What's new

US ambassador 'killed in Libya'

.
I agree with you. Some people/cultures cannot control themselves, cannot understand the right from the wrong, are not mature enough to decide what is good for them and what is not. They are so naive so as to get riled up by a shoddy piece of fictional work. Such innocent and naive people do not/should not deserve democracy but hard dictatorship and censorship! Every aspect of their lives should be controlled! Even those who migrate from such 'pure lands' to freer lands should be censored and controlled! Freedoms taken for granted in the West have to be earned by such people. Then we will have peace. No?

I have no problem with this 'freedom of speech'.

My problem with them is that they have a right to spread false information. See, by teaching society the wrong things, they wind up doing the wrong things!

Information these days is a very powerful tool. Some people (including Muslims) tend to misuse that for their own selfish ego.

I find it ironic as to just how far this 'Sam' character got to :sick:
 
.
GLA Commander: "Ak-47s for everyone!"
Angry mod: "Yaaayy!" :yahoo:

Man, I couldn't get enough of that quote :lol:

Very dangerous unit. They can even tear through a tank! :rofl:

Good times! :enjoy:

i almost always played GLA, because the voice acting was so funny! Then i used Jerman Keil to snipe the crew off US buldozzer, confiscated it with troops and started building a US base (didnt work always as planned vs a good player)!
Bomb truck from multiple directions with angry mob (yes, with AK's) and technicals' support as a diversion was a staple of my offensive planning!

sry for off-topic. xD
 
.
Don't be too happy.

Right now China's is the Muslim world's golden boy.

But sooner or later they will turn on you guys too.
Silly rhetoric. The West has been the parasite on the rest of the world for the past 200 to 600 years since the discovery of the Americas. Today, USA represents the worst aspects of Western civilization. Muslims have been living in peace in China for a millenium.
 
.
Silly rhetoric. The West has been the parasite on the rest of the world for the past 200 to 600 years since the discovery of the Americas. Today, USA represents the worst aspects of Western civilization. Muslims have been living in peace in China for a millenium.

The west actually brought you from a pathetic agrarian society to a pathetic industrial society, so you cannot say it's all been bad. :rofl:
 
.
No one knows what more gonna happen? in future how many more wars interfering in other matters whole shitts pre planned much before 911 attacks how to invade Muslim countries capture there resources invade free states Syria Jordan Yemen sham Libya oil hunger of parasites Iraq Afganistan now Iran etc etc no non Muslim state in trouble every where zionist jews making americans more un safer every day ,AMERICAN PRESENCE IN? AFGHANISTAN IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF ALL TENSIONS NATO ISSAF IS THE BIGGEST TERRORIST ORGANISATION ITS SPOILED ITS NO MORE LIKE PAST, GOD BLESS THIS WORLD GIVE RID FROM ALL SUCH PARASITES WHICH HAD TRAUMATISED LIFE OF MANY PEACEFUL NATIONS.
 
.
I don't know.

I refuse to believe that a well-informed person like you doesn't know the finer details of the Rapture prophecy that forms the backbone of evangelical Christian support for Israel. The part where Jesus, upon his return and after disposing of the heathen armies, gives Jews the ultimatum to convert or else!

Of course, the prophecy is meaningless to those who don't believe, but that doesn't change the reality for those who do.

That was just one example; there are others.
 
.
I refuse to believe that a well-informed person like you doesn't know the finer details of the Rapture prophecy that forms the backbone of evangelical Christian support for Israel. The part where Jesus, upon his return and after disposing of the heathen armies, gives Jews the ultimatum to convert or else!

Of course, the prophecy is meaningless to those who don't believe, but that doesn't change the reality for those who do.

That was just one example; there are others.

You might want to actually read revelation since it doesn't say that.
 
.
Big bad Guardian newspaper is making up fake stories about NATO. Uh huh!
When evidence, or lack thereof, and logic proved their article weak...

Oh, I read the article in full before posting it. I wanted your reaction, and you took the bait with the argument that "it was an accident and, even if it wasn't, the Chinese deserved it anyway".
No, you did not.

You cannot disprove the technical aspects of GPS guidance as I explained and supported.

You did not know that the Geneva Convention specifically mention the rights and duties of neutral parties in a conflict as China claimed to be in that conflict. You cannot disprove what the Geneva Convention said and that made your attempt at face saving quite weak, and you learned something new. So now if you took that news article as truth, and am willing to grant you that, then yes, the Chinese deserved it.

What a sorry 'bait'. :lol:

I agree with you. Some people/cultures cannot control themselves, cannot understand the right from the wrong, are not mature enough to decide what is good for them and what is not. They are so naive so as to get riled up by a shoddy piece of fictional work. Such innocent and naive people do not/should not deserve democracy but hard dictatorship and censorship! Every aspect of their lives should be controlled! Even those who migrate from such 'pure lands' to freer lands should be censored and controlled! Freedoms taken for granted in the West have to be earned by such people. Then we will have peace. No?
Excellent. Those who need and can only be ruled -- not governed -- by dictatorships should be kept out of democratic and tolerant societies.
 
.
.
When evidence, or lack thereof, and logic proved their article weak...

Yes, yes, we get it.

No NATO personnel confirmed to the Guardian that the NATO "no hit" list contained the Chinese embassy's latest coordinates, contradicting NATO's official excuse.

The Guardian just made it up. Sure!

You cannot disprove the technical aspects of GPS guidance as I explained and supported.

Sure. This high tech GPS stuff is so complicated and unreliable, the "no hit" lists are just for show. Besides, NATO claims their "no hit" list was out of date anyway, so no need to blame faulty GPS.

