Those Contractors Were Lured Into an Ambush

[Ronn_Bman]

Maybe you will but if you do so it will be a waste of your time not mine, because you have no authority and less credibility, especially when you are completely partisan in your wanna be enforcer of the rules & ettiquite role, so puff and blow to your hearts content.

I have responded to skunk, and I don't think he is in doubt about my point of view regarding Gadaffi at all. He has questioned my justifications and I his regarding the argument, and since I was talking to him, I could care less if you think I've responded or not.

Mark, yours was a helpful post that was not accusitory or partisan. It was done in the spirit of helping the forum. You don't have to be a moderator for that, and you didn't mess up. In fact, it was nicely done, even handed, and fair. People could learn from that. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

Maybe you will but if you do so it will be a waste of your time not mine, because you have no authority and less credibility, especially when you are completely partisan in your wanna be enforcer of the rules & ettiquite role, so puff and blow to your hearts content.

*puff* *blow* *puff* *blow*

Quite ironic how you are now trying to make this personal about me. Bringing up my past suspension, calling me a wannabe and partisan. Very classy.

You still haven't addressed the points I mentioned in my previous post...

[Ronn_Bman]

I'd say your made it personal to start with in your initial hand slap at me, and so by your acknowledged rules, you're getting what you deserve, and you shouldn't blame me.

You are picking and playing. skunk isn't complaining, he was having a discourse with me and he's a big boy who doesn't need you to help him.

So knock yourself out whinning about personal posts while you continue to make them. That is what makes you a wannabe and a partisan *regarding this particular bitchfest*.

[ 04-10-2004, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Skunk]

This thread has already had a mod visit it with a general warning - a second visit is never as pleasant as the first.


Let's all just back out while we still have the chance to do so under our own steam...

[Ronn_Bman]

More discuss, less bitching...

The argument was the the armed un-uniformed in Afghanistan were fighting against the coalition.

Were the contractors un-uniformed? I don't know.

My complaint was that you can't complain the US is playing both sides of the argument when YOU use both sides of the argument as well. If you state that the the were not illegal in Afghanistan then they must not have been illegal in Iraq. If you pick one and exclude the other then you can't complain.

Also, I thought that under the Geneva Convention we were required to keep the peace and restore order to the occupied territory. Wouldn't that justify the use all necessary personel. Does all occupation have to be military?

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: I'd say your made it personal to start with in your initial hand slap at me, and so by your acknowledged rules, you're getting what you deserve, and you shouldn't blame me. You are picking and playing. skunk isn't complaining, he was having a discourse with me and he's a big boy who doesn't need you to help him. I haven't addressed the points you made? You didn't make any point other than that I hadn't addressed skunk's point, which I in fact have so what was your point again? Oh yeah, it was personal against me. So knock yourself out whinning about personal posts while you continue to make them. That is what makes you a wannabe and a partisan *regarding this particular bitchfest*.

How have my posts been "personal"? Where did I call you names or comment personally on the motives behind your opinions? Please illustrate this exactly.


my posts:

Very nice Ronn- You have totally avoided discussing the points and instead decided to discuss the person making the point. It's a disturbing trend in this forum. In this instance it leads me to believe you cannot make a viable counterpoint to the observation that it is okay for the U.S. to use civilian combatents but it is not okay for the enemy to use civilan combatents. How do you address the seeming double standard that U.S. civilian combatents are legal and enemy civilian combatents are illegal? So would you care to address the issues or are you going to continue with unsubstantiated ad hominems?

Hey don't blame me, you started it. If you want to read a personal attack into skunks words...well I'll leave that between you and skunk. My point being is you have not addressed any of the opinions offered even once in this thread, but nearly every post from the very first one you have taken it upon yourself to discuss a person making opinions. It wouldnt suprise me a bit if someone replied in kind. Seeing how this is a public forum and all the participants have a stake in the tone of the discussions, I am perfectly within my right to question behavior that pushes the bounds of forum rules and ettiquite. If you don't like me butting in to your personal commentary about another poster or don't like me commenting how you have not addressed the points offered than take it to private message. I promise I won't comment on private messages, no matter how personal you make the discourse. So you still have not offered a counterpoint to the observation.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Skunk: This thread has already had a mod visit it with a general warning - a second visit is never as pleasant as the first. Let's all just back out while we still have the chance to do so under our own steam...

Good idea.

I do hope that what I've said to you in this and the previous thread hasn't been taken as a personal attack. Sometimes I don't understand your reasoning, and I was merely trying to understand your point and maaaaaaaaaybe trying to disprove it a bit. Never an easy thing to do with you. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I never intended anything personal, did you think so? I hope not.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally Posted By Chewbacca: Very nice Ronn- You have totally avoided discussing the points and instead decided to discuss the person making the point.... In this instance it leads me to believe you cannot make a viable counterpoint...

Let's see, you said that since I *couldn't* make a viable counter point *I instead attacked* skunk personally.

Different strokes, I guess. To me that was personal.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: quote: Originally Posted By Chewbacca: Very nice Ronn- You have totally avoided discussing the points and instead decided to discuss the person making the point.... In this instance it leads me to believe you cannot make a viable counterpoint...

Let's see, you said that since I *couldn't* make a viable counter point *I instead attacked* skunk personally.

Different strokes, I guess. To me that was personal. [/QUOTE]Well, I wasn't trying to get personal nor did consider your discourse with skunk to be exactly personal. (Its not like you were calling him a terrorist supporter for example) I was hoping you would address the point I made in initial my post, that skunk seemed to have made previously, now that it seems you have it has become irrelevant.

My apologies if my tone was excessively accussatory or if my choice of words offended you.

[Ronn_Bman]

Now it wasn't *exactly personal*? [img]graemlins/moon.gif[/img]

You know, that is the problem with personal. It's so... well.... personal. [img]smile.gif[/img]

You were hoping I'd address the initial point? You should have just asked.

No apology necesary though, we are all big boys and girls, but the offer is appreciated.

Originally Posted By Ronn_Bman: The argument was the the armed un-uniformed in Afghanistan were fighting against the coalition. Were the contractors un-uniformed? I don't know. My complaint was that you can't complain the US is playing both sides of the argument when YOU use both sides of the argument as well. If you state that the the were not illegal in Afghanistan then they must not have been illegal in Iraq. If you pick one and exclude the other then you can't complain. Also, I thought that under the Geneva Convention we were required to keep the peace and restore order to the occupied territory. Wouldn't that justify the use all necessary personel. Does all occupation have to be military?

In addition the contractors aren't out taking part in military attacks against Iraqi insurgents. Their weapons are for defensive purposes. They are trying to help defend the innocents, including aid workers. It seems to me those aid workers can use all the help they can get.

They are performing security guard type actions. To me, there is a big difference between that and standing shoulder to shoulder with the regular army.

[ 04-10-2004, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]