Political Crossfire Forums

Bonobo · Joined: 21 Aug 2006 Posts: 1168 Location: London

Chingu wrote:
But, the detractors of this fight would hand to the enemy a potential voctory from the hands of defeat. They are doing their damndest to lend them all the moral support they need just through their rhetoric. The enemy feeds and relies on the liberal leftists and the knee0-jerk reactionary left's rhetoric hoping that the left will persuade the powers that be to withdraw so that they might not only live to fight another day - but live to fight and win.

Chingu, do you think the terrorists want peace?

You seem to think they are desperate for the 'leftists and knee-jerk reactionary left' to gain power so there can be peace.

Hello? I think it's allready clear that what we are dealing with today can not be dealt with militarily.

To compare it to World War 2 is not really understanding the current media in the world today.

Nuking a city and then telling your people about it a few years later after they're enjoying the peace is no longer an option - instead what will be internatinoal news is the killing of a few hundred thousand civilians in a single stroke in order to save the lives of a few hundred (few thousand tops?) from anopther terrorist attack.

To suggest that because we were able to wade into Japan and Germany, tear up their history and 'start anew' is again misleading - it is not an option.
First of all you are discussing two isolated countries in Germany and Japan (At least Germany was by '44), who have no hope but surrender.
What you are discussing in Iraq is groups of international fighters, who realising that Iraq has become the best raining ground they could have hoped for, along with a chance to kill an American at a cost of a few dollars rather than a few hundred thousand on flying lessons, who can leave the country at will and return to Iran or Syria.

There is no military defeat for these for that reason. Unless you propose dealing with Syria and Iran (good luck with that) the military option is not an option.

Chingu, do you think the terrorists are in a better position now or 5 years ago?
Do you think Hezbullah was dented by Israel or is instead now around 5 times as effective an organisation?

Do you not even realise these people have been told all their lives that the West is evil and will try to bring down Islam?
We are not going in there with a clean slate and to base our planning on that is a grave mistake. We are not going in on level terms. We are going in with them thinking that we are invading, with them being told for decades we would - when we give the terrorists their war what do you think happens to their recruitment numbers?
Surely you can appreciate the only way these people survive is through public suppirt?
It is because they know when they're being chased by for example British soldiers they can known on any door and see a friendly face offering them shelter.
They know when they're hungry the people of the area will see him as a freedom fighter and offer it.

And they know that as long as the current course of action continues - they cannot lose. Militarily? Never. Culturally? Possibly, but not on the current path.

Public support is the terrrorists lifeblood. The only way to stop the terrorists is to cut it off at the source.

Chingu · Joined: 03 Apr 2004 Posts: 9678 Location: Illinois

Bonobo wrote: Lumina wrote: Heinz wrote: Sands wrote: Lumina wrote: I see barely human beings who doused six worshippers as they left their mosque and burned them alive as "payback."
Don't forget that while this was happening there were US trained Iraqi soldiers standing by watching and doing nothing.

Like I said.....

Democracy is the last thing on their minds.

I hope and pray that you're wrong.

Savages.

Ignorant posts like this from ignorant people sat a few thousand miles away genuinely anger me.

It is rare as I've had a few months experience debating online, but it is comments like this that are apparently genuine that really show the size of the problem the world faces today.

Again, such throw away comments are genuinely angering, and I can promise you if you met an orphan who is trying to get revenge for his parents deaths, 'savage' would be the last word on your mind.

I appreciate it is easy for Westerners to do, but when you go into a country with centuries of racial strife, and when you are told 'IF YOU CREATE A POWER VACUUM THERE WILL BE CIVIL WAR', when you go in, remove the power vacuum, and let all hell loose - that is the West's fault (at least the 'coallition').

How any other conclusion can be drawn I really don't know.

As horrible as it all is, it has to e sorted. It is not the wests nor the US's fault that the secular animosity and hate that results in terrible death is there. No matter how you look at it, the problem is not going to get sorted until it is blown out. That is an unfortunate reality of the world - very unfortunate. And, as terrible and hard to stoomach as this all is, the worlds history has seen it repeated over and over again - often just as bad and even far worse.

but, we all know there are many sources of violence in Iraq and the secular aspect is but one of them. The secular aspect tends not to kill allied soldiers as much as it kills Iraqi's - but purpose is the same between the secular and jihadist/terrorist and IRanian influenced violence. The purpose is to get us to withdraw so that they can actually go on a full scale cleansing and take power. Now that would be a horrific and vile slaughter.

The thing to do here is to look at it in the proper perspective which is to say that the terrible things happening there are the fault of the terrible people doing them. That is the only right way of looking at it. Once you realize that these people would be doing the terrible things they are doing regardless of our involvement there and most likely more - because they could - you get the right perpective. Terrirsm is the terrorists fault. Secular violence is the fault of those who perpetrate it. If you hold the view that things were better under Saddam -well, better for who? Saddam's regime was just a controlling aspect that was just like the stuff we're seeing now - it was just that it was one side that held control over the other - and the controlling side was bad as well.

What is going on there will continue until the perpetrators of the violence are brought to defeat. it will continue until they no longer have the ability, strength or resolve to continue doing the things they are doing. And if that means they have to die - well, that's another one of those things that demonstrates that some parts of humanity haven't figured out how to be decent human beings yet and there is little we can do about that other than kill, capture and defeat them. Even if it takes twenty years - there is no logical alternative. The only options are what pwoer and what collatoral damage is to be done in the process of defeating the enemies.

The American · Joined: 23 Oct 2004 Posts: 3636 Location: Oklahoma

Chingu wrote: Bonobo wrote: Lumina wrote: Heinz wrote: Sands wrote: Lumina wrote: I see barely human beings who doused six worshippers as they left their mosque and burned them alive as "payback."
Don't forget that while this was happening there were US trained Iraqi soldiers standing by watching and doing nothing.

Like I said.....

Democracy is the last thing on their minds.

I hope and pray that you're wrong.

Savages.

Ignorant posts like this from ignorant people sat a few thousand miles away genuinely anger me.

It is rare as I've had a few months experience debating online, but it is comments like this that are apparently genuine that really show the size of the problem the world faces today.

Again, such throw away comments are genuinely angering, and I can promise you if you met an orphan who is trying to get revenge for his parents deaths, 'savage' would be the last word on your mind.

I appreciate it is easy for Westerners to do, but when you go into a country with centuries of racial strife, and when you are told 'IF YOU CREATE A POWER VACUUM THERE WILL BE CIVIL WAR', when you go in, remove the power vacuum, and let all hell loose - that is the West's fault (at least the 'coallition').

How any other conclusion can be drawn I really don't know.

As horrible as it all is, it has to e sorted. It is not the wests nor the US's fault that the secular animosity and hate that results in terrible death is there. No matter how you look at it, the problem is not going to get sorted until it is blown out. That is an unfortunate reality of the world - very unfortunate. And, as terrible and hard to stoomach as this all is, the worlds history has seen it repeated over and over again - often just as bad and even far worse.

but, we all know there are many sources of violence in Iraq and the secular aspect is but one of them. The secular aspect tends not to kill allied soldiers as much as it kills Iraqi's - but purpose is the same between the secular and jihadist/terrorist and IRanian influenced violence. The purpose is to get us to withdraw so that they can actually go on a full scale cleansing and take power. Now that would be a horrific and vile slaughter.

The thing to do here is to look at it in the proper perspective which is to say that the terrible things happening there are the fault of the terrible people doing them. That is the only right way of looking at it. Once you realize that these people would be doing the terrible things they are doing regardless of our involvement there and most likely more - because they could - you get the right perpective. Terrirsm is the terrorists fault. Secular violence is the fault of those who perpetrate it. If you hold the view that things were better under Saddam -well, better for who? Saddam's regime was just a controlling aspect that was just like the stuff we're seeing now - it was just that it was one side that held control over the other - and the controlling side was bad as well.

What is going on there will continue until the perpetrators of the violence are brought to defeat. it will continue until they no longer have the ability, strength or resolve to continue doing the things they are doing. And if that means they have to die - well, that's another one of those things that demonstrates that some parts of humanity haven't figured out how to be decent human beings yet and there is little we can do about that other than kill, capture and defeat them. Even if it takes twenty years - there is no logical alternative. The only options are what pwoer and what collatoral damage is to be done in the process of defeating the enemies.

:clap:

Nice rebuttal.

cool_chick · Joined: 26 Dec 2004 Posts: 21296 Location: Chicago

Heinz wrote: Quote: No, not rude at all. People who can't discuss the topic and have to focus on the poster like you, with strawmen and ad homenim (the above is additional demonstration) do it because they have nothing of value to add.

You said I suck at something is that not an ad homenim?

I thought we were talking about civil war in Iraq not me.....

Discussing the poster are we?

point out you sucking at reading minds is not ad hominem. It's a fact. I'll go further and give you a tip....no one can read minds....

Quote: Quote: The person who has nothing constructive to add is you. Ad homenim is your way of "winning" something I suppose......

Is that why you made this a personal issue? It's a forum, not life.

I didn't, you did. You claimed to know what I was thinking....and really poorly I might add. Your success rate at reading my mind is 0%

Quote: Quote: You're funny. You just can't stand being called for what you are, can you? This is the only way you know how to respond to having the truth about you exposed....

shaking my head.

Again with more ad hominem.....Care to explain why you display such a hypocritical stance? I thought we were talking about Iraqi civil war. To bad you can't practice any of what you preach.

How is this ad hominem? It's NOT.

Quote: Quote: Pointing out all you have are strawmen and all you can do is focus on the poster is "acting like a little girl" to you?

Didn't know ad homimen and strawmen are "grown up".....

They aren't, that's why you're a little girl. Let the adults have real conversations.

So apparently you're not an adult then....

Quote: Quote: You act as if Iraq was like Darfur in 2003 with your "genocide" comments. There was no violence in Iraq when we attacked. Genocide is violence. There was no genocide when we attacked.

No I didn't. I know more people have died in Darfur than in Saddam Iraq. But you seem to think that a certain number of people must die before you consider it genocide. You were the only one who compared it to Darfur.

You're not making sense again. You're trying to evoke emotion by declaring there was a "genocide" going on, trying to act like it was Darfur, when there wasn't. There was no genocide going on when we invaded.

Quote: Quote: No, I don't blow it off....it was important to point out because it renders your statement untrue.

No it doesn't. To you 400,000 must die before it is considered genocide. Sad but true. Killing others in attmpt to destroy them for any reason is genocide, no matter if you don't supercede 400,00.

Wrong again. First of all, 400,000 people? Where did you pull that "figure" out of...your butt? Certainly wasn't my mind. Nor is this my position, has never been my position, and never will be my position. A little friendly advice, give up the mindreading and strawman....you aren't good at it.

Read again, slowly, the whole thing:

Cool_chick wrote:
No, I don't blow it off....it was important to point out because it renders your statement untrue.

I realize that genocide a decade or more (I never said "decades") means violence didn't happen in a decade or more. You were trying to claim the genocide that is happening is why there was no violence in Iraq in 2003.

Quote: Quote: I realize that genocide a decade or more (I never said "decades") means violence didn't happen in a decade or more. You were trying to claim the genocide that is happening is why there was no violence in Iraq in 2003.

Did I say genocide happened up until 2003?......Strawmen at it's finest.

Your quote
Like I've said 20 times before, it's easy to not have any competition when you are killing them via genocide.

Easy.......no competition...YOU ARE KILLING THEM VIA GENOCIDE

Your sentence is saying NOW, it most certainly isn't saying a decade or more....otherwise you would've said "at one time were"........

Quote: Quote: Violence a decade or more....no violence for a decade or more....lots of violence now.....

Wrong...hit a history book. You excuse past violence because it was "decades" ago.

No, Reagan with VP Bush excused the violence, not me. I'm simply saying your comments are invalid and inaccurate.

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: point out sucking at reading minds is not ad hominem. It's a fact.

It is an ad hominem and most certainly would qualify as something that breaks the rules of this forum. It's also discussing the poster. You think I suck at reading minds, but I never attempted to read anyone's.

Quote: I didn't, you did. You claimed to know what I was thinking

Where? You living in a dream world? Who's your dealer?

Quote: You're not making sense again. You're trying to evoke emotion by declaring there was a "genocide" going on, trying to act like it was Darfur, when there wasn't. There was no genocide going on when we invaded.

When did I ever compare it to Darfur? Never......Get it through your head. You did.....I also never said that it was going on when we invaded...Either find where I said it was or remove yourself.

Quote: Wrong again. First of all, 400,000 people? Where did you pull that "figure" out of...your butt? Certainly wasn't my mind.

My butt? Such little girl talk isn't neccessary. As far as the number, it's the estimated amount of people who have been killed in Darfur. Shows how much you know.

Quote: You were trying to claim the genocide that is happening is why there was no violence in Iraq in 2003.

Again...never said it was happening in 2003. It happened previously, and you have admitted this with your "decade" comment, and it still has an impact on what took place up until our invasion. That's what I said.

Quote: I'm simply saying your comments are invalid and inaccurate.

So just because you say it's invalid...it's invalid? Who the heck are you? You already admitted that genocide did take place in Iraq. Tell me..when do you consider the killing of a specific group for the mere fact that they are a certain race/religion/sex genocide? How many have to die to meet your standard?

Quote: Like I've said 20 times before, it's easy to not have any competition when you are killing them via genocide.

Easy.......no competition...YOU ARE KILLING THEM VIA GENOCIDE

You have no attention to detail....Where did I say, in that sentence, that it was happening in 2003?

Since it's Thanksgiving weekend I wanted you to feel thankful for at least one thing:

The American · Joined: 23 Oct 2004 Posts: 3636 Location: Oklahoma

Heinz wrote: Lumina wrote: Heinz wrote:
Their Constitution is a joke....

I don't think it is. Not at all, and I happen to know one of the Americans who helped draft it.

It may not be the constitution that pleases you, but if you aren't an Iraqi, you don't get a vote.

It's a joke....even if you're an Iraqi.

A joke? 78% voted it in. Sunnis make up 20% of the population in which 55% voted. I fixed the link, if you are willing to read it. Turn a blind eye toward it if you choose.

**The warning of walking blind in the world sometimes results in the encounter of running face first into a working fan.**

I have read it. It includes all of Iraq. By percentage, it seems to disagree with your thoughts of percentage of rebellion. When enough time and enforcement is in place, you will begin to see the productivity of its seed. According to this Constitution's promise, you have distorted even the percentage of Iraq's wealth and production divided among its people.

The civil unrest you see today, comes mostly from the reminence and the supporters of the last regime fueled by terrorist activist. It has been promised. How quickly it was forgotten.

Quote: U.S. Intel: Qaeda Plotting 'Big Bang'
CBS News Reports Major Terror Attack Planned For Iraq

March 2, 2006

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/02/iraq/main1364828.shtml

The terror attack is starting civil unrest resulting in civil war. Iraq's enemy has not changed, just gained support from those who support historic control by domination put in place by the last regime.

Trig.

cool_chick · Joined: 26 Dec 2004 Posts: 21296 Location: Chicago

Heinz wrote: Quote: point out sucking at reading minds is not ad hominem. It's a fact.

It is an ad hominem and most certainly would qualify as something that breaks the rules of this forum. It's also discussing the poster. You think I suck at reading minds, but I never attempted to read anyone's.

You tried to claim you knew what I think. Maybe if you quit doing that, people won't point out the error of your ways....

Quote: Quote: I didn't, you did. You claimed to know what I was thinking

Where? You living in a dream world? Who's your dealer?

Ad hominem.

Quote: Quote: You're not making sense again. You're trying to evoke emotion by declaring there was a "genocide" going on, trying to act like it was Darfur, when there wasn't. There was no genocide going on when we invaded.

When did I ever compare it to Darfur? Never......Get it through your head. You did.....I also never said that it was going on when we invaded...Either find where I said it was or remove yourself.

I said you make it sound like it's Darfur. You're being dramatic, trying to evoke emoition, acting like there was genocide going on in 2003 when we invaded, when there wasn't.

Quote: Quote: Wrong again. First of all, 400,000 people? Where did you pull that "figure" out of...your butt? Certainly wasn't my mind.

My butt? Such little girl talk isn't neccessary. As far as the number, it's the estimated amount of people who have been killed in Darfur. Shows how much you know.

Yes, your butt. Butt is a nice way to say ass. Is that more "grown up" for you? :lol:

BTW, it's quite hilarious you posting pictures of a medication that for a bodily function that women have.....like a giggling little boy does......to write this....... Do you giggle at bathroom humor too?

Quote: Quote: You were trying to claim the genocide that is happening is why there was no violence in Iraq in 2003.

Again...never said it was happening in 2003. It happened previously, and you have admitted this with your "decade" comment, and it still has an impact on what took place up until our invasion. That's what I said.

Like I've said 20 times before, it's easy to not have any competition when you are killing them via genocide.

Easy.......no competition...YOU ARE KILLING THEM VIA GENOCIDE

are...killing...genocide.....present.

Quote: Quote: I'm simply saying your comments are invalid and inaccurate.

So just because you say it's invalid...it's invalid? Who the heck are you? You already admitted that genocide did take place in Iraq. Tell me..when do you consider the killing of a specific group for the mere fact that they are a certain race/religion/sex genocide? How many have to die to meet your standard?

I"m one who likes accuracy. Your statement wasn't accurate.

You are the one who used the genocide in the present comment, what is your qualifier?

Quote: Quote: Like I've said 20 times before, it's easy to not have any competition when you are killing them via genocide.

Easy.......no competition...YOU ARE KILLING THEM VIA GENOCIDE

You have no attention to detail....Where did I say, in that sentence, that it was happening in 2003?

I have all the attention to detail, that's why you're writhing...

Like I've said 20 times before, it's easy to not have any competition when you are killing them via genocide.

Easy.......no competition...YOU ARE KILLING THEM VIA GENOCIDE

are...killing...genocide.....present.

Admit it, you tried to use emotion with your dramatics to evoke a response and you failed.......

Quote: Since it's Thanksgiving weekend I wanted you to feel thankful for at least one thing:

So you think a picture of a medication that assists with a woman't bodily function lends you credibility? Would I have any sort of credibility if I questioned your prostate or your lack of bowel movements? (Answer, no, doesn't affect anyone in the least, most of all me, it just makes you look like you look like a little boy fool with zero credibility. I don't understand why, but I guess this is the image you want to portray of yourself....)

The American · Joined: 23 Oct 2004 Posts: 3636 Location: Oklahoma

Heinz wrote: Quote: point out sucking at reading minds is not ad hominem. It's a fact.

It is an ad hominem and most certainly would qualify as something that breaks the rules of this forum. It's also discussing the poster. You think I suck at reading minds, but I never attempted to read anyone's.

Quote: I didn't, you did. You claimed to know what I was thinking

Where? You living in a dream world? Who's your dealer?

Quote: You're not making sense again. You're trying to evoke emotion by declaring there was a "genocide" going on, trying to act like it was Darfur, when there wasn't. There was no genocide going on when we invaded.

When did I ever compare it to Darfur? Never......Get it through your head. You did.....I also never said that it was going on when we invaded...Either find where I said it was or remove yourself.

Quote: Wrong again. First of all, 400,000 people? Where did you pull that "figure" out of...your butt? Certainly wasn't my mind.

My butt? Such little girl talk isn't neccessary. As far as the number, it's the estimated amount of people who have been killed in Darfur. Shows how much you know.

Quote: You were trying to claim the genocide that is happening is why there was no violence in Iraq in 2003.

Again...never said it was happening in 2003. It happened previously, and you have admitted this with your "decade" comment, and it still has an impact on what took place up until our invasion. That's what I said.

Quote: I'm simply saying your comments are invalid and inaccurate.

So just because you say it's invalid...it's invalid? Who the heck are you? You already admitted that genocide did take place in Iraq. Tell me..when do you consider the killing of a specific group for the mere fact that they are a certain race/religion/sex genocide? How many have to die to meet your standard?

Quote: Like I've said 20 times before, it's easy to not have any competition when you are killing them via genocide.

Easy.......no competition...YOU ARE KILLING THEM VIA GENOCIDE

You have no attention to detail....Where did I say, in that sentence, that it was happening in 2003?

Since it's Thanksgiving weekend I wanted you to feel thankful for at least one thing:

As much as chick's and my opinion's differ, there is no call for that. You should apologize.

:shock:

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: You tried to claim you knew what I think. Maybe if you quit doing that, people won't point out the error of your ways....

Maybe I never did it in the first place....

Quote: Ad hominem.

Of course you would notice one when you see it being the master and all.

Quote: I said you make it sound like it's Darfur. You're being dramatic, trying to evoke emoition, acting like there was genocide going on in 2003 when we invaded, when there wasn't.

Never said it was going on when we invaded...try again. Also, I'm not trying to draw emotion...if genocide took place, genocide took place. You can argue fact with relying on emotionalism to drive home your points....I believe they call that reasoning.

Quote: BTW, it's quite hilarious you posting pictures of a medication that for a bodily function that women have.....like a giggling little boy does......to write this....... Do you giggle at bathroom humor too?

Like what? Funny looking turds? Care to psot something besides a whole page post ad hominem? May be wishful thinking on my part.

Quote: are...killing...genocide.....present.

Strawman......you must suck at reading minds too. Did he not have a history of killing opponents?

Quote: I"m one who likes accuracy. Your statement wasn't accurate.

You are the one who used the genocide in the present comment, what is your qualifier?

Actually you're one who would rather talk about me then the OP. I didn't knwo I was such a worthy POLITICAL discussion tool. I never used it in the present context.

Quote: Admit it, you tried to use emotion with your dramatics to evoke a response and you failed.......

Another strawman....are you trying to read my mind?

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: So you think a picture of a medication that assists with a woman't bodily function lends you credibility?

Nope...I think it lends you a resolve from your PMS.

Quote: Would I have any sort of credibility if I questioned your prostate or your lack of bowel movements?

If I had a habit of shtting my pants you might; But I don't so......

Quote: (Answer, no, doesn't affect anyone in the least, most of all me, it just makes you look like you look like a little boy fool with zero credibility. I don't understand why, but I guess this is the image you want to portray of yourself....)

And I guess you portray that of a coniving b**** who takes out emotions on others who did nothing to them......Someone strawmanned you in another thread and you decided, for whatever reason, to take it out on me by trolling me for at least 2 pages all the while strawmanning me up and down the "road."

cool_chick · Joined: 26 Dec 2004 Posts: 21296 Location: Chicago

Heinz wrote: Quote: You tried to claim you knew what I think. Maybe if you quit doing that, people won't point out the error of your ways....

Maybe I never did it in the first place....

Sure you did. You tried to claim to know what I think.

Quote: Quote: Ad hominem.

Of course you would notice one when you see it being the master and all.

The only thing I said was you suck at mindreading....was said when you were acting like you knew what I think. You made it ad hominem starting with women's bodily functions and continuing on....

Quote: Quote: I said you make it sound like it's Darfur. You're being dramatic, trying to evoke emoition, acting like there was genocide going on in 2003 when we invaded, when there wasn't.

Never said it was going on when we invaded...try again. Also, I'm not trying to draw emotion...if genocide took place, genocide took place. You can argue fact with relying on emotionalism to drive home your points....I believe they call that reasoning.

Then you should amend your statement since ARE means NOW.

How am I "relying" on emotionalism? I'm NOT. I'm too analytical for that.

Quote: Quote: BTW, it's quite hilarious you posting pictures of a medication that for a bodily function that women have.....like a giggling little boy does......to write this....... Do you giggle at bathroom humor too?

Like what? Funny looking turds? Care to psot something besides a whole page post ad hominem? May be wishful thinking on my part.

All I said is you suck at mindreading, when you were trying to claim to know what I think. That's all I said about you, and it wasn't ad hominem, it was telling you that you suck at mindreading. All the ad hominem was yours......women's bodily functions.........."little girl".......etc. etc.

Quote: Quote: are...killing...genocide.....present.

Strawman......you must suck at reading minds too. Did he not have a history of killing opponents?

How is it strawman?

Like I've said 20 times before, it's easy to not have any competition when you are killing them via genocide.

It's YOUR WORDS. YOU said it.

ARE......killing them.....genocide. Are=now. Was=past. At one time a decade ago=past AND accurate.

The whole statement is an inaccurate response to that other poster.

Quote: Quote: I"m one who likes accuracy. Your statement wasn't accurate.

You are the one who used the genocide in the present comment, what is your qualifier?

Actually you're one who would rather talk about me then the OP. I didn't knwo I was such a worthy POLITICAL discussion tool. I never used it in the present context.

I want you to amend your statment so it's accurate. As delivered it wasn't accurate.

Like I've said 20 times before, it's easy to not have any competition when you are killing them via genocide.

This doesn't mean a long time ago, this means now.

Quote: Quote: Admit it, you tried to use emotion with your dramatics to evoke a response and you failed.......

Another strawman....are you trying to read my mind?

Ok, fair enough. Why would you be inaccurate if not for emotionalism? Can you elaborate?

Timmytour · Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 6863

The American wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: point out sucking at reading minds is not ad hominem. It's a fact.

It is an ad hominem and most certainly would qualify as something that breaks the rules of this forum. It's also discussing the poster. You think I suck at reading minds, but I never attempted to read anyone's.

Quote: I didn't, you did. You claimed to know what I was thinking

Where? You living in a dream world? Who's your dealer?

Quote: You're not making sense again. You're trying to evoke emotion by declaring there was a "genocide" going on, trying to act like it was Darfur, when there wasn't. There was no genocide going on when we invaded.

When did I ever compare it to Darfur? Never......Get it through your head. You did.....I also never said that it was going on when we invaded...Either find where I said it was or remove yourself.

Quote: Wrong again. First of all, 400,000 people? Where did you pull that "figure" out of...your butt? Certainly wasn't my mind.

My butt? Such little girl talk isn't neccessary. As far as the number, it's the estimated amount of people who have been killed in Darfur. Shows how much you know.

Quote: You were trying to claim the genocide that is happening is why there was no violence in Iraq in 2003.

Again...never said it was happening in 2003. It happened previously, and you have admitted this with your "decade" comment, and it still has an impact on what took place up until our invasion. That's what I said.

Quote: I'm simply saying your comments are invalid and inaccurate.

So just because you say it's invalid...it's invalid? Who the heck are you? You already admitted that genocide did take place in Iraq. Tell me..when do you consider the killing of a specific group for the mere fact that they are a certain race/religion/sex genocide? How many have to die to meet your standard?

Quote: Like I've said 20 times before, it's easy to not have any competition when you are killing them via genocide.

Easy.......no competition...YOU ARE KILLING THEM VIA GENOCIDE

You have no attention to detail....Where did I say, in that sentence, that it was happening in 2003?

Since it's Thanksgiving weekend I wanted you to feel thankful for at least one thing:

As much as chick's and my opinion's differ, there is no call for that. You should apologize.

:shock:

Always nice to see a classy post from someone I consider to be generally on the other side of the political spectrum to me.

:clap:

cool_chick · Joined: 26 Dec 2004 Posts: 21296 Location: Chicago

Heinz wrote: Quote: So you think a picture of a medication that assists with a woman't bodily function lends you credibility?

Nope...I think it lends you a resolve from your PMS.

What PMS are you talking about?

It's funny, guys don't like to have their inaccuracies pointed out, it suddenly means something's wrong with the person pointing their inaccuracies out.

Nice try, but you failed again. It was you who was inaccurate, and no woman's bodily function has anything to do with your inaccuracies.

Quote: Quote: Would I have any sort of credibility if I questioned your prostate or your lack of bowel movements?

If I had a habit of shtting my pants you might; But I don't so......

So it's not credible. I don't have a habit of any sort of disorder that would require Midol either so you're not credible either.

Quote: Quote: (Answer, no, doesn't affect anyone in the least, most of all me, it just makes you look like you look like a little boy fool with zero credibility. I don't understand why, but I guess this is the image you want to portray of yourself....)

And I guess you portray that of a coniving b**** who takes out emotions on others who did nothing to them......Someone strawmanned you in another thread and you decided, for whatever reason, to take it out on me by trolling me for at least 2 pages all the while strawmanning me up and down the "road."

This has nothing to do with any other post, this has to do with the inaccuracies and subsequent ad hominems, "mindreading" of your posts.

Taking my emotions out on whom? Don't you need to have them first?

conniving b****?

Reported.

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: This has nothing to do with any other post, this has to do with the inaccuracies and subsequent ad hominems, "mindreading" of your posts.

conniving b****?

Reported.

You were reported long ago so carry on.

cool_chick · Joined: 26 Dec 2004 Posts: 21296 Location: Chicago

Heinz wrote: Quote: This has nothing to do with any other post, this has to do with the inaccuracies and subsequent ad hominems, "mindreading" of your posts.

conniving b****?

Reported.

You were reported long ago so carry on.

LOL for what?

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: Sure you did. You tried to claim to know what I think.

Where?

Quote: The only thing I said was you suck at mindreading....was said when you were acting like you knew what I think. You made it ad hominem starting with women's bodily functions and continuing on....

You cried foul at the first "light" that you saw. You called me names andsaid I s*cked at certain things I never attempted. You basically came off the completely wrong way to begin a conversation. I certainly hope you don't introduce yourself by stating that the other person s*cks at anything.

Quote: How am I "relying" on emotionalism? I'm NOT. I'm too analytical for that.

Hmm.....

Quote: Ahhhh the strawman. You guys can't don't have the ability to even talk without them, can you?

LOL

Maybe it's YOU who doesn't "seem" to know what the hell other's think. Give up the psychic job, you suck at it.

This type of analytical behavior?

Quote: All I said is you suck at mindreading, when you were trying to claim to know what I think. That's all I said about you, and it wasn't ad hominem, it was telling you that you suck at mindreading .

Yet you have never shown any of us where I tried to do such a thing.

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

cool_chick wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: This has nothing to do with any other post, this has to do with the inaccuracies and subsequent ad hominems, "mindreading" of your posts.

conniving b****?

Reported.

You were reported long ago so carry on.

LOL for what?

Quote: Ahhhh the strawman. You guys can't don't have the ability to even talk without them, can you?

LOL

Maybe it's YOU who doesn't "seem" to know what the hell other's think. Give up the psychic job, you suck at it.

:lol: :lol:

Nice personal insult/ad hominem to start your second post in this thread.

cool_chick · Joined: 26 Dec 2004 Posts: 21296 Location: Chicago

Heinz wrote: cool_chick wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: This has nothing to do with any other post, this has to do with the inaccuracies and subsequent ad hominems, "mindreading" of your posts.

conniving b****?

Reported.

You were reported long ago so carry on.

LOL for what?

Quote: Ahhhh the strawman. You guys can't don't have the ability to even talk without them, can you?

LOL

Maybe it's YOU who doesn't "seem" to know what the hell other's think. Give up the psychic job, you suck at it.

:lol: :lol:

Nice personal insult/ad hominem to start your second post in this thread.

Ad hominem? You do suck at mindreading. It's true. Everyone does, because it's not a possibility.

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: Ad hominem? You do suck at mindreading. It's true. Everyone does, because it's not a possibility.

Spin all you want.

The American · Joined: 23 Oct 2004 Posts: 3636 Location: Oklahoma

Timmytour wrote: The American wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: point out sucking at reading minds is not ad hominem. It's a fact.

It is an ad hominem and most certainly would qualify as something that breaks the rules of this forum. It's also discussing the poster. You think I suck at reading minds, but I never attempted to read anyone's.

Quote: I didn't, you did. You claimed to know what I was thinking

Where? You living in a dream world? Who's your dealer?

Quote: You're not making sense again. You're trying to evoke emotion by declaring there was a "genocide" going on, trying to act like it was Darfur, when there wasn't. There was no genocide going on when we invaded.

When did I ever compare it to Darfur? Never......Get it through your head. You did.....I also never said that it was going on when we invaded...Either find where I said it was or remove yourself.

Quote: Wrong again. First of all, 400,000 people? Where did you pull that "figure" out of...your butt? Certainly wasn't my mind.

My butt? Such little girl talk isn't neccessary. As far as the number, it's the estimated amount of people who have been killed in Darfur. Shows how much you know.

Quote: You were trying to claim the genocide that is happening is why there was no violence in Iraq in 2003.

Again...never said it was happening in 2003. It happened previously, and you have admitted this with your "decade" comment, and it still has an impact on what took place up until our invasion. That's what I said.

Quote: I'm simply saying your comments are invalid and inaccurate.

So just because you say it's invalid...it's invalid? Who the heck are you? You already admitted that genocide did take place in Iraq. Tell me..when do you consider the killing of a specific group for the mere fact that they are a certain race/religion/sex genocide? How many have to die to meet your standard?

Quote: Like I've said 20 times before, it's easy to not have any competition when you are killing them via genocide.

Easy.......no competition...YOU ARE KILLING THEM VIA GENOCIDE

You have no attention to detail....Where did I say, in that sentence, that it was happening in 2003?

Since it's Thanksgiving weekend I wanted you to feel thankful for at least one thing:

As much as chick's and my opinion's differ, there is no call for that. You should apologize.

:shock:

Always nice to see a classy post from someone I consider to be generally on the other side of the political spectrum to me.

:clap:

Feministic remarks do not inspire debate. The freedom of speaking your mind in forum should not include attacks on a persons bodily functions (If applicable). A simple "I disagree" would be good enough. An opology would detour thread lock. Women should not encounter such attacks in this manner, in forum regardless of their opinions. I stand pat on that principle to anyone including those of different opinion.

Trig.