You did not know that the Geneva Convention specifically mention the rights and duties of neutral parties in a conflict as China claimed to be in that conflict. You cannot disprove what the Geneva Convention said and that made your attempt at face saving quite weak, and you learned something new. So now if you took that news article as truth, and am willing to grant you that, then yes, the Chinese deserved it.

What a sorry 'bait'. :lol:

I know about the Geneva Conventions. What I wanted out of you was the dance of evasion, as usual, that
- the no hit list was out of date.
- the GPS system has limitations.
- the Chinese deserved it.
 
.
Yes, yes, we get it.

No NATO personnel confirmed to the Guardian that the NATO "no hit" list contained the Chinese embassy's latest coordinates, contradicting NATO's official excuse.

The Guardian just made it up. Sure!



Sure. This high tech GPS stuff is so complicated and unreliable, the "no hit" lists are just for show. Besides, NATO claims their "no hit" list was out of date anyway, so no need to blame faulty GPS.



I know about the Geneva Conventions. What I wanted out of you was the dance of evasion, as usual, that
- the no hit list was out of date.
- the GPS system has limitations.
- the Chinese deserved it.
Like I said, I am willing to grant you that the news article is legit. Now prove why the Chinese did not deserve it? :lol:
 
.
Like I said, I am willing to grant you that the news article is legit. Now prove why the Chinese did not deserve it? :lol:

Because then NATO, not the Guardian, would have to prove their suspicions beyond a doubt.

China is not Iraq, where you can bomb around at random based on mere suspicions.
 
.
Because then NATO, not the Guardian, would have to prove their suspicions beyond a doubt.

China is not Iraq, where you can bomb around at random based on mere suspicions.
Yeah...You are definitely dodging because you know you have been busted for ignorance.

You brought on this source...

Nato bombed Chinese deliberately | World news | The Observer
A Nato flight control officer in Naples also confirmed to us that a map of 'non-targets': churches, hospitals and embassies, including the Chinese, did exist. On this 'don't hit' map, the Chinese embassy was correctly located at its current site, and not where it had been until 1996 - as claimed by the US and NATO.
...To show that NATO knew exactly that the Chinese Embassy is where NATO's map say. To show that we deliberately attacked a country's sovereign soil via an embassy. And to cast moral condemnation upon US to alleviate and distract from the moral outrage being performed by your fellow muslims on our embassies worldwide.

I said I am willing to grant you the latitude that the newspaper is correct, that we KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY attacked the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade with full knowledge of its identity and location.

Here is what you missed in that news article...

The story is confirmed in detail by three other Nato officers - a flight controller operating in Naples, an intelligence officer monitoring Yugoslav radio traffic from Macedonia and a senior headquarters officer in Brussels. They all confirm that they knew in April that the Chinese embassy was acting as a 'rebro' [rebroadcast] station for the Yugoslav army (VJ) after alliance jets had successfully silenced Milosevic's own transmitters.
If I grant you that latitude, it mean I am conceding to your point, it also mean no proof from me is required on NATO's behalf on what NATO believed or do not believed. Why should I or NATO provide any proof? For this discussion, on behalf of NATO, we already conceded that you are correct in your charge.

So here is what the Geneva Convention said about neutral parties who are caught in a conflict...

The Avalon Project - Laws of War : Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Hague V); October 18, 1907
Article 1.
The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.

Art. 2.
Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.

Art. 3.
Belligerents are likewise forbidden to:

(a) Erect on the territory of a neutral Power a wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus for the purpose of communicating with belligerent forces on land or sea;

(b) Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for the service of public messages.

Art. 4.
Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents.

Art. 5.
A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory.

It is not called upon to punish acts in violation of its neutrality unless the said acts have been committed on its own territory.
If China claim neutrality then China -- via one of its embassy -- cannot assist Milosevic in any way. Articles 3a and 5 applicable here, in spirit and letter.

You cannot demand that we believe NATO was telling the truth in one article and lied in the same article. And if we concede to your charge that we bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade knowing what it was, it mean YOU have to concede to the article's reporting that said embassy was acting in favor of the Yugoslav Army.

So according to the Geneva Convention regarding claimed neutrality, China was not a neutral party in that conflict and if China acted in favor of Milosevic, then the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade deserved that bomb.

Now explain to the readers in a coherent and logical manner how was China neutral in that conflict.
 
.
Yeah...You are definitely dodging because you know you have been busted for ignorance.

I LOVE it when you lose it!

You brought on this source...

Yes. I read the entire article. What you are dancing around is the simple fact:

- NATO claimed that the bombing was an accident because its no hit list was out of date. NATO did NOT try to justify its actions by claiming the Chinese had lost their immunity status.

- NATO's explanation has been busted. The only way you can salvage NATO's credibility is to claim that the journalists are lying outright

- Since NATO's explanation is bogus, then the question becomes why was the embassy targeted deliberately. The Guardian also broaches that subject and reveals that NATO believed that the embassy had abrogated sovereignty. The Guardian itself makes no claim as to whether NATO's assessment was correct or a hallucination: it merely reports what NATO officers believed.

- Now here's the kicker. I will write it down slowly, so you can follow: If NATO believes the embassy had abrogated its privileged status, it is up to NATO to prove that claim. The fact that NATO doesn't prove its claims, and chickened out with a false cover story -- already busted by the Guardian -- means it is NATO which is at fault.

- I am fully consistent in that I believe both statements reported by the Guardian: a) the no-hit list was up to date; and b) NATO believed the Chinese were acting as rebro -- it doesn't mean the Chinese were guilty, only that NATO believed so and acted on that belief, without having the integrity to be up front and prove it.

Now, I look forward to your next dance routine.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom