Asp Forum - [ANN] bluecloth-2.0.0 released

Michael Granger

4/8/2009 9:46:00 PM

I tried to post this announcement twice yesterday, but both seem to
have gotten lost. Anyway, I'd like to announce a brand new version of
BlueCloth. You can read the announcement here:

http://deveiate.org/bluecloth2-announc...

--
Michael Granger <ged@FaerieMUD.org>
Rubymage, Architect, Believer
The FaerieMUD Consortium <http://www.FaerieMU...

9 Answers

matt

4/9/2009 12:10:00 AM

Michael Granger <ged@FaerieMUD.org> wrote:

> I tried to post this announcement twice yesterday, but both seem to
> have gotten lost. Anyway, I'd like to announce a brand new version of
> BlueCloth. You can read the announcement here:
>
> http://deveiate.org/bluecloth2-announc...

Cool, but my response to this is the same as my response to RDiscount.
I'm deeply invested in years of using the original Perl Markdown. I'd
love to get off that, but in order for me to do so, it isn't enough that
a Markdown clone pass some abstract tests; it must generate HTML that is
functionally identical to the HTML that Perl Markdown generates from the
same original text. Discount, and therefore BlueCloth 2, does not.

Just to be perfectly clear, I am using a Perl script, Markdown.pl, that
is marked as follows:

$VERSION = '1.0.1';
# Tue 14 Dec 2004

So, let's proceed to some examples:

BlueCloth.new("I'm testing ").to_html
#=> =====
I'm testing 


That is functionally significant (it causes extra vertical
whitespace), and Perl Markdown does *not* generate it. BlueCloth is
apparently treating the extra spaces at the end of the input string as
somehow significant.

This next one is a little more involved; I'll use a here document to
display my input text:

s = <<END
* testing

pre

more li
END
puts BlueCloth.new(s).to_html
#=> ====
<ul>
<li>testing

<pre><code>pre
</code></pre></li>
</ul>

 more li

That's a little hard to read (I suppose I could have run it thru tidy),
but the thing to notice is that although the <pre> block is part of the
<li> block, the last block is not. But here's what Perl Markdown
gives:

<ul>
<li>testing

<pre><code>pre
</code></pre>

more li</li>
</ul>

As you can see, the last block (containing "more li") *is* part of
the <li> block. Since that is what Perl Markdown does, and since I have
lots of text that relies upon Markdown behaving in that way, I naturally
incline to the view that that is the "correct" answer and that
BlueCloth's output is "wrong".

m.
--
matt neuburg, phd = matt@tidbits.com, http://www.tidbits...
Leopard - http://www.takecontrolbooks.com/leopard-custom...
AppleScript - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/...
Read TidBITS! It's free and smart. http://www.t...

Yossef Mendelssohn

4/9/2009 2:02:00 AM

On Apr 8, 7:15=A0pm, m...@tidbits.com (matt neuburg) wrote:
> Since that is what Perl Markdown does, and since I have
> lots of text that relies upon Markdown behaving in that way, I naturally
> incline to the view that that is the "correct" answer and that
> BlueCloth's output is "wrong".

I don't think you necessarily need to use Perl Markdown as an
authority in this case. It seems to me that the Markdown Web Dingus
(http://daringfireball.net/projects/markd...) could be seen as
canonical, and it agrees with the output you give for Perl.

But apparently Discount gives different output (and therefore so do
rdiscount and Bluecloth), output that
satisfies MarkdownTest. So which one is correct?

--
-yossef

Ryan Davis

4/9/2009 6:18:00 AM

On Apr 8, 2009, at 17:15 , matt neuburg wrote:

> BlueCloth.new("I'm testing ").to_html
> #=> =====
> I'm testing 
> 
>
> That is functionally significant (it causes extra vertical
> whitespace), and Perl Markdown does *not* generate it. BlueCloth is
> apparently treating the extra spaces at the end of the input string as
> somehow significant.

It may not, but according to the markdown spec it should:

"When you do want to insert a break tag using Markdown, you end
a line with two or more spaces, then type return."

Michael Granger

4/9/2009 1:21:00 PM

On Apr 8, 2009, at 5:15 PM, matt neuburg wrote:

> Cool, but my response to this is the same as my response to RDiscount.
> I'm deeply invested in years of using the original Perl Markdown. I'd
> love to get off that, but in order for me to do so, it isn't enough
> that
> a Markdown clone pass some abstract tests; it must generate HTML
> that is
> functionally identical to the HTML that Perl Markdown generates from
> the
> same original text. Discount, and therefore BlueCloth 2, does not.

You're absolutely correct -- Discount (and therefore anything based on
it) generates HTML according to the Markdown Syntax Documentation (http://daringfireball.net/projects/markd...
) and the MarkdownTest test suite released by John Gruber (http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/markdown-discuss/2006-June/0...
), and not necessarily according to what Markdown.pl generates. If
you're counting on exactly reproducing Markdown.pl's output, you
should definitely use Markdown.pl.

> BlueCloth.new("I'm testing ").to_html
> #=> =====
> I'm testing 
> 
>
> That is functionally significant (it causes extra vertical
> whitespace), and Perl Markdown does *not* generate it. BlueCloth is
> apparently treating the extra spaces at the end of the input string as
> somehow significant.

Right, I'm aware of BR's functional significance in HTML. The Syntax
documentation cited above states (under the Paragraphs and Line Breaks
section):

"When you do want to insert a break tag using
Markdown, you end a line with two or more spaces, then
type return."

Your test case doesn't have a trailing newline, and the Syntax
document doesn't say what should happen with a line that ends with two
spaces at the end of a document. Clearly Markdown.pl counts the
'return' part of that description as significant, and Discount does
not. Perhaps a case could be made to include a test for the break tag
rule only applying to the middle of a paragraph in MarkdownTest, and
if so I suspect David Parsons would make Discount conform to the test.
If you have a bunch of documents that end with two spaces and no
newline, I can see how you might not want to use Discount-based
transformers. I personally do not, so I view this as an anomaly and a
tradeoff I am willing to make.

> This next one is a little more involved; I'll use a here document to
> display my input text:
>
> s = <<END
> * testing
>
> pre
>
> more li
> [...]
> As you can see, the last block (containing "more li") *is* part of
> the <li> block. Since that is what Perl Markdown does, and since I
> have
> lots of text that relies upon Markdown behaving in that way, I
> naturally
> incline to the view that that is the "correct" answer and that
> BlueCloth's output is "wrong".

You are certainly welcome to your own view, but again, referring to
the Syntax Documentation:

"List items may consist of multiple paragraphs. Each subsequent
paragraph in a list item must be indented by either 4 spaces
or one tab:"

Your "more li" line is *not* indented by either 4 spaces or one tab,
so I'm guessing you're counting on the "lazy" indentation of
subsequent lines of the same paragraph. To me, two blank lines and an
intervening PRE calls into question whether or not the next line is
actually part of the previous LI or not when it's indented by a single
space. I'm sure Markdown.pl agrees with your assessment, and that's
why it marks it up the way it does.

So if by "correct" you mean "does exactly what Perl Markdown does
despite what it says in the documentation", then yes, BlueCloth is
wrong. I incline to the view that a Markdown implementation should
follow what it says in the documentation and pass the test suite set
out by the creator of Markdown (the syntax), which BlueCloth does. I'm
certainly not suggesting that you should give up your reliance on
Markdown.pl's output if you don't mind forking a Perl interpreter
every time you want to transform your text to HTML.

I'm sharing my source because I've made something for myself that I
think might be useful to others. If it isn't useful to you, either
keep doing what does work for you or consider contributing some value
back to the system by providing fixes. Anything else is just sound and
fury.

--
Michael Granger <ged@FaerieMUD.org>
Rubymage, Architect, Believer
The FaerieMUD Consortium <http://www.FaerieMU...

matt

4/9/2009 5:00:00 PM

Michael Granger <ged@faeriemud.org> wrote:

> > BlueCloth.new("I'm testing ").to_html
> > #=> =====
> > I'm testing 
> > 
> >
> > That is functionally significant (it causes extra vertical
> > whitespace), and Perl Markdown does *not* generate it. BlueCloth is
> > apparently treating the extra spaces at the end of the input string as
> > somehow significant.
>
> Right, I'm aware of BR's functional significance in HTML. The Syntax
> documentation cited above states (under the Paragraphs and Line Breaks
> section):
>
> "When you do want to insert a break tag using
> Markdown, you end a line with two or more spaces, then
> type return."
>
> Your test case doesn't have a trailing newline, and the Syntax
> document doesn't say what should happen with a line that ends with two
> spaces at the end of a document

Right, but I was just simplifying; in real life the example did have two
trailing newlines. In other words, the way I discovered this issue was
from a situation more like the following:

require 'rubygems'
require 'bluecloth'
puts BlueCloth.new("
two spaces follow
two spaces follow

done
").to_html

Markdown puts a after the first line but not after the second.
Discount puts a after both.

> not. Perhaps a case could be made to include a test for the break tag
> rule only applying to the middle of a paragraph in MarkdownTest

Yes, I think so. But really, that case isn't worth worrying about too
much; the two spaces were actually just a mistake, and easily
eliminated.

> > This next one is a little more involved; I'll use a here document to
> > display my input text:
> >
> > s = <<END
> > * testing
> >
> > pre
> >
> > more li
> > [...]
> > As you can see, the last block (containing "more li") *is* part of
> > the <li> block. Since that is what Perl Markdown does, and since I
> > have
> > lots of text that relies upon Markdown behaving in that way, I
> > naturally
> > incline to the view that that is the "correct" answer and that
> > BlueCloth's output is "wrong".
>
> You are certainly welcome to your own view, but again, referring to
> the Syntax Documentation:
>
> "List items may consist of multiple paragraphs. Each subsequent
> paragraph in a list item must be indented by either 4 spaces
> or one tab:"
>
> Your "more li" line is *not* indented by either 4 spaces or one tab

That's true, but what would be really helpful is if you would tell me
what text to start with to generate the result I'm after. Here's the
schema for the desired result:

<ul><li>
testing
<pre><code>li</code></pre>
more li
</li></ul>

I can add spaces to cause the "more li" to be included in the <li>
block, but I haven't found a way to do that *and* wrap "more li" in a
 block with BlueCloth.

So, for example, this works the way I expect:

puts BlueCloth.new("
* testing

pre

more li

still more li

done").to_html

In that example, both "more li" and "still more li" are each wrapped in
a tag and they are both within the <li> tag that started in the
first line. But if I delete "still more li", I can't get "more li" all
by itself to be wrapped in a tag and within the <li> tag. So surely
Discount here disagrees with itself in a way that could be taken as
troublesome, on the basis of simple considerations of consistency. If
you eliminate the "still more li" line, I am obeying the lines you
quote: "Each subsequent paragraph in a list item must be indented by ...
4 spaces"; yet I am not getting a paragraph in the output.

> out by the creator of Markdown (the syntax), which BlueCloth does. I'm
> certainly not suggesting that you should give up your reliance on
> Markdown.pl's output if you don't mind forking a Perl interpreter
> every time you want to transform your text to HTML.

Well, I do mind it. That's why I want to switch away! But in order to do
so, I have to be able to generate the HTML I'm already generating.

> If it isn't useful to you, either
> keep doing what does work for you or consider contributing some value
> back to the system by providing fixes. Anything else is just sound and
> fury.

So there's no such thing as a conceivably legitimate bug report, and
there's no such thing as asking for help? m.

--
matt neuburg, phd = matt@tidbits.com, http://www.tidbits...
Leopard - http://www.takecontrolbooks.com/leopard-custom...
AppleScript - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/...
Read TidBITS! It's free and smart. http://www.t...

Michael Granger

4/10/2009 5:35:00 PM

On Apr 9, 2009, at 10:05 AM, matt neuburg wrote:

> Michael Granger <ged@faeriemud.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> If it isn't useful to you, either
>> keep doing what does work for you or consider contributing some value
>> back to the system by providing fixes. Anything else is just sound
>> and
>> fury.
>
> So there's no such thing as a conceivably legitimate bug report, and
> there's no such thing as asking for help? m.

You're right, bug reports are also valuable contributions, and asking
for help is never a bad thing. I didn't read your response as either
of those, but if it was I apologize.

I'd suggest phrasing future bug reports as "hey I found a few bugs in
your release" instead of "hey, I'm not going to use your stuff because
I prefer what I'm already using." :)

I'll open tickets for the inconsistencies you found, and try to
upstream them if I can figure out how to fix them.

--
Michael Granger <ged@FaerieMUD.org>
Rubymage, Architect, Believer
The FaerieMUD Consortium <http://www.FaerieMU...

David Hartung

1/12/2012 7:07:00 PM

On 01/12/2012 12:44 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
> 2849 Dead<dead@gone.com> wrote on Thu 12 Jan 2012 08:37:21p
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:27:23 -0600, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/12/2012 10:27 AM, 2849 Dead wrote:
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/12/karzai-condemnat...
>>>> urination-corpses
>>>>
>>>> Karzai leads wave of condemnation over video of urination on corpses
>>>>
>>>> Afghan president calls video of US marines urinating on corpses
>>>> 'inhumane', but the Taliban says it will not hinder peace talks
>>>>
>>>> Chris McGreal in Washington
>>>> guardian.co.uk, Thursday 12 January 2012 10.23 EST
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This video allegedly shows US troops urinating on bodies of Taliban
>>>> fighters. Warning: graphic content Link to this video
>>>>
>>>> Afghan president Hamid Karzai has led a chorus of condemnation of US
>>>> marines filmed urinating on the bodies of dead Afghans as "inhumane"
>>>> and called for them to be severely punished.
>>>>
>>>> Karzai was joined by the leaders of foreign coalition forces in Kabul
>>>> and Senator John McCain, a navy veteran, in denouncing the latest in a
>>>> series of abuses by American soldiers, who have yet to be identified,
>>>> which is likely to further inflame hostility to Nato troops in
>>>> Afghanistan and reinforce the perception that there is an institutional
>>>> problem in the US military.
>>>>
>>>> US defence secretary Leon Panetta also condemned the video on Thursday,
>>>> promising to punish those involved.
>>>>
>>>> "I have seen the footage, and I find the behaviour depicted in it
>>>> utterly deplorable," Panetta said in a statement, saying he had ordered
>>>> the Marine Corps and the commander of US and Nato troops in Afghanistan
>>>> to investigate the incident. "Those found to have engaged in such
>>>> conduct will be held accountable to the fullest extent."
>>>>
>>>> The Pentaton said it had no information so far that casts doubt on the
>>>> authenticity of the video. "We don't have any indication that it's not
>>>> authentic," spokesman Captain John Kirby said. "It certainly appears to
>>>> us to be what it appears to be to you guys... troops urinating on
>>>> corpses. But there's an investigation process ongoing. We need to let
>>>> that work its way through to determine all the facts of the case."
>>>>
>>>> A leading negotiator in Karzai's peace council, Arsala Rahmani, said
>>>> that the film of the four marines laughing and making snide comments as
>>>> they urinate on the bloodied corpses will have a "very, very bad impact
>>>> on peace efforts".
>>>>
>>>> "Looking at such action, the Taliban can easily recruit young people
>>>> and tell them that their country has been attacked by Christians and
>>>> Jews and they must defend it," he said.
>>>>
>>>> But the Taliban, while criticising the actions of the marines as
>>>> "shameful", said the latest revelations of abuse by US forces will not
>>>> block attempts to get talks started to bring an end to the Afghan
>>>> conflict.
>>>>
>>>> In the graphic video, a soldier films four other marines as they take
>>>> out their penises and urinate on three bloodied corpses. They sigh with
>>>> relief, laugh and make comments including "have a great day, buddy" and
>>>> "golden, like a shower".
>>>>
>>>> The soldiers in the video appear to be members of Scout Sniper Team 4,
>>>> a US marines unit that served in Afghanistan as recently as last year.
>>>>
>>>> It is not clear who the dead Afghans are. They are possibly Taliban
>>>> fighters, but their corpses are not shown with weapons.
>>>>
>>>> Karzai said in a statement that he was "deeply disturbed by a video
>>>> that shows American soldiers desecrating dead bodies of three Afghans".
>>>>
>>>> "This act by American soldiers is completely inhumane and condemnable
>>>> in the strongest possible terms. We expressly ask the US government to
>>>> urgently investigate the video and apply the most severe punishment to
>>>> anyone found guilty in this crime," he said.
>>>>
>>>> The Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) said it
>>>> "strongly condemns the actions depicted in the video, which appear to
>>>> have been conducted by a small group of US individuals, who apparently
>>>> are no longer serving in Afghanistan".
>>>>
>>>> "This disrespectful act is inexplicable and not in keeping with the
>>>> high moral standards we expect of coalition forces," it said.
>>>>
>>>> The US military said it is "deeply troubled" by the film but added that
>>>> its authenticity has yet to be confirmed. However, the condemnation
>>>> from Isaf and the Afghan leadership suggested that there is little
>>>> doubt the video is genuine.
>>>>
>>>> A Taliban spokesman, Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, told the BBC that it is not
>>>> the first time Americans had carried out such a "wild action". But
>>>> another different Taliban spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, said the video
>>>> "is not a political process, so the video will not harm our talks and
>>>> prisoner exchange because they are at the preliminary stage".
>>>>
>>>> The exposure of the video, widely viewed on the web, comes as the Obama
>>>> administration attempts to fire up peace talks with the Taliban before
>>>> the US begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan.
>>>>
>>>> Marc Grossman, the White House special representative, will meet Karzai
>>>> in Kabul this weekend as well as officials in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and
>>>> the United Arab Emirates.
>>>>
>>>> Last week, the Taliban announced it would to set up a political office
>>>> in Qatar which appears to be an important step toward negotiations.
>>>> Washington is considering reciprocating by releasing several Taliban
>>>> prisoners from the Guantanamo jail as a confidence-building measure.
>>>>
>>>> While the latest revelation of abuses does not appear likely to derail
>>>> the latest peace effort it again raises questions about whether there
>>>> is a culture of abuse in US forces serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
>>>>
>>>> Last year, 11 soldiers were convicted over the murders of three Afghan
>>>> civilians by a "kill squad" and the subsequent cover up. It was
>>>> revealed that some of them collected body parts, including fingers and
>>>> skull parts, as trophies, and posed for photographs over the corpses of
>>>> their victims.
>>>>
>>>> This week, a US marine went on trial over the killing of 24 Iraqis,
>>>> including women and children, in their homes. Staff Sergeant Frank
>>>> Wuterich faces charges of manslaughter over the killings as he
>>>> commanded a group of soldiers who burst into the victims' homes in
>>>> Haditha in search of combatants. Seven other soldiers also charged were
>>>> either acquitted or had the case against them dropped.
>>>>
>>>> The US military is also still grappling with the legacy of the abuse of
>>>> prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and its role in the torture of
>>>> alleged terrorists.
>>>
>>> The same people who "deplore" the actions of four immature Marines, have
>>> justified attacks on innocent civilians by terrorists around the world.
>>> You will forgive me if your anger means little to me.
>>
>> So atrocity should be met with atrocity.
>>
>> Interesting religion, Lutherism.
>
> Two wrongs make a right in his universe, although the commission of the 2nd
> wrong is limited to the privilege of a right winger.

You are also among those who have excused terrorist conduct. Now you
complain about this? Why should you have any credibility?

liberal

1/12/2012 7:18:00 PM

On Jan 12, 2:04 pm, David Hartung <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote:
> On 01/12/2012 12:37 PM, 2849 Dead wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:27:23 -0600, David Hartung wrote:
>
> >> On 01/12/2012 10:27 AM, 2849 Dead wrote:
> >>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/12/karzai-condemnat...
> >>> urination-corpses
>
> >>> Karzai leads wave of condemnation over video of urination on corpses
>
> >>> Afghan president calls video of US marines urinating on corpses
> >>> 'inhumane', but the Taliban says it will not hinder peace talks
>
> >>> Chris McGreal in Washington
> >>> guardian.co.uk, Thursday 12 January 2012 10.23 EST
>
> >>> This video allegedly shows US troops urinating on bodies of Taliban
> >>> fighters. Warning: graphic content Link to this video
>
> >>> Afghan president Hamid Karzai has led a chorus of condemnation of US
> >>> marines filmed urinating on the bodies of dead Afghans as "inhumane"
> >>> and called for them to be severely punished.
>
> >>> Karzai was joined by the leaders of foreign coalition forces in Kabul
> >>> and Senator John McCain, a navy veteran, in denouncing the latest in a
> >>> series of abuses by American soldiers, who have yet to be identified,
> >>> which is likely to further inflame hostility to Nato troops in
> >>> Afghanistan and reinforce the perception that there is an institutional
> >>> problem in the US military.
>
> >>> US defence secretary Leon Panetta also condemned the video on Thursday,
> >>> promising to punish those involved.
>
> >>> "I have seen the footage, and I find the behaviour depicted in it
> >>> utterly deplorable," Panetta said in a statement, saying he had ordered
> >>> the Marine Corps and the commander of US and Nato troops in Afghanistan
> >>> to investigate the incident. "Those found to have engaged in such
> >>> conduct will be held accountable to the fullest extent."
>
> >>> The Pentaton said it had no information so far that casts doubt on the
> >>> authenticity of the video. "We don't have any indication that it's not
> >>> authentic," spokesman Captain John Kirby said. "It certainly appears to
> >>> us to be what it appears to be to you guys... troops urinating on
> >>> corpses. But there's an investigation process ongoing. We need to let
> >>> that work its way through to determine all the facts of the case."
>
> >>> A leading negotiator in Karzai's peace council, Arsala Rahmani, said
> >>> that the film of the four marines laughing and making snide comments as
> >>> they urinate on the bloodied corpses will have a "very, very bad impact
> >>> on peace efforts".
>
> >>> "Looking at such action, the Taliban can easily recruit young people
> >>> and tell them that their country has been attacked by Christians and
> >>> Jews and they must defend it," he said.
>
> >>> But the Taliban, while criticising the actions of the marines as
> >>> "shameful", said the latest revelations of abuse by US forces will not
> >>> block attempts to get talks started to bring an end to the Afghan
> >>> conflict.
>
> >>> In the graphic video, a soldier films four other marines as they take
> >>> out their penises and urinate on three bloodied corpses. They sigh with
> >>> relief, laugh and make comments including "have a great day, buddy" and
> >>> "golden, like a shower".
>
> >>> The soldiers in the video appear to be members of Scout Sniper Team 4,
> >>> a US marines unit that served in Afghanistan as recently as last year.
>
> >>> It is not clear who the dead Afghans are. They are possibly Taliban
> >>> fighters, but their corpses are not shown with weapons.
>
> >>> Karzai said in a statement that he was "deeply disturbed by a video
> >>> that shows American soldiers desecrating dead bodies of three Afghans".
>
> >>> "This act by American soldiers is completely inhumane and condemnable
> >>> in the strongest possible terms. We expressly ask the US government to
> >>> urgently investigate the video and apply the most severe punishment to
> >>> anyone found guilty in this crime," he said.
>
> >>> The Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) said it
> >>> "strongly condemns the actions depicted in the video, which appear to
> >>> have been conducted by a small group of US individuals, who apparently
> >>> are no longer serving in Afghanistan".
>
> >>> "This disrespectful act is inexplicable and not in keeping with the
> >>> high moral standards we expect of coalition forces," it said.
>
> >>> The US military said it is "deeply troubled" by the film but added that
> >>> its authenticity has yet to be confirmed. However, the condemnation
> >>> from Isaf and the Afghan leadership suggested that there is little
> >>> doubt the video is genuine.
>
> >>> A Taliban spokesman, Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, told the BBC that it is not
> >>> the first time Americans had carried out such a "wild action". But
> >>> another different Taliban spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, said the video
> >>> "is not a political process, so the video will not harm our talks and
> >>> prisoner exchange because they are at the preliminary stage".
>
> >>> The exposure of the video, widely viewed on the web, comes as the Obama
> >>> administration attempts to fire up peace talks with the Taliban before
> >>> the US begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan.
>
> >>> Marc Grossman, the White House special representative, will meet Karzai
> >>> in Kabul this weekend as well as officials in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and
> >>> the United Arab Emirates.
>
> >>> Last week, the Taliban announced it would to set up a political office
> >>> in Qatar which appears to be an important step toward negotiations.
> >>> Washington is considering reciprocating by releasing several Taliban
> >>> prisoners from the Guantanamo jail as a confidence-building measure.
>
> >>> While the latest revelation of abuses does not appear likely to derail
> >>> the latest peace effort it again raises questions about whether there
> >>> is a culture of abuse in US forces serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
>
> >>> Last year, 11 soldiers were convicted over the murders of three Afghan
> >>> civilians by a "kill squad" and the subsequent cover up. It was
> >>> revealed that some of them collected body parts, including fingers and
> >>> skull parts, as trophies, and posed for photographs over the corpses of
> >>> their victims.
>
> >>> This week, a US marine went on trial over the killing of 24 Iraqis,
> >>> including women and children, in their homes. Staff Sergeant Frank
> >>> Wuterich faces charges of manslaughter over the killings as he
> >>> commanded a group of soldiers who burst into the victims' homes in
> >>> Haditha in search of combatants. Seven other soldiers also charged were
> >>> either acquitted or had the case against them dropped.
>
> >>> The US military is also still grappling with the legacy of the abuse of
> >>> prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and its role in the torture of
> >>> alleged terrorists.
>
> >> The same people who "deplore" the actions of four immature Marines, have
> >> justified attacks on innocent civilians by terrorists around the world.
> >> You will forgive me if your anger means little to me.
>
> > So atrocity should be met with atrocity.
>
> Once again, you really need to learn how to read.
>
> You are among those who have justified the attacks of terrorists around

Like I wrote in another thread, we forgive your immature posts....like
this one I'm replying to.

You obviously lack the mental tools to grasp the difference between
"understanding" and "approving" an act.

I *UNDERSTAND* why you post like a moron....but I don't *APPROVE* of
your stupidity.

> the world. Now you get angry over four men doing something which causes
> no one any harm, but which is offensive to our western sensibilities,
> including mine.
>
> You live in the glass house that Lochner so likes to speak of.

Winston Smith, American Patriot

1/13/2012 5:39:00 AM

David Hartung <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Thu 12 Jan 2012 09:06:34p

> On 01/12/2012 12:44 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>> 2849 Dead<dead@gone.com> wrote on Thu 12 Jan 2012 08:37:21p
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:27:23 -0600, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/12/2012 10:27 AM, 2849 Dead wrote:
>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/12/karzai-condemna...
>>>>> - urination-corpses
>>>>>
>>>>> Karzai leads wave of condemnation over video of urination on corpses
>>>>>
>>>>> Afghan president calls video of US marines urinating on corpses
>>>>> 'inhumane', but the Taliban says it will not hinder peace talks
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris McGreal in Washington
>>>>> guardian.co.uk, Thursday 12 January 2012 10.23 EST
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This video allegedly shows US troops urinating on bodies of Taliban
>>>>> fighters. Warning: graphic content Link to this video
>>>>>
>>>>> Afghan president Hamid Karzai has led a chorus of condemnation of US
>>>>> marines filmed urinating on the bodies of dead Afghans as "inhumane"
>>>>> and called for them to be severely punished.
>>>>>
>>>>> Karzai was joined by the leaders of foreign coalition forces in
>>>>> Kabul and Senator John McCain, a navy veteran, in denouncing the
>>>>> latest in a series of abuses by American soldiers, who have yet to
>>>>> be identified, which is likely to further inflame hostility to Nato
>>>>> troops in Afghanistan and reinforce the perception that there is an
>>>>> institutional problem in the US military.
>>>>>
>>>>> US defence secretary Leon Panetta also condemned the video on
>>>>> Thursday, promising to punish those involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> "I have seen the footage, and I find the behaviour depicted in it
>>>>> utterly deplorable," Panetta said in a statement, saying he had
>>>>> ordered the Marine Corps and the commander of US and Nato troops in
>>>>> Afghanistan to investigate the incident. "Those found to have
>>>>> engaged in such conduct will be held accountable to the fullest
>>>>> extent."
>>>>>
>>>>> The Pentaton said it had no information so far that casts doubt on
>>>>> the authenticity of the video. "We don't have any indication that
>>>>> it's not authentic," spokesman Captain John Kirby said. "It
>>>>> certainly appears to us to be what it appears to be to you guys...
>>>>> troops urinating on corpses. But there's an investigation process
>>>>> ongoing. We need to let that work its way through to determine all
>>>>> the facts of the case."
>>>>>
>>>>> A leading negotiator in Karzai's peace council, Arsala Rahmani, said
>>>>> that the film of the four marines laughing and making snide comments
>>>>> as they urinate on the bloodied corpses will have a "very, very bad
>>>>> impact on peace efforts".
>>>>>
>>>>> "Looking at such action, the Taliban can easily recruit young people
>>>>> and tell them that their country has been attacked by Christians and
>>>>> Jews and they must defend it," he said.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the Taliban, while criticising the actions of the marines as
>>>>> "shameful", said the latest revelations of abuse by US forces will
>>>>> not block attempts to get talks started to bring an end to the
>>>>> Afghan conflict.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the graphic video, a soldier films four other marines as they
>>>>> take out their penises and urinate on three bloodied corpses. They
>>>>> sigh with relief, laugh and make comments including "have a great
>>>>> day, buddy" and "golden, like a shower".
>>>>>
>>>>> The soldiers in the video appear to be members of Scout Sniper Team
>>>>> 4, a US marines unit that served in Afghanistan as recently as last
>>>>> year.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not clear who the dead Afghans are. They are possibly Taliban
>>>>> fighters, but their corpses are not shown with weapons.
>>>>>
>>>>> Karzai said in a statement that he was "deeply disturbed by a video
>>>>> that shows American soldiers desecrating dead bodies of three
>>>>> Afghans".
>>>>>
>>>>> "This act by American soldiers is completely inhumane and
>>>>> condemnable in the strongest possible terms. We expressly ask the US
>>>>> government to urgently investigate the video and apply the most
>>>>> severe punishment to anyone found guilty in this crime," he said.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) said it
>>>>> "strongly condemns the actions depicted in the video, which appear
>>>>> to have been conducted by a small group of US individuals, who
>>>>> apparently are no longer serving in Afghanistan".
>>>>>
>>>>> "This disrespectful act is inexplicable and not in keeping with the
>>>>> high moral standards we expect of coalition forces," it said.
>>>>>
>>>>> The US military said it is "deeply troubled" by the film but added
>>>>> that its authenticity has yet to be confirmed. However, the
>>>>> condemnation from Isaf and the Afghan leadership suggested that
>>>>> there is little doubt the video is genuine.
>>>>>
>>>>> A Taliban spokesman, Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, told the BBC that it is not
>>>>> the first time Americans had carried out such a "wild action". But
>>>>> another different Taliban spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, said the
>>>>> video "is not a political process, so the video will not harm our
>>>>> talks and prisoner exchange because they are at the preliminary
>>>>> stage".
>>>>>
>>>>> The exposure of the video, widely viewed on the web, comes as the
>>>>> Obama administration attempts to fire up peace talks with the
>>>>> Taliban before the US begins to withdraw its forces from
>>>>> Afghanistan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marc Grossman, the White House special representative, will meet
>>>>> Karzai in Kabul this weekend as well as officials in Turkey, Saudi
>>>>> Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
>>>>>
>>>>> Last week, the Taliban announced it would to set up a political
>>>>> office in Qatar which appears to be an important step toward
>>>>> negotiations. Washington is considering reciprocating by releasing
>>>>> several Taliban prisoners from the Guantanamo jail as a
>>>>> confidence-building measure.
>>>>>
>>>>> While the latest revelation of abuses does not appear likely to
>>>>> derail the latest peace effort it again raises questions about
>>>>> whether there is a culture of abuse in US forces serving in
>>>>> Afghanistan and Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>> Last year, 11 soldiers were convicted over the murders of three
>>>>> Afghan civilians by a "kill squad" and the subsequent cover up. It
>>>>> was revealed that some of them collected body parts, including
>>>>> fingers and skull parts, as trophies, and posed for photographs over
>>>>> the corpses of their victims.
>>>>>
>>>>> This week, a US marine went on trial over the killing of 24 Iraqis,
>>>>> including women and children, in their homes. Staff Sergeant Frank
>>>>> Wuterich faces charges of manslaughter over the killings as he
>>>>> commanded a group of soldiers who burst into the victims' homes in
>>>>> Haditha in search of combatants. Seven other soldiers also charged
>>>>> were either acquitted or had the case against them dropped.
>>>>>
>>>>> The US military is also still grappling with the legacy of the abuse
>>>>> of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and its role in the
>>>>> torture of alleged terrorists.
>>>>
>>>> The same people who "deplore" the actions of four immature Marines,
>>>> have justified attacks on innocent civilians by terrorists around the
>>>> world. You will forgive me if your anger means little to me.
>>>
>>> So atrocity should be met with atrocity.
>>>
>>> Interesting religion, Lutherism.
>>
>> Two wrongs make a right in his universe, although the commission of the
>> 2nd wrong is limited to the privilege of a right winger.
>
> You are also among those who have excused terrorist conduct. Now you
> complain about this? Why should you have any credibility?

1. You seem to be admitting that you are "excusing terrorist conduct."

2. Where have I excused terrorist conduct? Are you getting confused by my
posts where I have indicated my belief that a civil war between right and
left, red and blue in the USA is probably inevitable and that we should get
on with it, as it might create the opportunity for humanity to progress more
rapidly (if the liberals win) or for it to regress into oblivion (if the
right-wing extremists win)? Could you be wrongly characterizing that as
terrorist?

3. It is true that when you act like the terrorists, you have lowered
yourself to their level. I am not saying though whether that is a good or
bad thing. I am just saying that it is a fact. If you're alright with
lowering yourself to their level, then get on with admitting it and declare
to others that they have no knowledge of whether doing so is good or bad
ethically speaking, and that you do not accept their judgments on the issue
as having any value. If the terrorists (enemy combatants) in Afghanistan
are known to have urinated on the corpses of U.S. soldiers, and the soldiers
are determined to do the same in an act of revenge or reciprocity, and
moreover, to upload it to YouTube videos so that the world can see it, then
I suppose their motivations are understandable. (Note: this is not an
ethical judgment, by the way; that is up to each individual to make.)

I can understand your escape to the "war is hell" excuse here. That in war,
anything and everything is justified. There are no "rules," no "civility"
in war, right? Only winners and losers. Only the living and the dead.
Might makes right. Soldier kills the man, and then forcibly rapes his
woman. It's war after all. A suspension of the Hobbesian social contract,
and the descent into all-out barbarism. We can only hope that when we re-
enter the world of human civilization and that the rules are in force again,
that our sanity comes back with us from the abyss.

--
I can't help but thinking that science would
be more appealing if it had no practical use.
-- Claude Levi-Strauss

comp.lang.ruby

[ANN] bluecloth-2.0.0 released

Michael Granger

matt

Yossef Mendelssohn

Ryan Davis

Michael Granger

matt

Michael Granger

David Hartung

liberal

Winston Smith, American Patriot

x Login to ForumsZone