View Single Post
Old 10-03-2007, 10:17 PM   #45
RobQel-Droma
Blah
 
RobQel-Droma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Up yours. X0
Posts: 2,216
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Did I say that you did? No.
Erm.... Here is your original quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Fine. But that doesn't tell me how collateral damage is ok but torture is not.
Since that was following up on something I had said previously, I'm not sure who else you would have been talking about....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
None of this addresses my arguement.
What was your argument? As I recall, you made a point of the fact that we drop bombs on civilians - after I had talked about terrorists torturing Americans - and intimated that one was no better than the other. Frankly, I think that it does address your argument.

snipped reference to deleted material

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Since we provided he and al qaeda with weapons, training, and intelligence in the 1980 while the mujahadeen was fighting Soviets in Afghanistan.
fixed quote tag
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Really? The WMD's that we still haven't found and Hans Blix told us he couldn't find? How does one respond to warnings to stop doing something that one wasn't doing in the first place?
We had evidence, enough evidence that there was a noticeable danger. And, think about it, would you trust Saddam if he said "no"? Or perhaps if you made him promise?

On a serious note, I wouldn't trust Saddam. And just tell me, kind sir, what should we have done? Decided to wait and just hope that he didn't drop an nuclear bomb on us?
snipped
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Some evidence on the 9/11 stuff would be nice, please.
I put some, a few posts down. But I'll address that later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Right, hence why I'm having difficulty following your argument. Al qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, but we're we're also fighting in Iraq.
You asked why we were not in Afghanistan, to which I replied "we were."
snipped
I talked about the Iraq connection just below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
The Weekly Standard? The same Weekly Standard founded by Bill Kristol? The same Bill Kristol that founded the Project for a New American Century? The same PNAC that identified Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea as the axis of evil one year before the attacks of September 11th and suggested that "a new Pearl Harbor" would help speed up their agenda?
BTW, I'm not understanding how what you said seemingly discredits this. You go from (1) the Weekly Standard, to (2) the founder Bill Kristol, (3) to something else he did - the PNAC - (4) and then a "suggestion" made by the PNAC. What in the world does that have to do with the evidence?

Are you trying to bash Kristol, the Weekly Standard, or the PNAC.....

or the info?

I could make a similar response to your idea of watching No End in Sight, but I don't usually discredit info by bashing the person who created the movie; and drawing references to other things done by that person.

Oh, and what are you intimating by the line about the PNAC's "suggestion"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
I'm afraid you'll have to do a little bit better than that source. But hey...thanks for the education.
Because in your opinion, you don't think its credible?

snipped
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Well spun. Good job.
I'm glad you approve.

Oh, and just an FYI, I would venture that the article itself was a little well spun. Which is what I was showing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Which people? The international team that did the research or the journalistic entity which published the finding? But perhaps your beef is with the practice of extrapolating data based on a statistically significant sample of a population.
snipped
Can one have faith in extrapolations based on small amounts of data?
snipped
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Which part was unclear?
The only part that I quoted....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
snipped
But hey, maybe you could actually go watch the movie first before you decide that it's all garbage. Who knows.
Ok. Now perhaps you could explain to me again how actual footage can never lie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Remove the sarcasm and I think you'd have the gist of it. Part of being the leader is setting an example and that isn't something you do just one time.
You don't get to be a leader by having people "decide" that you are a leader. You take a stand and prove, and not really to those people, that you are a leader.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
We started pet rocks too. Your point?
Just showing where America stands among the world.

snipped off-topic exchange

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
And we could be spending $2 billion per day here making sure that didn't happen. You feel safer knowing that al qaeda and the madhi army are killing people over there that are supposed to protect us over here? I don't.
Pulling troops back to American soil doesn't protect us from terrorist attacks. I don't think that they would have a better chance stopping suicide bombers on our own ground than they would going out and taking them down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Its our problem because there is a moral price to be paid. And while you and I might be paying pennies on the dollar, those men and women over there are taking the brunt of it.
A "moral price"? So we pay the price because they fight dirty and we can't distinguish who's who. What would you suggest we do?

Yes, those men and women are taking the brunt of it. Even from inside America, because they get slammed when they commit "immoral" acts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
And, btw, it's not cowardice, it's smarts and necessity.
It's smart and necessary to strap bombs to you and blow up American soldiers?

snipped

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Indeed because they are upset with americans trifling in their holy land. Since we haven't stopped, I suspect that we can look forward to more of the same in decades to come.
No. I'm sorry, but I don't agree.

Tell me how we evil American's started this, could you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Yep. First, they don't care if they die. In fact, they're hoping that they do because that means a first class ticket to paradise. Second, their sons and brothers probably miss their dads and older brothers and will never forget how the americans killed the breadwinner and left his family in strife.
It sounds like we need to completely eradicate them, don't we? Oh, and most of these people attacked us, by blowing up civilians who never did anything to them. Tell me how that backs your claim up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
So a decade from now when an impressionable young man with a lot of anger get offered a chance to kill americans and earn a trip to paradise all in one shot, I'm guessing he'll go for it.
If they're all broken up about it, maybe they shouldn't blow up skyscrapers and kill thousands of innocent Americans. If they want to keep doing it, though, keep 'em coming. It's just too bad that these dirty bastards have to take innocent people with them in their claim to glory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
So yes indeed, we are in fact running a very serious risk of making the world more dangerous by killing these terrorists.


Yes, we shouldn't kill terrorists because if we kill them, we make the world more dangerous! So obviously we should just leave them alone no matter what they do!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Of course this doesn't really account for all the terrorists that we inadvertently create via the same process compliments of collateral damage.
Well, it is of course our fault. We shouldn't go drop bombs on terrorists because it might make other terrorists from the deaths.
snipped

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Guerrilla tactics were used. Not all of the fighting took place on battle fields.
But it was not a guerilla war. Just like dropping an A-Bomb on Hiroshima did not make WW2 a nuclear war. It may have occured, but the primary fighting was done on battlefields. Little side encounters by various groups is not usually referred to to describe a war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Of course they do.
No, they don't. Suicide bombers, however do. It isn't usual of a guerilla group to use suicidal tactics - it's a guerilla group, it is almost contradictory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Guerrilla: of, relating to, or suggestive of guerrillas especially in being aggressive, radical, or unconventional
That says nothing to me.

Last edited by Jae Onasi; 10-04-2007 at 02:46 PM. Reason: snipped inflammatory/baiting quotes and comments
RobQel-Droma is offline   you may: