where are the lefties?
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
To accuse me of lies when I haven't actually said any of the things you seem to think I have is plain idiotic.
You said "See Ed Brown currently being held without access to lawyer and suffering solitary confinement, sensory deprivation and other forms of turture in the US, as a US citizen, for daring to refuse to obey an illegal tax demand". You did not say that Ed Brown "said" any of those things. You said that he is "being held without access to lawyer and suffering solitary confinement, sensory deprivation and other forms of turture in the US". That is plainly bearing false witness against the good men and women who run the prison that he will hopefully rot away in. That is, unless you can provide evidence of this fact. Can you provide evidence, you pathetic swine? You make so many unsubstantiated claims (i.e. bearing false witness) which I typically dismiss as irrational support of your delusions of persecution. But just for fun, I'll confront you on this particular one. Of course, I know that you'll just ignore my demands for evidence and instead go off on an unrelated tangent composed of innumerable run-on sentences.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
You really have no clue. By now you should have worked out that randomly throwing mud at me will in the end destroy what remaining shreds of credibility you have amongst the few who still bother to read anything you post. Ed Brown[^]
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
So, defending yourself against terrorism is terrorism?
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
Only if you use terrorism to do so.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
No what I'm saying is that all terrorism is UNJUSTIFIED, whoever commits it.
And you also equate war to terrorism. Therefore, going to war with a nation that launches terrorist attacks against us constitutes terrorism and is therefore unjustified. Therefore, we should just take it. Great!
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
And you also equate war to terrorism.
No. It is you who confuses the two.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
To accuse me of lies when I haven't actually said any of the things you seem to think I have is plain idiotic.
You said "See Ed Brown currently being held without access to lawyer and suffering solitary confinement, sensory deprivation and other forms of turture in the US, as a US citizen, for daring to refuse to obey an illegal tax demand". You did not say that Ed Brown "said" any of those things. You said that he is "being held without access to lawyer and suffering solitary confinement, sensory deprivation and other forms of turture in the US". That is plainly bearing false witness against the good men and women who run the prison that he will hopefully rot away in. That is, unless you can provide evidence of this fact. Can you provide evidence, you pathetic swine? You make so many unsubstantiated claims (i.e. bearing false witness) which I typically dismiss as irrational support of your delusions of persecution. But just for fun, I'll confront you on this particular one. Of course, I know that you'll just ignore my demands for evidence and instead go off on an unrelated tangent composed of innumerable run-on sentences.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Still, the Brown case is interesting. Lets see the American left come out and defend him the way they do international terrorists. I'd love it. If they are correct about the things they complain about, than Ed Brown most certainly is also.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
You really have no clue. By now you should have worked out that randomly throwing mud at me will in the end destroy what remaining shreds of credibility you have amongst the few who still bother to read anything you post. Ed Brown[^]
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Only if you use terrorism to do so.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Only if you use terrorism to do so.
And since you equate war to terrorism...
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Only if you use terrorism to do so.
And since you equate war to terrorism...
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
I'd ask where but as you clearly can't read... :sigh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
You really have no clue. By now you should have worked out that randomly throwing mud at me will in the end destroy what remaining shreds of credibility you have amongst the few who still bother to read anything you post. Ed Brown[^]
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
From the article:
_Ed Brown speaks for the first time since his arrest and relates how he was gassed by noxious fumes for three days in a detention center..._:laugh: Gassed by what? His cell-mate's noxious farts? Puhleeeese... :rolleyes: -
Only if you use terrorism to do so.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Look, pal, you don't get to say "oh, there is absolutely nothing we can do about terrorism"(my original premise) and "you cannot use terrorism to fight terrorism" (which I never actually suggested). If you don't have a solution to the problem of international terrorism, than shut the fuck up and go away, we will do as we please. If terrorism against someone else is the best means of defeating terrorism against you, than that is what you do. If it isn't than you do something else. And too bad if that offends someone's moral sensibilities.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Look, pal, you don't get to say "oh, there is absolutely nothing we can do about terrorism"(my original premise) and "you cannot use terrorism to fight terrorism" (which I never actually suggested). If you don't have a solution to the problem of international terrorism, than shut the fuck up and go away, we will do as we please. If terrorism against someone else is the best means of defeating terrorism against you, than that is what you do. If it isn't than you do something else. And too bad if that offends someone's moral sensibilities.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
Keep on digging then. Just remember who's grave it is you're chucking up dirt to create.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
I'd ask where but as you clearly can't read... :sigh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I'd ask where
In your typical long-winded, nonsensical tirade designed to defend the idea that America's War on Terrorism is in fact terrorism by virtue of the fact that you believe in various unsubstantiated claims of torture[^]. For the sake of convenience, you're willing to define anything you see fit as "terrorism".
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
From the article:
_Ed Brown speaks for the first time since his arrest and relates how he was gassed by noxious fumes for three days in a detention center..._:laugh: Gassed by what? His cell-mate's noxious farts? Puhleeeese... :rolleyes:I'll bet they deprived him of his aluminum helmet, too.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
So turkey wants to traipse merrily into Iraq to sort out a few issues 120+ people blown up in Pakistan after the return of a politician. Strange - but i don't hear much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the lefties (not referring to any CP members here) Can't quite fathom it. bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
bryce wrote:
(not referring to any CP members here)
So who? US Democratic Representatives? Which ones have ever opposed Iraq on the basis of morals, i.e.,"it's wrong to invade another country". They are all opposing the US in Iraq for a variety of political reasons, and/or, regional repercussions, not moral reasons.
-
pseudonym67 wrote:
Speaking as a lefty
who, it would appear, fails to differentiate himself from the ammoral and hyprocritical left as referenced above. Doesn't do your cause any good.
pseudonym67 wrote:
if it was some country bordering Iran you'd be only too happy for the same scenario to be enacted.
Check your atlas my friend. It is a country bordering Iran! One of the biggest issues of Turkey going into Kurdistan is that Kurdistan extends into Iran, risking getting the Iranians involved if the Kurdish fighters flee from the Turkish forces into Iranian Kurdistan. Then you may have something to complain about.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
pseudonym67 wrote:
Whereas they do have trouble when it is applied to a country occupied by America.
I don't. If Turkey has a legitimate case that they are under attack from a neighbor, than they should be allowed to defend themselves. Obviously, that raises the possibility of a confrontation between Turk and US forces as the US would necessarily have to defend against a general invasion from Turkey, but as long as the objectives were narrowly defined, they should be allowed to do it. Frankly, I think there should be a new international law - any act of terrorism from the citizens of one nation against the citizens of another can be considered an act of war regardless of whether the government of the nation producing the terrorism was directly responsible for it or not. Further, all members of the UN would be required to participate militarily in the invasion of any nation producing terrorism. The excuse of 'stateless' terrorism should be made legally moot. If they are your citizens than you need to control them. Otherwise, the international community will. -- modified at 8:05 Friday 19th October, 2007
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think there should be a new international law
Is your suggestion assuming that no Americans in the future would never commit an act of terrorism in a foreign country and therefore we would never have to be concerned about being at war against the rest of the world as a result?
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I'd ask where
In your typical long-winded, nonsensical tirade designed to defend the idea that America's War on Terrorism is in fact terrorism by virtue of the fact that you believe in various unsubstantiated claims of torture[^]. For the sake of convenience, you're willing to define anything you see fit as "terrorism".
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
I didn't mention the WOT which is a political concept with no matching physical reality, unless you count the things it is used as a lame excuse for, and did not seek to define terrorism with anything other than a paraphrase of the dictionary definition, "The application of fear, generated by illegal killing, for the end purpose of applying politcal pressure to elected and legitimate authorities". If you don't like that definition you're at one with your leaders. The curent US adminstration has invested massive diplomatic efforts in gaining effective ownership of the definition of terrorism so that they can exclude their own activities as and when they see fit, while labelling anyone who disagrees with their policies a terrorist in defiance of logic and common sense. The president of Italy recently, following the same model, labelled me a terrorist because I do not support a single European state. Such usage risks eventually making the term meaningless.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Keep on digging then. Just remember who's grave it is you're chucking up dirt to create.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Keep on digging then. Just remember who's grave it is you're chucking up dirt to create.
I'll keep digging until someone comes up with a better plan. I got nothing better to do with my little shovel.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
I didn't mention the WOT which is a political concept with no matching physical reality, unless you count the things it is used as a lame excuse for, and did not seek to define terrorism with anything other than a paraphrase of the dictionary definition, "The application of fear, generated by illegal killing, for the end purpose of applying politcal pressure to elected and legitimate authorities". If you don't like that definition you're at one with your leaders. The curent US adminstration has invested massive diplomatic efforts in gaining effective ownership of the definition of terrorism so that they can exclude their own activities as and when they see fit, while labelling anyone who disagrees with their policies a terrorist in defiance of logic and common sense. The president of Italy recently, following the same model, labelled me a terrorist because I do not support a single European state. Such usage risks eventually making the term meaningless.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Dude...You need a much better grasp of the English language if you're going to properly express your points. This is all just rubbish. An actually coherent idea every now and again might help too.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
hyprocritical left as referenced above.
I went back and re-read the OP and I still can't see that. What is it exactly?
The section of the left who would moan about the US going into Iraq and wrecking the place without UN authorisation but who won't complain when Turkey does likewise because the Turks are Muslem, or not seen as imperialist, or non-white, or whatever. In other words an unjustifyable double standard. If you scream about A doing it then you'd better scream just as loud when B does it or expect no one to take any notice of your initial complaint, is I think what he's getting at. Reasonable to extent that it's a fair comparison in the first place.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Dude...You need a much better grasp of the English language if you're going to properly express your points. This is all just rubbish. An actually coherent idea every now and again might help too.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
It's my language: if you don't like it, go and learn spanish. I certainly wouldn't take any eloquence lessons from someone who can barely read.:rolleyes:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.