So you are saying Marines should shoot first and ask questions later at any target, even if it poses no direct threat to them, if they are unsure it does NOT contain terrorists? You better go flatten all of Iraq then.

No.

__________________

So what are you saying in defending this act?

Such a brilliant riposte. Deary me.

See posts 65, 67, 69 and 72.

If you'd like to discuss what I said we can do that. Muspell seems incapable of having a discussion without recasting one's position into a strawman to be knocked down. If that's the way it's going to be I'm not going to waste my time just to reply to each post with something along the lines of "No, that's not what I said. I said (.....)" and repeating myself over and over.

__________________

I'm perfectly capable of reading, thank you.

Unless you can form an argument on your own without resting your reasoning on "semantic extentions" of other arguments, then I suggest your case may be so weak it is not worth cracking your fingers to defend it. Of course, you have made no argument for any case, but I think I am justified in assuming you do have something else to contribute.

Of course, this is a mere courtesy, you understand, and not actually a futile request for you to make a substantive argument for whatever case you happen to imply you support. Becuse I very much doubt you will do that.

Thanks for the courtesy. I'm not interested in convincing you of anything so you needn't worry about that. So, when you happen upon a post that you think makes no substantive contribution you can just move along. (That's ordinarily what I do when I see yours.) I'd much prefer that than having to respond to your posts in order to deny your fictional characterizations. We'll both be happier that way, I think.

__________________

So, no substantive argument, no critique of the reasoning, no nothing. By all means, please prove me right. It's just so satisfying to realize people apparently come here to deliberately sabotage discussions, and are proud to more or less announce it.

Have you admitted it?

Your response here is actually quite comical given that you have offered nothing to the discussion other than accusing me of saying something I did not say (i.e. a strawman).

The way to sabotage a discussion, muspell, is to pretend that one participant has said something that he has not so that he is forced to deny it rather than continuing the discussion. In this case, Slon and I were having a discussion, which you evidently did not understand and chose to interject yourself into in your tiresome strawman-proferring style. My posts pertaining to it (65, 67, 69 and 72) are clear and anyone who is interested can read them and take them for what they are. I have no faith in your ability to understand the discussion or the point I made so I will not engage in the futile endeavor of trying to explain things for you. You've told us that you can read. That should be enough. With practice comprehension will come.

__________________

In what alternate universe would that seem to have occured, then?
Fascinating. And at one point, perhaps I can comprehend so elaborately I also have a licence to throw out utterly ridiculous statements, covered by flatly absurd rhetoric, while still maintaining, beyond repeal through argument, that is reasonable. I can only hope to ever become so enlightened in that respect as you, and I most humbly apologize for questioning your authority on anything involving either logic or reason. Or both, what would I know. I can see now that such a thing would be to arrogantly assume my abilities would ever be up to such an incredible task. Again, forgive me for my audacity in so wrongfully explaining how you're the intellectual equivalent of runny excrement. Please, do accept my most humble apologies. I will now go and cover myself in ashes, which is why I cannot continue to humble myself more in writing here. Forgive me for that as well.

No worries.

__________________

All hail ignorance and unreason!

So what are you arguing here?

The DoD claims that civilians aren't intentionally targetted but that's a duplicitous claim if the soldiers haven't been ordered to determine who is and isn't a civilian before they shoot.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

I challenge your above statement that the military has not been used as a 'police force' since the civil war. There are several instances of this happening in the 20thC. The worst example of soldiers being used as a police force was when the veterans of the First World War (The Great War) marched on Washington asking for what they had been promised by the administration of the day. May I suggest that you google this and find out the truth. The ranking officer in charge of the troops, and who gave the order to fire on the marchers was McArthur (yes that McArthur) and his second-in-command was a bloke called Eisenhower (yes that Eisenhower).

I did 20thC American History as an elective!

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil