toldailytopic: Libya's Muammar el-Qaddafi is dead, discuss.

[The Barbarian]

By now, everyone knows you edited out the part of the sentence where I said there wasn't anything wrong with black people as a race.

I do wish you could understand the difference between killing enemies who are at war with us, and shooting captured prisoners. Maybe you do, but given some of your behavior, maybe you don't.

 

[some other dude]

barbie can't seem to make a post without being dishonest:

By now, everyone knows you edited out the part of the sentence where I said there wasn't anything wrong with black people as a race.

No, that is not what you said. Your exact words are available for anybody to see at the handy link I provide in my signature line.


That's why none of us were surprised to see that you were happy that only arabs were killed in the Libyan uprising. It's exactly what we've come to expect from a racist like you.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, that is not what you said.

Well, let's take a look:

I said:
It's not, as someone suggested, that there's something wrong with black people as a race.

Your faked version says:
there's something wrong with black people as a race

Of course, it's possible that you don't consider such dishonesties to be lying. That would be consistent with your other behavior.

Sot tries again:

That's why none of us were surprised to see that you were happy that only arabs were killed in the Libyan uprising.

I said that? (Barbarian checks) No, turns out you lied about that, too. I pointed out that it was good that we didn't lose any Americans in our support of the Libyans. "Arabs" should be capitalized, BTW. And I'm pleased to see that you don't dismiss them as "brown people" any longer. That's a good first step.

 

[some other dude]

Well, let's take a look:

I said:
It's not, as someone suggested, that there's something wrong with black people as a race.

Yes barbie, that is indeed an excerpt of your post.

Your faked version says:
there's something wrong with black people as a race

There's nothing faked about it. It is also an excerpt of your post.

Of course, it's possible that you don't consider such dishonesties to be lying.

How is it dishonest if I quote your exact words?

it was good that we didn't lose any Americans in our support of the Libyans.

Much better that all those furriners died, right?

Not surprising, racist.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It's not, as someone suggested, that there's something wrong with black people as a race.

Barbarian chuckles:
Your faked version you altered and attributed to me, says:

there's something wrong with black people as a race

There's nothing faked about it.

Except that you deleted parts of it to change the meaning. That is, as other posters have remarked, dishonest.

Barbarian observes:
Of course, it's possible that you don't consider such dishonesties to be lying.

How is it dishonest if I quote your exact words?

I'll let everyone here draw their own conclusions. You're so eaten up with the drive to get even with me, that you've become a joke.

 

[some other dude]

Except that you deleted parts of it to change the meaning. That is, as other posters have remarked, dishonest.

And as other posters have remarked, absent an explanation of what exactly that meaning was, you really don't have anything to complain about, do you? :idunno:

My contention is that you were referring to yourself in the third person, as you are wont to do, with that "someone".

Am I wrong?

 

[MrRadish]

SOD, what are you hoping to achieve by doing this?

 

[some other dude]

SOD, what are you hoping to achieve by doing this?

Thanks for asking Mr. R.

Short term?

I'd like to see barbie clarify his statement by explaining exactly to whom he was referring when he wrote "It's not, as someone suggested, that there's something wrong with black people as a race."


barbie plays this game often. It got him banned a couple of years ago when he was foolish enough to try it on Cattyfan and Del smacked him down.



Long term?

I'd like everybody here to recognize that barbie is a racist, game playing piece of trash.

Everybody who doesn't already recognize that, that is.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Except that you deleted parts of it to change the meaning. That is, as other posters have remarked, dishonest.

And as other posters have remarked, absent an explanation of what exactly that meaning was

It meant that someone has argued that there's something wrong with black people as a race. If you think it was aimed at you, I'd say you must still have a vestige of a conscience. But "he was the one who made me lie" is a losing argument for you. Man up and take responsibility for yourself.

No one makes you lie. You decide to do it. And if you're not a racist, someone acknowledging the fact of racism does no harm to you. The fact that you responded so frantically to criticism of racism, and that you felt compelled to lie in response, makes it pretty clear that you think you have something to cover up.

Deal with that, and you won't feel compelled to lie to protect yourself.

Del smacked him down.

Delmar was honest enough to apologize for calling me a liar on racism in the Tea Party. That's a tough thing to do, and a clear indication of the strength of his character. You don't belong in the same universe with him.

 

[some other dude]

It meant that someone has argued that there's something wrong with black people as a race.

Who? It was you and me in that conversation. Are you suggesting that you were referring to someone outside our conversation?

If you think it was aimed at you

I don't. Why would I?

And if it wasn't referring to me, since it was only you and me in the conversation and you have a habit of referring to yourself in the third person, I assumed it was you.

Are you now telling us that it was referring to neither you nor I?

Deal with that, and you won't feel compelled to lie to protect yourself.

You keep saying that I was lying. I don't see it that way. I assumed that by "someone" you were referring to barbie.

If not barbie, then who?

Delmar was honest enough to apologize for calling me a liar on racism in the Tea Party.

No, this didn't have anything to do with the Tea Party. You were playing games with Cattyfan in the thread about the Obama rookie-fail episode about his buddy, the race-baiter Gates. And Del gave you a vacation for it.


But isn't it interesting that, in the Tea Party thread you're referring to, Del's first inclination was to suspect you of lying?

That's the reputation you've earned yourself barbie.

 

[serpentdove]

It meant that someone has argued that there's something wrong with black people as a race.

Who? It was you and me in that conversation. Are you suggesting that you were referring to someone outside our conversation?

Ac 17:26 opcorn:

 

[WizardofOz]

No argument here, but I'm saying that from my own safe perspective.
Our code of military justice doesn't allow for that.
No, on battlefields in the third world they're being tortured, raped and having their heads sawed off.

The point about Qaddafi is that he was captured alive and then he was killed. If the orders on Qaddafi were shoot on site, so be it. Don't allow him to surrender and then kill him.

The same goes for Loan/Lem. If the man was caught red-handed, shoot him on site; that's war. However, if the "soldier" surrendered and had his hands tied behind his back, he was accepted as a prisoner. Prisoners with their hands tied behind their back should not be shot in the head on the spot. Just don't accept the surrender and shoot him without tying his hands behind his back.

Which double standard would that be?

You want American soldiers treated one way but you are OK with American soldiers (or American allies) treating their enemies another way.

If the Adams photo was "Vietcong executes American soldier suspected of atrocities", I have a feeling you'd sing a different tune. We don't want to see our team shot in the head when their hands are tied behind their back.

I don't want to see anyone (regardless of what they are alleged to have done), who has been accepted as a prisoner, shot in the head.

 

[lightbringer]

The point about Qaddafi is that he was captured alive and then he was killed. If the orders on Qaddafi were shoot on site, so be it. Don't allow him to surrender and then kill him.

Did you really think it would happen some other way?

The same goes for Loan/Lem. If the man was caught red-handed, shoot him on site; that's war. However, if the "soldier" surrendered and had his hands tied behind his back, he was accepted as a prisoner. Prisoners with their hands tied behind their back should not be shot in the head on the spot. Just don't accept the surrender and shoot him without tying his hands behind his back.

Prisoners are not accepted they are taken.

You want American soldiers treated one way but you are OK with American soldiers (or American allies) treating their enemies another way.

No, I just want American military members to arrive home unharmed, men will do what they must to survive.

If the Adams photo was "Vietcong executes American soldier suspected of atrocities", I have a feeling you'd sing a different tune. We don't want to see our team shot in the head when their hands are tied behind their back.

And you would sing a different tune if you have served in a combat zone.

I don't want to see anyone (regardless of what they are alleged to have done), who has been accepted as a prisoner, shot in the head.

Then don't go to war or you may end up dealing with unsavory things that could upset your sensibilities.

 

[MrRadish]

I don't entirely follow the mentality that says it's better for another country's people to die than members of your own country's military, even if you disagree with your country's reasons for being at war. I can kind of understand that a conflict in which a major Western power is involved is essentially a foregone conclusion and the death of our own troops indicates a conflict unnecessarily prolonged, but a lot of the views I've seen expressed seem to imply that many people would rather see ten Libyans die than a single American.

American, Europeans, Africans, Arabs, and everyone else - they're all just people. Surely war should be about minimising casualties all round, not just those of your own side? Naturally there's a practical necessity in a combat situation to kill the enemy before they do you, but killing unnecessarily is barbaric.

 

[some other dude]

... a lot of the views I've seen expressed seem to imply that many people would rather see ten Libyans die than a single American.

That would be the racist viewpoint as expressed by barbie, wherein it's better for brown people to die than Americans.

 

[kmoney]

That would be the racist viewpoint as expressed by barbie, wherein it's better for brown people to die than Americans.

I don't think TB said that.

 

[some other dude]

I don't think TB said that.

No, no kmo, he didn't say it.

He "expressed" it.


Racists like barbie are reluctant to come right out and identify themselves as such. Instead they prefer to play games.

 

[WizardofOz]

bravado strikes

bravado strikes

Did you really think it would happen some other way?

Yeah, I did. I figured he would either be killed during capture or he would been executed after a trial. I honestly didn't think I'd see him get captured alive and then be dead within minutes by the hands of his captors.

Prisoners are not accepted they are taken.

Surrender is sometimes offered. If surrender is accepted, then the prisoner is taken, which may lead to his hands being tied behind his back.

No, I just want American military members to arrive home unharmed, men will do what they must to survive.

Was someone not going to survive if Qaddafi was taken alive? Were these men doing "what they must to survive" when the killed him?

And you would sing a different tune if you have served in a combat zone.

Lend us your expertise, then. How often, when you were in a combat zone, did living prisoners turn up dead? I'd think the killing of prisoners would be frowned upon.

Enlighten me.

Then don't go to war or you may end up dealing with unsavory things that could upset your sensibilities.

Spare me. You're defending acts that US military personal have risen above. Killing prisoners is not a part of the US military code. Defend such acts if your conscience allows you.

 

[kmoney]

No, no kmo, he didn't say it.

He "expressed" it.


Racists like barbie are reluctant to come right out and identify themselves as such. Instead they prefer to play games.

How did he express it?

 

[lightbringer]

I don't entirely follow the mentality that says it's better for another country's people to die than members of your own country's military, even if you disagree with your country's reasons for being at war. I can kind of understand that a conflict in which a major Western power is involved is essentially a foregone conclusion and the death of our own troops indicates a conflict unnecessarily prolonged, but a lot of the views I've seen expressed seem to imply that many people would rather see ten Libyans die than a single American.

American, Europeans, Africans, Arabs, and everyone else - they're all just people. Surely war should be about minimising casualties all round, not just those of your own side? Naturally there's a practical necessity in a combat situation to kill the enemy before they do you, but killing unnecessarily is barbaric.

Did the Libyans decide to start this revolution?

Since we know that the answer to the above question is yes, I would indeed prefer to see Libyans dieing than Americans. We rendered them assistance, they can do the fighting and dieing!

Why would you want it any other way?

Take a walk down almost any major metropolitan city in the world and you will see barbarians doing barbaric things to other people.
Welcome to civilization 2011.