was guilty? [View all]

Response to USArmyParatrooper (Reply #30)

Sun Mar 18, 2012, 11:10 AM

bahrbearian (13,466 posts)

35. You know what I call people who fought in Iraq, Suckers

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

231 replies	Author	Time	Post
If the U.S. military fires upon someone, is that all the proof needed that the target was guilty? [View all]	Zalatix	Mar 2012	OP
Not the fact in itself.	MrSlayer	Mar 2012	#1
No trial? We gave Saddam Hussein as much and he supposedly had nukes aimed at us, or whatever.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#3
We didn't give Saddam a trial.	MrSlayer	Mar 2012	#5
why would Anyone hand themselves into people that openly torture	Sea-Dog	Mar 2012	#13
It depends upon the rules of engagement	ChunderingTruth	Mar 2012	#2
My opinion is post #52 just two down from my post you linked to.	denbot	Mar 2012	#4
And I will say again, I do not blindly trust anyone. Show me the evidence.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#8
Way back when, I had the occasion to share a fighting hole with a variety of grunts.	11 Bravo	Mar 2012	#127
Are you actually suggesting...	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#6
We're killing people who did not fire upon US troops at all.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#7
Yes, that's what you do in a war.	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#9
Since when do you execute a kill on sight order on someone who hasn't opened fire on you?	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#10
Do you think literally everyone in the Nazi army	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#11
Was al-Banna armed?	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#12
I don't know, was he?	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#14
Wait, you are asking me for specific evidence of innocence? What country do you think you're in?	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#17
No. You said he wasn't armed.	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#18
I base it upon lack of evidence. If you have any, please show it.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#19
Once again...	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#41
I take it you have no proof, once again, that al-Banna deserved to die?	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#43
Not one from a court of law, no.	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#49
LOL at your attempt to declare victory.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#50
Thank you for proving my point	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#53
You have repeatedly dodged my questions, and have hidden behind irrelevant responses	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#76
WRONG	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#78
A trial isn't required for all strikes against enemy combatants. However we've no evidence al-Banna	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#80
How do you know there was no evidence?	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#83
How do you know there was evidence?	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#87
I don't.	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#90
WRONG. He SHOULD have had a trial. And you admit you have no evidence.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#92
Flip flopper!	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#94
But he's NOT A COMBATANT. So your argument doesn't even apply.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#96
How do you know he's not?	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#97
You've shot at people you didn't know were hostile?	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#98
Complete and total strawman.	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#99
Actually, since you keep trying to distract the issue with your non-points	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#100
LOL	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#101
Your argument has been "Reasons? I don't need no stinkin' reasons!"	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#103
No, that hasn't been my argument.	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#105
"We don't need no stinkin' REASONS" is 100% EXACTLY what you said.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#107
No, it's not.	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#110
"Because we said so" is NOT a reason.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#111
"Because he's an al-Qaeda operative"	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#112
YOU are the one dodging.	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#215
#l. I don't know that the people targeted at Normandy were really enemy Combatants.	AnotherDreamWeaver	Mar 2012	#208
What point are you making.	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#213
I thought I stated it very clearly	AnotherDreamWeaver	Mar 2012	#221
We get it. You don't trust the government.	randome	Mar 2012	#15
I bet you believed Saddam had WMD's. Or that the Gulf of Tonkin was not a hoax.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#16
If someone is a criminal	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#20
What part of "show me proof" do you not understand?	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#23
