Fat Secret Agent
It's not quoted out of context. It's simply wrong, the context you put it in does not change that.Originally Posted by Ava Estelle
I haven't suggested "... that bin Laden woke up one morning and decided to fight the west because he didn't like our freedoms." I don't believe it so why would I say it.
Still putting words in people's mouths I see.
Personally I think the whole thing is political, using peoples religious beliefs to get support.
en(un)lightened
Let me put it this way:Quoted out of context, of course, an old JP trait.
I used that as a rebuttal to j2k4's inference that that was the reason America was attacked, that it had nothing to do with their foreign policies. j2k4 seems to believe, and JP appears to agree, that bin Laden woke up one morning and decided to fight the west because he didn't like our freedoms. How naive does one have to be to believe that?
It seems to me that that is precisely where the blame should start, or do you still maintain that Iraq has WMDs, and Saddam harboured al Qaeda?
Tell me, do you believe any member(s) of the first Bush administration should be held to account, as Saddam has, for supplying the weapons and chemicals used by Saddam to murder his own people? Or for vetoing UN resolutions condemning him? Or George W for the illegal invasion of Iraq?
Maybe you still don't believe the CIA was waging a covert war in Afghanistan before the Russian invasion of 1979, even though that information is now de-classified? Or that people like bin Laden would be pissed off that you then allowed the country to descend into civil war when the Russians left, after promising to help rebuild the place and restore the government?
Oh no, let's not blame the lillywhite US government for anything, it's all THEIR fault.
You have as your favored (read "only") vehicle for remedial action the United Nations, which body could not enforce it's edicts against lowly Iraq.
How do you expect it to fare against the U.S.?
I can give a half-hearted acknowledgment to some of your proclamation, but it doesn't change a thing, so why don't you jump in the boat along with vid, and try to offer up a finished scenario which ends constructively?
Blame if you like...then what?
Terrorists will be defined by the U.S. government, and we'll kill them in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else they can be found.
Guilt, especially as defined by the like of bleeding hearts such as yourself, is not now, never has been, and never will be a plank of our foreign policy.
So, again - blame if you like, it's okay.
Just don't expect to be taken seriously if that's all you can muster.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
there is no god
what's your solution then? you've offered nothing
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
en(un)lightened
Here you go:
Kill the ones who are actively involved in trying to kill us, without getting too hung up splitting hairs as to intent; when in doubt, kill.
Be as discriminating as they are with their homicide bombers.
Propagandize in any way possible way to counter their own propaganda.
Don't stop either of the above until they reject their fundamentalist Jihadist bullshit.
Fight fire with bigger fire.
There's your answer.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
en(un)lightened
Almost forgot:
Continue doing the diplomatic cha-cha, humoring the U.N. and hope it yields favorable results someday.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
there is no god
So you think that if you kill enough innocent people they will eventually love us and hate the people fighting us.
The trouble with propaganda is that it can be seen through by anyone with their eyes open.
leave any dubious foreign policy as it is, after all it's good for us so fuck them.
Did you attend the kramer school of world affairs (sole subject "how to win friends and influence them") by any chance?
Well good luck with that.
homicide bombersA faux news invention. All bombers are "homicide" bombers, they just didn't want to call them suicide bombers.
Last edited by vidcc; 11-22-2006 at 01:13 AM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
en(un)lightened
Hmmm.So you think that if you kill enough innocent people they will eventually love us and hate the people fighting us.
Find for me where I said "innocent people".
The trouble with propaganda is that it can be seen through by anyone with their eyes open.
True, in the main, but 3, 4, and 5-year-olds can have their eyes open as far as possible and still be susceptible.
leave any dubious foreign policy as it is, after all it's good for us so fuck them.
Find for me where I said "fuck them".
Did you attend the kramer school of world affairs (sole subject "how to win friends and influence them") by any chance?
Well good luck with that.
Now that's just a really lame hack.
Typical, though.
homicide bombers
No response necessary...in the process of trying to make yet another pointless point, you agreed with me.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
there is no god
You may not have used the word "innocent" but explain the difference.without getting too hung up splitting hairs as to intent; when in doubt, kill.
Be as discriminating as they are with their homicide bombers.
And how do you propose to gain access to this audience? Do you suppose their parents and kinsmen would have more or less influence?
And just what propaganda are you planning on using?
In the earlier posts you called my ideas no good, all I was doing was blaming America when obviously we do no wrong so if you are unwilling to look at foreign policy what are you saying?
Only I said I am all for killing bin laden and his gang, but it will not solve the problem..you think it will, and it's solutions we are after.
Last edited by vidcc; 11-22-2006 at 01:42 AM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Use Logic Or STFU!
Once again I have to give kudos for jay giving a straight answer.Here you go:
Kill the ones who are actively involved in trying to kill us, without getting too hung up splitting hairs as to intent; when in doubt, kill.
Be as discriminating as they are with their homicide bombers.
Propagandize in any way possible way to counter their own propaganda.
Don't stop either of the above until they reject their fundamentalist Jihadist bullshit.
Fight fire with bigger fire.
There's your answer.
It's a rarity folks.
1. His use of a thesaurus in the above post was "highly lacking".
2. He used the words that came to mind to convey his thoughts.
3. The lack of riddles is also lacking. I could not find one single question mark in his post nor a misinredirect.
We should all be proud of him. This is an astounding achievement.
Please all, let's encourage this in him for future posts. Sure his post rate, and all of ours for that matter, would go down in the process, but I think it's a step in the right direction of being direct and coherent.
Many of us have large vocabularies, and some of us don't and so choose to use thesauruses to make up for it. Ultimately, the point is to convey what you mean to the reader or listener and not to show you know another word for confused and choose to try to flummox your audience rather than simply confuse them.
Good job, jay. Good job.
Last edited by Busyman™; 11-22-2006 at 03:00 AM.
en(un)lightened
I don't use a thesaurus.Once again I have to give kudos for jay giving a straight answer.
It's a rarity folks.
1. His use of a thesaurus in the above post was "highly lacking".
2. He used the words that came to mind to convey his thoughts.
3. The lack of riddles is also lacking. I could not find one single question mark in his post nor a misinredirect.
We should all be proud of him. This is an astounding achievement.
Please all, let's encourage this in him for future posts. Sure his post rate, and all of ours for that matter, would go down in the process, but I think it's a step in the right direction of being direct and coherent.
Many of us have large vocabularies, and some of us don't and so choose to use thesauruses to make up for it. Ultimately, the point is to convey what you mean to the reader or listener and not to show you know another word for confused and choose to try to flummox your audience rather than simply confuse them.
Good job, jay. Good job.
Also, you have no idea how many utterly incredible posts you've (dis)missed because you don't use a thesaurus.
Fact.
Truth, as well.
BTW-
Have you noticed how the tone and content of your posting has risen since you've been under my influence?
Amazing, isn't it?
Even vid's has improved a bit; no small achievement.
Last edited by j2k4; 11-22-2006 at 03:49 AM.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
A faux news invention. All bombers are "homicide" bombers, they just didn't want to call them suicide bombers.
Bookmarks