US forces bomb another hospital

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5e20...eak-us-spec-ops-knew-afghan-site-was-hospital

It was being used as a command and control center.

A BBC journalist who visited the hospital in the aftermath said there were outgoing bullet holes in some of the sheet metal siding. That report would confirm that the Taliban were using the hospital as a fighting position, except for the fact that most journalists wouldn't know a bullet hole from termite damage. But perhaps the reporter was a CSI addict.

Right -- there would be no terrorists in the world if it weren't for the U.S. military.

Out of date magazines in the waiting rooms. 2013 Sports Illustrated? 2014 People Magazine? Really?

Yeah, it doesn't make a lick of sense. Most reporters know ridiculously little about weapons and combat, and they often make hilarious mistakes, such as the HuffPo reporter who went to Ferguson Missouri to cover the riots and tweeted:

I believe these are rubber bullets. Can anyone confirm?


Earplugs dude. Earplugs.

Years ago during fighting in Central America a bunch of media pundits were talking about "large caliber weapons" when looking at pictures of a guerrilla with an M-16. Gun folks were thinking "Large caliber? If the caliber was any smaller it would be a BB gun. Barrel diameter. There's a special word for that!"

EARPLUGS? Those are tiny dildos for female leprechauns.

The fantasy is the lie about the "command and control" post.

And I'll note a further, even more barefaced lie.

I have posted the text of the convention more than once. It specifically says the very opposite, that it does not lose protected status. It does so only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.

Finally, I hadn't heard about the Russian attacks on hospitals. I'll go read about it now. If it's as you say it is, then that is also outrageous.

It doesn't matter to the question of military dominance.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ed-since-russian-airstrikes-began-doctors-say

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/middleeast/syria-hospital-attack-russia/

One of the doctors said there hasn't been an ISIS presence in Idlib for well over a year.

^^^
Yep, those responsible for the Russian atrocities should similarly be held accountable.

I'm waiting for your thread about those.

Quite.

What would the thread consist of?

"This is awful. Those Russians are bastards."

"I agree."

"Me too."

For starters. Then as you tend to do regarding the United States:

1) Explain how the Russian actions violate international law.
2) Explain how the Russians actions violate basic morality and human decency
3) Present a list of former Russian actions going back a number of years that were similar violations (this might take awhile).
4) Explain why Russian national authorities have failed to discipline the persons involved in such actions in the past.
5) Detail the need for international investigations and observers to ride herd over the Russians to avoid or reduce the likelihood of such actions in the future.
6) Discuss how the Russian actions are based on the Russian desire for military domination over the rest of the world.

For starters.

So you're actually indirectly admitting therefore that you wanted to stick it to the Americans here with this thread because you knew in advance that not everyone would say "this is awful, the Americans are bastards". If not, what else were you hoping for, that every American here would say "that's awful, we're bastards"?

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.....

I'm "admitting" that the purpose of the forum is debate, and that this topic presents the possibility of a debate, whereas discussion of similar actions by the Russians do not.

This has been explained to you at length numerous times now, so I'm not interested in your pretense that you don't get it. And as before, I'm not interested in one of your tedious multi-page personal arguments, so any follow-up misrepresentations or accusations will be ignored.

You're claiming the purpose of the forum is "debate" yet you are not interested in a personal argument by El Chup?

Most debates at one level or another Rick ARE PERSONAL. Most people who feel strongly about a geopolitical belief take it personally.

Basically your first sentence can be summarized as "I troll Americans and their supporters".

There are a number of other forums with a far higher number of anti American posters such as spacebattles.com, sufficient velocity, and political forum which might be more appropriate for you.

So the Russians get a pass because they sell Europe lots of natural gas?

Nope. I'm here to debate things I find interesting, such as politics, philosophy and history, not to get embroiled in personal attacks.
I'm not entirely successful in that, particularly where the kind of stupidity that you regularly exhibit is concerned, but I do try.

Oh please with the superiority act. Just two days ago you were insulting my personality and accusing me of having a chip on my shoulder. Now you're suddenly above "personal arguments". This is not a personal argument. This is an on topic series of questions. I am saying that you have displayed a persistent anti-American agenda and that calls into question your motivation for posting this thread, your contributions in it and the nature of the "debate" you set out to have. Clearly, raising the issue of the Russian incident is asking you what sort of discussion you hoped the US incident would generate from a mostly American board is intrinsically linked to the issue in question. If your opinions on the issues are possessing an underlying bias or agenda then the people you are trying to debate with have a right to know that you are not debating with pure objectivity.

Let's be honest here, the reason you will "ignore" further posts is frankly because you know you've been found out.

Which is exactly the point. @RickDeckard knows that the Americans aren't going to universally agree with him on this issue, and he's been here long enough to know exactly how these kinds of threads play out. It's a shit stirring anti-America thread. No more, no less.

While I do think that Rick's anti-Americanism is an underlying issue in threads of this nature, I don't think it's correct to say all debates are personal. Myself, I've been happy to debate on numerous topics in which I have no personal agenda (the US gun debate for example, which has no direct impact on me). If you take all debates personally then that might be an issue you want to reflect upon.

Don't hold you breath.