|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 7:24 am Post subject: ... |
 |
|
So, you hung around the thread because the "insults" were entertaining, then you left after the name-calling.
And what you leave with is a repeated assertion about the "likelihood" of this girl's injuries.
What bothers me is that you left with an unanswered question that deals with likelihood staring you in the face. Do you actually have an article that says she had no cover? If so, could you please post it? What's more bothersome is that you could, as a courtesy to others involved in this discussion, have posted a link to said article when you referred to it.
And, no, your smug little addendums don't add anything to the discussion.
Do you really think that you're being polite? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 3:46 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
What bothers me is that you left with an unanswered question that deals with likelihood staring you in the face. Do you actually have an article that says she had no cover? If so, could you please post it? What's more bothersome is that you could, as a courtesy to others involved in this discussion, have posted a link to said article when you referred to it. |
What bothers me, and quite probably Gord is the lack of evidence being tossed into the pile by those making the "she was injured by a landmine placed by those evil Yanks" claims. Now you are asking us to disprove the claims you and your ilk were making. The audacity of some people! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 4:51 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| So, you hung around the thread because the "insults" were entertaining, then you left after the name-calling. |
The insults and name-calling towards me began on page 1, and you did your finest to join in the fray while I pretty much didn't play the game. When everything ended on page 4, I was still here and the masses agreed with me in that no evidence has been offered which is what I said in the first place. Even the links from others turned out to support what I had said.
| Quote: |
| And what you leave with is a repeated assertion about the "likelihood" of this girl's injuries. |
Great. I never said you had to bend to my will. You are free to believe anything you want. No one is forcing you to do research into how cluster munitions works and their effective kill rates, housing construction in Baghdad, combat flight paths on that day, anti-air munitions used, and anything else related to this subject. But now if you decide to believe the claims, you do so knowing there is no evidence to be offered rather than the belief the evidence exists and you simply have not seen it.
| Quote: |
| And, no, your smug little addendums don't add anything to the discussion. Do you really think that you're being polite? |
Yes, I was quite polite. I didn't throw the first insult, and most insults from others toward me were not met with an insult in turn. You can claim that I didn't add anything to the conversation, but that is nothing more than an exercise in self-deception. I brought attention to the lack of evidence in the claims, how the claims are originating from an advocacy group instead of a medical group and they have made many suspect claims before, and that her injuries are not in line with the weapon claimed to have injured her.
I suspect if we asked people who between us was more informative and polite in this thread, that the masses would say I was on both counts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sleepy in Seoul
Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: Going in ever decreasing circles until I eventually disappear up my own fundament - in NZ
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What a wonderful thread... it makes me wonder why I read it.
Anyway, this girl was injured after the U.S. and U.K. forces invaded Iraq. If they had not invaded, would she have been injured in this way? No. These injuries are a direct result of U.S. and U.K. actions, therefore, the U.S. and U.K. forces are morally (if not legally) responsible for those injuries.
End of argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sleepy in Seoul wrote: |
These injuries are a direct result of U.S. and U.K. actions, therefore, the U.S. and U.K. forces are morally (if not legally) responsible for those injuries.
End of argument. |
Such outlandish comments ususally accompany evidence. It's like the "but for" argument. We could go on and on and on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
What a wonderful thread... it makes me wonder why I read it.
Anyway, this girl was injured after the U.S. and U.K. forces invaded Iraq. If they had not invaded, would she have been injured in this way? No. These injuries are a direct result of U.S. and U.K. actions, therefore, the U.S. and U.K. forces are morally (if not legally) responsible for those injuries.
End of argument. |
Reductio ad absurdum. So if an Iraqi murders or steals from anyone, it is the United States/U.K. that must pay restitution and bear responsibility.
Q.E.D, the coalition forces are not to be held responsible for anything and everything that happens in Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
What a wonderful thread... it makes me wonder why I read it.
Anyway, this girl was injured after the U.S. and U.K. forces invaded Iraq. If they had not invaded, would she have been injured in this way? No. These injuries are a direct result of U.S. and U.K. actions, therefore, the U.S. and U.K. forces are morally (if not legally) responsible for those injuries.
End of argument.
Reductio ad absurdum. So if an Iraqi murders or steals from anyone, it is the United States/U.K. that must pay restitution and bear responsibility.
Q.E.D, the coalition forces are not to be held responsible for anything and everything that happens in Iraq.
|
Well, it can be shown that the murder or theft would not likely have occured wuthout the invasion, then I'd say there's a good case to be made for that supposed ad absurdum.
Let's say the mayor of a town decides to fire every single policeman in the town, for no good reason. Wouldn't the mayor bear some responsibility for the resulting crime wave? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OTOH wrote: |
| Let's say the mayor of a town decides to fire every single policeman in the town, for no good reason. Wouldn't the mayor bear some responsibility for the resulting crime wave? |
Certainly. And here I have not argued that the U.S. is entirely devoid of responsibility. The analogy presented shows that the U.S., as the current law of the land, has the responsibility to protect the people. And when they are derelect in this regard, they must bear some responsibility. I also believe the analogy is just that, an analogy, and is not a perfect mirror of the events in Iraq.
However, that is not the argument I believe is being made by Sleepy in Seoul. His argument is that the United States is morally responsible for some of the most heinous crimes of the 'insurgents' (read, Al Zarqawi and friends, because lumping them with Al Sadr is unfair to that ruthless thug). I call ridiculous on that. America's invasion may be the impetus, but it is not the sole reason for why so many crimes are being committed.
And note: I may believe the United States should pay the full bill of this girl's medical expenses and still be totally in line with the above arguments. I simply think that with Sleepy in Seoul's argument, we step too far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 7:53 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
Nowhere Man wrote:
So, you hung around the thread because the "insults" were entertaining, then you left after the name-calling.
The insults and name-calling towards me began on page 1, and you did your finest to join in the fray while I pretty much didn't play the game. When everything ended on page 4, I was still here and the masses agreed with me in that no evidence has been offered which is what I said in the first place. Even the links from others turned out to support what I had said. |
"The masses". A self-indulgent statement based on your own perception.
You were still here? To answer my question about cover?
No, you weren't.
| Quote: |
Quote:
And what you leave with is a repeated assertion about the "likelihood" of this girl's injuries.
Great. I never said you had to bend to my will. You are free to believe anything you want. No one is forcing you to do research into how cluster munitions works and their effective kill rates, housing construction in Baghdad, combat flight paths on that day, anti-air munitions used, and anything else related to this subject. But now if you decide to believe the claims, you do so knowing there is no evidence to be offered rather than the belief the evidence exists and you simply have not seen it. |
Blah blah blah. Your list offers a great many things worthy of consideration. As if they only support your position.
Considering this, you elected not to include a link to an article addressing the factor of cover that you claim to have read.
| Quote: |
Quote:
And, no, your smug little addendums don't add anything to the discussion. Do you really think that you're being polite?
Yes, I was quite polite. I didn't throw the first insult, and most insults from others toward me were not met with an insult in turn. You can claim that I didn't add anything to the conversation, but that is nothing more than an exercise in self-deception. I brought attention to the lack of evidence in the claims, how the claims are originating from an advocacy group instead of a medical group and they have made many suspect claims before, and that her injuries are not in line with the weapon claimed to have injured her. |
You were asked to provide a link to the article that backs up your claims about likelihood. You have, to this point, failed to do so.
| Quote: |
| I suspect if we asked people who between us was more informative and polite in this thread, that the masses would say I was on both counts. |
Who are these "masses" I'm supposed to ask?
Would their opinion define the truth?
Why exactly does your mass-endorsed ass have to be prodded to provide a simple link to prove what you're saying? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sleepy in Seoul
Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: Going in ever decreasing circles until I eventually disappear up my own fundament - in NZ
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| However, that is not the argument I believe is being made by Sleepy in Seoul. His argument is that the United States is morally responsible for some of the most heinous crimes of the 'insurgents' (read, Al Zarqawi and friends, because lumping them with Al Sadr is unfair to that ruthless thug). I call ridiculous on that. America's invasion may be the impetus, but it is not the sole reason for why so many crimes are being committed. |
Actually, Kuros, I was not blaming the U.S. and/or the U.K. for any crimes in that post. And I definitely never made any reference, implied or otherwise, to al Quaeda. I was simply trying to make the point that in a war, there will always be unexploded ordnance lying around. Before the U.S. and U.K. forces invaded, was there any such ordnance lying around where the girl was injured? Most probably not. Is there after the invasion (U.S. or Iraqi ordnance)? Yes, there definitely is. Therefore, one could logically conclude that the ordnance is there as a direct result of the invasion.
And who is responsible for that invasion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 4:18 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| "The masses". A self-indulgent statement based on your own perception. |
After I voiced an opinion in which I raised my concerns over the validity of the story, three of the six people who posted in the thread after me tossed insults at me. The other three were one-post wonders putting up information of some value.
While "masses" was an obvious exaggeration, it does convey an image of what the thread turned into.
| Quote: |
You were still here? To answer my question about cover?
No, you weren't. |
You said a lot of things. Sadly, very little of it has to do with the actual subject at hand. And in browsing back over the thread, I didn't see anything of any value on the subject at all. You've been gung-ho on attacking me, insulting me, and suggesting I'm quite possibly retarded at the expense of contributing to the subject at hand. Your attacks aren't even that inspired, but are heavily based on either grammar insults or context changes.
And then because I didn't answer one question out of how many, you suddenly want it answered? Sure, I'll get right on it as soon as you contribute something of value to the conversation other than saying I wear women's underwear.
| Quote: |
| Blah blah blah. Your list offers a great many things worthy of consideration. As if they only support your position. |
You're welcome to submit your own information to the thread if you feel my opinion and my links provided are in error.
| Quote: |
| Considering this, you elected not to include a link to an article addressing the factor of cover that you claim to have read. |
I also linked to more pages than anyone else in this thread. You want to talk about cover when the group in question (and one of the links I linked to already covers that she was standing instead of crouching behind cover), then bust out Google and do some research. Not that information on the girl and cluster bombs are rare by any means, and you've demonstrated in this thread and others that you have a habit of not reading links I post up anyway. You are more interested in insulting me than discussing an issue.
| Quote: |
| You were asked to provide a link to the article that backs up your claims about likelihood. You have, to this point, failed to do so. |
That's the context change I'm talking about. I said her claim does not add up. We've talked about the likelyhood of her injuries coming from the weapon claimed, and it does not compute based on the numbers from any website that explains how a cluster bomb works. And I've linked to the group and showed how they have claimed the Americans are targetting civilians for run and that they bomb small third-world countries so McDonald's can be built there and in turn build up the American economy.
What has your contribution to this thread been? It's been a giant exercise in telling me how much of a horrible man I am.
| Quote: |
Who are these "masses" I'm supposed to ask?
Would their opinion define the truth? |
As I said before, they can believe whatever they want. My issue was only that the claims of the group were cited as facts, but now they are cited as unproven claims.
| Quote: |
| Why exactly does your mass-endorsed ass have to be prodded to provide a simple link to prove what you're saying? |
So far I'm the grand champion of links in this thread and haven't cited anything as being a secret. In contrast, you spent most of your words insulting me and possibly making me cry. But you have the same access to information that I do, with the only difference being that perhaps I have read up on more ordinance than you have due to my interest in the subject. If you feel that my belief is in error, then go ahead and explain how a girl standing directly under a cluster bomb managed to survive with such minor injuries when it should have killed her several times over. Perhaps Allah liked her.
Maybe after you have contributed something of value to the thread, I can respond with drawn up little pictures based on the claims made. I am a beautiful artist.
Last edited by Gord on Thu May 19, 2005 7:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 7:46 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Considering this, you elected not to include a link to an article addressing the factor of cover that you claim to have read. |
Let's move away from the mud slinging contest that you have initiated. The nitty gritty is what I am after. You and your ilk made a claim that this girl was the victim of a cluster bomb and thus far, you and your ilk have failed to substantiate this claim. Instead of posting a link which evidences your position you have slung dirt at the posters who have dared to ask you for evidence that your original claims were based on fact. How can you expect us to take your word as gospel when you fail to produce links, slam those who ask for links, and then ask us to produce the links which disprove the claims you were making? Fair enough, I'll toss my hat into the ring. Here are some links which details how lethal clusterbombs are, and the injuries one can expect to sustain if you are hit by one.
The explosive charge is capable of piercing armour to a depth of about 7 ins (17 cms). The blast has a radius of as much as 250 ft (76 m).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2001/cluster_bomb/6.stm
Because the fragments travel at high velocity, when they strike people they set up pressure waves within the body that do horrific damage to soft tissue and organs: even a single fragment hitting somewhere else in the body can rupture the spleen, or cause the intestines to explode. This is not an unfortunate, unintended side-effect; these bombs were designed to do this
http://www.itvs.org/bombies/bombs.html *
* There is a picture of a clusterbomb victim too. It's unpleasant to look at, but it saves Gord from having to get the crayons out for you. (although I must confess I do like his artwork) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 8:18 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
[even a single fragment hitting somewhere else in the body can rupture the spleen, or cause the intestines to explode. This is not an unfortunate, unintended side-effect; these bombs were designed to do this[/color]
) |
Someone else posted that she was hit three times. As Mr. Gwangjuboy points out in the above quote that even a single fragment can do all of the above, it is highly unlikely that she was hit by a cluster bomb and survived not one not two but THREE such wounds. I'm with Mr. Gord and Mr. Gwangjuboy on this one.
You've got to do a lot better than this Mr. Nowhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sleepy in Seoul wrote: |
| I was simply trying to make the point that in a war, there will always be unexploded ordnance lying around. Before the U.S. and U.K. forces invaded, was there any such ordnance lying around where the girl was injured? Most probably not. Is there after the invasion (U.S. or Iraqi ordnance)? Yes, there definitely is. Therefore, one could logically conclude that the ordnance is there as a direct result of the invasion. |
Ah, I think I understand now. Well, the US and the UK certainly bear most if not all of the responsibility for unexploded ordinance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 7:09 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
OK,
To begin with, I addressed your faulty logic that it wasn't a cluster bomb because you assumed the girl and her brother were the only casualties.
While you might not, I find that a valuable contribution to this thread.
Then, you moved on to your insistence that everyone in the kill-zone of a cluster-bomb attack is precisely x-distance away from each bomblet and, therefore, dead.
I brought up the issue of cover, and you persisted with how unlikely it is that people in the kill-zone of a cluster bomb survive.
I pressed this issue, and you offered up that an article stated that she didn't have cover and then went on to say that she did but wasn't crouching.
I'm still looking for this article. Maybe I missed these details. Please show them to me. That's what I've asked for several times now.
And, looking back, I'm unsure of what deluge of questions I've asked. But I'll indulge you. Sorry for asking so many questions, Gord. Now, can you please show me the article about cover?
I am sorry for taking up so much of your time, but I'd still like to point two more things out:
1) Let's say the girl was standing behind cover but not crouching. So, how were her legs injured? Of course, that would be an argument in favor of "not by a cluster bomb", but does it in any support the idea that other ordinance caused such injuries?
2) Your statement about how there's no evidence that coalition forces used cluster munitions against civilian targets only holds water because of the word "target". To my knowledge, there was no coalition attempt to "target" civilians period, whether by bomb or rifle sight. Whether cluster munitions were used on areas with civilians is a whole other story. And that is, after all, why their use is so contentuous, right? Of course, you might accuse me of playing a "word game". Then again, I might accuse you of the same (see "exploit").
I am very sorry that you find none of this relevant to the discussion, but I disagree. Cover is a very important factor in determining the likelihood of what happened. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
