OT: Rachel Ray

[Yadadimean]

In my mind the difference between a terrorist and a soldier is the rules of warfare. I.e. not harming civilians, wearing your country's uniform, etc.

I absolutely can't stand how some groups pretend to be civilians and surround their military structures with civilians.

Although I must say the scarf looks good on her.

Do you believe that no American soldiers intentionally harm civilians? I know people who have been to Iraq that tell me that America has intentionally wiped out entire neighborhoods knowing full well the vast majority of the people in them were innocent civilians. Hell, the nukes dropped on Japan killed an enormous amount of innocents. Would you call these American soldiers in question terrorists?

[mojomarc]

Nothing looks good on Rachael Ray.

And by nothing I mean no clothes on at all.

That should definitely be seen but not heard. Her voice and speaking style is like fingernails across a blackboard.

[Yadadimean]

She sure is popular for somebody that nobody seems to care for...

[The Emcee]

Do you believe that no American soldiers intentionally harm civilians? I know people who have been to Iraq that tell me that America has intentionally wiped out entire neighborhoods knowing full well the vast majority of the people in them were innocent civilians. Hell, the nukes dropped on Japan killed an enormous amount of innocents. Would you call these American soldiers in question terrorists?

Hmmm whoops I again worded stuff wrong. Man I gotta proofread my crap.

I do not deny that it happens. And actually yes, you could fit those soldiers in question in the terrorist category. It is extremely unfortunate that it happens.

[Dakotah612]

To break up the tension from the jihad scarf in this thread...

[Yadadimean]

-= original quote snipped =-



Hmmm whoops I again worded stuff wrong. Man I gotta proofread my crap.

I do not deny that it happens. And actually yes, you could fit those soldiers in question in the terrorist category. It is extremely unfortunate that it happens.

LOL its ok. its not like I havent gone on many a drunken, incoherent rant on this board! Anyway, is it harder to consider these soldiers in question terrorists if you consider that the function of a soldier is to follow orders? Could you still call them a terrorist if their actions are a direct result of a higher ranking officer giving the order? On the other hand, would a soldier be treasonous if he refused to carry out the order if it involved harming innocents?

[candy for lunch]

thanks michelle malkin, for providing more evidence that modern conservatism is intellectually brain dead.

[The Emcee]

LOL its ok. its not like I havent gone on many a drunken, incoherent rant on this board! Anyway, is it harder to consider these soldiers in question terrorists if you consider that the function of a soldier is to follow orders? Could you still call them a terrorist if their actions are a direct result of a higher ranking officer giving the order? On the other hand, would a soldier be treasonous if he refused to carry out the order if it involved harming innocents?

I guess I was working on the assumption that it was the soldiers' choice to do it, for whatever reason.

[Yadadimean]

-= original quote snipped =-



I guess I was working on the assumption that it was the soldiers' choice to do it, for whatever reason.

ultimately it is their choice, but to a certain degree they are trained to follow orders without question.