No, you argued with him about it and said he didn’t read it.
Fucking liar.
–Blind Mississippi Lemming
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
No, you argued with him about it and said he didn’t read it.
Fucking liar.
–Blind Mississippi Lemming[/quote]
Bullshit. On page 7 of this thread, this is my response to his mentioning of the USS Cole and the Embassy bombing:
[quote]You are right. We were hit then.
http://archives.cnn.com/...3/uss.cole.01/
Both were considered directly attributable to Osama Bin laden…which would make him the ultimate focus of any of our efforts.
Why then do people like Thunderbolt write, "“Will democracy in Iraq root out Osama?”
Not directly - but the emphasis is too much on OBL."?
Shouldn’t the emphasis be ALL about OBL? [/quote]
According to you this did not take place? Quit the bullshit. Don’t accuse me of things that aren’t true especially if they are in the same thread and can be proven wrong. For Sasquatch to be right, I would have called any relation by Vagita propoganda. If someone has a point to make and they present info on it, I will review it and state my opinion. If I am wrong, I will admit it. JeffR posting links to his theory of there being WMD’s based on burned computers is not one of those cases. Please find the post where a link was provided and I called it propoganda without giving a legit reason why I disagreed with it. I’ll wait.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Bullshit. On page 7 of this thread, this is my response to his mentioning of the USS Cole and the Embassy bombing:
You are right. We were hit then.
http://archives.cnn.com/...3/uss.cole.01/
Both were considered directly attributable to Osama Bin laden…which would make him the ultimate focus of any of our efforts.
Why then do people like Thunderbolt write, "“Will democracy in Iraq root out Osama?”
Not directly - but the emphasis is too much on OBL."?
Shouldn’t the emphasis be ALL about OBL?
According to you this did not take place? Quit the bullshit. Don’t accuse me of things that aren’t true especially if they are in the same thread and can be proven wrong. For Sasquatch to be right, I would have called any relation by Vagita propoganda. If someone has a point to make and they present info on it, I will review it and state my opinion. If I am wrong, I will admit it. JeffR posting links to his theory of there being WMD’s based on burned computers is not one of those cases. Please find the post where a link was provided and I called it propoganda without giving a legit reason why I disagreed with it. I’ll wait.[/quote]
wait all you like. I’m done with you. You can’t argue a point, you can’t admit when you’re wrong, and you routinely use straw men to beat/berate anyone who argues with you.
–Blind Mississippi Lemming
[quote]rainjack wrote:
half of the increase came from India/pakistani attacks. More of a feud than terrorism.
What proof, professor?[/quote]
Rainjack,
First off, you have some good posts. However, belittling the war against terrorism going on in other parts of the world is not appropriate. The India-Pakistan conflict cannot be termed as a feud. It is like a September 11th happening on a regular basis. When thousands of innocent people die in India, most of them women and children, on a yearly basis then I believe terming the terrorism attacks as a mere “feud” would be discrediting a sincere fight to uproot this evil. Pakistan might be forced to clamp down on the terrorist outfits and the ISI now. However, they were the ones to sponsor terrorism in the first place. Due to US efforts, the terrorism sponsoring machinery has been crippled in Pakistan, but not disabled.
Taking a harder and more proactive stance on such rogue nations when the problem hadn’t afflicted us would have most definitely helped curb the rise of terrorism. I might have drifted off the thread topic but felt the need to clarify your comments.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
wait all you like. I’m done with you. You can’t argue a point, you can’t admit when you’re wrong, and you routinely use straw men to beat/berate anyone who argues with you.
–Blind Mississippi Lemming[/quote]
I am more than glad you are done. I asked a question about something specific and because it couldn’t be answered in way by most of you that glorified the current administration (the only one who actually provided a decent argument was Vegita) you all start making accusations that have each been proven false in this thread. That is more than interesting.
[quote]malagh wrote:
rainjack wrote:
half of the increase came from India/pakistani attacks. More of a feud than terrorism.
What proof, professor?
Rainjack,
First off, you have some good posts. However, belittling the war against terrorism going on in other parts of the world is not appropriate. The India-Pakistan conflict cannot be termed as a feud. It is like a September 11th happening on a regular basis. When thousands of innocent people die in India, most of them women and children, on a yearly basis then I believe terming the terrorism attacks as a mere “feud” would be discrediting a sincere fight to uproot this evil. Pakistan might be forced to clamp down on the terrorist outfits and the ISI now. However, they were the ones to sponsor terrorism in the first place. Due to US efforts, the terrorism sponsoring machinery has been crippled in Pakistan, but not disabled.
Taking a harder and more proactive stance on such rogue nations when the problem hadn’t afflicted us would have most definitely helped curb the rise of terrorism. I might have drifted off the thread topic but felt the need to clarify your comments. [/quote]
My point about the Indian/Pakistani terrorism was not at all to minimize it. But as the article singled it out as being the source of over half of the terror attacks in the last year - I singled it out as being a feud in the sense that they are two neighboring countries that have been at each others throats for decades.
I don’t think the violence in India/Pakistan is attributable to the U.S. presence in the Middle East - as some are trying to make it seem.
Additionaly, of the 350 or so incidents that were not referenced above, 198 were in Iraq. A direct result of taking the war to the terrorists.
I agree that terrorism is horrible, regardless of where it occurs - but I don’t think you can say - as profX is trying really hard to do - that the terror attacks in India/Pakistan is the U.S.'s fault.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
malagh wrote:
rainjack wrote:
half of the increase came from India/pakistani attacks. More of a feud than terrorism.
What proof, professor?
Rainjack,
First off, you have some good posts. However, belittling the war against terrorism going on in other parts of the world is not appropriate. The India-Pakistan conflict cannot be termed as a feud. It is like a September 11th happening on a regular basis. When thousands of innocent people die in India, most of them women and children, on a yearly basis then I believe terming the terrorism attacks as a mere “feud” would be discrediting a sincere fight to uproot this evil. Pakistan might be forced to clamp down on the terrorist outfits and the ISI now. However, they were the ones to sponsor terrorism in the first place. Due to US efforts, the terrorism sponsoring machinery has been crippled in Pakistan, but not disabled.
Taking a harder and more proactive stance on such rogue nations when the problem hadn’t afflicted us would have most definitely helped curb the rise of terrorism. I might have drifted off the thread topic but felt the need to clarify your comments.
My point about the Indian/Pakistani terrorism was not at all to minimize it. But as the article singled it out as being the source of over half of the terror attacks in the last year - I singled it out as being a feud in the sense that they are two neighboring countries that have been at each others throats for decades.
I don’t think the violence in India/Pakistan is attributable to the U.S. presence in the Middle East - as some are trying to make it seem.
Additionaly, of the 350 or so incidents that were not referenced above, 198 were in Iraq. A direct result of taking the war to the terrorists.
I agree that terrorism is horrible, regardless of where it occurs - but I don’t think you can say - as profX is trying really hard to do - that the terror attacks in India/Pakistan is the U.S.'s fault. [/quote]
Thanks for clarifying. I agree that the terrorism sponsored by Pakistan is not a result of US policy in the Middle East. However, I believe that if the US had taken a more proactive role in fighting terrorism until it happened in our own backyard, then it would have helped substantially curb the rise… possibly even have prevented attacks such as September 11th from happening. India is a democratic country and has constantly sought our support in the war against terror. Had we actually supported their fight instead of backing up Musharraf, the dictator of Pakistan, AlQaeda and other militant groups might not have been able to spread their network of filth.
[quote]malagh wrote:
Thanks for clarifying. I agree that the terrorism sponsored by Pakistan is not a result of US policy in the Middle East. However, I believe that if the US had taken a more proactive role in fighting terrorism until it happened in our own backyard, then it would have helped substantially curb the rise… possibly even have prevented attacks such as September 11th from happening. India is a democratic country and has constantly sought our support in the war against terror. Had we actually supported their fight instead of backing up Musharraf, the dictator of Pakistan, AlQaeda and other militant groups might not have been able to spread their network of filth. [/quote]
I am glad you responded in this thread.
[quote]malagh wrote:
Thanks for clarifying. I agree that the terrorism sponsored by Pakistan is not a result of US policy in the Middle East. However, I believe that if the US had taken a more proactive role in fighting terrorism until it happened in our own backyard, then it would have helped substantially curb the rise… possibly even have prevented attacks such as September 11th from happening. India is a democratic country and has constantly sought our support in the war against terror. Had we actually supported their fight instead of backing up Musharraf, the dictator of Pakistan, AlQaeda and other militant groups might not have been able to spread their network of filth. [/quote]
I agree. It would be nice if we could undo our inaction in the past. But sadly we must fight the enemy we have today.
I think democracy is the death nail for terrorism. Anyone who stands in the way of democracy - for any reason - is as much a part of the problem as the terrorists themselves.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Get off your high horse and quit taking every opposition to your belief as some personal attack.
Good christ sasquatch, are you paying attention at all?
I’m not stating beliefs! Read my lips! I’m discussing crap. Scroll up and read Rainjack’s post. He gets it.
What I get pissed about is when people say what my beliefs are and get it wrong, then they go on to criticise me for having those “beliefs”.
Hell, if you’ve been paying attention I don’t even mind personal attacks. It’s the Internet dammit. Attack away. Just get it right already.[/quote]
If you discuss it as such it is then your bbelief-no. I’ve done nothing but quote you directly and then respond.
Please quit the pissing. Show me where I have inferred anything, and I’ll apologize. Until then try to handle disagreement and opposition better than others on this thread.
I’ve tried to remain adult with you and others, we should all be afforded the same courtesy.
Now, this should really clear things up. What exactly are you disagreeing with? What viewpoint or opinion, of mine, have I expressed that gives you something to disagree with and be opposed to?
Spare me the lecture, I’m really not interested in your opinion on how I should conduct myself. Be someone elses mom.
vroom
Quite honestly there has been little on this thread that you have said that I do agree with.
I guess that would be the reason you feel the need to continue this pissing match.
I’ve said my peace. If you think that asking you to remain adult with your responses is lecturing you, there is nothing more to be gained here.
between you and the prof, there can be nothing gained apparently by offering opposing views, because we just can’t match intelllect for intellect. Do you prefer the ivory tower, because I got a lecture from the prof. already on that one?
I know you’ll post once more to get the last word, but I shall remain silent. I no longer want to go off topic. Apparently my Pming you wasn’t enough, you still continue to take it public
Peace vroom. I think you need it.
Man, who knew this thread would result in an old-school war debate of 250 replies?!?!
I just wanted to post a vid of our president acting like a knucklehead…
Hahahahaha. Nice, when confronted and asked for a specific you duck out. If your reading comprehension skills were up to snuff you’d see that I wasn’t one of the people posting opinions.
That was my whole point.
Typical, you can dish it out, but don’t like it when people don’t roll over and play dead. Follow through with your claims or don’t bother making them…
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Man, who knew this thread would result in an old-school war debate of 250 replies?!?!
I just wanted to post a vid of our president acting like a knucklehead…[/quote]
Sometimes that’s all it takes,RSU.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Quite honestly there has been little on this thread that you have said that I do agree with.
Hahahahaha. Nice, when confronted and asked for a specific you duck out. If your reading comprehension skills were up to snuff you’d see that I wasn’t one of the people posting opinions.
That was my whole point.
Typical, you can dish it out, but don’t like it when people don’t roll over and play dead. Follow through with your claims or don’t bother making them…[/quote]
I didn’t realize that you were asking for specifics. I thought it was an open ended way of ending the discussion.
Typical of you, you decided to add your childish .02
Here was my first disagreement with you:
“they know he (Bush) was elected so obviously he is a demigod who can do no wrong.”
you challenged my statment wrt the President that he may have actually had a moral transformation. “Do you really feel that people can change?”
You called me politically blinded. You’ve known me one month on the internet.
“The money spent on the war could have prevented further attacks against American interests.”
I’m not saying any or all of these are completely wrong, but I have every right to argue them, and give my opinion as well. You always talk about everyone else regurgitating info and only you think through things and have an original opinion. Well, I guess I originally thought that some of that needed to be questioned.
In response to my questioning you, you then began the downward spiral we have all become accustomes to when it starts getting poured on you. You resorted to half truths, saying you didn’t mean it that way. Everyone is putting words in your mouth. BS
I quoted you on each and every post I made, then offered my opinion. Then the classy vroom came out and called me bub, questioned my reading comprehension skills, and basically resorted to juvenile debate skills.
You associated me with people you refer to as ‘nutjobs’ like Jeff and Cream. Well I’ll tell you what, you may not like them, but I have read their posts, they are ‘nutjobs’ because you don’t like them and that’s it. Jeff has actually tried quite hard to discuss issues. Maybe you should go back to his WMD in Iraq thread and check out your juvenile ass tone throughout. Does calling him Jeffy make you a tough guy.
So there vroom, these are just some of my issues that I have. And all these with my poor reading comprehension skills.
I tried to take your bs and attitude off the thread throgh PMs and your responses their were just as ridiculous and juvenile, then you proceded to put them out publicly.
Be a man once, admit that you, the great thinker, do not have all the answers. You are not as impartial and fair minded as you alone perceive yourself to be. If anyone questions one of your original thoughts you react with childlike doubltalk and excuses, saying how we can’t understand or comprehend what you are trying to get across.
Is this specific enough for you?
If it were just me–maybe. But you get called on it often, by many. Walks like a duck–quacks like a duck…
Sorry, I guess I’m no good at rolling over.
I’m sorry to the rest
This was an awesome thread the whole way through. I learned alot, and have some reading and thinking to do wrt some things brought up by Elk, RSU and Moriarty to name a few.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
I didn’t realize that you were asking for specifics. I thought it was an open ended way of ending the discussion.
Typical of you, you decided to add your childish .02[/quote]
And you didn’t… right? Glass houses and stones buddy, glass houses and stones.
When I really said this…
Now, now. They know he was elected so obviously he is a demi-god who can do no wrong. Weren’t you following along on erection night, it was a massive landslide and the democrats got zero votes.
So, somehow you missed the fact this was a sarcastic jibe and really isn’t something that represents anything approaching an opinion on any defineable topic on my part? Bzzt.
Okay, this one looks like something you don’t like. I asked you a question about whether or not people can change? Yeah, heaven forbid. Sorry, I guess I should known better than to question you. A little oversensitive maybe? Bzzzzt.
I’m looking for the quote here. Is this because I questioned your statement? I’m not seeing my words saying you are politically blinded. It’s a long thread. Oh wait, I did find something else you misinterpreted…
I’m merely trying to suggest that other people see things a bit differently, you don’t have to jump to the mans defence and determine that everyone doing so is doing so purely because they are politically blinded – that would almost sound like you are politically blinded.
Then I’m posting a reasonable reply to you again…
[b]Yes, but I’m sure you’ll notice that different people have come to different judgements based on viewing the same actions.
This is normal and acceptable too.[/b]
To which you reply with…
Yah–the right one and the left, I mean wrong one.
Which shows you getting a bit hot under the collar due to all your errors in figuring out what I was saying. Here is more concilliatory stuff coming from me…
[b]Why don’t you grant other people the right to look at the same issues, have different values and come to a different judgment than yourself? If we all did this, discussions in the politics forums might be a lot more fruitful.
Your view is plausible. I’m not saying that you are wrong. The alternate view is plausible. You probably should not claim it is wrong.[/b]
Wow. I started out pretty hostile on this thread. I was just jumping all over you and attacking your right to have an opinion wasn’t I? Bzzzt.
Unfortunately for you, that is not what I said. Here I am responding to Zeb and agreeing or at least saying I’m not stating anything counter to his viewpoint expressed earlier…
[b]Zeb: I think that “choosing who will face terrorist attacks” is better than having the enemy choose, no?
Me: I’m not trying to imply otherwise.
However, and this is purely hypothetical as well, the money spent on Iraq and this war very well could have prevented further attacks against American interests as well.
Billions of dollars of border security, spying and covert ops is a lot!
Note, that I’m not talking about the war on Afghanistan, which is generally agreed to have been waged for the purpose of rooting out terorrism by both left and right.[/b]
At the very least, you chopped out a qualifier in your quote. I’m not stating it would have for sure. I’m stating that we don’t know whether or not there would have been other attacks if that action would have been taken.
This was on topic and is really a hard point to argue against. Nobody knows the answer to that statement. It is an interesting point to consider, whether or not you believe it to be factual. It certainly isn’t an evil anti-Bush attack, that is for sure.
[quote]I’m not saying any or all of these are completely wrong, but I have every right to argue them, and give my opinion as well. You always talk about everyone else regurgitating info and only you think through things and have an original opinion. Well, I guess I originally thought that some of that needed to be questioned.
In response to my questioning you, you then began the downward spiral we have all become accustomes to when it starts getting poured on you. You resorted to half truths, saying you didn’t mean it that way. Everyone is putting words in your mouth. BS[/quote]
Oh bullshit. Anyone going back through, seeing your misquotes here, and the original language used, can see that you took things the wrong way and went around the bend for no reason. I didn’t say what you thought I said. You got upset when I pointed that out. You are still upset.
I’m sorry I hurt your feelings sasquatch. When people misinterpret what I say, and present it to the world as if I did say it, I get pissed off. I’d suggest not doing that.
Jerffy has a long history of being the worlds most annoying cheerleader around here. If he wants to start discussing issues in a serious way, he is certainly welcome to at any time. When he does, I will gladly discuss those issues with him.
I’d imagine that Jerffy can look after himself and talk to me on his own if he wishes to change my behavior towards him in any way. I don’t think you should try to adopt the role of forum police officer until you bone up on your reading comprehension anyway. I’m sorry that angers you, but judging by the above, it is an appropriate and accurate statement.
Sometimes the truth hurts.
Finally, if they are nutjobs, then it is because of loony tactics they use when they make arguments. I don’t dislike them. Hell, I don’t know them.
They are names in an Internet forum. Sometimes I get annoyed at the way they “discuss” issues… as I do when people like you invent meaning for my statements that simply isn’t there.
[quote]So there vroom, these are just some of my issues that I have. And all these with my poor reading comprehension skills.
I tried to take your bs and attitude off the thread throgh PMs and your responses their were just as ridiculous and juvenile, then you proceded to put them out publicly.[/quote]
I didn’t state anything you said to me in PM’s publicly. When you repeated what you had said in PM, basically, I repeated my answer to you. Why? Because I meant what I said. I don’t think you know what you are talking about, I think you are overly sensitive about this, and I don’t understand why you think I want you to tell me how I should conduct myself in the political forums – especially when you are flying off the handle for what appears to be your own misinterpretation of events.
[quote]Be a man once, admit that you, the great thinker, do not have all the answers. You are not as impartial and fair minded as you alone perceive yourself to be. If anyone questions one of your original thoughts you react with childlike doubltalk and excuses, saying how we can’t understand or comprehend what you are trying to get across.
Is this specific enough for you?
If it were just me–maybe. But you get called on it often, by many. Walks like a duck–quacks like a duck…
Sorry, I guess I’m no good at rolling over.
I’m sorry to the rest
[/quote]
Where the hell does this great thinker bullshit come from? I’m going to take this a compliment, because I’ve never said I was a great thinker. Are you saying that? Thanks!
I don’t have all the answers. I’ve never tried to state I have all the answers. You’ll notice I ask a lot of questions and poke holes at other peoples answers. I might even question people sometimes… shock, horror.
Any other advice for me oh great coolheaded and wise sasquatch?
vroom
All I want to do is clarify
You are stating that you have offered no fact, opinions or beliefs that can or should have been argued.
All posts were sarcasm based or just stating a trueism that didn’t need discussion.
Nobody should have put factual or inferrence based assumptions on any prose you presented.
In fact, you’ve put forth nothing imperative that can be reciprocated, per your explanation.
I don’t think it’s I who is sensitive. Just because you can explain your posts, doesn’t mean that another explanation or opinion is not plausible.
Again, I’m sorry if you feel I was overly harsh or derogatory. That was not my intent.
I feel if you present any info on this type forum, it is up for interpretation and discussion.
Sasquatch, what the hell are you talking about?
Are you saying that it doesn’t matter what people say, you can just invent your own meaning for it and then discuss that instead?
If you want to discuss some opinion of mine, I’ll be very happy to do so.
However, to do that you’ll either have to let me state an actual opinion, which from time to time I may spontaneously do, or perhaps simply ask me my opinion on something if you aren’t that patient.
Seriously, I’m all for a good discussion, which a lot of this thread actually contained.
Sasquatch, I think what vroom is trying to say is that he really only posts so that he can read his own posts and feel like he contributes to something. He doesn’t want to take any sides, or give any opinions, because he would then be labeled, and god knows how vroom hates to be labeled.
Just because he posts 99 out of 100 liberal viewponts, or liberal “alternatives” to current courses of action, does not in any way shape or form, mean that he supports those ideas. He just realizes that we are too stupid and close minded to have realized that these ideas exist and should be thought about as possible viable alternatives. He himself has not thought of the impact or possible impact of these things, because forming an opinion on the effectiveness of such would then allow us to label him. See, it’s all pretty clear to me, Vroom is actually… Donald Duck
V