Blackwater hold Army soldiers at gunpoint

[truthmatters]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21163806/site/newsweek


Defend Blackwater now?

[Sir Evil]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21163806/site/newsweek


Defend Blackwater now?

Defend your comment about republicans lying on the other thread before you go asking for anyone else to defend something you complete waste of cranium space.

12 Year Old Used in Dems Radio Address Not So Poor

[truthmatters]

They did lie , I showed where , you refuse to see it obviously.

Now care to comment on THIS thread?

[Sir Evil]

They did lie , I showed where , you refuse to see it obviously.

Now care to comment on THIS thread?

You pointed out exactly zilch, there was no mention of anyone stating lies republicans made in that link. You are an idiot that does not deserve any response to anything at this point. :lame2:

[truthmatters]

there is none so blind as those who refuse to see.

You wont answer this thread because you CANT and it is that simple.

[Sir Evil]

there is none so blind as those who refuse to see.

You wont answer this thread because you CANT and it is that simp[le.

Whatever. you were asked several times to point it out, and you did not. You are a liar, and non deserving of any reply. :pee:

[Gaffer]

Got any other sources besides msnbc. As a new source they rank right up there with kos, du, moveon and mediamatters. In other words they have no credibility. Got any real news sources?

[diuretic]

If there's any lameness in this thread it's not coming from TM. If you have to use deflection and attacking the source as substitutes for taking the issue then you've demonstrated that you should have stayed out of this thread.

[manu1959]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21163806/site/newsweek


Defend Blackwater now?

it would appear the people they guard....from your article...

Blackwater's staunchest defenders tend to be found among those whom they guard. U.S. officials prefer Blackwater and other private security bodyguards because they regard them as more highly trained than military guards, who are often reservists from MP units. A U.S. Embassy staffer, who did not have permission to speak on the record, said, "It's a few bad eggs that seem to be spoiling the bunch."

[diuretic]

Of course Caesar and his minions would never criticise the Praetorian Guard.

[manu1959]

Of course Caesar and his minions would never criticise the Praetorian Guard.

yes...one can only trust what they agree with....

[Gaffer]

The blackwater guards are mostly former special forces. They have a reputation of keeping their charges safe. I have heard of stand offs before between blackwater and the military. It never comes to shooting, just a disagreement on how things are to be done.

Again, do you have any other sources besides msnbc? I don't believe anything they report on.

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21163806/site/newsweek


Defend Blackwater now? You should change your name to TRUTHDOESN'TMATTER Your just another in a long line of LIBERAL KOOKS:bsflag:

[Monkeybone]

i have heard of them getting into fights with military before. but disarming them? i wouldn't wanna be part of that platoon if they let their weapons be taken away like that. let me see a real military report stating that

"this is my safety"? with the wiggling of a finger? ain't that from the movie Blackhawk Down?

[Yurt]

I have uncovered the "colonel" they were citing:


http://www.thechestnut.com/potty/colonel.jpg

[Sir Evil]

If there's any lameness in this thread it's not coming from TM. If you have to use deflection and attacking the source as substitutes for taking the issue then you've demonstrated that you should have stayed out of this thread.

And you are pointing out what? her willingness to point out the truth when she bends it to fit her argument? True enough I had no argument here, true enough I never defended blackwater to begin with, true enough that I asked her several times to reveal her source of lies, and of course true enough that she never did.

Now the only lameness that I see here is someone that constantly makes posts yet avoids the actual truth when asked about it yet you intervene to with talks of deflection. That to me is........:lame2:

[diuretic]

Looking back SE some of my surprise was that you took the stance you did.

But what the hell :cheers2:

[Sir Evil]

Looking back SE some of my surprise was that you took the stance you did.

But what the hell :cheers2:

What stance would that be?

What I can't stand is when someone constantly cries foul when adding their own twist to a story, and truth has done it on many occassions. I asked her several times to present the lies of an article she posted in which she refused to do by merely suggesting everyone was blind. Now if anyone find that to be a worthy participant when posting well, I guess thats their business but I think it is a fine example of :bsflag:

[diuretic]

What stance would that be?

What I can't stand is when someone constantly cries foul when adding their own twist to a story, and truth has done it on many occassions. I asked her several times to present the lies of an article she posted in which she refused to do by merely suggesting everyone was blind. Now if anyone find that to be a worthy participant when posting well, I guess thats their business but I think it is a fine example of :bsflag:

But I think - without indulging in a counsel of perfection here - that if the response is on point rather than on person it's better. That sounds bloody pompous but it's not meant to be.

Let me put it another way. I have you pegged as someone who will get into the guts of an argument (and that opinion hasn't changed) rather than focus on the peripheral issues. I suppose that was what surprised me.

Anyway my opinion is just an opinion and we all know the common understanding about opinions.

[Sir Evil]

But I think - without indulging in a counsel of perfection here - that if the response is on point rather than on person it's better. That sounds bloody pompous but it's not meant to be.

Let me put it another way. I have you pegged as someone who will get into the guts of an argument (and that opinion hasn't changed) rather than focus on the peripheral issues. I suppose that was what surprised me.

Anyway my opinion is just an opinion and we all know the common understanding about opinions.

I have been pegged as many things, and quite honestly it's of no matter to me at all.

My point of focus to the so called truth person was that it was rather ironic that she would be looking for someone to defend her topic when she wont do that herself.

Now if you want to focus on how I present something to another thats fine but take a moment to focus on what this person posts, and how she chooses to handle her facts. After doing so, and you find her to be someone that you feel you can have daily discussions with then great, I have no issue with that at all but I will continue to point out the hypocrite in her everytime she makes a post to make a point by adding things to it that were never there.

[diuretic]

I do indulge in the odd bit of ad hom myself but I hope I can limit to to the minimum.

I find some solace in the fact that we're not in the Oxford Union :D

Why do I find this strong need to quote Marx (Groucho) on membership of clubs???? :coffee:

[Sir Evil]

I do indulge in the odd bit of ad hom myself but I hope I can limit to to the minimum.

I find some solace in the fact that we're not in the Oxford Union :D

Why do I find this strong need to quote Marx (Groucho) on membership of clubs???? :coffee:

I think we all do this, some more then others, and myself more then most. However with that said it is basically reserved for the obvious. One being a single person here that I absolutely despise, and the rest being for those who post something without any other means except to incite.

I think what I do is very obvious to most, some know the reason while others don't. I don't apologize for my actions unless it is something I know was said for the wrong purpose. I have'nt a problem with admitting when I am wrong.

[diuretic]

Fair enough.

Over and out.

[Sir Evil]

Fair enough.

Over and out.

While I do appear outright inflammatory at times there is indeed a method to my madness.

:beer:

[diuretic]

While I do appear outright inflammatory at times there is indeed a method to my madness.

:beer:

Indeed - Socratic irony is a powerful tool ;)

[truthmatters]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101101030_pf.html
Blackwater Guards Fired at Fleeing Cars, Soldiers Say
First U.S. Troops on Scene Found No Evidence of Shooting by Iraqis; Incident Called 'Criminal'

By Sudarsan Raghavan and Josh White
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, October 12, 2007; A01



BAGHDAD, Oct. 11 -- Blackwater USA guards shot at Iraqi civilians as they tried to drive away from a Baghdad square on Sept. 16, according to a report compiled by the first U.S. soldiers to arrive at the scene, where they found no evidence that Iraqis had fired weapons.

"It appeared to me they were fleeing the scene when they were engaged. It had every indication of an excessive shooting," said Lt. Col. Mike Tarsa, whose soldiers reached Nisoor Square 20 to 25 minutes after the gunfire subsided.

His soldiers' report -- based upon their observations at the scene, eyewitness interviews and discussions with Iraqi police -- concluded that there was "no enemy activity involved" and described the shootings as a "criminal event." Their conclusions mirrored those reached by the Iraqi government, which has said the Blackwater guards killed 17 people.





I just love how the right here is calling me names to defend Blackwater over our own troops.

You are so off the path of reason and still unable to see it.

[Nukeman]

I just love how the right here is calling me names to defend Blackwater over our own troops.

You are so off the path of reason and still unable to see it.

Do you want to prove this statement??? I have yet to see anyone DEFEND blackwater over our own troops.

You are so far out there you dont even read what has been posted. I have to ask are you blind or just have a very big reading comprehension problem????

[Sir Evil]

Do you want to prove this statement??? I have yet to see anyone DEFEND blackwater over our own troops.

You are so far out there you dont even read what has been posted. I have to ask are you blind or just have a very big reading comprehension problem????

:laugh2:

The rock strikes again.

[truthmatters]

The blackwater guards are mostly former special forces. They have a reputation of keeping their charges safe. I have heard of stand offs before between blackwater and the military. It never comes to shooting, just a disagreement on how things are to be done.

Again, do you have any other sources besides msnbc? I don't believe anything they report on.


Looks like defending to me?

[Sir Evil]

Looks like defending to me?

And you look like a liar......:lame2:

[truthmatters]

Only to those who refuse to see Lt Dan.

[Sir Evil]

Only to those who refuse to see Lt Dan.

Sorry, I can't even find humor in you any more. I am convinced that you are just too stupid for the common discussion let alone politics.

[Gaffer]

Looks like defending to me?

How is what I said defending anyone? Is asking for a better source defending someone? I agree with the others here. Your a waste of time.

[truthmatters]

The blackwater guards are mostly former special forces. They have a reputation of keeping their charges safe. I have heard of stand offs before between blackwater and the military. It never comes to shooting, just a disagreement on how things are to be done.


This is obviously defending BW.

[Monkeybone]

The blackwater guards are mostly former special forces. They have a reputation of keeping their charges safe. I have heard of stand offs before between blackwater and the military. It never comes to shooting, just a disagreement on how things are to be done.

Again, do you have any other sources besides msnbc? I don't believe anything they report on.

whole thing TM, not just what you want.

i don't see this as defending. he is staing how and who they are. Also that he has heard of BW and military gettin at it before. all he wants is more resources, not stating that he didn't think that they did or didn't do this. but when it's always he said she said from an unnamed source, want more to back it up instead of face value.

[truthmatters]

I have heard of stand offs before between blackwater and the military. It never comes to shooting, just a disagreement on how things are to be done.


This is just a disagreement is what this is conveying.

When the hired help disarms and forces soldiers to lie in the dirt the hired help is wrong. THIS IS NOT A DISAGREEMENT.

[Sir Evil]

I have heard of stand offs before between blackwater and the military. It never comes to shooting, just a disagreement on how things are to be done.


This is just a disagreement is what this is conveying.

When the hired help disarms and forces soldiers to lie in the dirt the hired help is wrong. THIS IS NOT A DISAGREEMENT.

Right, we all agree that you are a liar.

[Monkeybone]

I have heard of stand offs before between blackwater and the military. It never comes to shooting, just a disagreement on how things are to be done.


This is just a disagreement is what this is conveying.

When the hired help disarms and forces soldiers to lie in the dirt the hired help is wrong. THIS IS NOT A DISAGREEMENT.

i agree with that. and i am very dissapointed in the soldiers that let their weapons be taken away.

and no one is aying that it was just a disagreement. we want more info. can you get that into your head. yes this may have happened. and then again it might not of. just trying not to lynch ppl before the whole story is told.

[truthmatters]

Right, we all agree that you are a liar.


Again you call me a liar when I have lied about nothing?

why dont you comment on the thread topic instead of passing out petty unfounded insults?

[Gaffer]

Once again. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER SOURCES BESIDES MSNBC? I haven't come across this on any of my usual sites who would be all over this if it was true.

[Gaffer]

Here's a bit about whats happening. But still nothing about confrontations with the military. But I thought the law firm was interesting. Page 2 lists some of their former clients.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071012/NATION/110120084/1001

[Sir Evil]

Again you call me a liar when I have lied about nothing?

why dont you commnety on the thread topic insted of passing out petty unfounded insuilts?

I wont be comnety to anything you post until you point out in the article that you claimed showed the lies republicans made.

[truthmatters]

I did not claim any republican lies in this thread.

[Sir Evil]

I did not claim any republican lies in this thread.




Then what do republicans do when this family speaks out? Well they tell a long list of lies about them and reports the home adress of a 12 year old boy so that the nut bags can go harm them. I just cant believe how low people have sunk here and what they are willig to defend.


I suppose that is a mirage?

[truthmatters]

That is not this thread is it?

[Sir Evil]

That is not this thread is it?

Yeah kind of figured you would'nt own up to it.