The conclusions I make based on what you say have nothing to do with whether or not I quoted you correctly.

I said that the case of the man killing Blackwater agents should be handled by the Iraqi government, and that if you believed that case should be handled by the US gov't., then the case of the Navy abusing the Iraqi should be handled in Iraq by the same logic. unless of course, you believe the U.S. gets supreme rights to handle all cases in any way they choose because it is such a great country, and if that is the case then this whole thread is pointless.

Need I mention Adolf Hitler as an example?

Yes, I did agree, for good reason. Now I will explain this in elementary terms so you feel no more need to argue this point in question capiche?

Terrorism can incorporate any minority in opposition to the society it gets created within according to the United States Patriot Act definition of terrorism. By this definition anyone can literally be considered a terrorist. The definition is: the assumption that someone intends to be violent to coerce someone somehow.
This can quite literally be interpreted as, "I think you are going to do a violent thing so therefore I will label you a terrorist and punish you as so, even though you never did anything violent in the first place for me to assume this." I think this clearly proves that there is an exception to your point that a terrorist must use violence to be a terrorist.

I am simply stating facts that I have observed. People judge based on putting themselves in said situation and deciding whether they would like that or not. I have not made any personal judgments on what is right and wrong, but have rather applied the terms right and wrong to fit each country on their own standards depending on what they value. Nor have I given any country superiority to the other. I simply say both are equal in their views and just in their laws according to their specific societies. Unless you can prove me wrong, concede your argument before you start looking ignorant.

Standards of humanity are subjective at best, referring directly to the country that decides those standards. You did not answer my question. Which country is correct/superior in saying what humanity standards should be followed universally on a global scale?

Was your intent to make me laugh? Human rights, Death penalty, Justice System, Stealing and being stolen from, Killing and being killed. How can you say these decisions/opinions are not important and call them less important than buying a house? Buying a house is seen on an individual level and is simply not important to society, nor does it affect society in any way. Which by the way, we are discussing societal views, not yours. Also, please prove that murder is an underlying answer supplied through genetics. The animal kingdom thrives off killing. Humans are animals. We repress it because government and religion (two major brainwashing tools) tell us to. If you grew up in a society that taught that murder wasn't wrong, would you really hesitate to kill?

If their acts of violence committed are not intended to intimidate or coerce, could you please explain what their purpose is?

Is your only source school? You have no chance against me on this part then, since I write for a living and thrive on the English Language and other languages as well.

You claimed that if a SEAL is in the military and given a little bit of slack, that he won't abuse it. Adolf Hitler was in the First World War and was a general. He was given a little bit of slack, was able to persuade a mass of people to follow his ideals, and subsequently started WWII and executed 6 million jewish people as well.

See below. Oh, and I still await your two words.


This definition is provided by merriam webster for the meaning of marriage. It is all in the first definition (so by your rules has to fit in all of the definition and not just one part.) If you could so kindly show me how it is possible to be married to both a homosexual and heterosexual please?

Don't announce your procrastination, just deal with the question when you're ready to.

Define humanity objectively to me. Secondly, explain objectively, the importance of human existence. You only feel humans are supposed to exist because you wish to exist. Prove that humans are supposed to exist in the first place. Each individual view of what humanity stands for is different according to each individual. The views also vary according to each country and the societies within said countries.

Survival of the fittest is the law of the land Good Sir. Murder is required for this and is displayed in all other living creatures. Your existence and bloodline depends on the annihilation of other threatening bloodlines that can wipe yourself out. Example below:

Bloodline A wants to mate with Bloodline B
Bloodline C wants to mate with Bloodline B
Bloodline A and Bloodline C fight for the right to procreate.
Whoever wins gets to procreate to promote the existence of their bloodline.

Show me again how genetics does not promote killing?
Oh, and don't get me started on animal cannibalism, siblicide, infanticide, territorial kills, and even war.

Yes, the Animal Kingdom has a certain cycle that is fulfilled. I am talking about species verses the same species. Human versus Human, German Shepherd versus German Shepherd, Black Widow verses Black Widow, etc. Quit trying to use a false comparison tactic to try and prove a useless point.

Define society, and furthermore give me a specific number of humans that must exist in a group to consider it as a society. Anarchy would kill government control and wipe out a lot of the overpopulation humanity has. However, it would not end us as a species. It would actually promote our lives as most of our problems stem from overpopulation.

My comparison is not weak. Furthermore they have several things in common.

1. Both in the military
2. Both human beings
3. Both intolerant
4. Both abused their power

When did I ever refer to Blackwater agents? Talk about a Red Herring. I was referring to major decisions in human life. My logic is valid since you still haven't proven how deciding what kind of killing should be allowable isn't a major decision. I continue to await your answer.

I think you have lost track of this conversation. Let me refresh you. Main question you have yet to answer. I'll sum it up for you all nice and clean.

What gives a navy SEAL the right to abuse his countries laws and not get punished for it? Just because Iraq does not follow the same customs as America does with POWs does not give the navy SEAL the right to abuse his position. We, as a nation, decide to follow certain standards of humanity that are defined by our nation. To not follow those is to be a hypocrite. It does not matter how Iraq treats our soldiers, it matters when we are inconsistent within our own nation's practices. Now, if as a nation we decided to implement the same tactics followed by Iraqi's then the navy SEAL would have had every right and more since that is what we would be promoting. However, this is not the case, the navy SEAL abused his power, and should be put on trial accordingly. That is the American Way.

1. You assumed those are the only similarities. I am just saying that is a start. If the SEAL is anything like Hitler in personality and he is given enough leeway in power. He could potentially do what Hitler did. I doubt the SEAL is as much as a charismatic genius as Hitler was though. So yeah, you're probably right, the SEAL probably wouldn't be able to accomplish what Hitler did.

2. Based off the knowledge we have been given I made an appropriate response. What more do you expect? It is assumed the SEAL hit the detainee in some way. It is assumed he is going to court for those actions. According to those assumptions is how I answered since that is all you provided us with. According to the assumptions you provided us with, my third and fourth statement run true. Unless you can think of some other reason the SEAL would hit the detainee?

I want one unedited quote proving this. I never once defended Blackwater Agents. I have been defending the Iraqi's and their way of dealing with our soldiers. You have me confused with Feral and Reddeath thanks.

Learn how to scroll back. The quote was this my friend.

By the way just addressing one part of my original quote is in no means addressing my entire point. You claimed Murder wasn't a major decision and therefore didn't apply and that buying a house was. I told you that you were ridiculous for saying that. The discussion went on from there.

Don't expect legit responses if you aren't willing to concede to logical assumptions based on what you provide.

I smell violation of human rights...
I understand what you are getting at Shtona I doubt that terrorists would take that into consideration if they capture US soilders. But that does not give us the excuse to behave like them.

I'm still here. I just haven't had anything new to contribute until now.

Based on your OP, it was "going too far" to take a SEAL to court for an alleged violation. Because that's all that's happening right now--they're going to court. No one has decided innocence or guilt yet. So, this isn't about whether or not the SEALs are guilty, it's about whether or not they need to go to court. That's what your OP was about, and thus, the topic as a whole.

Now, based on that, regardless of whether or not the SEAL abused his power doesn't matter right now. The fact of the matter is that someone (likely more than one) thought that the SEALs abused their position of power, and had enough evidence to take them to court. If that went completely unchecked (even if they are innocent), what kind of message does that send to the other SEALs? That, perhaps, pushing the envelope goes completely ignored? Or that you'll only get a slap on the wrist? That's not the kind of message I want to be sending to the people with the firepower.

Have you cracked your thick stubborn skull open yet?

Did I say that was all the qualities? No, I didn't. However, I assume that if I was able to psychologically examine the SEAL I could easily provide you with a list comparable to Hitler.

Why does it need to end? My point is that with enough power given to the "right" SEAL a case could happen that is comparable to what Hitler accomplished. It's only extremely unlikely since I have not encountered one American yet that even compares to the charismatic genius that Adolf Hitler was. So to think that a SEAL could even start to be compared to the brilliance of Hitler was by far a mistake on my part.

The SEAL wasn't threatened if he was detained. If the terrorist wasn't detained then the SEAL won't be charged as it would be justifiable self defense. Being egged on? Is that what we train our elite military to do? Attack when being egged on? I fear the discipline being taught to all the SEALs if this is the case. The only other legitimate answer is intolerance. This assumption is logical for the following reasons:

1. The terrorist is an enemy to the SEAL.

2. The group the terrorist fights for may have killed the SEALs buddies.

3. The country the terrorist fights for is hardly tolerated by "patriotic americans" and the SEAL can be counted as a patriotic american since he is putting his life on the line for his country.

I still await the quote you refer to. Quit avoiding my challenge and provide it to me. You are starting to get annoying with your "avoiding the question" tactic by trying a lame attempt to insult me. You are acting like an immature teenager. Learn how to debate properly or go to general discussion where you do not have to prove your points and do not have to answer to challenges.

I take the rest of your response as admitting to being wrong about the source of the conversation since you chose not to counter it and used a red herring to try and sneak your away around the subject.

NOTE: If you keep avoiding challenges and keep using red herrings to work your way around those challenges, as well as trying to insult others to try and prove a point, I am going to start reporting you for posting in the wrong forum and being a harassment in the debate section. Your brick wall shit and your childish typing and demonstrations are starting to get quite annoying and detrimental to this debate.

If you think he can't understand, don't be condescending about it: explain it in a different way. That is your responsibility, not his.

I disagree with your first sentence. Hitler wasn't given very much power. He was given a little bit of power and then earned the rest of his power through his charismatic skills.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shtona (Post 1765841803) Your third one is what's called a 'sweeping generalization.' Just because the SEAL is a 'patriotic American,' as you put it, does not mean he's just as intolerant as the other 'patriotic Americans.'

Why do you choose not to defend your own points. Prove to me it wasn't intolerance, or rather that it is wrong for me to assume it is. I also love how you only pointed out the third example to debate. I am saying it could be due to one, two, or all of the three listed. It is still completely possible that the third one is the cause for his assumed intolerance. You cannot prove otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shtona (Post 1765841803) Does that clarify everything. I have not been avoiding the question, you just didn't understand what I said. It's a common mistake over the internet. Actually, technically you could call it an 'accent fallacy.' lol Now, as for calling me an immature teenager (or telling me that I'm acting like one at least) and telling me off for something I did not do. It's actually kind of ironic because I am a teenager (you all know something about me now ^_^), but I don't appreciate being called immature. I'm not going to report you, but I do think an apology would be in order at the very least...

Okay, I will admit I misread your post wrong. I apologize. However, I will not apologize for calling you immature until you quit with your "brick" reference, and quit with your "taunting/condescending remarks." and just answer the questions asked. Also, if you had worded your post in a more intelligent and organized manner I would not have misunderstood it in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shtona (Post 1765841803) And we've finally resorted to threats in a logical debate...

It is not a threat, it is a promise. I do not like immaturity when intelligent debates are supposed to take place. (This is why I left Gaia.) When I take my stance, I defend it with sources, and my own opinions as well as explaining why. You dodge the questions, use red herrings, and use condescending remarks to answer others. That is immaturity and no one who wants to debate intelligently should have to put up with it. It makes the debate quite unlikeable.

While I have already responded to this already, in my previous attempt little effort was put into it on my part. In a move to remedy this I am thus going to respond to it a second time.

Firstly in regards to the terms 'terrorism' and terrorist', I find these to be largely useless terms which are of little value at best. More often than not we have seen the terms being used by oppressive States to justify their mistreatment of marginalized peoples. Indeed if we hold the definition you provided to be quite literal, we quickly find ourselves in a situation where U.S.A is defined as a terrorist State. Even more telling is the work by Dr Jeff Sluka in his book Death Squad where he pointed out that when you split terrorism up into Anti state terror and State Terror, we find the vast majority of it is State Terror.

Now we turn to the Black water organisation themselves. It is worth remembering at this point that they are employed by the very same forces who illegally invaded and overthrew the State of Iraq. This in itself raises huge questions about their legitimacy to be serving in Iraq. Although even if we are to assume the Iraq state is legitimate (which I question) we are not met with any reassurance when we attempt to identify the role which Blackwater served in Iraq. This video here questions the role they served. It asserts they have been involved in missions which the CIA would like to separate themselves from. In the book Death Squad it is identified that a common technique to try and separate the State from the terror it is sponsoring is through use of external forces. This happened in Northern Ireland for instance and it appears to be the case in Iraq. Such a case is only strengthened this video from the Young Turks.


Not only that but the group does not enjoy legitimacy among the Iraqi people who have tried to evict the organisation, as identified in this article.

I notice that you make a claim that my assertions are nothing more than opinion, yet you do not provide any support for your claim. If you feel that way so strongly, how about you actually address my points?

And like last time you failed to both address my points and support your assertions. If you truly believe they have nothing to do with the topic and/or are unsupported, then provide your support which backs up such an assertion.

No it wasn't.

I said no such thing.

Personally I think it is wrong. If a terrorist "accidentally" gets hit in the lip, too bad. I am sure they have done worse. Frankly I am tired of our boys being put in the spotlight for every little thing that is done to those terrorist monsters. Yes, they are monsters and I feel they are below human. Do you really think if you met these people in the real world they would be worried about your rights as a human being. I think not. So our boys get a little rough in trying to keep those terrorist crybabies in line, oh well. Just a little just desserts if you ask me.

And Tutela comparing the Seals to Hitler. Come on where is your logic. Being a Seal is a far cry from being Hitler.