🤦‍♂️ the pigeon English is painful. Learn fucking english you anencephalitic baboon!

1) Hunter is a private citizen….she’s weaponizing the federal government to attack a private citizen over his sex life.
2) The laptop was proven to have been tampered with repeatedly before being turned over, nothing on it is evidence. Try again.
3) posting revenge porn of naked people is a felony, and disgustingly ugly. If that’s what you have to stoop to, criminal revenge porn, you already lost every argument and admitted it. Facebook knew revenge porn is illegal and disgusting so they, on their own, banned it well before any mention of Hunter’s laptop, testimony AND EVIDENCE bear this out, not “one guy said another guy heard a third guy said this”….that’s not even hearsay, but it’s all you’ve got. 🤦‍♂️

Laptop may or may not be real, the data on it is not. Proven conclusively again when one screenshot from it included Hunter’s avatar as a picture taken in 2022…impossible if it was real data. The attempted laptop smear attack was fumbled too badly, nothingburger delux. Try again sucker.

Only cultists believe the laptop nonsense….and worse it’s meaningless even if every accusation was true because there’s nothing on it about Joe. It might have hurt Joe just like a doctored photo of Trump fucking Ivanka might have hurt him (but probably not, you would say she’s hot, so go for it), but it’s a fraud, another MAGA fraud, proven conclusively. Try again.

Disgraced paid actor fbi agents may or may not have said that, that’s not evidence dumb shit. MAGA whistleblowers have ALL been thoroughly exposed as liars, frauds, seditionists, spies, and ghosts, their braying is nothingburgers on a plate. If you wanted your whistleblowers to have weight, you should have not hired spies from China, disgraced agents you paid to testify, and convicted seditionists to testify. 😂 Try again.

Evidence is the receipts. Records that the fbi knew the laptop and the data it contained is real and corroborated, two things conspicuously absent in the pony show (pun intended) because the official report said the exact opposite, it said clearly that the data had been tampered with by multiple parties on multiple occasions before it was turned over to them, but Alex Jones didn’t tell you that, did he? Try again.

Thepoliticsbrief.com! 😂 you’ve got to be kidding. Sucker. Thought I wouldn’t look up who they are? “Greta and Woke Companies are Weaponizing AI Against MAGA”. Not exactly unbiased or sane. 😂. Try again.

Are you counting factual losses?…because you overestimated mine. Onbrand, like a spoiled two year old throwing a tantrum, make up some fantasy scoreboard where you’re winning these debates because the reality, that 97/100 times you slink away in silent dejection when proven an idiot, is too painful. Go have your ba-ba and a nap and try again.

Sucker. You really think any of this matters to people outside the rapidly shrinking cult. You only continue to debase yourself in the failed efforts to impugn Joe. Ready for the unflattering nudes of Don Jr, or Ivanka? How about a shot of Trump nude? (No, that violates the Geneva convention.) We already have the nudes of Melania, soft core porn star that she once was. 😂

Big assumption. Many Hitler youth made the choice to fight for Germany, and joined on their own before children were being drafted.

As for those that were conscripted, is it your position that draftees are somehow immune from responsibility for murdering their neighbors, women, children, rapes, burning towns, or planting millions of landmines on foreign soil, etc? How convenient for them. I don't believe that's a popular or legal position.

I take responsibility for my actions. If their fate was mine, I would be eternally grateful I was treated so much better than I would have treated them if the tables were turned. I would be part of an invading Nazi army, trying to undo just a tiny bit of the damage we had caused, doing so at the direction of my superiors just like when I caused the situation. I would deserve execution, not release. This assumes I wouldn't have the spine to refuse to be a Nazi and be imprisoned or executed.

If the majority of Germans weren't complicit, the Nazis would have never come to power. You give them far too much credit. From the holocaust encyclopedia- "Opposition to the Nazi regime also arose among a very small number of German youth, some of whom resented mandatory membership in the Hitler Youth." Same with adults, the opposition was a minority by far, not the majority of Germans. Who told you that?

"Survived the fighting"? "Here"? "They"? Please finish your thoughts so they have meaning. You seem to be equating Nazi soldiers with the Jews they tried to eradicate. What?!?

The Geneva convention we know today was ratified in 1949. The accords of 1929 were found to be totally insufficient to protect POWs, civilians, infrastructure, etc. Yes, Germany did appear violate it's vague provisions....so did the allies. That's why it was strengthened in 49.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

What provision of the 1929 version do you claim this violates?

Articles 20, 21, 22, and 23 states that officers and persons of equivalent status who are prisoners of war shall be treated with the regard due their rank and age and provide more details on what that treatment should be.
Or
Articles 27 to 34 covers labour by prisoners of war. Work must fit the rank and health of the prisoners. The work must not be war-related and must be safe work. ("Safe" and "war related" being intentionally vague and unenforceable).
Please explain the specific violation that makes mine removal a "war crime". It's not war related, the war was over, and it's "safe" if done properly.
Since this was done at the direction of German officers, the convention as written then doesn't apply.

Death camp!!! LOL. Now I know you aren't serious.
"The removal was part of a controversial agreement between the German Commander General Georg Lindemann, the Danish Government and the British Armed Forces, under which German soldiers with experience in defusing mines would be in charge of clearing the mine fields.
This makes it a case of German soldiers under German officers and NCOs clearing mines under the agreement of the German commander in Denmark who remained at his post for a month after the surrender - this means Germany accepted that they had responsibility to remove the mines - they just had far too few experienced mine clearance experts and far too many “drafted” mine clearers with no real experience in doing so." So, if it's a war crime, it's one the Germans committed against themselves.

I'm happy to say that anything done to a Nazi soldier is ethical, age notwithstanding. Many Nazi youth were more zealous and violent than their adult counterparts. Removing their DNA from the gene pool would have been ethical, but illegal. Taking their country to create Israel would have been ethical, but didn't happen.

At the time, there were few mechanical means of mine removal, they didn't work on wet ground, they required a tank and that the area be pre-cleared of anti tank mines, they often get stuck on beaches, and had just over a 50% clearance rate, cost $300-$1000 per mine removed, and they were in extremely short supply after the war. The Germans volunteered in this instance. Now, the Mine Ban Treaty gives each state the primary responsibility to clear its own mines, just like this agreement did.

So you know, the film is fiction, not history. Maybe read up on the real history before attacking countries over a fictional story. History isn't nearly as cut and dry as it's presented, neither are war crimes.

These boys neither chose the age of conscription nor to go to war. Given their age and the time in the war, they would have been forcably made to fight. If you had the misfortune to be born then and there, thier fate could be yours.

Being in the German army did not imply being a Nazi, the majority of the German population were victims as well, pointlessly lead to slaughter by monsters.

Those of them that would have survived the fighting ended up here. They didn't feed them. They worked until they died. They expected them to die. They wanted them to die.

The Geneva Conventions were signed in 1929 making this an official war crime if that's important to you. I'd say the law does not define ethics, and I'd be happy to say this is wrong regardless of the treaty.

As for alternatives for mine clearance. I'm not a military expert, but I believe there are techniques, equipment, tools or vehicles that can be used to reduce the risk to operators. Frankly it's besides the point. Just because someone cannot think of a solution they prefer over running a death camp, does not mean they are not free to do so.

If you have the time, I'd recommend watching the film. It's excellent. And as with most things, particularly in times of war, it's complicated.

Explain please.

The first wrong was being a Nazi youth invader attacking their neighbors and trying to subjugate or eradicate them....IMO that's actually three wrongs at a minimum, but I digress.

What's the second wrong? Using POWs this way was common practice then....no Geneva convention yet banning it. Most POWs were treated exponentially worse, starved and tortured to death or used as slave labor and worked to death on dangerous projects. By comparison, these Hitler youths were coddled.

Being forced to clean up a small mine field before release is hardly on par with that....there are still allegedly POWs alive in Vietnam and elsewhere....They would jump at the chance to clear mines and be released.

And what's the alternative? Leave the mines to kill civilians? Have the victims of invasion do the dirty work of cleaning up the mess the invading Nazis left? I think forcing the invaders to clean up the mess they made is the ONLY right move, anything else is wrong....like what we do, dropping hundreds of thousands of mines on foreign soil from the air with no idea where most end up and just leaving them to disable a country for generations. That is wrong....this isn't even harsh IMO.

Can be misleading, or can be apt. In this case, this is just one of many times Israel intentionally attacked Americans, so it's not misleading.
Also, there was only one combatant here. *facepalm

This is about how someone we call allies have acted undeniably criminally by committing multiple war crimes against us that we conspired to hide for decades, not how we treated actively aggressive enemies that attacked us and our allies first. Also, we're talking about crimes delineated in the 1949 revision and ratification of the Geneva Convention, so WW2 isn't covered. Duh.

Facts, like multiple undeniable war crimes against America, crimes that directly led to American murders, you mean?
If I find you on my street and cover you with a tarp before I beat you to death to footloose at 120 db so you can't protest, "I thought it was a known terrorist....i didn't see or hear anything to indicate it wasn't besides my friends who told me it wasn't." isn't going to work as an excuse. That's basically what we have here.

Your"illustration" is not a bit on topic, and seems like floundering excuses for the indefensible war crimes of Israel.

Israel is not, and never has been our ally.
Our support of their racist, genocidal regime is baffling in the extreme.

Nobody asked why? I think it's likely because they didn't want anyone recording their other war crimes. Blaming someone else with hopes of bringing us into their war on their side was probably a secondary motive.

And two days ago Israel restarted it's illegal expansion by once again breaking international law and the Geneva convention by renewing efforts to forcefully 'evict' the native Bedouin living in Khan al-Ahmar since before Israel existed and leveling the township.
This sparks the beginning of another genocidal round of expansion and military bluster from Israel, another one we will undoubtedly turn a blind eye to, or perhaps we'll blame the displaced natives like we do the Palestinians.
The UN has previously warned that international humanitarian law requires an occupying power to protect the population of the territory that it occupies, ensure its welfare and wellbeing, as well as the respect for its human rights. Any destruction of property by the occupying power is prohibited, except when rendered absolutely necessary by military operations, the UN says. The extensive demolition of property is a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and may amount to a war crime, it adds.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-45420915

You've got to be kidding, you know the judge isn't a DOJ employee, right?
You understand the concept that ignoring a judges direct legal orders is a crime no matter what your politics, right?
He wasn't convicted of the civil rights violations, (for pulling over Hispanic looking people and demanding they show their papers) but he was ordered to stop them, and he continued. He was convicted of criminal contempt.
It wasn't the DOJ, it was a federal judge he ignored and the constitution he violated after being ordered to stop it.
EDIT: But yeah...ignoring the constitution, judges, fairness, civility, the Geneva convention, and the rule of law certainly does make him the a America's best sheriff, doesn't it? I hope you and your family gets pulled over at gunpoint by black sheriffs at least once a week for life to check your papers, perhaps you'll eventually learn it's wrong.

If Obama abused that power as you suggest, why weren't there constantly DOJ investigations of elected Republicans and talking heads? It seems insane to even suggest that he reserved it for one evil sheriff.

Also, how do you explain all the charges and lost lawsuits from before Obama? Arpaio's legal troubles didn't suddenly start 8.5 years ago, you know. Was Bush's thumb on that scale against him too?

When you veer into talking about changing the Geneva Conventions I think your argument loses logic. Without getting into whether military action is actually justified in the first place, maybe it's worth admitting that there are some thing the US military simply can't do and therefore shouldn't try to?

To suggest that the US should forego international norms to achieve its goals feels like it's channeling the neo-conservative myth of the US as this omnipotent superpower that it never was, and certainly isn't now. What evidence is there that acting like the terrorists (which once you give up international norms you will eventually get to) would actually help achieve its objectives in the first place?

The Bush administration basically took that approach with torture (the "well they did it to us!" approach). When the news of secret rendition, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo broke (as it inevitably would), we know that almost certainly recruited a whole bunch of new terrorists. Meanwhile torture confessions led to a whole bunch of wild goose hunts.

Civilian resistance has been around since the dawn of armies invading foreign lands. International norms geared around state v. state warfare don't really address them, not because they didn't envisage them but because occupying and pacifying foreigners was never a good idea in the first place. Drone strikes, surgical strikes on the likes of Bin Laden should be a rare exception but once you start 'normalizing' them, and giving occupying soldiers wider latitude with civilians that's when you start getting into serious trouble.

I think you will find that most veterans, and currently serving men and women, simply want a clear objective that allows them to win the conflict and return home. Unfortunately the nature of terrorism means that while we follow long held rules that prevent collateral damage, or seek to limit it, the enemy we are fighting do not.

Just as we learned to our sorrow in Vietnam, as the British learned in fighting the IRA, the Russians in fighting the Mujaheddin, and we are learning again in our current battles, terrorists do not feel the need to adhere to the laws of warfare. They use civilians to support them, protect targets, or provide them escape methods. They attack civilians gleefully, knowing we cannot respond in kind.

While I do not support Trump, I do think we seriously need to have a new Geneva Convention to clarify how to treat terrorists and their civilian supporters. I think that is what the ex-Seal meant at the heart of his argument, that fighting terrorists using the old "Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we have rules here" is an absolute losing proposition. Even Obama found that we needed to work outside the rules sometimes to be successful, hence his invasion into a sovereign allied nation to kill or capture Bin Laden, and his current extremely heavy use of drone attacks on suspected targets.

As far as the second veteran, I feel it is absolutely valid to question his integrity. He could have claimed CO status prior to going to conflict or simply not joined the military in the first place. Instead, he decided to claim it after experiencing combat, something my friends who have served noticed happening in the first gulf war. You really don't want a recap of some of the things they called people who left the service after seeing combat.

Flamethrowers aren't considered weapons and are legal to own, though against the Geneva convention to use on people. Really, though, they aren't considered weapons because they aren't very useful as weapons (compared to say, a shotgun or rifle or pistol or a even a bow) unless you happen to have a guy with a machine gun in a pillbox who is in your way, they're not terribly useful.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. And yes, international law does protect the right of people the resist their occupiers. However, this is a bit more than a "ghetto uprising" because a political group (Hamas) has formed and claimed to have some control over a territory and the people of that territory. Actually let me back up, even if that weren't true, it wouldn't matter for the point I want to make.

Armed combatants in a violent conflict, whether international or non-international, whether they are party to the conventions or not, are bound by international humanitarian law to uphold the Geneva conventions. “The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations.” This places a requirement on armed actors to take reasonable steps to separate their military activities from the civilian population.

However, if people knowingly and willingly stay in place in order to serve as a human shield to military activities, then they can no longer be considered "hors de combat" (outside of combat) and become legitimate targets. The problem here is that Hamas will always say they are innocent people being killed, that Hamas does not launch attacks from residential areas, and that no one is being forced to stay to act as a human shield. Israel will always say that rockets were launched from there and they had no choice but to attack in order to "degrade" military capabilities.

BUT, humanitarian law aside (sorry, it's one of my things) I think it is disgusting doublespeak that Israelis can actually convince themselves that Hamas is killing Palestinians by making Israel fire weapons into densely populated areas. That is disturbing and distressing rationalization that they explain away by saying that there are thousands of rockets being fired on their cities, never once acknowledging that not a single one of those rockets has landed and hurt someone.

Hedgehog mines have been banned by the Geneva Convention.

"Laws of war"-always tripped me out the Geneva Convention n what not-Are there rules for war because of the Nazis' and the Japs' brutality??
War = Retardation

Why not just tell everyone that they are pawns in a giant game played buy assholes who create the illusion of conflict and that this dance is a necessary evil if you want to keep having cold beer and new televisions??

>> ^messenger:

@A10anis
You suggest at the end of your first comment that Shure and Dore think Islam is moderate. But they don't say that. All your arguments against Islam are word for word equally applicable to Christianity as well.
As for your defence of Christianity, first, I don't know what the term is, but posing rhetorical questions, the answers to which don't conclude anything is a false argument. Like, I can make a false argument in the same way by asking, "When was the last time a Muslim burned a black man on a cross? When was the last time Muslims conducted witch hunts or a Spanish Inquisition?" It sounds like the answers must be conclusive, but they're meaningless. If you want to say something, just say it.
Second, using the craziest of the sickest crazies to exemplify Islam is like using the KKK and the hick communities they draw from to exemplify the western civilization. It's bullshit. Most Muslims just go about doing their thing and don't give a shit what other people think, and certainly don't advocate killing non-believers. And the ones who do, it's not because they're Muslim: it's because the U.S. installed or supported religious dictatorial leaders. What do you think are the three most batshit crazy Islamic countries? I bet the U.S. created or supported the creation of their non-democratic power structure. Am I right? Lack of democracy is the difference, not the text of the religion. Give Muslims democracy and they'll chill out because democracy is better than any religion.
You offered to clarify though. You said you agree with everything else Dooley said besides those two statements, right? So, can you clarify that you:
support "total war" against all Muslims and the reduction of the religion of Islam to "cult status"?
think the U.S. is OK to go ahead and do this?
consider Muslims to be the "enemy of the West"?
assert the Geneva Convention is no barrier to militarily targeting non-combatant Muslims abroad (which currently is all of them)? How about American Muslims? Can they be targeted militarily as well?
claim there is no such thing as moderate Islam?
believe there are 140 million Muslims who hate "everything you stand for"? Really? Everything?
believe the Crusades were justified? Even the ones waged against other Christians?
Backpedalling in 3, 2, 1...

I made my point in my first comment. I explained my point to you - as you needed it explaining- in my second. You are an idiot. I will not respond again.

@A10anis

You suggest at the end of your first comment that Shure and Dore think Islam is moderate. But they don't say that. All your arguments against Islam are word for word equally applicable to Christianity as well.

As for your defence of Christianity, first, I don't know what the term is, but posing rhetorical questions, the answers to which don't conclude anything is a false argument. Like, I can make a false argument in the same way by asking, "When was the last time a Muslim burned a black man on a cross? When was the last time Muslims conducted witch hunts or a Spanish Inquisition?" It sounds like the answers must be conclusive, but they're meaningless. If you want to say something, just say it.

Second, using the craziest of the sickest crazies to exemplify Islam is like using the KKK and the hick communities they draw from to exemplify the western civilization. It's bullshit. Most Muslims just go about doing their thing and don't give a shit what other people think, and certainly don't advocate killing non-believers. And the ones who do, it's not because they're Muslim: it's because the U.S. installed or supported religious dictatorial leaders. What do you think are the three most batshit crazy Islamic countries? I bet the U.S. created or supported the creation of their non-democratic power structure. Am I right? Lack of democracy is the difference, not the text of the religion. Give Muslims democracy and they'll chill out because democracy is better than any religion.

You offered to clarify though. You said you agree with everything else Dooley said besides those two statements, right? So, can you clarify that you:
* support "total war" against all Muslims and the reduction of the religion of Islam to "cult status"?
* think the U.S. is OK to go ahead and do this?
* consider Muslims to be the "enemy of the West"?
* assert the Geneva Convention is no barrier to militarily targeting non-combatant Muslims abroad (which currently is all of them)? How about American Muslims? Can they be targeted militarily as well?
* claim there is no such thing as moderate Islam?
* believe there are 140 million Muslims who hate "everything you stand for"? Really? Everything?
* believe the Crusades were justified? Even the ones waged against other Christians?

Backpedalling in 3, 2, 1...