Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Terrorist supporters in UCD
Options
Comments
-
-
-
VenusInFurs wrote:Wow Mr. Nice Guy. What a curious rant. Despite the 70% unemployment rate and food rations recently cut by 25%, I'm delighted to hear that the Iraqi masses are 'better off'.
I wonder how delighted you were to read this BBC poll entitled 'Survey Finds Optimism in New Iraq'?VenusInFurs wrote:Pleasantries aside though, as the scribe of that press release quoted, I feel compelled to challenge Mr. Nice Guy's (who isn't really nice) assertions that the Iraqi resistance are 'terrorists'.
This should be good but what's with the personal stuff? You seem like such a classy guy judging by your press release.
VenusInFurs wrote:My own position on the neo-colonial occupation of Iraq is quite clear. I support the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of imperialist troops from Iraq.
How will this benefit the Iraqi people?VenusInFurs wrote:As a Marxist-Leninist and anti-imperialist, I do welcome whatever military setbacks the variegated popular resistance forces in Iraq are able to inflict on the armed forces of US-UK imperialism.
Then you sir are a disgrace.VenusInfurs wrote:Simply because it would reprsent a tremendous defeat for imperialism, and particularly US imperialism,
Don't forget democracy and freedom as well...VenusInFurs wrote:Does this wish for a US-UK defeat equate with automatic support with all those resisting the occupiers? Absolutely not.
This is irrelevant. You still welcome the deaths of US and UK troops by terrorists and for that you should be ashamed.VenusInFurs wrote:However, I do believe that an imperialist defeat would objectively open up possibilities for the working class, and I would therefore welcome it even if it came at the hands of reactionary anti-imperialists.
What a load of bullsh*t. The working class? We're not dealing with Russians here Mr 'Marxist-Leninist', we're dealing with Islamic extremists who have shown a willingness to behead hostages, including Irish ones.VenusInFurs wrote:In the meantime I think it is imperative support all progressive organisations and movements that promote secularism, democracy and socialism.
As the author who wrote that, perhaps you could elaborate on the groups you were referring to?VenusInFurs wrote:Any 'alliance' with the Islamic resistance must be purely episodic.
Oh sure of course, I mean anything else would be just crazy wouldn't it?VenusInFurs wrote:The reality Mr. Nice Guy is that the occupation is feeding the fires of communalist and sectarian fanaticism.
Much to your delight it would seem!VenusInFurs wrote:Imperialism cannot bring democracy and civilisation to Iraq - quite the opposite.
There is democracy in Iraq. Elections were held with a very impressive turnout.VenusInFurs wrote:I support the resistance of the Iraqi people...
Let me correct you: You support the oppression of the Iraqi people by Islamic extremists.VenusInFurs wrote:Invariably soldiers will die on both sides. I met Cindy Sheehan and Rose Gentle when they visited Dublin last year. Both women had lost sons in Iraq. Yet these women did not blame the resistance for their loss. Cindy layed the blame at George Bush's feet and Rose at Tony Blair's.
Cindy Sheehan has been ostracised by her family who have condemned the way she has utilised son's death for her own ends. Recently she was photograped draped across her son's grave, much to the disgust of many.VenusInFurs wrote:Continue to speak your mind maaaaan!
I will. Thankfully Mr 'Marxist-Leninist', democracy exists in this country and soon shall be thriving in Iraq.
Continue to ignore the wishes of the Iraqi people to suit your own political views maaaaan!
PS Your support for terrorists sickens me.0 -
Still cant say no WMDs were found?Mr.Nice Guy wrote:Jokes aside the issue was a mess but I think the removal of Saddam was right.
I see conflicting accounts from various sources. I take them all with a pinch of salt and then I do some more reading.If you're going to dismiss polls which question the Iraqi people for their views then it's abundantly clear where the blissful ignorance comes from..
Go through the list I posted and explain how the things on said list arent an example of terrorism.I don't see how the word can be attached to the USA.
I think it shows emotional detachment and objectivity worthy of journalismI think it's clear the use of the term 'Insurgent' is an example of leftist bias.
And Ill open up my copy of Webster’s 3rd new international dictionary (unabridged) [volume III]I'll refer you to the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics (2nd edition) which defines terrorism as:
The systematic use of terror as a means of coercion
an atmosphere or threat of violence
And Id say if I opened up another dictionary Id get another definition. This lends weight to my point that its a subjective term (and a newish one at that)
The definition of insurgents isnt disputed though.I think it's clear from what I highlighted that the US can't be termed a terrorist but the 'Insurgents' can be.
What has the legitimacy of international law got to do with lying about stated reason for going to war when these reasons were also illegal. Have you a point or just filibustering. Am I supposed to defend international law now? Stick to the point at handMy point was that International law is an ass. If you agree with that then fair enough.
No, what constitutes a war crime is fairly straight forward in this case. The intentional targeting or civilians, with intention to create maximum casualties is considered a war crimeThis is all subjective.
Whats that supposed to mean, should the allies have inflicted more damage if they had modern technology?My point was that people can look at the suffering caused by war and claim it was unjust. I've always found it intriguing to contemplate how the world would have viewed 1945 had the technology we possess today been around then.
Because the suffering hasnt stopped. If I stop kicking you with one leg only to switch to the other your suffering hasnt ended has it?It didn't. How can you say that when Saddam is in custody?
But they are suffering. Are you familiar with causality. Actions have consequences.They are suffering due to the terrorists.
Where you start from limits where you can go. Motivation matters, it matters a lot.The stated motivation is irrelevant. Sometimes the end justifies the means.
Explain how you can tell what is going through George Bush's head from the fact that he is elected. We only know what people tell us, and we can sometimes cynically say they did that for X or Y but we can never really know what another person is thinking. Thats why it matters when someone lies to us.I can form a logical conclusion based on the fact that these countries are democracies with people who hold their governments accountable.LOL. What an embarrassing effort to sidestep my point. I'll put it to you in question form then in the hope you'll have the decency to acknowledge my point:
- Was it wrong for the United Irishmen to seek to free Ireland from British rule through foreign troops? If you say no, how can you condemn the Americans and the British for freeing Iraq?
- Was the 1916 Rising an evil act considering that originally it provoked widespread anger from Irish people and would have been regarded as an evil act? I'll remind you of your earlier comment, "I believe no good can come from an evil act."
Please have the decency to answer these questions. Thanks.
A quick recap in response to claims of hypocrisy in relation to when its ok for their to be foreign "aid" in the form of arms was <<We asked for aid, the Iraqi people didnt ask for the puppet masters who have been responsible for their suffering to violently come in and replace the puppet, without any improvement in their lot.>>
SO to answer step by step:
Is it wrong to seek aid? How is that relevant since Iraq didnt seek aid.
Was 1916 rising evil and thus deserving of aid? I fail to see how this is in anyway connected to Iraq. Seriously.
But heres the point which completely debunks your argument no matter what the answer to the above questions. No "aid" has been given to iraqis. Their lot is worse off now than before
The USA picked Saddam and they picked the provisional government.LOL. As opposed to when a dictator ruled who gave himself 100% support.
Do you really, I mean really, need me to list the SH1T US troops have done in Iraq so far. I mean, have you been living under a rock? Ill refer you to an earlier post of mine:Your nonsensical point has been tackled on this post. The Americans aren't terrorists. There ARE good guys in Iraq. They're the guys fighting to give the Iraqi people a future free of violence and terrorism. They're the guys fighting the scum who murdered Margaret Hassan and Ken Bigley and countless other hostages.
*The US invasion was illegal
*The methods used has a definite and calculated psychological element
*Methods used by troops were illegal and inhumane
*Weapons used such as mines are prohibited by the UN
*Weapons used such as cluster bombs are not prohibited by the UN (due to US veto) but are described as inhumane and intended to inflict maximum suffering upon civilians
The hostile to friendly ratios are scary. Its 20-80 in modern warfare
Details of prisoner treatment> sickening and well documented
Dont think that penny is ever going to drop. Sigh. When I said "The US supported Saddam and other dictators around the world for decades.Well I was.
The US still supports dictators. The US still topples and undermines democratically elected governments in the developing world" how could you have thought I meant Saddam as one of those democratically elected governments?
I was thinking about Saddam and the taliban came to power, as well as the **** that goes on all around the developing world.
I was trying not to be insulting when explaining your misunderstanding of English compounded by lack of knowledge of the subject. Think about the sentence, supports dictator like saddam and topples democratic governments. How did you read that topples democratically elected Saddam? And didn’t you know the USA's history of propping up puppet dictators?Stick to the issues and leave the personal stuff out of it. Ad hominem attacks aren't required.
This patronising tactic won't get you anywhere. Who are you trying to convince with your claims that you know more about these issues than myself? Me or you?
Read back to your first post, the one starting this thread. Tripe. Scumbag. Idiots. Words you used.Jeez, I wonder who will start the personal stuff? :rolleyes:Fair enough. I posted here to show my utter condemnation towards support for terrorists and attempts to glorifiy said terrorists.
I'm disappointed you ended your post with such patronising remarks towards me but there you go...
Couldn’t be helped, it was either patronise or insult you. In your opening post you rode in on a high horse but:
You dont know much about the subject at hand
You cant take a step back and look at things objectively
You are coming across as obtuse and a clear personal and emotional bias
You have been insulting
In short, you have no right to condemn the revived anti-war movement as being "idiots", naive or misinformed because it’s all reminiscent of a scene I once saw in the kitchen0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Kaptain Redeye wrote:That just so happens to be the best post ever written. And I know I can be a smug over bearing bastard, but I like the rest of your post too.
Like I said, Ive left activism and politics alone for a long time and I think Ill stay away for a long time to
Thank you, it is no more than the sum total of my observations on what passes for serious political discussion in our fine institution
0 -
-
Kaptain Redeye wrote:Still cant say no WMDs were found?
Does Saddam count?Kaptain Redeye wrote:I see conflicting accounts from various sources. I take them all with a pinch of salt and then I do some more reading.
It would appear that you only like reading sources which back up your own views...Kaptain Redeye wrote:I think it shows emotional detachment and objectivity worthy of journalism
LOL. We'll just have to agree to differ on that.Kaptain Redeye wrote:And Ill open up my copy of Webster’s 3rd new international dictionary (unabridged) [volume III]
The systematic use of terror as a means of coercion
an atmosphere or threat of violence
And Id say if I opened up another dictionary Id get another definition. This lends weight to my point that its a subjective term (and a newish one at that)
LOL. Oh dear! Kaptain Redeye comes up with a source that doesn't back up his views so he discounts it altogether! Sad.Kaptan Redeye wrote:The definition of insurgents isnt disputed though.
A red herring.Kaptain Redeye wrote:What has the legitimacy of international law got to do with lying about stated reason for going to war when these reasons were also illegal. Have you a point or just filibustering. Am I supposed to defend international law now? Stick to the point at hand
The point was international law.Kaptain Redeye wrote:No, what constitutes a war crime is fairly straight forward in this case. The intentional targeting or civilians, with intention to create maximum casualties is considered a war crime
If you think the dropping of A-Bombs on Japan were war crimes then I suggest you do alot more reading mate!Kaptain Redeye wrote:Whats that supposed to mean, should the allies have inflicted more damage if they had modern technology?
It means that the terrorists have managed to utilise technology like the internet to propagate their views and strike fear into the hearts of people around the world.Kaptain Redeye wrote:Because the suffering hasnt stopped. If I stop kicking you with one leg only to switch to the other your suffering hasnt ended has it?
This is irrelevant because you said and I quote "If the point of the war was to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people from the tyranny of a despot then it failed". The despot is in custody! Therefore they didn't fail!Kaptain Redeye wrote:But they are suffering. Are you familiar with causality. Actions have consequences.
And the Germans suffered when the Allies tried to defeat Nazism but that doesn't make the Allied campaign wrong!Kaptain Redeye wrote:Where you start from limits where you can go. Motivation matters, it matters a lot.
That's a bit vague. Care to elaborate?Kpatain Redeye wrote:Explain how you can tell what is going through George Bush's head from the fact that he is elected.
What in God's name are you talking about? How does my logical conclusion equate with Bush's mind?Kaptain Redeye wrote:We only know what people tell us
If that were true, there would be no anti-war movement!Kaptain Redeye wrote:...and we can sometimes cynically say they did that for X or Y but we can never really know what another person is thinking. Thats why it matters when someone lies to us.
You are confusing yourself now. How can you tell if a person is lying if, as you say, "We only know what people tell us"?Kaptain Redeye wrote:SO to answer step by step:
Is it wrong to seek aid? How is that relevant since Iraq didnt seek aid.
Was 1916 rising evil and thus deserving of aid? I fail to see how this is in anyway connected to Iraq. Seriously.
But heres the point which completely debunks your argument no matter what the answer to the above questions. No "aid" has been given to iraqis. Their lot is worse off now than before
I'm sorry but you have failed to answer my questions. Please answer them:
1. Was it wrong for the United Irishmen to seek to free Ireland from British rule through foreign troops? If you say no, how can you condemn the Americans and the British for freeing Iraq?
2. Was the 1916 Rising an evil act considering that originally it provoked widespread anger from Irish people and would have been regarded as an evil act? I'll remind you of your earlier comment, "I believe no good can come from an evil act."Kaptain Redeye wrote:The USA picked Saddam and they picked the provisional government.
You're struggling.
You initially said, "There was a distinct lack of representation of ordinary Iraqi concerns, my opinion", to which I replied, "LOL. As opposed to when a dictator ruled who gave himself 100% support." now you retort, "The USA picked Saddam and they picked the provisional government".
You seem more concerned with bashing the US than the 'ordinary Iraqi concerns'.Kaptain Redeye wrote:Do you really, I mean really, need me to list the SH1T US troops have done in Iraq so far. I mean, have you been living under a rock?
Careful, your hatred is showing. Unlike you, I don't tar all troops with the same brush. In the Irish War of Independence, some RIC men were thrown into a furnace and burned alive. A shocking act. Does that make all IRA men bad? I say no.Kaptain Redeye wrote:The hostile to friendly ratios are scary. Its 20-80 in modern warfare
Could you provide a link to back up these statistics? Thanks.Kaptan Redeye wrote:I was trying not to be insulting when explaining your misunderstanding of English compounded by lack of knowledge of the subject.
Interesting comments. Let's read your next sentences:Kaptain Redeye wrote:Think about the sentence, supports dictator like saddam and topples democratic governments. How did you read that topples democratically elected Saddam?
LOL. Do these sentences make any sense? You have the audacity to accuse me of a "misunderstanding of English"! You couldn't make it up!Kaptain Redeye wrote:Read back to your first post, the one starting this thread. Tripe. Scumbag. Idiots. Words you used.
LOL! I'm sorry but how are these examples of personal stuff? Were any of these comments directed towards yourself? Unbelievable! You're a riot!Kaptain Redeye wrote:Couldn’t be helped, it was either patronise or insult you. In your opening post you rode in on a high horse
Ah yes, 'patronise or insult' the refuge of the beaten man in an argument. LOL!Kaptain Redeye wrote:You dont know much about the subject at hand
LOL! I know more than you! Your knowledge on these matters leaves alot to be desired...Kaptain Redeye wrote:You cant take a step back and look at things objectively
On the contrary, I haven't dismissed sources which challenge my views unlike yourself.Kaptain Redeye wrote:You are coming across as obtuse and a clear personal and emotional bias
This makes no sense.Kaptain Redeye wrote:You have been insulting
This from the guy who has openly admitted to being patronising! You really couldn't make it up!Kaptain Redeye wrote:In short, you have no right to condemn the revived anti-war movement as being "idiots", naive or misinformed because it’s all reminiscent of a scene I once saw in the kitchen
On the contrary, I have every right to label those who support terrorism and who welcome the deaths of US and UK troops as 'idiots'
Kaptain Redeye, unlike yourself, I will endeavour not to stoop to personal insults but I will say that:
Your mind is closed towards view which do not reflect your own
You have been unwilling to answer my questions relating to Ireland, much to my disappointment
You seem to have an anti-American stance which clouds your judgement
You have been insulting and, admittedly, patronising towards me
In short, you don't seem to care about the views of the ordinary Iraqis but only views which match your own
I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed in you...0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
DaveMcG wrote:MNG you should stop patting yourself on the back mate, anyone with average intelligence can see that you've picked up vague snippits of information as you were flicking past Sky News, and you have no actual understanding of what's going on or what's led up to it.
Anyone with average intelligence would surely back up such an accusation. You have taken issue with me before in the past. I really don't know what your problem is.Dave McG wrote:You're showing yourself up to be honest, just like in that thread about Loyalism I think, where you spent about 5 pages copying and pasting definitions from dictionary.com
That is a lie.Dave McG wrote:and slagging people's grammar
Whoa Nelly! He slagged my understanding of the English language first. Read the thread.Dave McG wrote:because they actually KNOW what they're talking about,
And how is it that he knows what he's talking about? Be honest, would you take the side of anybody debating agaisnt me? I think so.Dave McG wrote:It's getting ridiculous at this stage -- read a book and stop getting your information from wikipedia; you're not fooling anybody.
LOL. What sources did I give that were from Wikipedia? None whatsoever.Dave McG wrote:I'd say it gets incredibly tiresome and frustrating for intelligent people to be goaded into debates with someone who pretends to know what he's talking about.
LOL. I'll take the high road and ignore your derogatory comments. Since you agree with the good Kaptain, how about answering the questions that I put to him which he ducked:1. Was it wrong for the United Irishmen to seek to free Ireland from British rule through foreign troops? If you say no, how can you condemn the Americans and the British for freeing Iraq?
2. Was the 1916 Rising an evil act considering that originally it provoked widespread anger from Irish people and would have been regarded as an evil act? I'll remind you of your earlier comment, "I believe no good can come from an evil act."
Same goes for anyone else who disagrees with me.
Hey Dave, calm the anger mate. It's unhelpful. 0 -
-
-
Mr.Nice Guy wrote:Does Saddam count?
Straws. Clutching. Pathetic. AND REPETATIVE. No saddam was not a WMD.
Reading more than one source is actually what shows I have an open mind. It also shows Im not gullible. Its part of the fantastic researching skills Ive been thought in college.It would appear that you only like reading sources which back up your own views...
Yeah, you can read the Sun and Ill watch the BBC.LOL. We'll just have to agree to differ on that.
I proved my point conclusively. Terrorism is a subjective term with varying definitions. The definition you found is not the same as one in an equally excepted legitimate source. Webster’s dictionary is universally accepted as an authorative source when it comes to the English language. There is no hole in my logic, the word "Terrorism" is subjective.LOL. Oh dear! Kaptain Redeye comes up with a source that doesn't back up his views so he discounts it altogether! Sad.
What a come back, care to elaborate? Can you? One word is subjective and one is objective, journalists should be unbiased and thus use the objective one.A red herring.
Are you sure you're not moving the goal posts?The point was international law.
It fits the criteria as does the use of incendiary bombs.If you think the dropping of A-Bombs on Japan were war crimes then I suggest you do alot more reading mate!
My point was that people can look at the suffering caused by war and claim it was unjust. I've always found it intriguing to contemplate how the world would have viewed 1945 had the technology we possess today been around then.
How do you jump from the above to the bellow? If ppl had known what was going on in WW2 popular opinion would have been different? What are you studying anyway that doesn’t require any essay writing skills?
It means that the terrorists have managed to utilise technology like the internet to propagate their views and strike fear into the hearts of people around the world.
The analogy, could you understand it, the one where someone was kicking you, did the assailant switching foot help you?This is irrelevant because you said and I quote "If the point of the war was to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people from the tyranny of a despot then it failed". The despot is in custody! Therefore they didn't fail!
Some parts of it such as the fire bombing of Dresden were. But you can’t compare WW2 to Iraq, there are little or no similarities.And the Germans suffered when the Allies tried to defeat Nazism but that doesn't make the Allied campaign wrong!
If you start a war with something like shock and awe then wining support of locals in Baghdad becomes far more difficult. IE where you start from limits where you can go.That's a bit vague. Care to elaborate?
I asked how you could know anyone’s intentions. you said you could deduce them logically. Either you're psychic or deluded.What in God's name are you talking about? How does my logical conclusion equate with Bush's mind?
You broke up a quote mid sentence. Sad, really sadIf that were true, there would be no anti-war movement!
You broke up a quote mid sentence. My point once again, is you cannot know what someone is thinking, only what they tell you they are thinking.You are confusing yourself now. How can you tell if a person is lying if, as you say, "We only know what people tell us"?
I did answer, look again. No matter what the answer and what reply you have from it, my reply will be the bit in bold, have you any reply?I'm sorry but you have failed to answer my questions. Please answer them:
1. Was it wrong for the United Irishmen to seek to free Ireland from British rule through foreign troops? If you say no, how can you condemn the Americans and the British for freeing Iraq?
2. Was the 1916 Rising an evil act considering that originally it provoked widespread anger from Irish people and would have been regarded as an evil act? I'll remind you of your earlier comment, "I believe no good can come from an evil act."
No, Im just lowering my estimation of your ability and character. Those are facts, in the public realm and completely undisputed.You're struggling.
What I originally said can be found in post 44 and my fourth point.You initially said, "There was a distinct lack of representation of ordinary Iraqi concerns, my opinion", to which I replied, "LOL. As opposed to when a dictator ruled who gave himself 100% support." now you retort, "The USA picked Saddam and they picked the provisional government".
The US picked Saddam as ruler of Iraq. He didn’t represent the ppl. The US then picked the provisional government. It didn’t represent the Iraqi ppl either.
Where do you see any contradiction?
How so?You seem more concerned with bashing the US than the 'ordinary Iraqi concerns'.
Im talking about official policy as well training given to troops that’s been common place in US forces for decades. These are not isolated incidents or accidents.Careful, your hatred is showing. Unlike you, I don't tar all troops with the same brush. In the Irish War of Independence, some RIC men were thrown into a furnace and burned alive. A shocking act. Does that make all IRA men bad? I say no.
I did. Go to the library. I actually have 3. Can’t remember the name of the religion book, but the Chomsky book was the one on Yugoslavia an east Timor, something about the new millennia or something. Anyway Im sure with a little effort you'll find them on the UN human rights commission website.Could you provide a link to back up these statistics? Thanks.
Yes and the audacity to patronise you by taking a sentence quoted for you twice and then simplifying it for you to the above. I can afford to be smug and condescending.Interesting comments. Let's read your next sentences:
LOL. Do these sentences make any sense? You have the audacity to accuse me of a "misunderstanding of English"! You couldn't make it up!
Then read your reply to Venus. You called him/her a disgrace and that his/her opinions sicken you. Your posts are full of veiled and not so veiled insults.LOL! I'm sorry but how are these examples of personal stuff? Were any of these comments directed towards yourself? Unbelievable! You're a riot!
Em ok. Feel free to reread this thread. Ive avoided many opportunities to insult you, and your posts to me and to others are aggressive rantings. You have no facts or logic.Ah yes, 'patronise or insult' the refuge of the beaten man in an argument. LOL!
Sure ok, wow what a massive e-penis you haveLOL! I know more than you! Your knowledge on these matters leaves alot to be desired
Sure, sure.On the contrary, I haven't dismissed sources which challenge my views unlike yourself.
The word "having" is missing. I think there’s actually one of those funny internet laws for when the only retort some one can offer in a debate is to call in the grammar police. But if you'd like to copy and paste your posts into word and do a spell check you might be surprised that, yes, that’s right, you've made spelling mistakes. Is it a big deal, no. Could an educated person easily tell what the sentence was supposed to be, yes.This makes no sense.
Yes, I prefer to patronise than insult. If I were perfect Id do neither, but Im not. However one in theory is against the charter, the other isn’tThis from the guy who has openly admitted to being patronising! You really couldn't make it up!
How do you resolve the below to the above?On the contrary, I have every right to label those who support terrorism and who welcome the deaths of US and UK troops as 'idiots'Kaptain Redeye, unlike yourself, I will endeavor not to stoop to personal insults
Ive learned more and being learning more at a rate I wouldn’t have thought possible. I see behind me the huge gaps between where I am now and am scared by all I do not know ahead. There are those here who know me in RL(tm) or met me at the UCD beers. I know what I know and what I don’t, and I am an enthusiastic student.but I will say that:
Your mind is closed towards view which do not reflect your own
The answer is there, you just cant see it.You have been unwilling to answer my questions relating to Ireland, much to my disappointment
As I said before I lost interest in politics at the time "anti-Americanism" became trendyYou seem to have an anti-American stance which clouds your judgment
Patronising yes, insulting noYou have been insulting and, admittedly, patronising towards me
How so?In short, you don't seem to care about the views of the ordinary Iraqis but only views which match your own
So why did you hold me in high esteem? You thought from my posts I was an intelligent person up untill the point I disagreed with you;)?I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed in you...0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Kaptain Redeye wrote:Straws. Clutching. Pathetic. AND REPETATIVE. No saddam was not a WMD.
Charming debating style! We'll agree to differ.Kaptain Redeye wrote:Reading more than one source is actually what shows I have an open mind. It also shows Im not gullible. Its part of the fantastic researching skills Ive been thought in college.
College doesn't teach you to dismiss outright the things which do not match your views. You have done this.Kaptain Redeye wrote:Yeah, you can read the Sun and Ill watch the BBC.
This sums your attitude up. Disappointing.Kaptain Redeye wrote:I proved my point conclusively.
You did not. You started your comment by entering in a new definition - while totally failing to acknowledge my definition.Kaptain Redeye wrote:What a come back, care to elaborate? Can you? One word is subjective and one is objective, journalists should be unbiased and thus use the objective one.
It wasn't a 'come back'. I don't view this as a slanging match. I can't speak for you. If you don't know what a 'red herring' is then I suggest you look it up in your dictionary.Kaptain Redeye wrote:Are you sure you're not moving the goal posts?
Quite sure.Kaptain Redeye wrote:It fits the criteria as does the use of incendiary bombs.
Why weren't the Americans charged with war crimes then do you think?Kaptain Rdeye wrote:How do you jump from the above to the bellow? If ppl had known what was going on in WW2 popular opinion would have been different?
My point, and I didn't think it was that hard to grasp, was that the media has been a useful tool for the terrorists and one wonders how it might have been utilised back in 1945.Kaptain Redeye wrote:What are you studying anyway that doesn’t require any essay writing skills?
This is an unnecessary insult that reflects poorly on you.Kaptain Redeye wrote:The analogy, could you understand it, the one where someone was kicking you, did the assailant switching foot help you?
Your analogy was a pretty poor red herring. Did you not understand this bit: "you said and I quote "If the point of the war was to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people from the tyranny of a despot then it failed". The despot is in custody! Therefore they didn't fail!"
Seems quite straightforward to me.Kaptain Redeye wrote:Some parts of it such as the fire bombing of Dresden were. But you can’t compare WW2 to Iraq, there are little or no similarities.
Course there are. Permit me to explain. You have highlighted US transgressions as evidence that the War in Iraq is wrong. I have highlighted transgressions from WW2 to ask you whether WW2 was therefore wrong. Your failure to acknowledge that is telling.Kaptain Redeye wrote:If you start a war with something like shock and awe then wining support of locals in Baghdad becomes far more difficult. IE where you start from limits where you can go.
What does this have to do with your comment, "Motivation matters, it matters a lot"? You're struggling.Kaptain Redeye wrote:I asked how you could know anyone’s intentions. you said you could deduce them logically. Either you're psychic or deluded.
You're lying now. We were actually talking about countries and you asked, "How can you judge intentions you dont know?" I replied with, "I can form a logical conclusion based on the fact that these countries are democracies with people who hold their governments accountable."
Please don't try and misrepresent my views just because you're losing the argument. Thanks.Kaptain Redeye wrote:You broke up a quote mid sentence. My point once again, is you cannot know what someone is thinking, only what they tell you they are thinking.
LOL. I merely exposed your confusion which judging by your comments you now accept.Kaptain Redeye wrote:I did answer, look again. No matter what the answer and what reply you have from it, my reply will be the bit in bold, have you any reply?
You did not answer but it's OK, I'll ask you in the next post in the hope you'll have the courage to tackle a difficult point.Kaptain Redeye wrote:No, Im just lowering my estimation of your ability and character. Those are facts, in the public realm and completely undisputed.
Be serious and admit that you entered yet another red herring when confronted with a oint that exposed your weakness in the debate.Kaptain Redeye wrote:I did. Go to the library. I actually have 3. Can’t remember the name of the religion book, but the Chomsky book was the one on Yugoslavia an east Timor, something about the new millennia or something. Anyway Im sure with a little effort you'll find them on the UN human rights commission website.
LOL! Oh man! No seriously, can you provide a link to ack up your statistics? Your credibility is on the line here.Kaptain Redeye wrote:Yes and the audacity to patronise you by taking a sentence quoted for you twice and then simplifying it for you to the above.
Your attempt at being patronising failed as your sentence made no sense. One wonders why you are so intent to patronise though?Kaptain Redeye wrote:I can afford to be smug and condescending.
Why do you want to be?
Kaptain Redeye wrote:Then read your reply to Venus. You called him/her a disgrace and that his/her opinions sicken you.
But how is that a personal insult towards you? I stand by my remarks since Venus openly called for the deaths of US and UK troops which I do find disgraceful and sickening.Kaptain Redeye wrote:Em ok. Feel free to reread this thread. Ive avoided many opportunities to insult you, and your posts to me and to others are aggressive rantings. You have no facts or logic.
Em, you actually introduced insults into the debate. You have failed to even tackle two questions that I put to you on several occasions.Kaptain Redeye wrote:Sure ok, wow what a massive e-penis you have
Charming language yet again. What book did you get that out of?Kaptain Redeye wrote:Sure, sure.
At least we agree on that much.Kaptain Redeye wrote:I think there’s actually one of those funny internet laws for when the only retort some one can offer in a debate is to call in the grammar police. But if you'd like to copy and paste your posts into word and do a spell check you might be surprised that, yes, that’s right, you've made spelling mistakes. Is it a big deal, no. Could an educated person easily tell what the sentence was supposed to be, yes.
Um, aren't you the guy who openly admits to being patronising? Don't whine and moan when someone turns the tables on you.Kaptain Redeye wrote:Yes, I prefer to patronise than insult.
Thank you for proving my point.Kaptian Redeye wrote:If I were perfect Id do neither, but Im not. However one in theory is against the charter, the other isn’t
Many of us, myself included, regard patronising behaviour as insulting.Kaptain Redeye wrote:How do you resolve the below to the above?
I see nothing to resolve.Kaptain Redeye wrote:Ive learned more and being learning more at a rate I wouldn’t have thought possible.
Hmm. One wonders if you might try learning some manners and cutting out the patonising behaviour.Kaptain Redeye wrote:The answer is there, you just cant see it.
It was not there.Kaptain Redeye wrote:Patronising yes, insulting no
You have been insulting but do tell what's the difference between being patronising and insulting?Kaptain Redeye wrote:How so?
You dismissed the poll's findings.Kaptain Redeye wrote:So why did you hold me in high esteem? You thought from my posts I was an intelligent person up untill the point I disagreed with you;)?
I didn't think you were the type to ignore hard questions, engage in patronising behaviour and to engage in insults. Finding out that you are that sort of person has been admittedly quite disappointing.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement