[quote]ZEB wrote:Well tell me junior where did you develop your unnatural love for socialism. If you didn’t get from your college professors then we have to go back to High School. Did you have some commy indoctrinate you in HS? Are your mommy and daddy commy’s? This is not a hard one to figure out son, you’ve got ZERO real world experience. So tell me who lead you down this road?
[/quote]
Unnatural love for socialism, haha!
If I didn’t get it from my college professors, you don’t have to go back to high school. You should know, high school and college are not the only things you do with your time when you are at that age. Could TV not have had an influence in me? What with all those communists on CNN and NBC? What about the newspapers, can’t read them without getting all that commie ink smeared all over your hands (I’ll bet that’s how they do it!). What about music? A lot of punk rock groups are anti-authority and anti-capitalist, it could’ve been them!
It couldn’t have been thinking about problems, and recognizing that popular explanations were bogus. That can’t happen. As you know, if you hear something you don’t like, you’re supposed to just wave it away, not think about for Christ’s sake!
[quote]Big Banana wrote:Yes, the CRU throws out the recent tree ring data and uses NASA’s when it is convenient. A different data set from what they generated.
This is completely the opposite of what you claimed earlier when you tried to make it seem that they came to the same results with different methods.
You really are showing that you are dishonest and you do not know what you are talking about. A bad combination. No wonder you get no respect.[/quote]
Yeah, I’m dishonest, while you’re still clinging to your flatly-refuted notion that the CRU used only tree-ring data. Even if they did, they’re not the only ones who are getting these numbers. It’s apparent you didn’t even look at the link. That might have damaged your programming.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:Sorry ryan, but I did indeed say this a wee bit earlier in the thread:
Here you show your complete lack of ability to understand the subject matter. You think this is about the insurgents seeing the video on CNN? WTF!? It emboldens the enemy AT LARGE to continue fighting, to step up the attacks, to give the illusion that they are winning, to convince the enemy that there is no hope, to help in their recruitment, to…EMBOLDEN them. Get it? or do I need to get out the crayons. Google the definition of embolden, I don’t feel like doing it for you. [/quote]
Yes, but as I explained, your comment:
was stupid
did not explain how it would “embolden” them
who this “enemy at large” is.
Ignoring entirely the fact that this is stupid (because it assumes that terrorist financiers make their decisions based on what CNN airs, which you ought to be embarrassed for even suggesting [by the way, I’m disappointed you didn’t work a Soros reference into this theory]), the question still stands: who cares? We’ve already established the fact that whether or not you consider it propaganda, it’s still relevant and it’s still news. 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.
The bottom line is, you got your feelings hurt, so now you’re digging through your ass trying to come up with some logical reason it shouldn’t have been played, and you’ve got nothing.
It doesn’t play quite as well when I’m the one who constantly has to explain the details to you.
Wrong again. I actually read and comprehend what was written. I don’t simply assume that a post says what I want it to.
Haha. You should have a TV show.
Uh, yeah, because it’s the crux of the whole thing, jackass. How stupid is it possible for a person to be? This contest on the right to see who can give themselves the most radical lobotomy has gone too far.
I don’t know. Perhaps because playing the 9/11 footage would be beating a dead horse and would serve no purpose, since we’ve seen it a hundred times and it’s not news anymore, unlike this video at the time? That’s one possible reason. Maybe they didn’t consider it to be overly graphic which, if it did go black before impact, would be a totally reasonable judgement. If this is the case, then you might as well be agitating for Congress to ban movies and TV shows that depict the death of American soldiers. They might rile those terrorists up, too.
Furthermore, even if you disagree, and think it is overly graphic, that’s just your opinion, and you shouldn’t get so bent out of shape that others don’t agree with you. Yours is no more valid than theirs.
So in short, once again, this boils down to nothing more than you throwing a shit fit because they hurt your feelings.
Hmmm…good question! If you’re reporting on a story, and you have video, why play it? Why play relevant video? Sure, you’re on TV, but why not make it like a radio show?
Do YOU have a bias? Why are acting like the choice to NOT play the video is the obvious one? Why shouldn’t they have played the video? “It emboldens the terrorists” is not an answer.
Are you stupid? You once again fail to see that your “logic” rests entirely on your assumptions, which have been shown to be spurious. This is not a rigorous or acceptable standard for a logical argument. You have every right to hold the opinion you do, but it’s an opinion. Nothing more, and you’ve done nothing to make any other case.
Why did you use the phrase “hang up?” Are you trying to make some disgusting pun?
Of course you’re cheering them on. You deny their obvious bias and you’ve also shown the same signature resentment of reality that marks the modern conservative, and you also display the hilariously asinine “good vs evil” world view characteristic of Christians, and so of course you support and encourage them. Just admit it. Don’t worry, there’s no possibility of lowering yourself any further in my eyes.
Even The Economist magazine, hardly a bunch of leftists, acknowledges the unprecedented slant in Fox’s reporting. But, I know from experience that no amount of evidence will change your mind when you want to believe in something, so I’ll leave it alone.
The very act of pretending that they are a legitimate news outlet is cheering them on. No sane person who is trying reasonably hard to be objective could do it. Sorry to reintroduce reality.
By the way, I think it’s hilarious that, to a modern conservatives, reporting facts and occasionally asking a Congressman to answer a question is a “left-wing bias.” God, the right is greedy.
[quote]What I know is, you said this: Furthermore, thanking the members of the world’s largest terrorist organization is not something I would even consider doing. I’d just as soon shake the hand of an Al Qaeda member or former SS officer.
Here you place America’s service members on the same level as al qaeda and hitler’s SS. You’re on record as calling them “murderers ad terrorists”. You ryan, are a piece of shit, and I don’t mind saying so. For as long as you are posting on this board, I will not let you duck from making these statements. You own them.[/quote]
Let me “duck them?” If I liked tattoos (I don’t) I’d consider getting them all down my arms and everything. You’re goddamn right I called them muderers and terrorists, because that’s what the majority if them are, and I wouldn’t think of retracting those statements.
The fact that you are a troglodyte who has never read any history and thus is unaware of the countless times the US military has participated, directly and indirectly, in the overthrow of legitimate democracies and the wholesale slaughter of innocent people does not reflect poorly on me.
So think about, and decide what you value in this life: freedom and human rights, or the dominance of the US military. They have historically been mutually exclusive.
A man of your trifling intellect must have few, so I would not dream of taking this one away from you.
Who cares? It doesn’t matter. We have the tape, it’s relevant, and you say don’t play it. The burden is on you, and you still have not explained how exactly this is propaganda.
If they sent them a bunch of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles videos to play on air, would they be propaganda too? Of course not. 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?
You see? That was a logical conclusion. It’s amazing how terrible you are at this.
Really? Where? You’ve used a lot of childish insults, and you’ve insisted that you’re right about it “emboldening terrorists,” but you haven’t said how, and you’ve insisted that you’re right in calling it propaganda, but you haven’t said how. You’ve done a lot emoting, and not very much thinking.
Since you’re so prone to digression, make your case, in bullet points. If your reasoning is half as solid as you claim, it ought to be easy.
That is because you HAVE NO points, as you’ve been shown again and again. Sad as it is for the right, there are standards to logical debate, and you’ve not even come close to meeting them. It’s not just about arguing a case, it’s about supporting your arguments, which you have refused to do.
It’s not denying to have to hold your hand through logical reasoning. Don’t get pissed at me because I’m a little more thoughtful and rigorous than your conservative buddies.
It’s telling that you not only ignore outright half of what I write, because you have no way to even dismiss it without being a transparent fraud, let alone rebut it, but of even the parts you do have the courage to address, you focus on irrelevancies to obscure the larger argument, which you’ve already lost.
For the last damn time, “listing” something doesn’t mean shit. I can “list” stuff all day. The fact is, the great majority of the stuff you “list” is flat out wrong. You have to BACK IT UP, by citing some source.
To be excruciatingly clear, it DOESN’T work to say: “It’s propaganda, 'cause the terrorists sent it and because it emboldens terrorists.”
I’ve already raised multiple objections to this, but even ignoring them, you still have to show why it matters where the tape came from, which you made a pathetic, hand-waving attempt to do, and you have to show that it ACTUALLY DOES embolden terrorists, which you’ve not even attempted to do.
See? You don’t have the first clue what goes into a rational argument.
Insult away. Just try to also do a little bit of explaining in there.
[/quote]
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.
The facts are this; CNN correspondent Michael Ware obtained the video after communicating through intermediaries, with Ibrahim Shammari, a spokesman for the Islamic Army. Denying this fact does not make it go away for you. You’re smart enough to figure out that terrorist groups vie for funding from their “sponsors”, and showing yourself as mission capable would be a great way to garner the proper funding for your group. There’s your financial benefit
The video and it’s showing by a prominent American news outlet, IS propaganda by definition. Sorry if that kills your argument. I’ve also supported this idea several times. Fact: the video comes a helluva lot closer to the definition of propaganda than it does to the definition of news.
You’re doing a magnificent job of dodging this question: why would the insurgents take the time to video the killing and send it to CNN, if they didn’t envision some benefit in doing so?
It is a fact that the video was supplied by terrorists, and it’s logical to conclude that they would put that video in the hands of CNN because they want the video played. You can’t wiggle away from that. Calling my reasoning “stupid” is a childish retort to say the least.
The author does a much better job than I possibly could, in explaining why the video was nothing but a snuff film. I’ve taken the liberty to post the entire article, as you’ve shown a propensity for not actually reading the links I provide.
[i]I rarely lose my temper, but that does not mean I don�¢??t have one. Generally, I am disappointed in certain actions or words I disapprove of by people or organizations, rather than angry. But this time, I am really angry at CNN, because I am taking it personally.
When a CNN executive accused U.S. troops of targeting journalists in Iraq to stop their reporting, I viewed it as anti-military left wing rhetoric, with no basis in truth. I think most Americans who bothered to read this story agreed with me. When CNN showed the U.S. Marine shooting a terrorist pretending to be wounded, while attempting to set off the explosives wired to the booby-trapped body next to him, I knew that any reasonable inquiry would exonerate the soldier; and I was right. As CNN showed the embarrassing pictures of the detainees at Abu Ghraib over and over, I ascribed it to their agenda to discredit American forces, in much the same manner as Illinois Senator Dick Durban when he compared our soldiers to Nazis and the Khmer Rouge of Pol Pot. Again, they were just pushing their well documented agendas, with little regard for its repercussions. But this time, they have crossed a line that no news agency in the United States should cross. They have become a news service advocating for the enemies of our Nation.
I am referring, of course, to their decision to broadcast the sniper “Snuff Film” provided by a terrorist organization in Iraq. CNN defends this with the absurd argument that they were reporting the Ã?¢??unvarnished truthÃ?¢??. The truth is that they have played, on international television, the worst form of pornography, the “Snuff Film”. That they have done so to advance the cause of the Islamic terrorists is not an opinion that I have arrived at lightly, but the evidence is beyond circumstantial. When taken in context, it is obvious to me that they are rooting for the other team. While CNN would certainly refute this, I think the facts speak for themselves.
Beginning with the attacks on the United States on September 11th, CNN has scrubbed much of their coverage. As with other main stream media, they have abstained from showing all of the video and pictures from that day. Never has the viewing public seen the pictures of those victims who leapt to their deaths from the World Trade Center, rather than suffer the pain of being burnt to death. Most Americans have never seen the tape and pictures of scores of bodies lying on the sidewalks and streets of New York, before the collapse of the twin towers. The sounds of bodies hitting the pavement have never been heard on CNN, out of their “sensitivity”. CNN has also shielded us from the graphic videos of helpless prisoners being shot or beheaded by terrorists. While most Americans are aware that these incidents have occurred, they are not aware that hundreds of bound innocents have been murdered in this manner, and that the practice continues to this day. The terrorists not only take pride in these murders, they provide the videos to news services on a regular basis. But the American media, including CNN, has decided not to show them, as they are “disturbing”. The murder by beheading of three Christian schoolgirls by Islamists in Indonesia was not even reported by most media; let alone the broadcast of the pictures of these young girls with their heads resting on their chests. Not one American news service has ever shown the cartoons of Muhammad that sparked world wide Muslim rage, including the deaths of scores of people, out of Ã?¢??respectÃ?¢?? for Islam. But they are perfectly willing to show an entertainer like Madonna showing her disdain for Christianity by turning the crucifixion of Jesus into a vaguely obscene musical skit.
What CNN and most of the mainstream media have actually done is to do their best to hide the true nature of the enemies of the United States. While claiming that certain images are too graphic for us to see, the effect is to hide the barbarity of those against whom we struggle. Some of these decisions are due to cowardice. The media is simply afraid that taking a truly unbiased journalistic stance will put them at risk of becoming a target for Muslim rage, which often turns deadly. Certainly CNN has admitted they deliberately omitted reporting on the atrocities of Saddam Hussein, although they were well aware of the horrendous acts committed by his regime; because their access to him might be restricted, and their personnel placed at risk. And yet, they appear to have a direct pipeline to the terrorists, and are on the priority mailing list of these murderers.
The airing of the sniper footage by CNN has, in my opinion, placed them at a new low. The intent of the terrorists in filming the sniper attacks is to show that they can kill Americans at will, without repercussion. The recent upsurge in attacks aimed at Americans in Iraq is a blatant attempt by the terrorists to influence the upcoming elections. The timing of this film is an obvious propaganda ploy, meant to augment the reporting of increased American casualties, and discourage Americans from supporting the efforts in Iraq. CNN has become the willing tool of the Jihadi propaganda strategists. Yet, the actions by CNN go even beyond this. And this is where it becomes personal.
CNN claims it was unable to identify the American soldiers shot in cold blood for our viewing pleasure. This is beyond oversight. It is a blatant falsehood. The U.S. military keeps very detailed records detailing the circumstances surrounding every American casualty. Eyewitness accounts, wound examination, situation reports and after action reports are all on file, and can be used by the appropriate authorities to identify each of the soldiers shot on the video. What I find reprehensible is that there are families here who may have seen their loved ones shot down on television. Families receive a fairly detailed account through official sources of the circumstances surrounding each casualty. The soldier�¢??s commanding officer will usually send a personal letter to the family, often providing additional detail. Finally, the comrades of the fallen soldier will often write to the family, with even more detailed information. The bottom line is that a little investigative journalism on the part of CNN would enable CNN to identify the soldiers who were cut down. That they did not make this effort allows them to avoid the confrontation with the families of these men, and the subsequent criticism CNN would receive if they showed the deaths of Americans who have an identity. Anonymity serves their purpose, but exposes the families to the pain and horror of watching their son, brother or father die in prime time.
Why is this personal? My youngest son is in the military, as is a nephew. I also have a number of friends and former Scouts in harms way, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. I take this action by CNN in a very personal way, as it could be a family member or friend who appears on the next episode of Prime Time Snuff. I do not want to have a public viewing of the last moments of someone I know so that CNN can achieve an “exclusive report” in their ratings race, while advancing the image of how effective a terrorist sniper can be.
CNN claims to have a mission and vision statement, and adheres to a standards and ethics code. May I also suggest that they also have a motto, borrowed from a movie. The motto, aimed at we viewers, is “The Truth? You canÃ?¢??t handle the Truth!” CNN is living up to that motto.[/i]
EDIT:
To back up what the article says, a little research by anyone would show that CNN is full of shit when they claim that identifying the slain soldier was impossible. the slain soldier was actually Marine second Lt. Joshua Booth. The following is a portion of a letter from the father of a marine who served in in the unit that was relieved by Lt. Booth’s unit.
[i] Recently CNN showed an insurgent video of the sniper killing of an American soldier in Iraq. The decision by CNN to air the film on national television was beyond bad judgement. Our anger turned to outrage when we found out the victim was 2nd Lt. Joshua Booth from 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marines. Not only are his pregnant wife, child, and parents forced to come to terms with the death of this twenty-three year old Marine, but they now know his final moments and violent death has been gratuitously aired for the world to witness. Bobbye and I know the video could easily have been of Daniel or any number of Marines we have come to know, since the killing took place in Haditha, Iraq.
I found CNN's explanation proved to be bland and devoid of substance. There are any number of guesses as to why CNN chose to air the insurgent video; however, in my judgement, none are of overriding value. I am further distressed the video has not been discussed and editorialized to any degree in the mainstream press.
I cannot imagine the WWII press airing footage sent to them by Nazi Germany or the Imperial Japanese Army depicting the killing of American soldiers in Europe or Marines on Iwo Jima. I've always believed the media's support for the troops never went much beyond ratings and their financial bottom line. 2nd Lieutenant Booth's killing, now aired on a world stage, reinforces my opinion. [/i]
So much for keeping the identity of the slain Marine quiet, huh? you try and claim that this is about MY hurt feelings, but in reality, this was about the feelings of Lt. Booth’s pregnant wife, his child, his parents, and the rest of his family.
You “commend” them for playing this snuff film, go tell that to Lt. Booth’s family. You’re a piece of shit ryan
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
this is why I only listen to Michale Savage. That old crazy bastard hates EVERYBODY equally. Listening and laughing hysterically to his show is one of my guilty pleasures, like midget porn, AM/PM hot-dogs, and strangling homeless people. [/quote]
You sir, are spot on with this. I listen to him most nights and it’s certainly not because I agree with, or think he’s right about everything he says. His show is just…entertaining. I find myself thinking, “I wonder what that crazy old bastard Savage thinks about this?”
LOL
[/quote]
yep, exactly. His stories about growing up in brooklin other stuff is entertaining too. Savager is fucking crazy AND fearless. he makes no apologies for his opinions and beliefs. he really believes in his message…but so did Hitler…lol
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.
I never denied this (indeed, this is the first time this specific fact has been brought up). I don’t need to. It’s totally irrelevant. You told me that the tape was automatically propaganda simply because it was mailed by insurgents. I asked you this question:
“If they sent them a bunch of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles videos to play on air, would they be propaganda too? Of course not. 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?”
And then YOU stuck your fingers in your ears, ignored what I had written, and resumed repeating yourself, pretending your argument had not been demolished. You see? That’s how a logical argument works. If you make an argument, and I make a counterargument, for you to “win,” you MUST show how my argument is flawed or incorrect. You don’t get to ignore it and claim I’m an idiot. Does this make sense?
HA! So now terrorist financiers look for clients on CNN? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound right now? “Hey, I’d really like to give a terrorist group a couple million dollars, but how do I find out which terrorist group is right for me? Is there a Facebook quiz I can take? I know! I’ll watch CNN!” LMAO.
Perhaps a better way would be to send the video TO THE FINANCIER, not CNN. In reality, as you well know, there are all kinds of different networks that this sort of thing goes through, and you’d be much more likely to attract sympathetic attention going to the right radical mosque than you would sending a tape to CNN, especially since probably most terrorist funds come from national governments, who don’t need to watch CNN to find out about terrorist groups.
In addition, there’s the fact the Taliban raises much of its money through the sale of heroin, which obviously has nothing to do with anything played on CNN.
I’m beginning to feel sorry for you at this point, as you STILL are dodging the question: HOW is this propaganda? You flung a definition up there, but you have not shown HOW the tape meets that definition. You have ALSO dodged this question: even if you’re right (you’re not), what right do you have to ask CNN not to play it? You’ve completely dodged the issue of the slippery slope that this would establish. If you shouldn’t play terrorist propaganda, why should you play ANYTHING that has any probability of emboldening criminals of any type? Why should we allow the US military to show commericials on TV? Those commercials are FAR purer propaganda than this video, and undoubtedly lead to more innocent deaths, yet you have no problem with them.
To recap, in attempting to show how this video is propaganda, you’ve pulled an argument out of your ass. That’s the first step, but that’s not enough. You have to show that your argument is CORRECT. I’m not going to take your word for it, like your conservatives friends.
As I said earlier, I will answer that question AFTER you have showed me how it is in any way relevant. If you can’t answer simple questions, then don’t expect me to. It’s a two-way street.
But it IS stupid, and it DOES show an unfamiliarity with logical thought. 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.
As an aside, perhaps not bombing wedding parties and mudering families in their homes would go further toward reducing terrorist recruitment than hiding the news.
Ryan, I’ve supported all my positions in this thread, several times. You dodging my question with more questions is not gonna cut it and illustrates for everybody that you have no substance other than that you hate the US military, and Fox news.
The fact of the matter is this; You know that video was propaganda, the whole world knows that the video was propaganda. Your spin away from this doesn’t change it. Myself and others on this thread have clearly illustrated that there’s a bias in the MSM, it is what it is. Does Fox News lean to the right in it’s reporting of the news? probably. Definitely in their opinion pieces.
Along the way in this thread, we’ve learned alot about you, ryan. we’ve learned:
-You commend CNN for playing a video of insurgent snipers, and think it’s healthy for an American news organization to play footage of American GI’s getting blown to pieces.
-You consider the US armed forces to be the worlds largest terrorist organization.
-You also place America’s fighting men and women on the same level as Hitler’s SS, and Al Qaeda
-You consider CNN and the remaining MSM outlets to be quality, unbiased news sources, while condemning Fox news as horrifically biased to the right.
-You would, if given the chance, tell the family of Lt. Joshua Booth, including his wife and kids, that their dad was a terrorist on the level of Hitler’s SS and Al Qaeda. You would also tell them that their son’s death at the hands of an enemy sniper, being prominently displayed on national TV by an American news outlet, was a commendable act.
The above positions and ideas define you as a person, and place you in an elite class of assholes. Now, I’ll give you the last word here, as I’m sure that’s what you’re waiting for.
If I ever run into them and subject comes up, I will.
And fuck off until you can explain to me why dead people only matter if they’re American, you fucking hypocrite.[/quote]
LOL…But you telling me to fuck off, makes me laugh.
Dead insurgents absolutely mean nothing to me, without question. Has our military made mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes, absolutely. The idea that innocent people have died in this conflict does not sit well with me and does actually make me sad. That’s the difference between people like me and the insurgents. They would gleefully kill millions of innocents for their “cause” without reservation, their religious beliefs actually command them do to so. Go ahead and correct me if I’m wrong.
So yes, I absolutely and without reservation, value the lives of American GI’s over the lives of terrorists. The question here is, do you hold the same beliefs? I think probably not, but this is your chance to prove me wrong.
If I ever run into them and subject comes up, I will.
And fuck off until you can explain to me why dead people only matter if they’re American, you fucking hypocrite.[/quote]
LOL…But you telling me to fuck off, makes me laugh.
Dead insurgents absolutely mean nothing to me, without question. Has our military made mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes, absolutely. The idea that innocent people have died in this conflict does not sit well with me and does actually make me sad. That’s the difference between people like me and the insurgents. They would gleefully kill millions of innocents for their “cause” without reservation, their religious beliefs actually command them do to so. Go ahead and correct me if I’m wrong.
So yes, I absolutely and without reservation, value the lives of American GI’s over the lives of terrorists. The question here is, do you hold the same beliefs? I think probably not, but this is your chance to prove me wrong.
[/quote]
Ah, such unwarranted accusations.
I am sure that most insurgents do not endorse the killing of civilians and despise it a smuch as you do.
It is just a necessary consequence of their policies, which makes it perfectly acceptable.
If I ever run into them and subject comes up, I will.
And fuck off until you can explain to me why dead people only matter if they’re American, you fucking hypocrite.[/quote]
LOL…But you telling me to fuck off, makes me laugh.
Dead insurgents absolutely mean nothing to me, without question. Has our military made mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes, absolutely. The idea that innocent people have died in this conflict does not sit well with me and does actually make me sad. That’s the difference between people like me and the insurgents. They would gleefully kill millions of innocents for their “cause” without reservation, their religious beliefs actually command them do to so. Go ahead and correct me if I’m wrong.
So yes, I absolutely and without reservation, value the lives of American GI’s over the lives of terrorists. The question here is, do you hold the same beliefs? I think probably not, but this is your chance to prove me wrong.
[/quote]
Ah, such unwarranted accusations.
I am sure that most insurgents do not endorse the killing of civilians and despise it a smuch as you do.
It is just a necessary consequence of their policies, which makes it perfectly acceptable.[/quote]
Ahhh, but it surely is warranted, as the insurgents will intentionally target innocent civilians as a matter of strategy.
FALLUJAH, Iraq â?? In a warning to the U.S.-led coalition, some local leaders in this restive city said they would endorse the continued killing of soldiers and foreign civilians as part of what they described as a justified resistance to the continued occupation of Iraq.[/i]
[i]It is not the first brutal slaying of its kind against civilian people. In mid September, four persons were killed and more than 12 others injured as Hizbul Islam militants were reported to have opened fire in the Haradhere district in Somalia’s Mudug region.
The shootings occurred when a group of people were protesting at a public square where al Shabaab was beating teenagers, who the militants accused of watching pornographic videos on their mobile phones. A pregnant woman and children were among those killed.
Recently, Somaliaâ??s al Qaeda-inspired militant group, al Shabaab, executed two Somali women in Belet-weyne. The two women were accused of spying for the Somali government.[/i]
If I ever run into them and subject comes up, I will.
And fuck off until you can explain to me why dead people only matter if they’re American, you fucking hypocrite.[/quote]
LOL…But you telling me to fuck off, makes me laugh.
Dead insurgents absolutely mean nothing to me, without question. Has our military made mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes, absolutely. The idea that innocent people have died in this conflict does not sit well with me and does actually make me sad. That’s the difference between people like me and the insurgents. They would gleefully kill millions of innocents for their “cause” without reservation, their religious beliefs actually command them do to so. Go ahead and correct me if I’m wrong.
So yes, I absolutely and without reservation, value the lives of American GI’s over the lives of terrorists. The question here is, do you hold the same beliefs? I think probably not, but this is your chance to prove me wrong.
[/quote]
Ah, such unwarranted accusations.
I am sure that most insurgents do not endorse the killing of civilians and despise it a smuch as you do.
It is just a necessary consequence of their policies, which makes it perfectly acceptable.[/quote]
Ahhh, but it surely is warranted, as the insurgents will intentionally target innocent civilians as a matter of strategy.
FALLUJAH, Iraq �¢?? In a warning to the U.S.-led coalition, some local leaders in this restive city said they would endorse the continued killing of soldiers and foreign civilians as part of what they described as a justified resistance to the continued occupation of Iraq.[/i]
[i]It is not the first brutal slaying of its kind against civilian people. In mid September, four persons were killed and more than 12 others injured as Hizbul Islam militants were reported to have opened fire in the Haradhere district in Somalia’s Mudug region.
The shootings occurred when a group of people were protesting at a public square where al Shabaab was beating teenagers, who the militants accused of watching pornographic videos on their mobile phones. A pregnant woman and children were among those killed.
Recently, Somalia�¢??s al Qaeda-inspired militant group, al Shabaab, executed two Somali women in Belet-weyne. The two women were accused of spying for the Somali government.[/i]
[/quote]
Well, a few bad apples…
Also, some of these instances are really collateral damage, which makes it perfectly ok too.
Because, as you surely know, you can kill quite a lot of innocent people if you do not really mean to and you are not to blame at all.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Ryan, I’ve supported all my positions in this thread, several times. You dodging my question with more questions is not gonna cut it and illustrates for everybody that you have no substance other than that you hate the US military, and Fox news.[/quote]
Actually, what it illustrates is that you have no idea how logical reasoning works, need it explained to you, and that you don’t care–you simply wish to continue your shitfit because you need some reason to be able to write off networks that play things that upset you.
Except the staff at CNN. They clearly didn’t think it was propaganda, or else they wouldn’t have played it. And no, they’re not terrorist sympathizers. Sometimes people who disagree with you just legitimately disagree with you.
I don’t think it was propaganda, and have very patiently made the case for you, explaining for the first time in your life how logic works, and you ignore the whole thing. Get your shit together, then we’ll talk. Until then, you’re just a pathetic drone too scared of reality to entertain a thought not included in your conservative programming.
No you haven’t. You “made a list,” something you love to do, but when questioned, could not back up anything you wrote. If you say, “President Obama is a space alien,” and I say, “How do you know? Evidence please,” and then you say, “I proved it earlier,” then you’ve proven nothing. This is what you continue to do, dancing around questions that you can’t answer.
The fact is, if you had any case whatsoever, or had even answered one single question, you could simply quote the relevant text from an earlier post when I asked about it. But you can’t do even this. You have to dodge, bloviate, make excuses. This clearly shows the hollowness of your argument, if your rambling, emotional posts hadn’t already done it.
Actually, no. They’re ALL biased to the right, as anyone with a brain can see. Fox is simply far ahead of the pack in this regard.
No, that makes me someone who’s not afraid to tell the truth. It makes YOU an asshole for cheering on the world’s largest terrorist organization.
Until you get your shit together, and are able to answer the simple questions I’ve asked you that, if left unanswered, completely and totally destroy any case you might have had, this will go nowhere. The ball is in your court. Either man up, or admit what everyone can see: you’re a partisan hack, who got emotional and said something stupid, before you thought it through, and now you’re bending over backwards to defy logic in an attempt to defend your incoherent ramblings.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:LOL…But you telling me to fuck off, makes me laugh.
Dead insurgents absolutely mean nothing to me, without question. Has our military made mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes, absolutely. The idea that innocent people have died in this conflict does not sit well with me and does actually make me sad.[/quote]
You think my distaste for the military has to do with this conflict? Iraq and Afghanistan are simply icing on the US military’s terrorist cake.
Uh, newsflash, moron. You’re EXACTLY like the insurgents. You’re the type of person they recruit. Someone who’s very emotional in their public devotion to their country and not too bright. The US government HAS killed millions of innocents for their cause, far more than a bunch of ragtag insurgents ever will. Hell, the US government put the Taliban in power to begin with. Maybe you ought to rethink your blind devotion.
[quote]So yes, I absolutely and without reservation, value the lives of American GI’s over the lives of terrorists. The question here is, do you hold the same beliefs? I think probably not, but this is your chance to prove me wrong.
[/quote]
No. They’re both terrorists, so there’s no preference there, but I generally think it’s better for no one to die who doesn’t have to. This war didn’t have to happen.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Actually, anyone who watches one network exclusively is misinformed. That said, if you’re going to make unsubstantiated claims about multiple networks being biased against your viewpoint, chances are that you are pretty misinformed.
And when I say misinformed, I mean retarded.[/quote]
Who the hell gets news from TV anyway? I must read 100+ news sites from all over the world.
News aggregators are great.[/quote]
Feels weird, but yeah you’re right. Aggregators are the way to go
1846: US military attacks Mexican troops, starting the Mexican-American War in which the US stole land from Mexico, killing ~16,000 Mexicans.
1898: the US begins its drive toward imperialism with the Spanish-American war; ~4,000 Spanish troops dead
1899: US military denied Filipinos the rights claimed for all by the Declaration of Independence; as many as 1,000,000 Filipino civilians killed, ~16,000 Filipino soldiers killed;
â??Filipino villagers were forced into concentration camps called reconcentrados which were surrounded by free-fire zones, or in other words â??dead zones.â?? Furthermore, these camps were overcrowded and filled with disease, causing the death rate to be extremely high. Conditions in these â??reconcentradosâ?? were inhumane. Between January and April 1902, 8,350 prisoners of approximately 298,000 died. Some camps incurred death rates as high as 20 percent. "One camp was two miles by one mile (3.2 by 1.6 km) in area and ‘home’ to some 8,000 Filipinos. Men were rounded up for questioning, tortured, and summarily executed.â??
“The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog…”
–quoted from Zinn, â??A Peopleâ??s History of the United States.â??
1945: US military uses atomic weapons against the civilian population of Japan, resulting in ~200,000 deaths.
1964: Vietnam War, US military is back at it, denying developing countries their freedom; 2,000,000 Vietnamese civilians dead , ~250,000 Cambodian civilians dead, between 20,000 and 200,000 Laotian civilians dead, 1,000,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers dead, more than half a million wounded
And of course the ongoing Iraq conflict, in which over 100,000 civilians have died. This is only a partial list of well-known events directly involving American forces, and doesnâ??t even begin to address the dozens and dozens of illegal covert coups, assassinations, and proxy conflicts since WWII that America has perpetrated.
So yes, I consider the military and our intelligence agencies the largest terrorist force in the history of the world, and by far the greatest threat to world peace today, as does any observer with a brain.
