sexual_chocolate Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Hey Jay, would you like me to start your very own "JayB's pouty-time no playthings for a while" thread? Or perhaps the same as what you started for me, something about your personal projections about "passive-aggressive" observations? Or maybe you can simply "practice" your grammatical notations, thereby becoming a more "efficient" reactionary, able to make your points and convert others through your superior "argument structures". Or you can just pick up your "dual-use" chains (what was the brand again?) and threaten me like the man that you are, instead of brandishing your rather tasteless innuendos and condescensions. I don't know....So many options. My money is on condescension and innuendo though; it seems to be the only response you've been able to develop when faced with disagreements. But, perhaps you will surprise me with something gentle and loving, a caress with a feathery word; perhaps a poem by Keats (or your own! I'd love to hear one!). Will you sing me a song, something from yonder years, either Louis Armstrong or Judy Garland (Somewhere over the Rainbow)? Or draw me a picture of your favorite childhood memory, from when you were, oh, 7? Was that a good year? Ahhh gentle lover, I must end this repartee now since the gymnasium gently calls me by name (Sexual Chocolate Sexual Chocolate; can you hear?). Au Revoir, mon ami! Bon Nuit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Nothing like inavding a country on false pretenses and crying foul when the people who don't want you there fight back! Jeezus H. Christ, I have finally seen the light! There is a shitpot full of oil in that country and it is the allah/god given right of the Saudis & Texas oil royalty to have it. Now get out of our way you evildoers and let us have our booty! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 SC, the truth of the matter is it's pretty shocking to see how quickly you categorized me into something I am not based off only a small opinion of a lot bigger picture, including how I have "cultural and national blinders on". I don't need your lecture about collateral damage from bombing buildings or the injustices that happened at Abu Graib or about a war my friends are fighting in that shouldn't have happened. I didn't vote for Bush, I was trolling you, basically because you really started to get in my face and misconstruing what I was saying. The only person being condescending is you; you asked my opinion and I told you it and now I'm in front of the firing squad. Let's recap shall we. -I state how terrible it was that they killed that women. They being terrorists. -You asked did I feel the same way about the people killed and tortured in Abu Graib prison. -I said I thought it was terrible and that those responsible should be brought to justice, but that essentially I think it's comparing apples and oranges. -You then preceeded to try to argue with me that there is no lessor than two evils. -I disagree saying that the terrorists have nobody to answer to. -You start calling me stuff -I start calling you stuff The truth is you have no fucking clue how I feel about world issues, mainly because I don't care to talk about it here. You don't know about my feelings about military, the war on terrorism, our current president, issues like gay rights or abortion, healthcare, education, etc etc. You seemed pretty quick to judge me though. It's alright dude, I don't really give a shit. I know I'm working with a group to send money and equipment to help a part of the Iraqi Olympic team. And I know you probably just keep bitching about things instead of doing something about it. Oh wait you wanted me to answer some questions. All US opposition in Iraq is the work of "terrorists"? Only "terrorists" are killing "innocent" people? The only justice for these alleged "terrorists" is a bullet in the head? (What happened to the military court.) When soldiers start killing innocent people, including their own, they aren't soldiers they are terrorists. When you take a obviously innocent prisoner and execute them to make a statement and put it on world TV you are a terrorist. I'm not saying that all of those fighting in the opposition are terrorists. Which "terrorists" do you speak of? I guess you haven't heard that the guerrilla opposition to the US isn't comprised entirely of Muslim fanatics. There are even secularists who oppose us! Surprise Surprise! I guess I haven't heard! It depends what you consider Muslim. My muslim friends don't have any ambitions of chopping off peoples heads or flying planes into buildings. Do you not see the guerrilla opposition in Iraq as "legitimate"? If someone invaded your country, would you fight back? If someone invaded my own country I wouldn't start killing my own people or aid workers in cold blood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Hey I heard there are rumors of some leftist liberal cc.com conspiracy going around. I'm in trouble, I better clear out the bank accounts before Chuck and company get to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Your leftist liberal communist socialist Canadian membership card and Canadian Party ID document are in the mail. Hey the Sandanistas are making a comeback in Nicaragua! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I'm a feminista - does that count? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Or maybe you can simply "practice" your grammatical notations, thereby becoming a more "efficient" reactionary, able to make your points and convert others through your superior "argument structures". <-------- Punctuation marks belong inside quotation marks, like "so." Seriously though - I asked a straightforward question that could have been addressed with a concrete answer. Simple enough. Thanks for the continued interest in the tire chains - I will be sure to let you know how they work out after I've had a chance to use them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Jon, if you go back and read my second post in this thread, I think you'll note what seems to me a rather diplomatic attempt to misappropriate syllogisms. Can one garner the necessary hubris when juxtaposed tangentally in one's cross-hairs? I think not, but without exterior painting services, self-reliance necessitates the continued removal of facial hair, with or without kleenex. Which reminds me: did verbatim usage of dorthdrop connote a mal-aligned spine? Or did extra-mundane space-ships usurp quagmires and dairy farms? Glee factories produce art for women's sake, q tips for pea-knuckles too. Anyway, I wish you luck in Yogiland. I wish you luck in Yogiland. Do you dance? I hope you dance, without undue pressure, of course. (A traveler checks into the local hotel, sees Allah in the mirror behind the desk clerk. "Ah dear desk clerk, do you know that Allah has taken up residence in the mirror behind you?" To which the desk clerk replies: "That's funny. You don't look like a Teen-Age Mutant Ninja Turtle.") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Wow, JayB really knows how to push SC's buttons... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 What is not legitimate is to kidnap foreign workers at random, hold them in some rathole as hostages making unreasonable demands, then stand behind them reading from the Q'uran, and beheading them alive - on videotape. I guess this is what this thread has evolved\boiled down to. I agree completely with Kasky's statement here. Human life has become very cheap in Iraq. It's a great tragedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I think the notion of "legitimacy" in warfare is a grisly joke, one that I cannot pander to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Read your fourth post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Nothing like inavding a country on false pretenses and crying foul when the people who don't want you there fight back! This of course explains why the "the people who don't want us there" are detonating car-bombs amidst crowded markets, executing members of the ING, staging assaults on police stations, bombing non-sunni churches and mosques, attacking the infrastructure that all Iraqis rely upon to survive, etc. They are really just frustrated Iraqi patriots who would have been content, docile participants in the new order had there been WMD stockpiles at the time of an invasion conducted with full UN approval. Good thing there's no Sunni ex-Baathists attempting to either destroy a new order that they'll have no priveleged standing in, or foreign jihadis attempting to foment sectarian warfare and erect an islamic state from the ruins once the civil war is under-way, or worse yet - a situation where these two elements are actively collaborating with one another! Thanks for clearing that up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Remember, in spite of what the Geneva convention says, there really are no rules in War. That being said, I will admit to over-generalizing. I just wish the U.S. would not have under estimated and would getthe hell out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 There seems to be a lot of confusion about what is and isn't "terrorism". The motiviation or justification is not what is important. Whether you kill unarmed civilians or soldiers is not definitive either. It is that you intend to kill unarmed civilians or non-combatants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Remember, in spite of what the Geneva convention says, there really are no rules in War. That being said, I will admit to over-generalizing. I just wish the U.S. would not have under estimated and would getthe hell out! If I only had a brain... ya teee ta teee ta ta! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 keep wishing, some day you will have one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Please tell me you are not advocating an imediate withdrawl of our troops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I think you guys have a good point about intent. I'm in agreement that the terrorists kidnapping civilians are evil. I have never attempted to justify their acts. I think those of you who may think I am justifying the kidnapping and killing of innocents by alleging wrongs by the US side are reading something into my words that I have not stated nor intended to imply. Now, while we're speaking of intent, what do you call ingniting a conflagration (on false pretenses [debatable]) where you know with certainty that many innocents will die. Some of you may still be calling this self defense. I'm thinking it's more analogous to depraved indifference. If you're willing to concede that the igniters went ahead with a very small safety margin and this caused the fire to be much worse, then you get at least negligent manslaughter right? So in this Iraq War we got a number of instances of murder one by the terrorists (10 - 100, 500 maybe?), death seems a fitting punishment. Then you got probably 10,000 counts of death through depraved indifference, 40,0000 counts of negligent manslaughter. What should be the punishment for that? Taking away the matches maybe? At least? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Then you got probably 10,000 counts of death through depraved indifference, 40,0000 counts of negligent manslaughter. What should be the punishment for that? Taking away the matches maybe? At least? The next time someone talks about some "imminent threat", it will take a hell of a lot of concrete evidence to convince me, that's for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 No, I'm not. I do want more thought put into pulling them out than went into putting them in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Bush's daughters prove he has had difficulty pulling out before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Schuldt Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 (edited) So I skimed this thread and nowhere did I see any speculation of the impact of these pictures on the Arab world. Are we realy winning hearts and minds? http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage Edited November 18, 2004 by Dave_Schuldt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Schuldt Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 jon, the question is i suppose what the fuck are americans doing in iraq in the first place! in the meantime this coutry is declared "safe" by departing asscrapt. let me point out the fact, that since sep 11 2001 none of the citizens of soudi arabia are required to obtain a visa before entering united states!!! let me remind you, that none of the terrorists-hijackers were iraqis. more- 18 out of 19 were sauduis. and the whole operation was masterminded by saudis. so where is the logic? even more- there are theletons in soudi arabia auctioning art, gold and juwery to raise money, which goes directly to organizations like hamas. and what saudi officials do? nothing. to make it clear to you seems like soudis are the real enemy of this coutry, yet i don't see this administration talking about solving problem of arab terrorism in saudi arabia. wonder why. even more- this administration treats their allays like crap. while turkey- a coutry that did not allow US troops into their contry- received over 2 billion $$ in military aid, while poland (we have over 2500 soldiers and over 100 dead) recived only 200 milion at the same time. where is the logic and fairness in that? try a direct and straight answer to these questions for one. my answer is that this administration treats this coutry like their own private idaho and they are taking the nation for a nice ride. because if their interest was the same as most of the poeple here the sollutions are quite obvious to me. SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU WHINY BITCH What's your problem jjd, can't handle the truth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.