Law School Discussion

IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #40 on: January 07, 2006, 10:17:13 AM »
you have your opinion.  julie suspect you apply "killing" only to enemy, but "slaughter" reflect that probably more innocents are killed.  if it not slaughter to blow up babies, then what you call it?

why, i would call it killing.

slaughter also has a connotation of intent, in my opinion.
 

we may never intend to kill any particular innocents (julie will concede this for present moment, anyway)--but we know, not we, that some will die from our intentional acts of war.  this also true of our own troops (but at least they volunteers--so far, anyway).  we also kill enemy troops, quite intentionally.

then what sort of intent you require for "slaughter"?

analyze all you want...eventually you may not even make the word, "slaughter" stick.

one thing for sure...hussein "slaughtered" people...NO question about it.

is your president still in office, mr. fern?  working the noble causes? ;)

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #41 on: January 07, 2006, 10:20:08 AM »
Blue warrior is mad as hell and he's not going to take it anymore. Some would say the Blue warrior, given the chance, would be just like Saddam. Perhaps why he fetishizes death and relishes in words like "slaughter", "murdered" and "butcher". Maybe Blue warrior will have his own realm one day, and will act on fetish.

and maybe, redemption will stop shitting in his own diapers...just maybe.. :D :D :D :D :D

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #42 on: January 07, 2006, 10:24:37 AM »
fern...ya got nothing...

someone had to chap ya...

war in iraq WILL be seen as NOBLE and "w" will get the credit in the history books...

sorry....not really

px.o.

redemption

Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #43 on: January 07, 2006, 10:31:00 AM »
If you tickle me, will I not laugh?

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #44 on: January 07, 2006, 10:34:43 AM »
If you tickle me, will I not laugh?

go take a bath...you stink.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #45 on: January 07, 2006, 10:58:51 AM »
you have your opinion.  julie suspect you apply "killing" only to enemy, but "slaughter" reflect that probably more innocents are killed.  if it not slaughter to blow up babies, then what you call it?

why, i would call it killing.

slaughter also has a connotation of intent, in my opinion.
 

we may never intend to kill any particular innocents (julie will concede this for present moment, anyway)--but we know, not we, that some will die from our intentional acts of war.  this also true of our own troops (but at least they volunteers--so far, anyway).  we also kill enemy troops, quite intentionally.

then what sort of intent you require for "slaughter"?

well i would say that the sort of intent required would be when civilians are intentionally targeted. (this is all splitting hairs anyway.)

if julie runs red light and smashes into car, it not be defense that she not target that particular car, or even any car at all.  why should it be any different with war?

term "collateral damage" just not cut it.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #46 on: January 07, 2006, 11:01:58 AM »
you have your opinion.  julie suspect you apply "killing" only to enemy, but "slaughter" reflect that probably more innocents are killed.  if it not slaughter to blow up babies, then what you call it?

why, i would call it killing.

slaughter also has a connotation of intent, in my opinion.
 

we may never intend to kill any particular innocents (julie will concede this for present moment, anyway)--but we know, not we, that some will die from our intentional acts of war.  this also true of our own troops (but at least they volunteers--so far, anyway).  we also kill enemy troops, quite intentionally.

then what sort of intent you require for "slaughter"?

analyze all you want...eventually you may not even make the word, "slaughter" stick.

one thing for sure...hussein "slaughtered" people...NO question about it.

is your president still in office, mr. fern? working the noble causes? ;)

wow, you really nailing julie with ten-thousandth rendition of "saddam hussein really, really bad man."  yes, he certainly slaughterer.  and now we've taken his place.  when we gone, civil war that already started will get into full swing.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #47 on: January 07, 2006, 11:03:17 AM »
fern...ya got nothing...

someone had to chap ya...

war in iraq WILL be seen as NOBLE and "w" will get the credit in the history books...

sorry....not really

px.o.

history his only hope, because he sure getting nowhere in present.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #48 on: January 07, 2006, 11:04:55 AM »
If you tickle me, will I not laugh?

go take a bath...you stink.

you stink of death.  how proud you must be!

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
« Reply #49 on: January 07, 2006, 11:13:09 AM »
you have your opinion.  julie suspect you apply "killing" only to enemy, but "slaughter" reflect that probably more innocents are killed.  if it not slaughter to blow up babies, then what you call it?

why, i would call it killing.

slaughter also has a connotation of intent, in my opinion.
 

we may never intend to kill any particular innocents (julie will concede this for present moment, anyway)--but we know, not we, that some will die from our intentional acts of war.  this also true of our own troops (but at least they volunteers--so far, anyway).  we also kill enemy troops, quite intentionally.

then what sort of intent you require for "slaughter"?

analyze all you want...eventually you may not even make the word, "slaughter" stick.

one thing for sure...hussein "slaughtered" people...NO question about it.

is your president still in office, mr. fern? working the noble causes? ;)

wow, you really nailing julie with ten-thousandth rendition of "saddam hussein really, really bad man."  yes, he certainly slaughterer.  and now we've taken his place.  when we gone, civil war that already started will get into full swing.

it not get through to fern.

fern a bit thick in the medula...testosterone on brain.

hussein not bad man...hussein "slaughterer" of people.
he ruthless...his boys...murderers...he got to go.