Comments

I think I could probably write a dissertation on how much of a complete jackass, imbecile, know-nothing, wanna-be intellectual, whiny ass Eddie Tews is. Once again Eddie, you are wrong, and wrong big time. And in such a way that makes you look ricidulously stupid and should be an embarassment to anyone who knows how to read and write. Everyone I've shown your latest article to has burst into laughter.

so let's go through your beloved Geneva Convention codes that you like to cite all the time, as though you know something about them or as though you think people will be impressed or not be able to tell how full of shit you are when you say or write the words "Geneva Convention."

As far as indiscriminate attacks: 4a. all of the attacks have been directed at specific military objectives. and yes, bombing a palace is a military objective because military leaders, documents, or materials could possibly be found in them. a violation of this would be something like the coalition leaders going, "Let's see, what civilian shit could we blow up just for laughs? Oh, here's a shopping mall! Let's get it!" If a weapon accidentally malfunctioned and went off course, it's no one's fault; they're man made and will have some failure rate, hopefully small. Such an instance would not be a violation. It's the Iraqi military that is in violation of these codes, by doing things such as using hospitals for military operations centers. Moron. 4b. with the precision weaponry the coalition has, to propose that this has been done is preposterous and should be embarassing for any quasi-intelligent person to suggest. what this item is saying is that you can no longer go "carpet bomb" a city like the Germans did to London in WW2, raining down death and paranoia on the civilian population while hoping that maybe there is a military target or two in there. what a fucking moron you are, Eddie! 4c. what this is saying is that you cannot INTEND to use weapons to strike both military AND civilian targets; that you can only INTEND to strike at military targets. this does not say that any civilian casualties are violations of these codes, dipshit. if that was the case, every military person in the history of the world would be in violation of the Geneva Convention because it is impossible to fight a war, especially one in which bombs are dropped, and especially in a city, without civilian casualties. maybe they should refine the language for morons like you so it says: "You cannot drop bombs HOPING to hit both military and civilian targets. When you drop bombs, you must HOPE to only hit military targets." That's what this is saying, dumbass, but unfortunately "hope" and "intent" cannot be proved so the words were left out. The people who wrote these codes knew that civilian deaths would be inevitable, especially back when these codes were written because such precision weaponry didn't exist back then.

5a. what this is saying, you dipshit, is that, for example, if there is an anti-aircraft battery on one city block, two blocks away there is an ammo depot, one block from that there is a tank, three blocks back the other way is a radar station; that you cannot just drop one MOAB right in the middle to take them all out IF it is possible to take them out one at a time. You must endeavor to take them out individually so as to minimize civilian casualties. Again, the coalition does this with precision weapons. IF a cluster bomb is called for, it is used. You need to do your homework and learn the difference between the terms "cluster bomb" and "carpet bomb." A CLUSTER bomb is ONE bomb or missile that releases several small "bomblettes" which explode individually and do not cause nearly the damage that a large bomb does. They are useful for destroying things like runways or targets that are close together but separate. The term CARPET bomb is what I described earlier, which today would be the equivalent of flying a B-52 sortie over Baghdad and letting free-fall bombs (which are unguided) go all over the city. This is certainly not being done! Learn the difference. Again, you show how stupid you are and how little you really know about the Geneva Convention or warfare. 5b. I think you only saw the first clause in this sentence without seeing the crucial part: "...which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." This is saying that you cannot drop a MOAB in the middle of Baghdad when all you were going after was a tank. Again, the coalition has certainly not done this.

So, clearly, the coalition is not in violation of these codes IN ANY WAY. All that we have done here is reaffirm that Eddie Tews is a complete fucking moron and that he really needs to take up another hobby (I would certainly hope this isn't his paid profession!) because he clearly knows nothing about military operations, terminology, or equipment; the reality of warfare; or how to interpret the Geneva Convention codes. QED -- Posted by: Bill Whitlock on April 16, 2003 04:51 PM

Not your best work by a long shot, I'm afraid. If this is the best material you've got, you aren't looking hard enough. -- Posted by: Gerhard Reinke on April 16, 2003 09:35 PM

Hmmm. Eddie seems to be very concerned about ensuring that those violating the Geneva Convention are punished and exposed. I'm sure that if Americans had been strapping civilians to the front of U.S. tanks to shield them (not that that would have stopped Saddam's fighters in the least), Eddie would be right there screaming bloody murder. Let's see, Eddie, if you are willing to stand by the same Geneva Convention when it doesn't benefit your case. Try this on for size:

"The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in ATTEMPTS TO SHIELD MILITARY OBJECTIVES FROM ATTACKS OR TO SHIELD, FAVOUR OR IMPEDE MILITARY OPERATIONS [emphasis added]. The parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations." -Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Article 51.

Here's a hint, sparky: Parking a TANK in a HOSPITAL to protect it from attack pretty much defies this article. Where were you, Eddie, when this was going on? Where were you and your buddy Koffi Annan? Where were your comments condemning Saddam for purposely putting his people at risk in direct violation of this convention you love so much? If you expressed the same hatred towards Saddam over his actions that you have expressed for the U.S., then I would have a lot more respect for you and actually believe that you might care about human life. But if it's the Iraqi fighters who are committing gross violations of every idea of warfare, you ignore it. This is what is known as a DOUBLE STANDARD. Write that idea down somewhere so you don't forget it. You don't care about people suffering if it doesn't suit your case. You care about furthering your own anti-U.S., anti-Bush, anti-Government agenda. This war helps you in that and it makes me sick. Anyway, the reason why Saddam thought he could get away with this war in the first place was because he was counting on people like you to condemn the U.S. for bombing the hospital to take out that tank (which didn't happen) instead of condemning HIM for PUTTING THE TANK THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE? DO YOU? As someone who is consuming oxygen on this planet you need to understand the concept of ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ONE'S ACTIONS. Not everything you screw up in life, Eddie, is someone else's fault. No, the government doesn't owe you everything. No, you're not worth millions of dollars and the government is preventing you from getting it. This is pretty much the only country in the world where being born poor isn't a death sentence. I'm not saying "love it or leave it," but you really need to understand that if your life is all fucked up, which it likely is, it's probably more your doing than the government's so stop blaming everyone. -- Posted by: Frank Rizzo on April 17, 2003 11:17 AM

swish -- Posted by: Bill Whitlock on April 17, 2003 03:52 PM

Although I am still not convinced that cluster bombs were used in a manner that violates the Conventions' prohibition on indiscriminate attacks, the links provided in your "update" certainly demonstrate that the use of cluster bombs arguably violate Article 55 of Protocol 1, prohibiting actions that can be expected to result in long term damage to the natural environment and threaten the health or surival of the populace. I believe the use of depleted uranium munitions also fall directly under this Article (See also Protocol 1, Article 35).

Incidentally, for what it is worth, arguing that the Iraqis are guilty of "more" violations than the coalition forces hardly excuses violations by the coalitions forces... does it? -- Posted by: World B. Free on April 17, 2003 10:13 PM

dear mr whitlock or mr witless as i will refer to u, anyone who would call ed a moron obviously doesnt know ed. anyone who could insult someone he didnt know lacks respect. (possibly was ass raped by their uncle.) Just so u know mr witless i would have been ur daddy but the monkey beat me through the window.......even though there is truth to this statement was i right to insult you. by your theorys about geneva convention it was. morals belong to us but effect those around us. and like your mom said when i was done with her 2 wrongs dont make a right! -- Posted by: troy lasby on April 19, 2003 02:19 PM

my dearest Troy, I don't really know how exactly to respond to your post, considering it contained several run-on sentences, several misspellings and grammatical errors, and generally made no sense whatsoever. But I do find it funny that you call me "witless" with so much junk in your own backyard. At least I can spell "you" or "theories".

I don't know Eddie nor do I need to know Eddie to justify calling him a moron. His work speaks for itself and shows that he is; I know him through his work. Also, you're right, I don't respect Eddie nor did I ever claim to. I would never respect someone with such misguided views; a simpleton who is all too ready to quickly buy into any conspiracy theory presented before him. Also, I find it an accurate representation of your own intelligence how me lacking respect means I was ass-raped by my uncle. Yes, that's cleary the logical presumption for those who lack respect. Please note sarcasm.

Anyway, I've already wasted more time on you by writing this than you deserve. Have fun repeating the fifth grade. p.s. for a lesson on "how not to be a dumb fuck", please read my posts or those by Frank Rizzo.

-- Posted by: Bill Whitlock on April 19, 2003 07:10 PM

I suspected there was more going on between Mr. Whitlock and his uncle than the brochures had revealed. Can't we all just get along? Not counting niggers, of course! -- Posted by: Karl Malone on April 20, 2003 06:25 PM

Dear mr witless, I like few other geniuses before me find no need for grammar. grammar is a crutch for the lesser mind. U May understand this already. i do however,unlike einstien brush my hair. (your mom loves it). You should also know mr witless that a simpleton cannot seperate the emotions from the logic. these are too complex to separate for the feeble minded. maybe if u unrepress your memories of your uncle frank rizzo and his trailer down by the river you can come to grips with the real world. there is truth,perception and reality. the perception is the reality and not necessarily the truth. it is obviouse to me that you only concerne yourself with perception. aaaahh so be it simpleton. take your degree to the bank.......but you cant take it with you. when you do meet your demise mr witless i assure you it wont be to a cluster bomb....but most assuredly it will be alone.(probly on a pile of you kiddie porn!) have a nice life biatch troy p.s. I loved the 5th grade, thats when i first banged your mom! -- Posted by: troy on April 22, 2003 10:21 PM

LOL!! "Grammar is a crutch for the lesser mind." LOL!! so THAT is the latest justification for being a complete fucking moron!! lol. I wish I had only known this earlier! I could've disputed any grade I got on a paper while in college if it was less than an A! you need to do the noble thing and make sure that those students who score low on the verbal portion of the SAT know this, as well as college admissions boards! and you are clearly up there with the ranks of Einstein and other geniuses, as demonstrated by your posts. I'm sure when Plato and Socrates got in arguments, they were quick to point out that their opponents were raped by their uncles and had mothers who were whores! clearly, you are as intelligent as they were. wait, check that. you are clearly MORE intelligent, by a great deal, than they were because they used grammatically correct language, which is a reflection of their weak minds. all hail Troy! the next level of human thinking! -- Posted by: Bill Whitlock on April 26, 2003 03:48 PM