Those Contractors Were Lured Into an Ambush

[Grojlach]

This could have been a great discussion, if it wasn't for those meddling kids!

[Ronn_Bman]

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Dundee Slaytern: quote: Originally quoted by: Timber Loftis Unless the person continues to support terrorism, I say! Then, the time is ripe to attack the person, look at the totality of their posts, and say "you are the enemy." Simple enough. Don't like it, lump it. Or ban me. I care not.

I do not want to single you out, Timber Loftis. My post was directed to everybody in this thread.

However, this will be my last warning, to you and the others. Drop the matter here. If you really need to voice out your grievances regarding anybody, do so in the proper channels. Public mudslinging is not the way to go.

The Current Events Forum is meant for discussion on recent news, and this may or may not include civil debates. Personal disputes however, are not meant to be settled here. It disrupts the discussions and poisons the community.

Private Messages, E-Mails and such exist for a reason. Use them. [/QUOTE]I didn't mean to imply I'd been singled out, Dundee.

I know the forum is about discussing issues. However, in doing so, the validity of a poster's posts and arguments becomes a sub-issue. All sorts of things play into this, including accuracy of facts asserted, validity of logical reasoning used, etc. One salient point to be made is that when someone, to use Ronn's terms, appears to consistently draw their conclusions based on which side did it, it IS a fair point to make when considering the validity of their opinion.

And, that's what this is about.

I can take a fair bit of US criticism -- in fact I am likely to make it myself. It does anger me sometimes, but counterarguments are meant to challenge us in those ways -- that I do not really object to (except perhaps in haste at the moment). However, a consistent stance biased against a country is, I believe, skirting on something that is against TOS -- and that is country-bashing. While I'm not saying certain people go that far, I am saying that it is my right as a US member to attack them for doing so.

But, all that said as a way of explaining my stance, I do respect your kabash-ing of the discussion. So, I'll drop it.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I again bow to your ability to see the terrorists' point-of-view skunk. You do yourself proud.

What do you mean? I'm just calling a spade a spade. If a non-uniformed non-member of the military is paid to perform military duties, then he is a mercenary/member of a private army.

Likewise, it is Washington's OWN DEFINITION, that those who engage in military style exercises in a war zone who do not wear military uniforms nor display military insignia are to be defined as illegal combatents. I didn't come up with this definition, your own administration did.

How exactly is Washington's own view the 'terrorist point of view'? Because if the definition has changed, then the 600 'Security Consultants' locked up in GM Bay need to be released immediately. [/QUOTE]I find myself in agreement with you here Skunk, If these men were security personel then that's part of the job. If they were contractors doing what would be considered civil duties/non combat/non security then that is a different story. I got no problem using private security, these guys are big boys and should know what they are getting into. Arm them to the teeth and if they get shot at let them return fire without the silly constrictions of rules, when you're in a Knife fight it's silly to say you can't stab somebody here or there, sorry only approved knifes can be used.

[ 04-12-2004, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]