This week's book giveaways are in the AI and JavaScript forums.
We're giving away four copies each of GANs in Action and WebAssembly in Action and have the authors on-line!
See this thread and this one for details.
Win a copy of GANs in ActionE this week in the AI forum
or WebAssembly in Action in the JavaScript forum!

Alan Labout

Ranch Hand
+ Follow
since Nov 25, 2003
Cows and Likes
Cows
Total received
0
In last 30 days
0
Total given
0
Likes
Total received
0
Received in last 30 days
0
Total given
0
Given in last 30 days
0
Forums and Threads
Scavenger Hunt
expand Ranch Hand Scavenger Hunt
expand Greenhorn Scavenger Hunt

Recent posts by Alan Labout

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Just to be technically correct, the Iraqi prisoners in almost all cases are not POWs and therefore not subject to the same level of protections under the Geneva Conventions that soldiers enjoy. In most cases they are likely either criminals or illegal combatants. The Geneva Conventions are pretty specific about what a lawful combatant is, so I would direct you towards the Conventions themselves if you are interested in the difference.



The fact remains that Americans captured by foreign armies can now expect to be the recipients of the same kind of treatment. And this is thanks not only to the Americans' ill-conceived and ill-concealed interrogation tactics, but also to the apologists who seek to justify or mitigate their actions. What these apologists don't realize is that they are playing right into the terrorists' hands and, inevitably, ensuring the beheadings of countless other Nicholas Bergs in the future. You wanna play this game, Mr. Rumsfeld? Bring it on!
15 years ago

Originally posted by Kishore Dandu:

Hello there!!!
On a basic sense, there is no killing that took place in the Iraqi prison; I think it has more todo with some lessIQ military personnel.
Where as the beheading is a death to a human being, how can you compare and make similarities between these two different set of people??
I am basically disgusted with the above post...........


Whether these two incidents were actions or reactions remains to be seen. But regardless of their similarities or differences, both types of actions only contribute to an escalation of violence and evil that at some point is going to get out of hand. What disgusts me is the series of posts at the beginning of this thread which only seek to escalate an already violent and hopeless situation. Quartering an Iraqi hostage-taker is not going to cause fewer innocent Americans to be killed. If anything it will cause more.
[ May 12, 2004: Message edited by: Alan Labout ]
15 years ago
If there were real justice in the world it would be possible to hook these two elements up: the Iraqi terrorists who behead American contractors....and the American soldiers who stack naked Iraqi prisoners on top of each other and make them masturbate themselves. Politics aside, I'm sure these two folks would have quite a bit in common to talk about.
15 years ago
Another example of blurb-speak (Is it me or is the publishing industry infested with them?):
This book..."doles out amazement and delight in equal measure."

That is to say, sparingly?

Alan
15 years ago
Just saw another one. Here the reviewer referred to the author as:
"a unique talent...(who) has a voice all her own!"
Alan
15 years ago
"...a thought-provoking book!"
Okay, but which thought did it provoke?
15 years ago
So what's the lesson?
[ April 24, 2004: Message edited by: Alan Labout ]
15 years ago
In order of appearance:
1. Goodbye, I'm leaving you forever....
2. Well, I guess you won't have jp to kick round anymore
3. It's been fun, but I've gotta move on...
4. A final farewell
5. Adieu, Adieu, to you and you and you
6. Goodbye again
7. No really, this time I mean it....
8. And I'm not coming back, either!
9. So have a nice life
10. But don't expect to ever see me around here again!

Come on, Joe....you know you love it here...!!


Alan
[ April 20, 2004: Message edited by: Alan Labout ]
15 years ago

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

The "you" in "you shouldn't have" either means me personally or America. Sicne you can't possibly think I started the war in Iraq, it must mean America. Joe



Oh, but I do think you started this war, Joe. You and Jason both. It's your war. Or would you have us believe that voters in America have no actual say in (or responsibility for) the actions of the leaders they elected?
[ April 19, 2004: Message edited by: Alan Labout ]
[ April 19, 2004: Message edited by: Alan Labout ]
15 years ago

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Just trying to figure out what this thread is about. There was initially a comment about Iraq, but it's devolved into a rehashing of Vietnam.


Step 1: Attack (Vietnam)
Step 2: Argue that it's irrelevant to debate the merits of attacking because you can't undo the fact that you've already attacked. (You are here, Joe)
Step 3: Proceed to Step 1 (Iraq)
It's naive to invade Iraq and expect that people aren't going to bring up the obvious correlations with Vietnam. If you were really concerned about preventing rehashed discussions of America's failures in Vietnam, then you shouldn't have given the rest of the world such an obvious excuse to dredge them up again. Imagine the Germans opening up concentration camps for Turks and then protesting indignantly when people drew parallels to the Jewish Holocaust: "Oh, are you going to bring that up again?"

Alan
[ April 19, 2004: Message edited by: Alan Labout ]
[ April 19, 2004: Message edited by: Alan Labout ]
15 years ago

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Maybe there's some middle ground that can be reached, but that seems rare when people's ideologies are at issue. In other words, I doubt we'd be having this conversation if the President right now was Bill Clinton or Al Gore. I know I'd be supporting the action still, and I suspect the idealogues who oppose things now would as well.



So, basically your ideology is "I support the war, no matter who leads it" while mine is "I support Bill Clinton and Al Gore regardless of what their policies are"? Kinda a simplistic way of looking at it, don't you think?

Alan
15 years ago

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Whether or not to attack is moot at this point. I understood the question to be relative to the present. In other words, given the current situation, should we go in with more troops, more arms, and more aggressive tactics.


By "given the current situation" I assume you mean "now that we've already attacked." In other words, it's too late to debate the justness of this war because we're already fighting it? Interesting logic:

Step 1: Attack
Step 2: Argue that it's irrelevant to debate the merits of attacking because you can't undo the fact that you've already attacked.
Step 3: Proceed to Step 1
I mean, you're right of course. But maybe it's just that the rest of us are tired of being put in these situations where common sense becomes moot in the first place?
15 years ago

Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
From the This must be one of the weirdest posts that you ever read! Dept.


This is not weird, it is repulsive. By that same logic Israeli Jews should be erecting monuments to Hitler. ("Of course Adolf did cause a bit of inconvenience for a few generations of European jews...but hey, without him we wouldn't have our own sovereign state!") Your friend needs to spend less time admiring his Mercedes and more time studying the history of his people.

Alan
[ April 03, 2004: Message edited by: Alan Labout ]
15 years ago