Zach LarkinsBRAVERY REBUTTAL
Sometimes, ya just gotta straighten some people out. I used to blog on another site and got tired of the pathetic comments of know-nothing readers who couldn't put up a valid argument to debate anything I wrote about. That's why I came here to Orble. People seemed intelligent and willing to debate issues on a civilized level. I guess that's not the case.
After some absence, I am hearing from ‘Anonymous' again, and though I know who he truly is, I won't flatter him by mentioning his name. He wants me to, though, but I won't give him any free publicity.
He has seen fit to attack me on an article I wrote recently entitled ‘Bravery'. I don't have the time or patience to teach this dim-bulb how to read. The article concerned the capture of 15 British sailors and marines at the hands of Iran. I wondered why they were not afforded the provisions due them under the Geneva Conventions. These sailors and marines were subjected to what is referred to under the Conventions as ‘humiliating' conditions. Their pictures were taken, along with video's, showing them in a weakened condition, that is, as prisoners, and shown around the globe. These people were part of a recognized, armed fighting force and thus should have been treated as prisoners of war. Even though Iran and Britain are not at war, Iran illegally took them captive and flaunted their prized possessions in front of the world. This is not allowed under the Conventions.
I compared the treatment of these hostages to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, pointing out some differences. The detainees at Gitmo are not ‘prisoners of war'. They are terrorist subjects mainly, and those who actually did fight coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan did so on their own. They never were part of a recognized force fighting for any particular nation. They were not compelled to be treated as prisoners of war under the Conventions, yet the US Supreme Court said they should be, and so they were and are. Western media went out of their way not to show faces or name names because the Conventions don't allow it. Iran has no such qualms with following any rules, so it makes them up as it goes along and expects the rest of the world to either forgive or excuse it.
The British sailors were held for almost 15 days. That is a fact. Iran committed an act of war by taking them hostage. That is a fact. Britain diffused the situation through peaceful negotiations. That is a fact. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad still wants to come out looking like a hero. That is a fact. Why else would he decorate the kidnappers on the day the hostages are freed? Did he actually believe that this was comparable to the Battle of Waterloo? Hardly. Why else would he ‘pardon' the sailors? I thought you had to have a trial and be sentenced before a pardon could be granted. Well, that's what happens in civilized countries anyway. The jury's still out on Iran.
So this illiterate, directing his comment at another writer and myself, comes up with, "Obviously you guys have this set of views that everyone in Iran is evil and wants to destroy your peaceful lands, obviously you are both mistaken." If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck....................
No one ever said all Iranians are evil. He would like to believe this as he takes any thing anyone writes about terrorists personally. Maybe he hasn't seen or heard the news clips on TV radio and in the newspapers, both liberal and conservative, about terrorist cells spread throughout the world waiting for the word to start their jihad against the western infidel.
Unlike this poorly informed soul, I do have a job that requires me to be there most of the day. I can't sit in front of this thing 24/7 like he does. So by the time I put an article out, it may well be yesterday's news. So sorry. Not even the major news outlets can give you second by second updates. But he comes back with this gem, "hahahaha, (sic) you're saying how mean Iran is to the poor old british (sic) hostages yet they are going to be released, I think thats (sic) pretty much checkmate, your smear campaign was over before it even started. Looks like what you've brainwashed yourself into thinking the 'enemy' are like has a few holes in it." And I'm supposed to take him seriously? I don't think so. First, it never was a ‘smear campaign'. It was known facts at the time. It seems he has a problem facing some truths. Second, what Iran did was illegal and immoral. The release of the hostages does not negate that fact. Third, this person, as I said, hides under the ‘Anonymous' label. Maybe I don't give out my name, but I'm easy enough to trace. Using ‘Anonymous' just shows you don't have the facts to fight, you don't know what you're talking about, you can't read and you don't have the balls for honest debate.
After some absence, I am hearing from ‘Anonymous' again, and though I know who he truly is, I won't flatter him by mentioning his name. He wants me to, though, but I won't give him any free publicity.
He has seen fit to attack me on an article I wrote recently entitled ‘Bravery'. I don't have the time or patience to teach this dim-bulb how to read. The article concerned the capture of 15 British sailors and marines at the hands of Iran. I wondered why they were not afforded the provisions due them under the Geneva Conventions. These sailors and marines were subjected to what is referred to under the Conventions as ‘humiliating' conditions. Their pictures were taken, along with video's, showing them in a weakened condition, that is, as prisoners, and shown around the globe. These people were part of a recognized, armed fighting force and thus should have been treated as prisoners of war. Even though Iran and Britain are not at war, Iran illegally took them captive and flaunted their prized possessions in front of the world. This is not allowed under the Conventions.
I compared the treatment of these hostages to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, pointing out some differences. The detainees at Gitmo are not ‘prisoners of war'. They are terrorist subjects mainly, and those who actually did fight coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan did so on their own. They never were part of a recognized force fighting for any particular nation. They were not compelled to be treated as prisoners of war under the Conventions, yet the US Supreme Court said they should be, and so they were and are. Western media went out of their way not to show faces or name names because the Conventions don't allow it. Iran has no such qualms with following any rules, so it makes them up as it goes along and expects the rest of the world to either forgive or excuse it.
The British sailors were held for almost 15 days. That is a fact. Iran committed an act of war by taking them hostage. That is a fact. Britain diffused the situation through peaceful negotiations. That is a fact. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad still wants to come out looking like a hero. That is a fact. Why else would he decorate the kidnappers on the day the hostages are freed? Did he actually believe that this was comparable to the Battle of Waterloo? Hardly. Why else would he ‘pardon' the sailors? I thought you had to have a trial and be sentenced before a pardon could be granted. Well, that's what happens in civilized countries anyway. The jury's still out on Iran.
So this illiterate, directing his comment at another writer and myself, comes up with, "Obviously you guys have this set of views that everyone in Iran is evil and wants to destroy your peaceful lands, obviously you are both mistaken." If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck....................
No one ever said all Iranians are evil. He would like to believe this as he takes any thing anyone writes about terrorists personally. Maybe he hasn't seen or heard the news clips on TV radio and in the newspapers, both liberal and conservative, about terrorist cells spread throughout the world waiting for the word to start their jihad against the western infidel.
Unlike this poorly informed soul, I do have a job that requires me to be there most of the day. I can't sit in front of this thing 24/7 like he does. So by the time I put an article out, it may well be yesterday's news. So sorry. Not even the major news outlets can give you second by second updates. But he comes back with this gem, "hahahaha, (sic) you're saying how mean Iran is to the poor old british (sic) hostages yet they are going to be released, I think thats (sic) pretty much checkmate, your smear campaign was over before it even started. Looks like what you've brainwashed yourself into thinking the 'enemy' are like has a few holes in it." And I'm supposed to take him seriously? I don't think so. First, it never was a ‘smear campaign'. It was known facts at the time. It seems he has a problem facing some truths. Second, what Iran did was illegal and immoral. The release of the hostages does not negate that fact. Third, this person, as I said, hides under the ‘Anonymous' label. Maybe I don't give out my name, but I'm easy enough to trace. Using ‘Anonymous' just shows you don't have the facts to fight, you don't know what you're talking about, you can't read and you don't have the balls for honest debate.
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern