[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Why does every political thread get way off subject and end up a regress back to basic economic/political arguments?
Are you not allowed to right-of-center AND admit that Fox is a relatively terrible source for news? Or do they take away your right-wing membership card?[/quote]
You know, I won’t deny that FOX leans right. BUT…how many other news organizations lean left? Shall I name them?
NBC-CBS-CNN-ABC-MSNBC-The New York Times-Time Mag.-Newsweek and on and on. So forgive us our indulgence in the only TV generated news machine that leans right.
Fair enough?
[/quote]
You forgot, Spartiates, simply reporting the news without licking the Republicans’ boot counts as “leaning left.”
“I am rubber, you are glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.”
.[/quote]
If anyone on this forum reflects this…it’s you. Whenever you are backed into a corner you say “You don;t know what you are talking about”.
It’s a great “out”… and has worked for you, but you are becoming tiresome with it.
[/quote]
Haha, I guess citing multiple sources which show you to be in error is dishonest, now? You know, if you could back up even one thing you say, I would be thrilled, and might actually consider taking you seriously, but you always run off as soon as you’re challenged.
What you meant to say with this post is, “Quid posting things that I don’t know how to respond to, it makes me uncomfortable!”[/quote]
The sources you use are just as slanted the other way v Fox. Is this hard to understand?
Compare apples to apples and you would have a valid point.
The real issue for me is the whole platform you stand on is paper thin. I have admitted fox slants right. and it’s maybe 5-10% of networks that slant right. the rest are slanting left and center left.
Anderson Cooper:
Is calling the Tea Party Teabaggers a fair and center view?
Keith
A compilation of accusations and false reporting which clearly show no lean left or hate for the right. This is just one of many false and misleading reports.
You know, I won’t deny that FOX leans right. BUT…how many other news organizations lean left? Shall I name them?
NBC-CBS-CNN-ABC-MSNBC-The New York Times-Time Mag.-Newsweek and on and on. So forgive us our indulgence in the only TV generated news machine that leans right.
Fair enough?
[/quote]
That’s not the point, and the thread isn’t about (or at least didn’t start about) the political bias of one network or another: it shouldn’t a race to the bottom to see who can have the least objective, most strongly biased media.
There are good sources of objective information on the right and left, and bad ones, that lean right and left.
Fox News is not a good source of news, and that has nothing to do with the political bias: that could still be there, and it could still be a decent source of information. It’s just a bad source of news.
I think it’s weird how defensive of Fox their viewership gets…
I think it’s weird how defensive of Fox their viewership gets…[/quote]
Actually it’s not. We see a clear difference in reporting and topics that matter to us. We simply can’t find it in any other network. The defensiveness comes from the politicians who attack the network and want it shut down. Even more recently how the left news networks ran with the “It’s Sara’s, Fox and Talk Radio’s fault” regarding the AZ shooter. There is no connection whatsoever, but it’s obvious many politicians do want to curb any offensive speech to their agenda and took this event as a platform to resurrect that thought police rhetoric.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Why does every political thread get way off subject and end up a regress back to basic economic/political arguments?
Are you not allowed to right-of-center AND admit that Fox is a relatively terrible source for news? Or do they take away your right-wing membership card?[/quote]
You know, I won’t deny that FOX leans right. BUT…how many other news organizations lean left? Shall I name them?
NBC-CBS-CNN-ABC-MSNBC-The New York Times-Time Mag.-Newsweek and on and on. So forgive us our indulgence in the only TV generated news machine that leans right.
Fair enough?
[/quote]
You forgot, Spartiates, simply reporting the news without licking the Republicans’ boot counts as “leaning left.”
[/quote]
Dam who left the door open? The Chihuahua got in and he’s yapping non stop. What a loud obnoxious breed.
You know, I won’t deny that FOX leans right. BUT…how many other news organizations lean left? Shall I name them?
NBC-CBS-CNN-ABC-MSNBC-The New York Times-Time Mag.-Newsweek and on and on. So forgive us our indulgence in the only TV generated news machine that leans right.
Fair enough?
[/quote]
That’s not the point, and the thread isn’t about (or at least didn’t start about) the political bias of one network or another: it shouldn’t a race to the bottom to see who can have the least objective, most strongly biased media.
There are good sources of objective information on the right and left, and bad ones, that lean right and left.
Fox News is not a good source of news, and that has nothing to do with the political bias: that could still be there, and it could still be a decent source of information. It’s just a bad source of news.
I think it’s weird how defensive of Fox their viewership gets…[/quote]
And I think it’s idiotic to claim that FOX News is not a good source of information. You and the others on the far left are the only ones who think that. Gee I’m thinking it might have something to do with your political feelings?
Anyway, check the ratings for FOX. It has higher ratings than the top three beneath it…COMBINED. I’m thinking that there are millions upon millions of people who agree with me and think you are wrong.
I think it’s weird how defensive of Fox their viewership gets…[/quote]
Actually it’s not. We see a clear difference in reporting and topics that matter to us. We simply can’t find it in any other network. The defensiveness comes from the politicians who attack the network and want it shut down. Even more recently how the left news networks ran with the “It’s Sara’s, Fox and Talk Radio’s fault” regarding the AZ shooter. There is no connection whatsoever, but it’s obvious many politicians do want to curb any offensive speech to their agenda and took this event as a platform to resurrect that thought police rhetoric.[/quote]
Rock, FOX gets attacked because the democratic politicians used to have it so good. And if you think about it how else could an upstart like FOX which is only something like 15 years old sky rocket to such meteoric success if there was not first a void for this type of reporting?
ABC, NBC, CBS MSNBC, CNN and some others kissed democratic butt for so long that I think the democrats got some of what they want America to have, an entitlement mentality.
Ha ha…it’s true. How else can you guys explain FOX’s great success - Go ahead I’m waiting.
(As as side note, speaking of entitlements -About half the people in America don’t pay taxes of any kind and the left thinks we are all under taxed - How can anyone vote for a democrat and look in the mirror?)
Prove it. Which ones? Here you are AGAIN, making unfounded accusations with no evidence to back you up, ironically while you’re criticizing me for supposedly using inacurate information. Do you realize that “the sources I use” are frequently among the first ones that pop up on Google?
So which ones are slanted? The CIA World Factbook? Statistical information from the government? Which ones are rabid leftist propaganda?
Again, the burden is on your here to point out what I have said that is inaccurate. If my posts were half as bad as you claim, then you should have an easy time of it, yet for some reason I can never get (or anyone else here) to come up with any solid claim. You just make generalizations and remain vague.
Relative to the radical right wing, yes. Relative to the entire political spectrum, they ALL slant right. Again, by even pretending that the Republicans have legitimate policy arguments, they are slanted right.
[quote]Anderson Cooper:
Is calling the Tea Party Teabaggers a fair and center view?[/quote]
As much as you and everyone else make fun of anyone even remotely left (while usually misunderstanding their arguments), yes, it’s fair. Come on, it’s funny. Even you can’t be this stodgy. It’s always amazing to me how thin-skinned mudslingers like you are.
[quote]Keith
A compilation of accusations and false reporting which clearly show no lean left or hate for the right. This is just one of many false and misleading reports.
I could continue but I need to work.
[/quote]
By the way, the Keith Olbermann video is even more pathetic than your Anderson Cooper one. There was no false reporting there. It was just snide comments made by some butthurt conservative like you.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
No matter how much you try to spin away from the fact, The US separates itself from your terrorist friends with a clear lack of intent. The terrorists willfully and with clear intent, target civilians.[/quote]
Um, have you ever read a history book? A single one? I’ll take anything at this point. I guess we didn’t “mean” to kill civilians when we dropped atomic bombs on Japanese cities. It killed 200,000 of them anyway. I suppose the military didn’t really “mean” to kill civilians when it carpet-bombed Camobodia during the Vietnam War?[/quote]
The dropping of the bombs on Japan has been argued over since they were dropped, and I will admit that by my own definition, probably meets the criteria for terrorism. The US intentionally targeted civilians in an attempt to terrorize the Japanese leaders into surrendering, while also sending a strong message to the world that the US was not to be fucked with. The defense for the action, as you know, has always been that it saved many more lives in the long run. My preference would’ve been to drop the bombs somewhere else adjacent to the mainland in a show of force, as the Marines continued to kick the hell out of the Japanese.
However, as you’ve stated many times that you value all life equally, I have to ask: are the lives of drafted soldiers more, or less valuable than that of a civilian? What if many more lives WOULD’VE been lost in island hopping missions on the way to invading the mainland? Would that loss of life have been more desirable than the loss of life that resulted in the bombs? Not easy to answer, is it.
Now concerning Cambodia; No, the US really didn’t mean to kill civilians, it meant to kill Viet Cong. The Vietcong insisted on operating from Cambodia, thereby placing the civilians they hid among at risk. Is it not wise to strike the hornets at their nest? Any innocent civilians that died as a result of the United States pursuing an enemy that insisted in living among them, is on the hands of the Viet Cong, not the US. You need to wrap your head around the concept of intent/collateral damage. From a purely logical standpoint, causation for the civilian deaths was a direct result of the Viet Cong’s insistence on placing them in danger. Of course we see this all the time; insurgents, knowing that they are being militarily pursued by the US, intentionally operate from a populated area. When the resulting attacks come, and civilian deaths naturally occur, they then shriek wildly about all the civilian deaths that the US caused. Such tactics aren’t legal, they’re not honorable, and they’re certainly not ethical. Think about this.
You’re right, the civilians weren’t our targets, the insurgents hiding among them were; and yes, that makes it OK. See how easy this is? No matter how many times you try to present this same premise in a different fashion, my answer will always be the same.
Repeating your feeble position ad nauseam is a poor substitute for argumentation. No matter how many times you repeat this, it does nothing to change my response. Causation for civilian deaths is squarely on the shoulders of insurgents who target them with intent, and place said civilians at risk. Period.
I’ve never backed away from the fact that the US has blood on its hands, or that the US is imperfect as hell. You know this, you’re a big fan of pointing this out. But hey, give al qaeda time, I’m sure that if they keep up their hard work, they’ll be tops on the list in no time at all!
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
The terrorists, willfully and with clear intent, place civilians in danger by hiding among them, using their homes as ammunition dumps, forcing them to fight under threat of killing their families if they resist, etc. The US military, as I have already pointed out to you in detail, goes to great lengths to try and minimize the deaths of civilians while pursuing an enemy that insists in hiding among the innocent like cowards. Stay tuned, we’re going to talk about how intent/collateral damage factors into international law!(I’m so excited, aren’t you!!)[/quote]
I suppose that’s morally wrong, while dropping bombs on wedding parties by remote control is morally superior. Both of them are tactics that necessitate civilian deaths. You still haven’t explained how they’re any different from a moral standpoint, except to say that “Oh, the US doesn’t mean to,” but then you still haven’t explained how that can’t just as well apply to the insurgents. I’m sure they don’t really mean to kill innocent bystanders either, but it’s necessary for their strategy to work.[/quote]
Except that their strategy IS to kill innocent bystanders, we’ve already discussed this. The US, as I painstakingly pointed out to you already, places a premium on minimizing civilian deaths, while insurgents place no such standard on themselves. This directly places the US in a position of moral superiority.
Awwwww, boo fucking hoo. So because the US is far superior militarily, you condone the unethical, illegal tactics used by the insurgents?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
And w/r/t the terrorist propaganda video; no, I absolutely do not concede anything, why would I? I am clearly in the right.[/quote]
Except that you have refused and continue to refuse to answer my basic questions. If you’re clearly in the right, doesn’t that mean that any question I could ask you about your logic can be answered in your favor (if you say no, then you have no consistent idea of what being “in the right” means)? And if so, shouldn’t it be easy to answer my questions? (Hint: yes). So then why have you just clammed up and avoided answering me?[/quote]
I’ve avoided answering nothing. This is the second time you’ve referenced these mythical unanswered questions. Why don’t you repost the questions and quit whining about it.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I gave you my list of reasons and supported them, to which you replied “bullshit! I reject your reasoning!” Okay, fine, you certainly don’t have to accept my reasoning. However. You yourself said that the goal of terrorists is also to make a statement. Clearly you can see that the video was given to CNN so that they could play it on prime time national TV for the infidels to see, so that they could make a…statement. It seems as though you and the many other extreme leftist America haters are the only ones who cannot see the video for what it was. Propaganda.[/quote]
That’s because you simply have no idea how to draw a logical conclusion, and you are still allowing your emotions to overcome your reason. You did respond to my initial questions, however, you have not responded to my follow-up questions which cast serious doubt on your claims. Until you at least make an attempt to answer them, you cannot claim to be in the right, let alone clearly in the right.[/quote]
Ahhhh, but I AM clearly in the right. I responded to everything you’ve asked. When I properly referred to the sniper video as insurgent propaganda, your reply was: “bullshit! You need to explain why it’s propaganda!”
To which I said: “having the video played on CNN, on prime time, on a prominent American news outlet, emboldens the enemy of course”
To which you replied: “Bullshit! You need to tell me how it emboldens the enemy!”
I then replied: “It emboldens them by improving their morale, by spreading the illusion that they’re winning, to sap the morale of the enemy, to aid in their recruitment, to sap the morale on the home front so they’ll leave.” (It’s also important to note that the video was aired just ahead of the elections. Hmmmm…)
You replied with this: That’s stupid! You need to explain!
In addition, I also provided for you the very definition of the word “propaganda” which you followed by ignoring.
I then called you out on your ignorance of the definition, even after I provided it for you.
You replied with: That’s not MY definition!
I followed by laughing at your bullshit, and asked you these questions: Why would the insurgents take the time to tape the video and send copies to CNN? What did they hope to benefit from CNN playing the video?
You replied with: Who cares? It doesn’t matter.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Sorry bro, but International humanitarian law seems to support my argument of intent very well. It seems as though it’s your opinion vs well established international law.
[i]International humanitarian law (IHL) imposes upon warring parties legal obligations to reduce unnecessary suffering and to protect civilians and other non-combatants. It is applicable to all situations of armed conflict, without regard to the legal basis for the conflict. That is, it applies whether the conflict itself is legal or illegal under international or domestic law, and whether those fighting are regular armies or non-state armed groups…
In the incidents documented in this report, Human Rights Watch found little evidence to suggest that insurgent forces were in any way seeking to minimize civilian losses. Many insurgent attacks in 2006 have unfolded in a typical way: an Afghan government vehicle or ISAF or coalition convoy is traveling through a city or village. As it passes by a set of shops or houses, a civilian car pulls into traffic alongside the convoy, and then explodes.
Possibly a small number of troops or government personnel are injured and their vehicle is damaged. At the same time, a significant number of surrounding civilian buildings are destroyed, and numerous civilians are killed or injured.[163] Indeed, in many attacks, insurgents appeared to have purposefully conducted attacks in the midst of crowds to conceal their attack, itself a violation of international law.[/i]
[i]Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[7] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur.
A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are “clearly” excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was “clearly excessive” in relation to (b).[/i]
[/quote]
And again, you gloss right over the actual debate: this discussion has nothing to do with law, and I have made the law no part of my criticism of the military. If there is a law saying that I can own slaves and boil them alive in hot grease if I so choose (a man was actually acquitted for this in the United States in the 18th century), that’s legal. And according to you, it’s also moral, since it’s not against the law. Do I have to spell this out for you?
Yes, I had better do it: just because something is legal does not mean the law itself is moral. You know this, yet you’re trying to use the law to dodge the question. I think starting the war to begin with is unquestionably immoral, since everyone knew, no matter what their opinion of the war was, that many civilians would die. And yet, we chose to do it anyway, to “fight terrorism.” But terrorism is a law enforcement problem, not a military problem. So we chose to trade the lives of many civilians and many of our own citizens for…what exactly? There’s not really even a clearly-defined goal.[/quote]
For the last time, I’ve addressed the issue of morality; you choose not to accept it. Iraq and the US has every legal reason to pursue the insurgents, intent on over throwing the Iraqi government, and establish security within Iraq. The insurgents are adamant in operating from among the innocents, intentionally killing innocents, threatening innocent civilians with death if they assist the Iraqi government or the US, and killing as many people as possible in their attempt to overthrow the Iraqi government and disrupt the peace. Iraq and the US are attempting to establish a secure, peaceful state. They’re attempting to rebuild infrastructure for the citizens, build hospitals and schools, and put the country back on its feet. They do all of this while the insurgents do everything in their power to grind that to a halt through the application of terrorism. The goals of the Iraqi government, and the united States, are both legal AND moral. The insurgents are both illegal AND immoral.
Still want to talk about whose morally superior?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
The “facts” here, are this: Terrorists do, as you cannot deny, willfully and with clear intent, target civilians in large number to spread terror through the maximization of death. But, you’re right, on occasion they like to take a break from killing large amounts of people and make special statements through the highlighted killing of innocents. Occasionally, they like to behead contractors one at a time, and toss the video up on the internet to make their statements. Occasionally, they will even turn to major American news outlets to assist them in making their statements, when they video the sniping of American service men and give the video to CNN for some quality prime time air time.[/quote]
Who cares? The United States has done this for years in developing countries to either overthrow their already established governments or to intimidate citizens into obediance. In doing so, it has killed FAR more people than any “proper” terrorist group (one without the endorsement of the State Department) ever has. We saw it in the Philippines: wanton targeting of civilians (“kill anyone over the age of 10”), we saw it in Vietnam, we saw it especially in many quieter conflicts where it was sometimes the CIA rather than the regular military carrying out these acts of terror. Please tell me how overthrowing democratically elected governments and assassinating foreign officials is anything but terrorism. [/quote]
It’s important to point out here, that you are “listing” shit without backing any of it up. Hypocrite. Aren’t you supposed to be explaining for me, in depth, why each of the above allegations qualify as terrorism?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Now ryan, this is getting to be downright embarrassing on your part. The war in Iraq was never illegal, no matter how hip it as to say so. Dumb war? yes…Illegal war? no. The following is an excerpt from a very good explanation of the subject. You should read the whole thing.
[i]Acting within the scope of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and under consent of previously enforced United Nations Security Council resolutions, the Congress gave their constitutional authority to use the Armed Forces of the United States against Iraq. On October 16, 2002, the President signed what then became Public Law 107-243, which authorized the use of military force to ensure Iraqi compliance of international laws and treaties, and to enforce United States public laws and policies.
The rest, as they say, is history.
As stated at the beginning of this article, there is no basis for disputing this information. It is factual from top to bottom. There are no misinterpretations or fabrications, and there is no trickery or pretense. The texts of these resolutions and bills are an appropriate utilization of constitutional and international law. A failure to recognize the legality of our involvement in Iraq means one does not have the capacity to comprehend United States laws or international treaties. Being mired in ignorance and misinformation can no longer be an excuse if truth is what one seeks.
The Iraq war was legal, it is legal, and it will continue to be legal unless the Congress changes the law to stop it. When people use rhetoric such as, �?�¢??Bush�?�¢??s war�?�¢??, �?�¢??the illegal war of aggression�?�¢??, or �?�¢??Bush lied, people died�?�¢??, one will now know that they are either ignorant, stupid, or both, or that it is a disgraceful attempt to gain or regain power or relevance in the political sphere. Most of the condemnation of our President concerning going to war with Iraq - including calls for impeachment, accusations of war crimes, calling his actions unconstitutional and unjustified, and the outright fabrication and leaking of information by congressmen, journalists, and intelligence officials �?�¢?? is based on deliberate lies and propaganda and in some cases may be borderline, or actual treason.
This would be the perfect time �?�¢?? a time when we are at war - to end the senseless ridicule of the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces.
The argument of the War Powers Resolution in this article was strictly a legal argument for the authority of the President. In no way do I believe that the Resolution properly defines Presidential or Congressional powers. It is bad law, but it is still the law.[/i][/quote]
Fine, I won’t even argue. But it still doesn’t even begin to excuse the interventions in Guatamala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Afghanistan (the first time), Cuba, let me know when it gets too depressing.[/quote]
And here you are again “listing” without backing any of your shit up. I thought you didn’t like “listing”?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I know how they’re planning to prosecute him, but it doesn’t mean they have ANY right to. The whole notion is absurd–can Australia pass laws allowing them to prosecute Americans? If no, then what business do we have doing the same thing?[/quote]
For the record here, my thoughts on the matter are that if the US wants to keep classified information classified, they need to get do a better fucking job of it. This wouldn’t be an issue if they didn’t let it slip out.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I realize that none of the facts that I’ve provided for you, will have any effect on your retarded lines of thought, but it is fun to kick you around these forums. I do enjoy it.[/quote]
Well then please, continue to do it. It’s quite entertaining to see you quote things that have 0 relevance to the topic at hand in an attempt to avoid answering any questions. You should run for office.[/quote]
I do intend to run for office someday, I hope I can count on you for your steadfast support.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Your position that the US is “the greatest terrorist organization in the history of the world”, is complete garbage. No, the US is not perfect, far from it actually. But it is absolutely, 100% intellectually dishonest to try and paint it as you like to do. Sorry about your fail, bro.[/quote]
I’ll admit it when you actually make any sort of specific argument why. I’ve given you only a partial list of the millions of people we’ve killed, and you’ve not addressed it at all, and now you pretend it’s not there. It was funny for a while, but it’s getting a little boring.[/quote]
Well, by all means boy, post the full list.
I addressed the bombing of Japan above, and I’ve never pretended that the US was perfect. At all. Ever. What nation is without a bloody footnote to its history? Did Castro rise to power under the banner of peace and love? How about Che? How many died in the Russian gulags? How many died at the hands of the Nazi regime? Vlad The Impaler? Alexander The Great? How about the British empire? The Ottoman empire? The Roman empire? Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge? Etc, etc…you get the idea. But just to illustrate how fucking stupid your ignorant assertation is here’s a compilation. You should read the whole thing.
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine’s famine)
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII)
Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20) 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000
Suharto (East Timor, West Papua, Communists, 1966-98) 800,000
Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000
Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1987) 570,000
Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39) 500,000? (Chinese civilians)
Jonas Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000
Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) 400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000
Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71) 300,000 (Bangladesh)
Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97) ?
Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) 220,000
Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000) 200,000
Michel Micombero (Burundi, 1972) 150,000
Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-99) 100,000
Hassan Turabi (Sudan, 1989-1999) 100,000
Jean-Bedel Bokassa (Centrafrica, 1966-79) ?
Richard Nixon (Vietnam, 1969-1974) 70,000 (Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians)
Efrain Rios Montt (Guatemala, 1982-83) 70,000
Papa Doc Duvalier (Haiti, 1957-71) 60,000
Hissene Habre (Chad, 1982-1990) 40,000
Chiang Kai-shek (Taiwan, 1947) 30,000 (popular uprising)
Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 (dissidents executed)
Francisco Franco (Spain) 30,000 (dissidents executed after the civil war)
Fidel Castro (Cuba, 1959-1999) 30,000
Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam, 1963-1968) 30,000
Hafez Al-Assad (Syria, 1980-2000) 25,000
Khomeini (Iran, 1979-89) 20,000
Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe, 1982-87, Ndebele minority) 20,000
Rafael Videla (Argentina, 1976-83) 13,000
Guy Mollet (France, 1956-1957) 10,000 (war in Algeria)
Harold McMillans (Britain, 1952-56, Kenya’s Mau-Mau rebellion) 10,000
Paul Koroma (Sierra Leone, 1997) 6,000
Osama Bin Laden (worldwide, 1993-2001) 3,500
Augusto Pinochet (Chile, 1973) 3,000
Al Zarqawi (Iraq, 2004-06) 2,000
You said that the United States was “the biggest terrorist organization in the history of the world”. Like I said, that claim is garbage. It was actually funny as fuck that you threw up the Spanish-American war and the Mexican American war in there. How do these conflicts show us as terrorists? Because we won? You do realize that Spain and the United States declared war on each other before the United States went on to kick ass, right? That must be what’s bothering you, that the US did so well in those conflicts.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Edit: Also, it’s quite hypocritical of you that, in one breath you say that laws don’t matter, and then in another you want to rail against the supposed “illegality” of the war. So, do laws matter, or not?[/quote]
Once again, you prove yourself incapable of following the argument. For a while, I just thought you were programmed like every other American, but now I’m beginning to think you really are stupid, and I need to drop it down a notch for you.
I said laws don’t matter (from the standpoint of morality) to me. Got that? Is that too hard? BUT, the United States government, on the other hand IS bound to respect the law, yet they toss it aside whenever it becomes inconvenient. So I am free to criticize THEM for not following the law, since they claim to respect it. So no hypocrisy, you just once again can’t follow a logical argument. Which is why you’re a conservative. You’ll get it someday.[/quote]
And yet I’ve already shown you that the United States HAS operated within not only its own laws, but international law as well. You’re a JOKE.
Now, here is where I have to take a moment to apologize. Earlier in this thread I promised to give you the last word, and I let your bullshit pull me back in. For that I apologize. This time, I promise, I’ll give you the last word.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Also, if anyone wants to revisit the thread where Ryan was wrong about the Federal Reserve’s role in the stock market bubble w/r/t the expansion in the money supply, it’s available here.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Also, if anyone wants to revisit the thread where Ryan was wrong about the Federal Reserve’s role in the stock market bubble w/r/t the expansion in the money supply, it’s available here.
You really are shameless. You didn’t “tear apart” anything, except logic. You said the CRU worked only with tree ring data, I showed you were wrong, you pouted.
Here’s the deal shit-for-brains: you show me where I’ve misrepresented anything, and I’ll admit I’m wrong. But you can’t do it because you’re not even willing to me what exactly it is that you’ve refuted (obviously because you HAVEN’T refuted anything, you simply SAY you have, and don’t wish to be called out for your buffoonery). You just say, “You’re wrong, you’re a liar.” And I say, “About what?” And you say, “You’rea a liar.”
Ha, I can do this too: You’re a liar, and you’re going to hell for it.
Anybody can pull claims out of their ass, as you do constantly. Back it up, or it doesn’t mean shit. I’ve documented my claims, while you have yet to post anything to support you. This is why no one takes you seriously.
I’m sorry, are you under the impression that you’ve done anything else?
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Ryan, you are whacked. That it all. I refuse to get pulled into your frantic, hypocritical bullshit.
I just showed you 2 clips, and you denied the obvious content. There is no worth in communicating with you for another second.[/quote]
Exactly. The kid is dishonest and dumb which is a bad combo. He refuses to acknowledge reality and writes wall of text posts with links to sites that often contradict his claims.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Ryan, you are whacked. That it all. I refuse to get pulled into your frantic, hypocritical bullshit.
I just showed you 2 clips, and you denied the obvious content. There is no worth in communicating with you for another second.[/quote]
Exactly. The kid is dishonest and dumb which is a bad combo. He refuses to acknowledge reality and writes wall of text posts with links to sites that often contradict his claims.
Not worth the time[/quote]
Haha, if you describe the rality I allegedly refuse to acknowledge I might take you more seriously, but so far you’ve dodged the question whenever I’ve asked it.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Ryan, you are whacked. That it all. I refuse to get pulled into your frantic, hypocritical bullshit.
I just showed you 2 clips, and you denied the obvious content. There is no worth in communicating with you for another second.[/quote]
That’s because the content is not obvious. There’s no actual mis-reporting, it’s just conservative whining.
If you care to actually tell me what you found objectionable, I’ll debate with you, but I will not simply play along with your buffoonery, and the fact that you call anyone, who does not simply swallow the bullshit you peddle, biased, is very illustrative of your character.
Probably? Jeez, I realize this is hard for you, but I have to say, I still was hoping for a little more.
It’s not as hard as you might think. The death of soldiers would be more acceptable because more of them signed up to be a part of the conflict. A lot of them were conscripts, I understand, but the bombs were dropped on cities. Come on. Moreover, there is debate over whether or not the bombs were really necessary to force a Japanese surrender. Make the “it saved lives” argument if you want to, but don’t pretend that there’s a unanimous consensus behind it.
Furthermore, you create some problems for yourself with this reasoning, because if the atomic bombing of heavily populated cities can sort-of be defended, then what can’t?
Again, this is EXACTLY the same thing as what the insurgents are doing, except that America killed far more people than the insurgents ever had. You make no attempt to explain the difference.
You must realize how utterly silly you sound, asserting that it’s completely acceptable to carpet bomb a country if you “don’t mean” to kill any of the innocent people who eventually die. By your logic, there’s absolutely no reason I can’t walk into any building and mow down everybody in there if I suspect there to be a terrorist among them. After all, I “didn’t mean” to kill anybody innocent, I just had to get the terrorist.
Yes, because they knew the United States didn’t care one whit about civilian deaths.
Because the Viet Cong dropped the bombs on themselves? No, you don’t get to lie and try to pin the US’s crimes on the victims. I remind you that the United States was the aggressor in the war, we lied to start it, and we did it to deny a developing country their freedom. It’s disgusting how you’re constantly posturing on this site, yet whenever the issue of actual freedom comes up, you’re quick to defend the murderers who deny it.
No, the Viet Cong hiding among civilians did NOTHING to harm the civilains. I believe it was the several hundred thousand tons of munitions dropped on the civilians that did that.
Once again, at fault here is your humiliating inability to grasp basic logic. If “collateral damage” is acceptable then you’ve just exonerated the insurgents of any wrong doing. This is a fatal, unresolvable problem for your argument, and yet you refuse to address it at all. The terrorists don’t “mean” for civilians to die, they’re just “collateral damage,” and by your logic, it’s completely acceptable.
I’m the ONLY ONE thinking about it. “Oh, they made me do it! Those cruel, inhumane terrorists! Hiding among those civilians! They MADE ME drop those bombs on them!” Do you honestly not see how stupid you’re being? The military doesn’t have to use those drones. They choose to. But then when they kill innocent people with them, it becomes the fault of the insurgents.
Yes, exactly, and so the insurgents cannot be blamed for the deaths, because they did not mean for the civilians to die. All they wanted was to not be bombed. But TO YOU, the person who is simply trying not to be bombed is actually the guilty one, and the murderer who dropped the bomb is completely guilt-free. No matter how you try to spin it, and no matter how many times you dodge the question, this is what you’re saying, and yes, it makes you a complete hypocrite.
I’m not the one with the feeble position, son. The fact that you are still dodging my question is proof positive. I know you need to talk yourself up to avoid committing suicide in order to escape the chronic cognitive dissonance of your hypocritical ramblings, but that doesn’t mean I have to go along with it.
ONCE AGAIN, either answer the question, or trot along.
shrugs They have less innocent blood on their hands than the US does.
NO, once again, you simply have no idea what you are talking about, and are desperately pulling things out of your ass, hoping something works.
Their strategy is NOT to kill innocent bystanders. Think about. They depend on popular support. How popular would it make you to intentionally kill innocent people? Not very popular, as the United States has found out. That’s a big thing that HELPS the terrorists recruit: our constant civilian-murdering has taken a toll on our image.
Do you think about ANY of this before you blurt it out?
I don’t give a shit what they say when they kill millions upon millions of them. It’s hilarious that what’s important to you is what someone says, not what they do.
If I did, so what? You condone the unethical tactics used by the military. The only difference is, the military kills a lot more innocent people.
I HAVE repeated them jackass. Will repeating them again make you answer them? Perhaps it IS possible to eventually shame you into acknowledging your lies.
Anyway, just to remove any possible pretext you have for further ignoring the questions, here they are:
-“But you have yet to show how this is supposed to “further the cause” of terrorists. How is playing a relevant video of a real event propagada?”
You have repeatedly ducked this.
-“So what you are saying is that if something has the ability to possibly help terrorists, it shouldn’t be played. Do you realize how far you’re going in undermining freedom of speech with this “logic?” “Uh-oh, better not play that story about that bank robbery! That would embolden the bank robbers by making them think they can get away with it!” “Better not play that story about insider trading, people might get the idea they can make a lot of money that way!” etc etc.”
You have not even attempted to apply your usual circumlocution to this question.
-You wrote this:
“You sticking your fingers in your ear and yelling “nuh uh!” does not constitute an argument. I’ve laid out my argument and backed it up plenty, Everyone here sees you arguing like a child.”
I responded with:
"Please pick out the parts of that post that constitute “sticking my fingers in my ears.” I don’t think you can do it. Having to explain basic logical fallacies that you keep making is not childish, and no amount of pouting from you is going to change that. Bottom line: you made an argument, I raised objections, and you couldn’t answer. "
You have made no effort to answer this question, either, yet you continue to make the allegation.
-I asked this quesiton :
“If they sent them a bunch of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles videos to play on air, would they be propaganda too?”
You did not respond. I further wrote:
“So obviously, the bare fact that the video came from Al Qaeda does not by itself make a video propaganda. So we’re back to square fucking one. Will you, bigflamer, finally stop equivocating and tell us how exactly this is propaganda?[…]”
“As it stands, you’re half right: it IS logical to SUSPECT that they possibly expected some benefit, but as I pointed out, it is ALSO possible that they did it without expecting any benefit. Moreover, simply because they might have expected a benefit doesn’t mean there actually was any, so you ALSO have to show that there actually WAS a benefit. Since logic does not automatically exclude any of these possibilities, you HAVE TO consider all of them, and you have not even attempted to do so. You’re saying, “Probably, so certainly.” That doesn’t work.”
You have not even acknowledged that this question was asked.
-“Bullshit, and you know it. To stay with the drone attack example, when you have a tactic that YOU KNOW for certain is very likely to kill innocent bystanders, but you use it anyway, there’s no honest way you can call that an unforseen consequence of anything, You KNEW it was going to happen.”
You have not explained this flaq in your logic, despite repeated requests for you to do so.
-“But seriously, please explain to me why I should give a shit about a few beheaded people when you appear to be OK with the slaughter of literally millions?”
You have not answered this question.
That should do for now.
[quote]Ahhhh, but I AM clearly in the right. I responded to everything you’ve asked. When I properly referred to the sniper video as insurgent propaganda, your reply was: “bullshit! You need to explain why it’s propaganda!”
To which I said: “having the video played on CNN, on prime time, on a prominent American news outlet, emboldens the enemy of course”[/quote]
Your either a shameless liar, or you simply haven’t paid the least bit of attention to what has transpired in this thread.
See above, you fucking idiot.
To which you replied: “Bullshit! You need to tell me how it emboldens the enemy!”
[quote]I then replied: “It emboldens them by improving their morale, by spreading the illusion that they’re winning, to sap the morale of the enemy, to aid in their recruitment, to sap the morale on the home front so they’ll leave.” (It’s also important to note that the video was aired just ahead of the elections. Hmmmm…)
You replied with this: That’s stupid! You need to explain![/quote]
Actually, NO. What I said was, why the fuck would any terrorist sponsors watch CNN to find out who to give their money to? Why would governments, who are usually the main sponsors of terrorism, watch the news to find out about Current Events in Terrorism when they have intelligence agencies to rely on?
You did not answer these questions.
But the problem was it’s not the definition of propaganda that everyone else in the world uses. Even it was, you still declined to explain why CNN shouldn’t play it, as whether or not it is propaganda, it is still undoubtedly news. You did not explain your desire to muzzle the press.
[quote]I followed by laughing at your bullshit, and asked you these questions: Why would the insurgents take the time to tape the video and send copies to CNN? What did they hope to benefit from CNN playing the video?
You replied with: Who cares? It doesn’t matter.[/quote]
Half true; I did say it doesn’t matter (which it doesn’t), but I then also asked you some questions (quoted above) that exposed your inability to follow a logical argument, which you promptly ignored.
I choose not to accept it because I questioned your explanation and you were unable to answer the questions, obviously exposing the hollowness of your premise.
I remind you, you fucking idiot, the situation wouldn’t exist to begin with if the US hadn’t created the Taliban. Seems to me, the country who assisted in turning Afghanistan into the present shithole it is should be the last country you trust to “make things right,” especially when “making things right” results in the deaths of thousands of civilians.
You’re goddamn right I do. Even if this whole sordid affair were moral (it’s not, as you have made no effort to argue), it would barely begin to make up for the countless democracies that the US has crushed, legitimately elected leaders it has assassinated, and oppressive dictatorships it has established and maintained in power.
The historical record clearly shows that the US has by far the most insidious, most illegal foreign affairs record in history.
Go USA!
Idiot.
Oh. Backing it up. Would that change your opinion? I ALWAYS back up what I say, yet it never makes any differnence with you. You simply thrust your fingers deeper into your ears and hum louder.
But seriously–you want me to document the Philippine War? The Vietnam War? The intervention in Afghanistant? The Iran-Contra affair? etc.? OK, I guess (actually, I alread did above, but you conveniently ignored it), but it’s not exactly like these are obscure events that no one has ever heard of.
Start with the 5 or 6 I already documented above. If you need more, let me know, but no need for me to pile it on when you haven’t even started equivocating over what you’ve got.
Oh, count on it! If you were elected to the Presidency on Monday, we’d have socialism by the weekend.
Why? Why should I go to the trouble of typing a bunch of stuff up, finding a lot of sources, pulling out relevant bits to quote, and then linking to them, when I already have a perfectly good list like this that you haven’t even touched?
“Not pretending the US is perfect” is a far cry from properly acknowledging its status as the largest terrorist force on the planet. How about this: “I’ve never pretended the Taliban or Al Qaeda is perfect. At all. Ever. What revolutionary fore is without a bloody footnote to its history?”
Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? Now how much more ridiculous would it sound if instead of the few thousand people they have killed, they had actually killed millions and millions?
That’s what you’re doing with the US, and there is no way for you to spin your way out of this.
The difference is, with the exception of the Cuban Revolution, which ousted a corrupt and repressive regime, no one is defending those regimes as “legal and moral.” And yet when the US does it, you claim their actions are moral. That makes you a hypocrite. Pure and simple.
“Like you said.” I have to take your word for it because you STILL have not made the first fucking attempt to justify it. Millions and millions murdered, you’ve got no problem with it unless it’s done by foreigners.
Until you can manage to pull something out of your ass, I accept your concession.
In the first case, we denied the Cubans their independence that our DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE claims is their right. Hypocrisy. In the second, we started a war with Mexico to steal their land. Violence for political purposes. Terrorism.
Apparently, you’re not very familiar with US history. This is common among “patriots.”
And ONCE AGAIN, you try to gloss completely over the actual debate. I’m not even to going to debate the Iraq War with you. I’ll be generous: you can have it. But you don’t even START to address the literally dozens and dozens of illegal actions the United States has taken since WWII. Hell, the New York Times a few years ago broke the story, as I’m sure you saw, of the illegal NSA wiretapping program started by the Bush administration. Glenn Greenwald does an excellent job of following illegal government actions, including the current case of Gulet Mohamed. There’s the already-mentioned attempt to illegally prosecute Assange. These are recent cases right off the top of my head that illustrate the blatant disregard of the law by the US government.
Ignorance is not a defense, but you seem to think it is.
Don’t run away now. I don’t want the last word, you fucking coward. I want you to ANSWER A QUESTION.
Now, here is where I have to take a moment to apologize. Earlier in this thread I promised to give you the last word, and I let your bullshit pull me back in. For that I apologize. This time, I promise, I’ll give you the last word.[/quote]
Don’t run away now. I don’t want the last word, you fucking coward. I want you to ANSWER A QUESTION.
[/quote]
He has already answered a number of your questions and you have ignored him. That is why you are a dumb, dishonest douchebag.