Please spare me the drama queen BS	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#30
Then spare me the knuckle-dragging "kill em, proof or not" BS	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#32
No.	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#36
Show me the proof.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#38
Do you demand the same proof	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#39
Show me the proof.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#40
Don't worry.	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#44
I told you, I want proof that al-Banna deserved to die. I stand pat on that.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#46
And I made a counterpoint	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#61
Counterpoint? Uh, no, what you did was offer no proof at all that al-Banna did ANYTHING wrong	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#65
ALL criminals are innocent until proven guilty	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#67
How was Awlaki an 'enemy force'? This case is only special because no one knows why	sabrina 1	Mar 2012	#159
He was a member of an enemy force	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#163
But we do not know that. He was a preacher, where is the evidence he was a member of	sabrina 1	Mar 2012	#168
I see.	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#169
Of course I demanded that. Bush was the president, I never believed a word he said.	sabrina 1	Mar 2012	#172
OK, so just so I'm understanding you correctly...	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#173
When a country is lied into war, I do not generally support that war and question every	sabrina 1	Mar 2012	#176
Got it.	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#178
I have not quit my day job, but thanks for the advice. I was right just to remind you, about	sabrina 1	Mar 2012	#184
Enemy forces who surrendered?	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#185
You know the strange thing, well there are many strange things, but	sabrina 1	Mar 2012	#190
Yes, so strange	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#191
Probably because he was not an Al Queda leader. Not to mention the fact that the people	sabrina 1	Mar 2012	#192
I see.	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#193
Why do you keep talking about the legitimacy of war?	randome	Mar 2012	#179
Yemen is not a war zone. Do we have troops in Yemen? Are we at war with Yemen?	sabrina 1	Mar 2012	#188
You know what I call people who fought in Iraq, Suckers	bahrbearian	Mar 2012	#35
Let the record show	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#55
Blatant insults? For demanding proof that al-Banna did anything to deserve a drone strike?	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#58
He was talking to me.	bahrbearian	Mar 2012	#62
LOL gotcha. Gotta check the attributes.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#66
No genius.	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#63
Oh, the Drama, can I get you some Vapors.	bahrbearian	Mar 2012	#59
Noticeably absent from your post	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#64
He should have just repeated post #57.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#68
If you are gulible enough to think invading an a country that never attacked us is honorable?	bahrbearian	Mar 2012	#69
You're not worth my time.	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#72
Post removed	Post removed	Mar 2012	#74
Are you in the military?	randome	Mar 2012	#75
I was drafted #11 1970, was 1A , refused to go to Nam	bahrbearian	Mar 2012	#81
+1 million for resisting the Draft.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#84
Your choice does not entitle you to mock those who thought differently.	randome	Mar 2012	#86
He wasn't dishonoring anyone.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#88
The fuck s/he wasn't. n/t	PavePusher	Mar 2012	#121
Point taken. Bahrbearian wasn't bowing down to the almighty soldier	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#123
Far cry from "not bowing down" to blatent hyperbolic blanket stereotyping insults.	PavePusher	Mar 2012	#131
Sorry, I decline to drink the kool-aid.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#133
Don't waste your time on him.	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#85
Why is that such a problem, arresting people in a war zone? We have prisons all over	sabrina 1	Mar 2012	#161
Do you think World War II should have been fought with arrests instead of munitions?	randome	Mar 2012	#165
American lives are worth no more nor no less than the lives of anyone else.	sabrina 1	Mar 2012	#170
I didn't know this was a debate about the legitmacy of a war.	randome	Mar 2012	#174
Good god, your ignorance of history is astonishing.	girl gone mad	Mar 2012	#201
Up until the moment they surrendered, the US army was trying as hard as they could to kill them.	hack89	Mar 2012	#220
Few of these people we're going after can be compared to soldiers in WW-II	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#203
I think your asshat post sucked too.	era veteran	Mar 2012	#207
Let the record show that the most chilling insults toward our troops	Kaleko	Mar 2012	#197
Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor. He actually wrote that? Wow.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#205
Yep.	Kaleko	Mar 2012	#211
Yes, indeed that is true. Our leaders do treat our troops like suckers.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#212
That's no worse than I've seen on "Democratic" sites	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#217
Your outrage is understandable.	Kaleko	Mar 2012	#223
Well, your name certainly explains your vile comment. n/t	PavePusher	Mar 2012	#120
You know what I call people who insult military volunteers?	MADem	Mar 2012	#186
You know what I wonder? Does anyone care what you call anyone?	MineralMan	Mar 2012	#189
This message was self-deleted by its author	cliffordu	Mar 2012	#194
YEP, I'll bet you do -	cliffordu	Mar 2012	#196
I have a name for you, too. Nt	DevonRex	Mar 2012	#199
Saddam and WMDs? Be real.	randome	Mar 2012	#21
Killing someone without proof? Get real.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#25
+1	L0oniX	Mar 2012	#141
Many thanks!	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#147
You are being hyperbolic. No one has said 'our President is out to kill us'.	sabrina 1	Mar 2012	#156
That's not how it works at all.	bluedigger	Mar 2012	#26
You seem to have no proof that al-Banna deserved to die.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#29
So are you suggesting	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#33
Another who is completely ignorant of history.	girl gone mad	Mar 2012	#202
Keep beating that toy drum!	bluedigger	Mar 2012	#34
Then you keep on not thinking for yourself.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#37
Dude, you're not being very fair to those who disagree with you.	randome	Mar 2012	#42
Hey, I didn't start the toy drum comment crap. What makes you think that was any nicer?	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#45
I see no reason to support wrongheaded insanity because it is acting consistently	TheKentuckian	Mar 2012	#229
Since 1942	OPOS	Mar 2012	#154
Are you MK Ultra?	joy to the world	Mar 2012	#93
Who or what is MK Ultra?	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#95
Guilt is not a relevant concept in armed conflict.	geek tragedy	Mar 2012	#22
Welcome to the funhouse	gratuitous	Mar 2012	#24
Cindy Sheehan was right.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#27
+	KG	Mar 2012	#28
+1	L0oniX	Mar 2012	#143
What may be causing the confusion here is some don't know the definition of a "free fire zone?"	NNN0LHI	Mar 2012	#31
Kinda like, "If the police arrested him, he must be guilty."	excuse not to write	Mar 2012	#47
Exactly. Like when they shot Randy Weaver's wife while she held a baby in her arms.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#48
Randy Weaver and his family were racists	excuse not to write	Mar 2012	#54
But his wife was unarmed! Holding a baby! And she got shot by a sniper!	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#56
Well that's entirely different.	lumberjack_jeff	Mar 2012	#71
And it's okay to shoot a woman with a baby in her arms if she and her husband are racists.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#102
I never knew racism was punishable by death from afar...	cherokeeprogressive	Mar 2012	#114
So what's your plan?	jeff47	Mar 2012	#51
al-Banna attacked US forces? Where? If he did, then who and where?	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#52
You're the one who generalized this.	jeff47	Mar 2012	#70
How about we just leave the fucker alone? If he's not armed or carrying bombs	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#73
Well, let's wander into overused Nazi analogies	jeff47	Mar 2012	#79
How about a more recent example... Saddam Hussein.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#82
You can't possibly be serious.	jeff47	Mar 2012	#106
WTF Hahahahahah my evidence for a lack of proof? Did you really say that?	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#109
Again, you continue to confuse military action with a courtroom	jeff47	Mar 2012	#115
"And your evidence for the lack of proof is"... hahahahaha LOL. I'm dying here.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#116
AUF after 9/11	jeff47	Mar 2012	#119
Derision? No, I'm just re-quoting what you said.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#122
Boy, you sure are working hard with that shovel.	jeff47	Mar 2012	#124
It'll take more than 30 posts to dig down to your version of reality.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#134
No, it'll take 30 posts for you to actually start reading what people write.	jeff47	Mar 2012	#198
I'm wondering why you can't understand the words that you write.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#200
'EastAsia'?	randome	Mar 2012	#125
Your problem is you refuse to open your eyes. This is EXACTLY what George Orwell warned about.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#135
No, my 'problem' is that I don't spend my life being afraid of what COULD happen.	randome	Mar 2012	#136
LOL so your argument here is "just stick your head in the sand and it'll be all okay". Gotcha.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#137
Arguably, killing civilians far from any battlefield is not "military action"	EFerrari	Mar 2012	#128
Members of al-Qaeda are civilians?	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#182
The proper question is "what's a civilian"?	jeff47	Mar 2012	#195
Actually, that gray area stuff was a line promoted by BushCo's lawyers.	EFerrari	Mar 2012	#219
No, they really don't.	jeff47	Mar 2012	#225
That's incorrect. They are available on line	EFerrari	Mar 2012	#226
Then it would have been trivial for you to demonstrate I'm wrong, instead of just claiming it (nt)	jeff47	Mar 2012	#227
You can go look at the term "unlawful conbatant" at Wikipedia.	EFerrari	Mar 2012	#228
Here's something none of these fine folks can answer	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#210
The answer is: nothing.	randome	Mar 2012	#216
Seriously? You still don't get it?	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#222
Anyone who accepts accusation as guilt or by extension targeting as guilt is	TheKentuckian	Mar 2012	#57
Actually I am saying that such an argument is BS.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#60
Oh...I know. I regularly suffer from poor deployment of the rhetorical "you"	TheKentuckian	Mar 2012	#230
So, the 90% of Americans who supported killing bin Laden	geek tragedy	Mar 2012	#104
I bet close to 90% supported the start of the Iraq invasion, too.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#108
No. But the 10% who cried because we were unfair to Osama	geek tragedy	Mar 2012	#139
That 10% questioned the claim about Saddam's WMDs	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#145
Since the doctrine is not only no limited to bin Laden or any particular describable people	TheKentuckian	Mar 2012	#231
Not necessarily.	MineralMan	Mar 2012	#77
It depends largely on the president's political party. n/t	hughee99	Mar 2012	#89
No, and this case with the soldier	joy to the world	Mar 2012	#91
Guilt is irrelevant.	JoePhilly	Mar 2012	#113
So if you are identified as a threat to America and a drone is called in on you	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#118
Not worried about that.	geek tragedy	Mar 2012	#126
While simultaneously being struck by lightening, and winning the lottery.	JoePhilly	Mar 2012	#140
Obviously then it would suck to be you, if you were such a threat	Bodhi BloodWave	Mar 2012	#130
Being identified as a threat is not the same as actually being a threat.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#132
if somebody is wanted internationally and locally(within yemen)	Bodhi BloodWave	Mar 2012	#171
Yup, just like everyone and their dog KNEW Saddam had WMD's.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#175
I was against invading Iraq.	JoePhilly	Mar 2012	#181
you are still avoiding my questions tho	Bodhi BloodWave	Mar 2012	#183
Not just a "threat" ... but a "military threat".	JoePhilly	Mar 2012	#138
And how do you avoid becoming perceived as a military threat?	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#142
If you haven't figured out how to not be perceived as a military threat, I doubt I can help you.	JoePhilly	Mar 2012	#150
This is not an argument. You would have to be MAKING an argument first, and you are not.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#151
Yes, the Republicans will hit my home with a drone strike.	JoePhilly	Mar 2012	#177
Sure it is. Just check out My-Lai, Sand Creek, Dresden, Hiroshima, and other places.	Tierra_y_Libertad	Mar 2012	#117
No, but that is the argument made by Bush.	sabrina 1	Mar 2012	#129
+1	L0oniX	Mar 2012	#144
Sabrina, you will be here to say "I told you so" when the Republicans get control of the drones.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#148
...I'm hungry	L0oniX	Mar 2012	#146
It is NOW. Defensible too.	cherokeeprogressive	Mar 2012	#149
Say the right words and wait for the drones. Exactly.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#152
Not only are that fear mongering not going to work...	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#153
Living in militant denial is what doesn't work.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#155
Yes, because we just NOW started killing al-Qaeda and Taliban members?	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#157
But he's NOT A COMBATANT. So your argument STILL does not even apply.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#158
How do you know that he's not?	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#160
You already admitted you have no evidence that he is.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#162
And you admitted other military strikes do NOT require a trial.	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#164
Prove he's a combatant and that will actually MEAN something.	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#166
Repeating the same nonsense I already addressed	USArmyParatrooper	Mar 2012	#167
and again...What would you consider as valid proof/evidence	Bodhi BloodWave	Mar 2012	#187
Charges should have been filed. Why were they not? Charges were filed against Bin Laden	sabrina 1	Mar 2012	#204
Ayup, and what's to stop them from deciding ANYONE AT RANDOM needs to die?	Zalatix	Mar 2012	#206
As opposed to YOU deciding who gets to die?	randome	Mar 2012	#214
I have no idea what you are talking about. I am against the DP, regardless of the crime, so	sabrina 1	Mar 2012	#224
Yes, that's conclusive...	kenny blankenship	Mar 2012	#180
No, the trial of the Mylai massacre proved that. See my post 208	AnotherDreamWeaver	Mar 2012	#209
The Marines used that defense during the trial of the Haditha massacre...	Blue_Tires	Mar 2012	#218

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.