Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

[Aaron]

I think some of you are of the impression that just because we aren't using the word "atrocity" means that we condone what happened. This is not the case. I don't see anywhere someone has said this was OK.

It's true that no one is condoning the act, but very few people are condemning it either. Your side keeps saying things like

How is this an atrocity? Atrocity implies intent. This is just a colossal fuckup.

Fucked up that it happened, but still not an atrocity.

Oh I don't consider it an atrocity. A mistake, yeah and a horrible one at that.

Looks mostly like one hell of a screw-up due to mistaken identity to me, although I think I'd call it a tragedy, not an atrocity.

It was a "screw-up" or "mistake" or "tragedy" or at best a "fuckup". Everybody agrees that it's bullshit when an official calls something "unfortunate" and that they aren't really condemning it at all. Over a page ago I said I'd drop the "atrocity" thing if your side would just state what they believe the punishments over this should be, but no one did.

So yes, we're a little concerned about your opinions on the matter.

Perhaps you should use your fucking brain and start comparing peoples past post on the matter, your fucked in the head if you think I condone this kind of shit. One should not have to loudly proclaim their stance at every goddamn opportunity to satisfy some tool on the net.

[2000AD]

It's been picked up by the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8603938.stm

It's one thing to open fire on some people who might possibly be insurgents but to then hose down a van because the occupents tried to help the wounded? And then make light about there being children in there ...... fuck.

[Coyote]

It seems to me that some of us are drawing the line about "atrocity" depending on whether or not this was intentional or not. As in, "let's go shoot some random fuckers. It'll be groovy". Or some sort of My Lai massacre where people snap and go crazy on an entire village.

If someone wants to hear what should be done, I'd say that what should be done is the helo guys should be investigated and their actions reviewed by people who know what the conditions were at the time and are also trained professionals. Look at what the intel reports were for that day, what their ROEs and EOF guidelines were-- what were they responding to? Was there intel that supported th enotion that there were insurgents armed in that area? Etc.

If it turns out they were guilty of disregarding rules of escalation of force or engagement, and acted in an unprofessional manner then they should be court martialed. Some sort of punishment would be levied against that that would, ideally, suit the facts based on evidence-- bear in mind there may be evidence not seen by us here. The evidence may run the gamut from exonerating the shooters entirely, to getting them into even deeper shit.

But breathless accusations of "atrocity!" and stopping just short of "hang 'em high!" by univolved people on an innernet board who saw a video that was designed to be provocative isn't justice by a long shot. Especially when the video in question seems to openly revel in the "fact" that it is going after US "atrocities". In other words, the source has an axe to grind. Maybe in the 4th grade, the idea of getting your side of the story to the teacher first made you "right", but it doesn't always work that way in RL.

Oh, and as for comparing this to PETA's over-reaction? Accuse me of slippery-sloping if you like, but if every single time there's a fuck-up, a mis-identification, or you happen to find a trigger-happy jerk and everything they do becomes an "atrocity", then the word becomes so much cheap currency to throw around every time you want to get a bunch of people to hyperventilate. Like pointed out before, now every car wreck is a "tragedy" and in some circles, every soldier is a "hero"...

The Katyn Massacre was an atrocity. The Rape of Nanjing was an atrocity. The brutality of Andersonville was an atrocity. My Lai was an atrocity. Two trigger-happy cowboys getting ahead of themselves in a questionable EOF/ROE scenario doesn't quite compare.

[Cycloneman]

As I said, shooting the van clearly violates the geneva convention, which makes it an atrocity.

I don't see any indication that the van was an ambulance. No red cross, no red cressant, so it's not a recognized aid vehicle either... Can you name the specific part of the Geneva Convention that was violated there?

Take your time, I'll wait...

Nobody else picked this up, so I'll take it, you amoral shitheel. Convention IV, Article 4, defines the persons protected by Convention IV: "Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." It goes on to give some exceptions (people from certain kinds of countries, members of the armed forces, etc) but "some guy in a van being a good Samaritan and his kids" is not one of them.

Article 32 defines some of their rights: "The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents." Oh, look at that, it says that murder is still bad when you do it to civilians "in your hands" (a term which it means very broadly, thus "in any manner whatsoever," and someone in US occupied territory, which these civilians most certainly were, thus count).

It is even clearer if the people the US military was shooting up were actually insurgents, as supplying spontaneous medical aid by civilians is protected under Convention I, Article 18.

[Dominus Atheos]

I think some of you are of the impression that just because we aren't using the word "atrocity" means that we condone what happened. This is not the case. I don't see anywhere someone has said this was OK.

It's true that no one is condoning the act, but very few people are condemning it either. Your side keeps saying things like

How is this an atrocity? Atrocity implies intent. This is just a colossal fuckup.

Fucked up that it happened, but still not an atrocity.

Oh I don't consider it an atrocity. A mistake, yeah and a horrible one at that.

Looks mostly like one hell of a screw-up due to mistaken identity to me, although I think I'd call it a tragedy, not an atrocity.

It was a "screw-up" or "mistake" or "tragedy" or at best a "fuckup". Everybody agrees that it's bullshit when an official calls something "unfortunate" and that they aren't really condemning it at all. Over a page ago I said I'd drop the "atrocity" thing if your side would just state what they believe the punishments over this should be, but no one did.

So yes, we're a little concerned about your opinions on the matter.

Perhaps you should use your fucking brain and start comparing peoples past post on the matter, your fucked in the head if you think I condone this kind of shit. One should not have to loudly proclaim their stance at every goddamn opportunity to satisfy some tool on the net.

And you should use your fucking brain and read the first sentence of that quote:

It's true that no one is condoning the act, but very few people are condemning it either.

If you'll kindly point me to the post where you actually condemned the act and the actions of the pilots beyond just "horrible mistake", and state what should happen to the people involved I'll concede the point.

[Aaron]

Its very easy in this sort of situation to mistake a benign thing for a weapon, I mistook a spotlight for a Carl G in an exercise once after being ambushed for example. Once your in the mindset that anyone you see could be a potential insurgent then you start to react accordingly.

Was this acceptable? No

Is it understandable? Yes

And for the record I meant "past posts" as in past posts on the board in general.

[Shroom Man 777]

If someone wants to hear what should be done, I'd say that what should be done is the helo guys should be investigated and their actions reviewed by people who know what the conditions were at the time and are also trained professionals. Look at what the intel reports were for that day, what their ROEs and EOF guidelines were-- what were they responding to? Was there intel that supported th enotion that there were insurgents armed in that area? Etc.

If it turns out they were guilty of disregarding rules of escalation of force or engagement, and acted in an unprofessional manner then they should be court martialed. Some sort of punishment would be levied against that that would, ideally, suit the facts based on evidence-- bear in mind there may be evidence not seen by us here. The evidence may run the gamut from exonerating the shooters entirely, to getting them into even deeper shit.

Yes, that definitely should be in the To Do List for situations like these. Though, for all we know, this is already occuring - but the military probably doesn't let this stuff out to the public. Does it?

It doesn't help that the military just said "two journalists, and a bunch of insurgents". Were those kids insurgents? Were those other guys even insurgents?

But breathless accusations of "atrocity!" and stopping just short of "hang 'em high!" by univolved people on an innernet board who saw a video that was designed to be provocative isn't justice by a long shot. Especially when the video in question seems to openly revel in the "fact" that it is going after US "atrocities". In other words, the source has an axe to grind. Maybe in the 4th grade, the idea of getting your side of the story to the teacher first made you "right", but it doesn't always work that way in RL.

The video is highlighting the fact that a journalist, and a crowd of guys, got torn to pieces by American gunship fire. Then another bunch of people, civilians in a van, came to help one of the dying journalists. Then American gunships fired and tore them to pieces, along with seriously injuring several children - after which the American gunship pilots who tore them to pieces merely quipped at disparagingly.

I'm sorry if I got worked up at the sight of people, some of whom were merely trying to help the wounded and a couple of which were children, getting torn to pieces by American gunship fire.

Maybe I am not all too confident or trusting towards the military, and maybe I view them a tad bit negatively for some reason.

Oh, and as for comparing this to PETA's over-reaction? Accuse me of slippery-sloping if you like, but if every single time there's a fuck-up, a mis-identification, or you happen to find a trigger-happy jerk and everything they do becomes an "atrocity", then the word becomes so much cheap currency to throw around every time you want to get a bunch of people to hyperventilate. Like pointed out before, now every car wreck is a "tragedy" and in some circles, every soldier is a "hero"...

The Katyn Massacre was an atrocity. The Rape of Nanjing was an atrocity. The brutality of Andersonville was an atrocity. My Lai was an atrocity. Two trigger-happy cowboys getting ahead of themselves in a questionable EOF/ROE scenario doesn't quite compare.

Okay Coyote, I won't say "atrocity" then. I'll just say "American gunships atrociously tearing innocent civilians and children to pieces" then. It is more factually accurate that way, anyway.

[Dominus Atheos]

As I said, shooting the van clearly violates the geneva convention, which makes it an atrocity.

I don't see any indication that the van was an ambulance. No red cross, no red cressant, so it's not a recognized aid vehicle either... Can you name the specific part of the Geneva Convention that was violated there?

Take your time, I'll wait...

Nobody else picked this up, so I'll take it, you amoral shitheel.

It is even clearer if the people the US military was shooting up were actually insurgents, as supplying spontaneous medical aid by civilians is protected under Convention I, Article 18.

Specifically it says:

The military authorities shall permit the inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, spontaneously to collect and care for wounded or sick of whatever nationality.

No one may ever be molested or convicted for having nursed the wounded or sick.

So it was very clearly a war crime. Chances of anyone on the not-an-atrocity side saying anyone involved should be brought up on war crimes:

I mean they were just following their ROE! As everybody knows it's not a war crime if you're just following orders, lol amirìte?

[Shroom Man 777]

Dominus, the American gunships just unintendedly tore to pieces inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, who were spontaneously trying to collect and care for wounded or sick. Of whatever nationality. It's not an atrocity.

[Aaron]

Of course they should be brought up on charges, they violated at least two articles. The thing is that most of us actually know nothing will happen to them, at most they'll be grounded for a while and maybe get a reprimand. The US military has a long track of ignoring this shit and not acting on it.

[Dominus Atheos]

Its very easy in this sort of situation to mistake a benign thing for a weapon, I mistook a spotlight for a Carl G in an exercise once after being ambushed for example. Once your in the mindset that anyone you see could be a potential insurgent then you start to react accordingly.

Was this acceptable? No

Is it understandable? Yes

Are you retarded? You can't call it "condemning" if the next line is you calling it "understandable".

And I still haven't heard what you think should be done to the pilots and the person who gave the authorization to fire. Should any of them be brought up on charges? If the ROE did allow for firing at unmarked vehicles that are evacuating the wounded, should it be changed to make sure that never happens again to bring it in line with the Geneva Convention? Should the person who originally wrote that part of the ROE be brought on on charges for allowing that?

[Dominus Atheos]

Dominus, the American gunships just unintendedly tore to pieces inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, who were spontaneously trying to collect and care for wounded or sick. Of whatever nationality. It's not an atrocity.

Oh of course, I keep forgetting. Point conceded.

[Cycloneman]

Specifically it says:

The military authorities shall permit the inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, spontaneously to collect and care for wounded or sick of whatever nationality.

No one may ever be molested or convicted for having nursed the wounded or sick.

So it was very clearly a war crime. Chances of anyone on the not-an-atrocity side saying anyone involved should be brought up on war crimes:

I mean they were just following their ROE! As everybody knows it's not a war crime if you're just following orders, lol amirìte?

Well, the thing is that the definition of who gets to be "wounded and sick" for Convention I is set out in Article 13 of Convention I, and it's pretty stringent. Besides members in or affiliated with the regular armed forces and non-combat personnel accompanying soldiers (e.g. war reporters), only "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war." I'm not 100% certain whether this specifically would apply for insurgents, since it seems designed to avoid treating post-occupation partisans as legitimate soldiers who must be treated fairly.

[CarsonPalmer]

So even if innocent bystanders get slaughtered for trying to help some injured guy, it's still not an atrocity as long as the American gunship pilots didn't mean to hurt those poor widdle innocents, pinky-pwomise pwetty pwease? Okay. It's not an atrocity. They just killed a whole bunch of innocents and children, but it's still not an atrocity.

Well, I think it is a difference when it comes to culpability. There's a difference between being the guy in the helicopter and being Calley at My Lai. And to a lot of people, calling it an atrocity is what that implies.

[Plekhanov]

It seems to me that some of us are drawing the line about "atrocity" depending on whether or not this was intentional or not. As in, "let's go shoot some random fuckers. It'll be groovy". Or some sort of My Lai massacre where people snap and go crazy on an entire village.

If someone wants to hear what should be done, I'd say that what should be done is the helo guys should be investigated and their actions reviewed by people who know what the conditions were at the time and are also trained professionals. Look at what the intel reports were for that day, what their ROEs and EOF guidelines were-- what were they responding to? Was there intel that supported th enotion that there were insurgents armed in that area? Etc.

According to the timeline on the wikileaks site:

06:50:00 1/8 CAV moves in to assist 2/6 after a report of Small Arms Fire (SAF) in the area. They fail to positively identify (PID) the attacker.
06:18:40 Crazyhorse [lead helicopter] notices a group of people on an open plaza.
06:20:05 Crazyhorse: "Have five to six individuals with AK47s. Request permission to engage."
06:21:09 First shots fired at the group.

So there were supposedly insurgents in the general area. Now what exactly were the people milling around in the plaza doing to make you think they were insurgents?

If it turns out they were guilty of disregarding rules of escalation of force or engagement, and acted in an unprofessional manner then they should be court martialed. Some sort of punishment would be levied against that that would, ideally, suit the facts based on evidence-- bear in mind there may be evidence not seen by us here. The evidence may run the gamut from exonerating the shooters entirely, to getting them into even deeper shit.

"May" "exonerating the shooters entirely"? The army claimed "The incident is under investigation." at the time and it would seem that "investigation" "exonerated the shooters entirely" already.

[Aaron]

Are you retarded? You can't call it "condemning" if the next line is you calling it "understandable".

And I still haven't heard what you think should be done to the pilots and the person who gave the authorization to fire. Should any of them be brought up on charges? If the ROE did allow for firing at unmarked vehicles that are evacuating the wounded, should it be changed to make sure that never happens again to bring it in line with the Geneva Convention? Should the person who originally wrote that part of the ROE be brought on on charges for allowing that?

Read this very carefully boy, cause I find this sort of horseshit to be extremely tiring.

By understandable, I mean I can understand how they would arrive at the decision to do what they did. Thats what comes from being a soldier, it gives me perspective into this sort of thing. Even if I personally find it disgusting.

So yes, charge them. With violating the ROE or the GC, hell charge them with "conduct unbecoming" if thats all they can nail them with. Change the ROE, change the entire fucking MO the US operates in Iraq. The Geneva Convention isn't some guideline that, maybe,sorta, should be followed. It's a good damn legal document that obligates the US to conduct operations within the terms specified.

It was made very clear to me when I got to my first unit that violating the GC was grounds for a one way trip to the stockade.

So yeah, charge the lot of them, all the way up the fucking CoC.

Unfortunately, I've been around long enough to know that it won't happen. As far as I'm concerned that is the greater atrocity here, thatthe US continues to get away with this stuff. To the point that it's own allies don't want to work with them.

Edit: And my apologies for this and my previous posts being rude. This stuff really, really pisses me off.

[TithonusSyndrome]

It cuts both ways, I guess. Hearing people try and pooh-pooh wikilinks with bullshit Appeal to Motive fallacies and address the actual act in a perfunctory sort of way before quickly speeding over to try and make downtoning the language directed at the armed forces personnel their number one priority is going to strike a lot of people as being a typical sort of military in-group knee-jerk defense mechanism and the same sort of mealymouthed horseshit that you hear from bankers when they pooh-pooh about "a few bad apples" or Bush II admitting nothing more incriminating than "mistakes were made." I know you don't intend it this way, Kendall, but to some people it's going to seem like a dodge.

[Aaron]

It cuts both ways, I guess. Hearing people try and pooh-pooh wikilinks with bullshit Appeal to Motive fallacies and address the actual act in a perfunctory sort of way before quickly speeding over to try and make downtoning the language directed at the armed forces personnel their number one priority is going to strike a lot of people as being a typical sort of military in-group knee-jerk defense mechanism and the same sort of mealymouthed horseshit that you hear from bankers when they pooh-pooh about "a few bad apples" or Bush II admitting nothing more incriminating than "mistakes were made." I know you don't intend it this way, Kendall, but to some people it's going to seem like a dodge.

Thanks dude. Honestly, I had never heard of this organization before today. I just assumed it was some sort of Wikipedia subsidiary when I read the title.

[Gil Hamilton]

It seems to me that some of us are drawing the line about "atrocity" depending on whether or not this was intentional or not. As in, "let's go shoot some random fuckers. It'll be groovy". Or some sort of My Lai massacre where people snap and go crazy on an entire village.

If someone wants to hear what should be done, I'd say that what should be done is the helo guys should be investigated and their actions reviewed by people who know what the conditions were at the time and are also trained professionals. Look at what the intel reports were for that day, what their ROEs and EOF guidelines were-- what were they responding to? Was there intel that supported th enotion that there were insurgents armed in that area? Etc.

If it turns out they were guilty of disregarding rules of escalation of force or engagement, and acted in an unprofessional manner then they should be court martialed. Some sort of punishment would be levied against that that would, ideally, suit the facts based on evidence-- bear in mind there may be evidence not seen by us here. The evidence may run the gamut from exonerating the shooters entirely, to getting them into even deeper shit.

I agree with your general sentiment that as atrocities go, this is pretty weak, however, I disagree with the above, because you are assuming an entirely fair and impartial justice system within the military. I've yet to see any actual evidence of this, particularly when it seems like the militaries first reaction to anything is to completely deny it happened, then make vague general statements and hope the thing blows over without any scrutiny. It seems more and more that the last thing the military wants to do is punish wrong doing amongst its ranks, because punishing wrong doing would admit that the military did something bad.

A famous example. In Italy, toward the end of WW2, some soldiers ended up flipping out and executing in cold blood ~70 Italian POWs. When this was reported to General Patton, his response wasn't to fry the people who did it, but to tell the other General reporting it to him that all the prisoners were to be labeled either attempted escapees or snipers and that the soldiers in question were acting according to the rules. The other general ended up refusing to take that order on the grounds that it was shamefully dishonest, which is the only reason we've even heard of the incident today.

It is also interesting that you brought up My Lai, because that also doesn't help your case. Despite overwhelming evidence, only the Captain ever saw jail time for the incident and he had his sentence reduced to house arrest. In fact, they attempted to cover it up by, you guessed it, labeling everyone involve a Viet Cong enemy combatant and the Lt. General involved congratulated them on an excellent job! The only reason it ever got out at all is because a soldier started mailing letters to Nixon and Congressmen detailing what had happened. Further, after it became clear that the military had simply covered up the incident, only one officer involved ever ended up charged and he got acquitted!

So, bearing these thing in mind, how could anymore believe that the military can be trusted to persecute wrong doing in their ranks? They bent over BACKWARDS to avoid anyone from ever finding out about things like My Lai and certainly didn't punish anyone, and as you said, that was a major atrocity. If they won't persecute a massacre of hundreds of innocent people, what makes you think they'll persecute a soldier inappropriately shooting up a small bunch of people he probably shouldn't have?

[Dominus Atheos]

I'm sure right now a lot of people think I'm crazy for wanting to bring American soldiers up on war crimes charges and rewrite the Rules Of Engagement over just a few people dying while being in a war zone. I mean, it happens right? (Well I am crazy, but that doesn't change the facts of my arguments).

So let's compare to when it's a brown person trying and failing to kill a bunch of white Americans. On December 25, 2009 Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to detonate a bomb hidden in his underwear while on an America-bound trans-Atlantic flight. He did not succeed and was restrained by other passengers, and was arrested when the plane landed. The death toll was 0.

In response to the failed terrorist attack, the US government drastically changed it rules on passenger searches so that now everyone will be required to pass through full-body scanners that can see through clothes. It is obviously a very big invasion of privacy and many Americans a crying out in protest over the new rule. Nevertheless the government is pressing forward with the plan because they believe it is worth it to protect American lives.

