Falluja Slaughterhouses Found

[hismajesty]

This is absolutely sickening.

[Adron]

This is absolutely sickening.

How cute. A punishment corner where people were quickly punished for being in Iraq against the will of some. A bit more severe than mace though.

[Hazard]

Adron, you don't think that if they hadn't had guns they wouldn't have used explosives or knives? Are you really that stupid?

[Adron]

Adron, you don't think that if they hadn't had guns they wouldn't have used explosives or knives? Are you really that stupid?

Hmm. Trying to make sense of your line. Your claim is:

Adron does not think that: "If they hadn't had guns they wouldn't have used explosives or knives"
If that is true, you claim that Adron is stupid.

"If they hadn't had guns they wouldn't have used explosives or knives" <=> ("they have no guns" => "they don't use explosives or knives")


I don't think that them (whoever they are?) having no guns would make them not use explosives or knives. It doesn't seem like having no guns would be a cause for not using explosives or knives? So I think that even if some people have no guns, they may still use knives. Why do you think that makes me stupid?

Do you think that if someone has no guns, they won't use explosives or knives?

[Hazard]

The usage of => and assorted signs does nothing to make your point Adron... if you have trouble comprehending my sentences consider another course or two in the English language.

[Adron]

The usage of => and assorted signs does nothing to make your point Adron... if you have trouble comprehending my sentences consider another course or two in the English language.

The usage of => and <=> are to signify "implication" and "equivalence" as used in the logic branch of philosophy. I'm more rigidly defining my interpretation of your sentence, to make it possible for you or someone else to clarify if I have misunderstood something.

Or failing that, for someone to point out if I'm really supposed to take it that you think "If someone has no guns, they won't use explosives or knives?"

[Hazard]

I'll try and use smaller words and piece things together in a more textbook structure for you.

From your post that included the "more serious" than mace commment, I took it to be you were going back to the ol' firearms situation again. To which, I replied, that those running the slaughterhouses would have simply used explosives or knives or whatever had firearms not been available. Got it?

[Adron]

I'll try and use smaller words and piece things together in a more textbook structure for you.

From your post that included the "more serious" than mace commment, I took it to be you were going back to the ol' firearms situation again. To which, I replied, that those running the slaughterhouses would have simply used explosives or knives or whatever had firearms not been available. Got it?

Oooh. My comment was going back to the ol' physical punishment and torture situation though. No wonder I couldn't figure out what you were getting at.

Also, I think you messed up the sentence structure, and that the correct interpretation of it as you wrote it is to say that if those running the slaughterhouses hadn't had firearms, they couldn't have used explosives or knives either. I'm looking forward to some third party reading your sentence and telling me where I went off track if I did.

[Grok]

What the hell are you two going on about?  You're arguing about arguing.

The gun argument is about rights to bear arms, and the logic of doing so, in a lawful society.  A society besieged by war, including guerilla war, is not within the realm of gun control discussions.  It is incomprehensible that pro and con gun control advocates would argue the presence of guns in a wartime, civil rebellion, or terrorist situation.  Is this wrong?

[Adron]

What the hell are you two going on about?  You're arguing about arguing.

Hazard insulted me in his first post to this thread. Instead of responding to insult by insult, I tried to understand what he was trying to say, because it made no sense to me. Please, read his sentence, and tell me if it really makes sense?

The gun argument is about rights to bear arms, and the logic of doing so, in a lawful society.  A society besieged by war, including guerilla war, is not within the realm of gun control discussions.  It is incomprehensible that pro and con gun control advocates would argue the presence of guns in a wartime, civil rebellion, or terrorist situation.  Is this wrong?

The gun argument is about the right to bear arms. This thread was in no way part of the gun argument until Hazard brought up a piece of it. In the original post it was about torture and killing of hostages in Iraq, and in my response I brought up the issue of torture in America. Or in Cuba. Non US controlled territories.

[Hazard]

Or in Cuba. Non US controlled territories.

Thank you for recognizing that it is non-US territories that this so-called "torture" is occuring.

[Adron]

Or in Cuba. Non US controlled territories.

Thank you for recognizing that it is non-US territories that this so-called "torture" is occuring.

It's all by the letter of the law. I care about intent more than letter.

[quasi-modo]

Just for the record mace is non lethal and not severe at all in the scheme of things. It is used by our police and used on our police at police acadamy. I tend to think that having my head removed slowly with a dull knife because I am in Iraq doing the work of a contractor would be more severe then some mace in the face because I through some piss on a guard.

[Hazard]

You'll notice whenever the police get into a really tense situation however they draw their guns. Kinda tells you something about how confident they are in the stopping power of mace.

[Adron]

Just for the record mace is non lethal and not severe at all in the scheme of things. It is used by our police and used on our police at police acadamy. I tend to think that having my head removed slowly with a dull knife because I am in Iraq doing the work of a contractor would be more severe then some mace in the face because I through some piss on a guard.

Yes. But then, throwing some piss on a guard is on the low end of the severity scale as well. Working to destroy people like an incarnation of the devil is a bit worse