500 Dead In One Day: Iraq

[Theo Huxtable.]

LMAO!!!

 

You've told numerous lies in your last few replies.

[Theo Huxtable.]

JESUS CHRIST!!!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZX1odzHdAo

 

 

If it's written in the YouTube title, then it must be true! Remember you and the "banned bush interview"? LOL!

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

You've told numerous lies in your last few replies.

 

What lies are those? I said that a mercenary is a soldier for hire. A private citizen sent to other countries to do battle. You're the one trying to say that if the US is paying the mercenary then all of a sudden he's no longer a mercenary, but a "private contractor".

Lmao!

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

Then why'd you try to imply they're fighting for Iraq?

 

 

I said that they aren't fighting for America. They're fighting for money actually.

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

...

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

If it's written in the YouTube title, then it must be true! Remember you and the "banned bush interview"? LOL!

 

And because Theo Huxtable say's it's fake then it must be!

Well it's definately American voices in the background. So if they aren't American mercenaries then who were they? Soldiers? I don't think sodiers drive around in civilian cars over there my dude. Show a little evidence that it's a lie before trying to imply it.

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

If it's written in the YouTube title, then it must be true! Remember you and the "banned bush interview"? LOL!

 

And because Theo Huxtable say's it's fake then it must be!

Well it's definately American voices in the background. So if they aren't American mercenaries then who were they? Soldiers? I don't think sodiers drive around in civilian cars over there my dude. Show a little evidence that it's a lie before trying to imply it.

[Theo Huxtable.]

What lies are those? I said that a mercenary is a soldier for hire. A private citizen sent to other countries to do battle. You're the one trying to say that if the US is paying the mercenary then all of a sudden he's no longer a mercenary, but a "private contractor".

Lmao!

 

Lies trying to change your story saying they're fighting for Iraq. Lies calling them mercenaries.

 

Also it's not me "trying to say" anything. It's English dictionaries and international law that define what a mercenary is. I'll take their credence over yours any day.

 

Do you not trust dictionaries either? Again, you make impulse, foot-in-mouth responses without any research into the issue, and then you "Google" it later and slowly try to change your original statement while acting like it was the same statement all along. You did the same when you got owned by yumone in response to your baseless and false accusations about Ron Paul.

[Theo Huxtable.]

I said that they aren't fighting for America. They're fighting for money actually.

 

Actually, you did state they were fighting for Iraq, liar. Go re-read post #36 of this thread, where you said: "Then the MERCENARIES aren't fighting for America, they're fighting for the country that they are in."

 

Which directly states that these contractors are fighting for Iraq (the country they're in). That is an incorrect statement. They are employed only by the US. Iraq pays them nothing.

[Theo Huxtable.]

And because Theo Huxtable say's it's fake then it must be!

Well it's definately American voices in the background. So if they aren't American mercenaries then who were they? Soldiers? I don't think sodiers drive around in civilian cars over there my dude. Show a little evidence that it's a lie before trying to imply it.

 

I didn't say they weren't Americans or weren't Blackwater. What I did imply was that you can't tell if they're shooting at "innocent civilians" (as the title states) or if they were in fact hostile insurgents just from that short video clip. We don't know what preceeded that video recording and can't make any definitive conclusions that these people driving at them at high speeds were just "innocent civilians".

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

Ok then lets check the dictionary...

 

mer-ce-nary adj, n. pl. -naries -adj. 1. working or acting merely for money or other reward; venal. 2. hired to serve in or for a foreign army. -n. 3. a soldier hired to serve in a forign army. 4. any hireling [1350-1400 ME mercenarie , L mercennarious hired worker, akin to merces wage].

 

^Damn, apparently the term is even broader then I thought. And proves you wrong. And me right. I win, you lose. :lol:

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

I didn't say they weren't Americans or weren't Blackwater. What I did imply was that you can't tell if they're shooting at "innocent civilians" (as the title states) or if they were in fact hostile insurgents just from that short video clip. We don't know what preceeded that video recording and can't make any definitive conclusions that these people driving at them at high speeds were just "innocent civilians".

 

 

 

^Theo.... they're driving in traffic picking off cars at random. If they were "hostile" then would they really be driging at a normal pace right behind them? Wouldn't they be shooting at them? You can tell by looking at the video that the victims weren't even expecting that shit. You really are fucking dense. :rolleyes:

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

Actually, you did state they were fighting for Iraq, liar. Go re-read post #36 of this thread, where you said: "Then the MERCENARIES aren't fighting for America, they're fighting for the country that they are in."

 

 

^Which ISN'T America you dumb shit!

[Theo Huxtable.]

Ok then lets check the dictionary...

 

mer-ce-nary adj, n. pl. -naries -adj. 1. working or acting merely for money or other reward; venal. 2. hired to serve in or for a foreign army. -n. 3. a soldier hired to serve in a forign army. 4. any hireling [1350-1400 ME mercenarie , L mercennarious hired worker, akin to merces wage].

 

^Damn, apparently the term is even broader then I thought. And proves you wrong. And me right. I win, you lose. :lol:

 

 

Wow, you're so dense and idiotic that your own definition you posted proved you wrong. It even specifies on 2 & 3 that a mercenary is a soldier that is hired to serve in a FOREIGN army. Numbers 1. & 4. doesn't specifically refer to soldiers; it can be anyone doing anything simply for money. Are we not speaking about soldiers fighting and conducting. Because 2 & 3 is what you should be focusing on.

 

How come you hate so much to admit you're wrong? You're the most backtracking double-talking person here.

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

Wow, you're so dense and idiotic that your own definition you posted proved you wrong. It even specifies on 2 & 3 that a mercenary is a soldier that is hired to serve in a FOREIGN army. Numbers 1. & 4. doesn't specifically refer to soldiers; it can be anyone doing anything simply for money. Are we not speaking about soldiers fighting and conducting. Because 2 & 3 is what you should be focusing on.

 

How come you hate so much to admit you're wrong? You're the most backtracking double-talking person here.

 

A soldier for hire is a MERCENARY you fucking CLOWN!

That's what it says in the deffinition and that's what everybody (besides you) who made it past middle school knows. You are such a fucking idiot. :lol:

[Theo Huxtable.]

^Theo.... they're driving in traffic picking off cars at random. If they were "hostile" then would they really be driging at a normal pace right behind them? Wouldn't they be shooting at them? You can tell by looking at the video that the victims weren't even expecting that shit. You really are fucking dense. :rolleyes:

 

Were you there? People need to realize that video only captures a small fraction of an entire event. We don't know what preceeded that. How do you know they didn't just get ambushed in that area and were shooting at suspected vehicles?

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

And Casek already posted a much more thorough diffinition...

 

 

here's something to help out DAO's argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_company

 

 

and some more:

 

A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national of a Party to the conflict and "is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party".[1][2]

As a result of the assumption that a mercenary is exclusively motivated by money, the term "mercenary" carries negative connotations. There is a blur in the distinction between a "mercenary" and a "foreign volunteer", when the primary motive of a soldier in a foreign army is uncertain. For instance the French Foreign Legion and the Gurkhas are not mercenaries under the laws of war, but some journalists do describe them as mercenaries.[3][4]

 

 

 

 

 

Art 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.2. A mercenary is any person who: (a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;© is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

 

 

 

So how the fuck is this even still up for debate? :lol:

[Theo Huxtable.]

^Which ISN'T America you dumb shit!

 

You don't even pay attention to what you write, you illiterate, shit-talking fag.

 

The point is that I stated correctly that you made the false accusation that Blackwater fight for Iraq. You then denied it. I posted a quote proving that you did indeed state this. Now you're saying something stupidly obvious and irrelevant about how Iraq isn't America. That translates to having no rebuttal. You mad?

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

Were you there? People need to realize that video only captures a small fraction of an entire event. We don't know what preceeded that. How do you know they didn't just get ambushed in that area and were shooting at suspected vehicles?

 

Because I actually watched the shit. And anybody with a IQ over 80 can tell that they were kicking back just cruising listening to Elvis or some shit bucking shots at random for shits and giggles. And laughing about it. And anyone with an IQ over 80 can also see that the people getting shot obviously didn't even see it coming and were just sitting ducks. Because that's how they were driving. You really are blinded by that "tunnel vision" you were speakingof before. Seriously. WTF???

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

You don't even pay attention to what you write, you illiterate, shit-talking fag.

 

The point is that I stated correctly that you made the false accusation that Blackwater fight for Iraq. You then denied it. I posted a quote proving that you did indeed state this. Now you're saying something stupidly obvious and irrelevant about how Iraq isn't America. That translates to having no rebuttal. You mad?

 

 

You're a fucking moron.

[Theo Huxtable.]

A soldier for hire is a MERCENARY you fucking CLOWN!

That's what it says in the deffinition and that's what everybody (besides you) who made it past middle school knows. You are such a fucking idiot. :lol:

 

You are by far the stupidest, most ignorant fool I've ever encountered.

 

You claim it's what "everybody knows" (who is 'everybody'), but for some reason the English-Oxford dictionary and the Geneva Conventions aren't on board with you. Maybe you know something they don't. :rolleyes:

[Theo Huxtable.]

And Casek already posted a much more thorough diffinition...

 

 

 

 

 

 

So how the fuck is this even still up for debate? :lol:

 

 

 

I didn't want to say anything, but what Casek posted actually hurt your argument. Read the very first sentence in that entry casek posted. Focus on the bold part, since I know you have a problem reading.

 

"A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national of a Party to the conflict and "is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict,"

 

That statement alone states that a mercenary is a soldier that fights under the employment of a country other than their own. Which totally contradicts your argument. Blackwater is a US-based company that fights only for the US government.

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

here's something to help out DAO's argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_company

 

 

and some more:

 

A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national of a Party to the conflict and "is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party".[1][2]

As a result of the assumption that a mercenary is exclusively motivated by money, the term "mercenary" carries negative connotations. There is a blur in the distinction between a "mercenary" and a "foreign volunteer", when the primary motive of a soldier in a foreign army is uncertain. For instance the French Foreign Legion and the Gurkhas are not mercenaries under the laws of war, but some journalists do describe them as mercenaries.[3][4]

 

 

 

 

 

Art 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.2. A mercenary is any person who: (a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;© is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

 

 

 

:rolleyes:

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

I didn't want to say anything, but what Casek posted actually hurt your argument. Read the very first sentence in that entry casek posted. Focus on the bold part, since I know you have a problem reading.

 

"A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national of a Party to the conflict and "is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict,"

 

That statement alone states that a mercenary is a soldier that fights under the employment of a country other than their own. Which totally contradicts your argument. Blackwater is a US-based company that fights only for the US government.

 

You are seriously fucking dense. A mercenary is still a mercenary no matter who it is that hires him. You're "Geneve convention" loopholes don't change that.

[Theo Huxtable.]

Because I actually watched the shit. And anybody with a IQ over 80 can tell that they were kicking back just cruising listening to Elvis or some shit bucking shots at random for shits and giggles. And laughing about it. And anyone with an IQ over 80 can also see that the people getting shot obviously didn't even see it coming and were just sitting ducks. Because that's how they were driving. You really are blinded by that "tunnel vision" you were speakingof before. Seriously. WTF???

 

"Because I actually watched that shit". Wow. That says everything. So that means you knew of all the activities that preceded and followed the video.

 

I don't know if they were listening to that music; sounded to me like that the music added to the video in the editing by Youtubers -- just like thousands of other war videos with added music. The music just sounded to clear to be coming from a radio, and it sounded too ironic and humorous to fit what was happening in the video. I don't know anyone in their right mind that would play music in a war zone while firing weapons. Hard to say.

 

I'm not the one with "tunnel vision" because I'm saying we don't know for sure what happened because we weren't there -- you're the one that already made up your mind without even being there. That's what people with tunnel vision or closed-mindedness do.

[Theo Huxtable.]

You're a fucking moron.

 

This is what happens when DrunkenAsshole has no rebuttal. He hates admitting he's ever wrong, so name-calling is the only language he knows.

 

Yes, you were wrong when you said Blackwater is fighting for Iraq and not the US. Then you lied when you denied that you said this.

[Theo Huxtable.]

:rolleyes:

 

Learn to read. It has says that a mercenary soldier has to be someone employed by a foreign army/government/party. You know this, you read this, but your foolish need to never admit you're wrong just causes you to get angry and hurl insults like a child. You mad?

[Theo Huxtable.]

You are seriously fucking dense. A mercenary is still a mercenary no matter who it is that hires him. You're "Geneve convention" loopholes don't change that.

 

So then why did you use that wikipedia information that Casek provided as your source, when it clearly contradicts what you're saying? It specifically says that a mercenary soldier isn't just anyone "no matter who it is that hires him", but specifically a foreign Party/government/army that hires him. You're so illiterate that you use statements that debunk your own arguments as support for your argument.

 

You refer to it as my "Geneva Convention loopholes" as if I invented it. Geneva Conventions were formulated in the 1800's. And the definition of "mercenary" that is found in dictionaries dates back several centuries. Yet you are trying to tell them that they're both wrong. Hilarious!

[El Mamerro]

For the love of fucking Christ people, please stop getting into arguments with DAO. The Obama thread went to shit because of this crap and so is this one, over some fucking bullshit meaning of the word "mercenary". Come the fuck on. Just ignore this guy, it's plainly not worth it and it's fucking up every thread.

 

And DAO, please just shut the fuck up every once in a while. Your manner of arguing is 400% retarded and it's bringing down the discussion around here. I'm not going to argue or justify anything to you, just please shut the fuck up.

[lord_casek]

hey theo, one thing, the film of blackwater shooting up traffic, those guys got in a little trouble for that. i can't recall if there were convictions or not, but they did get in trouble. at least reprimanded.