So I really don't think anybody should have a problem with changing the rules to make sure something like this (which had a death toll of 9) never happens again.

[Mr. Coffee]

It was a "screw-up" or "mistake" or "tragedy" or at best a "fuckup". Everybody agrees that it's bullshit when an official calls something "unfortunate" and that they aren't really condemning it at all. Over a page ago I said I'd drop the "atrocity" thing if your side would just state what they believe the punishments over this should be, but no one did.

So yes, we're a little concerned about your opinions on the matter.

I'm still concerned with your claim that the Geneva Convention was violated here. I asked you to provide the specific article/s violated and you still haven't. You keep repeating the claim, but you still have yet to show which, if any, article/s of the Geneva Convention have been violated. So DR5, stop playing fucking word games and provide the information requested already, you worthless pile of festering shit.

[Dominus Atheos]

Read this very carefully boy, cause I find this sort of horseshit to be extremely tiring.

By understandable, I mean I can understand how they would arrive at the decision to do what they did. Thats what comes from being a soldier, it gives me perspective into this sort of thing. Even if I personally find it disgusting.

So yes, charge them. With violating the ROE or the GC, hell charge them with "conduct unbecoming" if thats all they can nail them with. Change the ROE, change the entire fucking MO the US operates in Iraq. The Geneva Convention isn't some guideline that, maybe,sorta, should be followed. It's a good damn legal document that obligates the US to conduct operations within the terms specified.

It was made very clear to me when I got to my first unit that violating the GC was grounds for a one way trip to the stockade.

So yeah, charge the lot of them, all the way up the fucking CoC.

Unfortunately, I've been around long enough to know that it won't happen. As far as I'm concerned that is the greater atrocity here, thatthe US continues to get away with this stuff. To the point that it's own allies don't want to work with them.

Edit: And my apologies for this and my previous posts being rude. This stuff really, really pisses me off.

I should be the one to apologize. As Tith said, I mistakenly thought you were just knee-jerkingly defending the military, but I see now what I assumed was incorrect.

[Dominus Atheos]

It was a "screw-up" or "mistake" or "tragedy" or at best a "fuckup". Everybody agrees that it's bullshit when an official calls something "unfortunate" and that they aren't really condemning it at all. Over a page ago I said I'd drop the "atrocity" thing if your side would just state what they believe the punishments over this should be, but no one did.

So yes, we're a little concerned about your opinions on the matter.

I'm still concerned with your claim that the Geneva Convention was violated here. I asked you to provide the specific article/s violated and you still haven't. You keep repeating the claim, but you still have yet to show which, if any, article/s of the Geneva Convention have been violated. So DR5, stop playing fucking word games and provide the information requested already, you worthless pile of festering shit.

You're an idiot.

[Mr. Coffee]

It was a "screw-up" or "mistake" or "tragedy" or at best a "fuckup". Everybody agrees that it's bullshit when an official calls something "unfortunate" and that they aren't really condemning it at all. Over a page ago I said I'd drop the "atrocity" thing if your side would just state what they believe the punishments over this should be, but no one did.

So yes, we're a little concerned about your opinions on the matter.

I'm still concerned with your claim that the Geneva Convention was violated here. I asked you to provide the specific article/s violated and you still haven't. You keep repeating the claim, but you still have yet to show which, if any, article/s of the Geneva Convention have been violated. So DR5, stop playing fucking word games and provide the information requested already, you worthless pile of festering shit.

You're an idiot.

So you're saying you have no goddamned idea which articles may have been violated and are admitting you've been talking out of your ass with that claim then?

[Dominus Atheos]

I'm still concerned with your claim that the Geneva Convention was violated here. I asked you to provide the specific article/s violated and you still haven't. You keep repeating the claim, but you still have yet to show which, if any, article/s of the Geneva Convention have been violated. So DR5, stop playing fucking word games and provide the information requested already, you worthless pile of festering shit.

You're an idiot.

So you're saying you have no goddamned idea which articles may have been violated and are admitting you've been talking out of your ass with that claim then?

You're an idiot.