Pages: 1 … 4 5 6

Topic closed

2008-07-17 05:25:53
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX
'Asked whether the president would have invaded Iraq “for other reasons,” two-thirds of Americans (66%) said yes'
So the majority of Americans believed Iraq would have been invaded WMD or not?
Does this not bother anyone?

He changed what he said it was about...
I see, so having invaded he changed the pretext? Thats pretty incredible.
I submit GWB has yet to be straight with the world on any of this.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2008-07-17 16:51:10
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6411|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

'Asked whether the president would have invaded Iraq “for other reasons,” two-thirds of Americans (66%) said yes'
So the majority of Americans believed Iraq would have been invaded WMD or not?
Does this not bother anyone?
Your characterization of "for other reasons" implies that they wouldn't have been worthwhile. Since it's vague and purely hypothetical, one can't really make a judgment of validity there. What people believe and what is reality are--more often than not--not the same thing.

   

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

He changed what he said it was about...
I see, so having invaded he changed the pretext? Thats pretty incredible.
I submit GWB has yet to be straight with the world on any of this.
He didn't change the pretext. He said it was more than just WMD, which is actually consistent with what he and the rest of the administration was saying pre-invasion. Doesn't make what was said right or wrong...just makes the characterization of what was said accurate.

I submit he has been entirely straight with the world on all of this. Ridiculously bad decisions are self-critiquing...there's no hidden agenda. Remember: according to you (and many others) he's dumb. He couldn't possibly think deeply enough to have an ulterior motive.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-07-18 00:15:41
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX
Your characterization of "for other reasons" implies that they wouldn't have been worthwhile.
Worthwhile or not, since he presented WMD and Al Quaeda links as the only reasons at best he's not been truthful.
Worthwhile or not, since the US did not face any kind of threat from Iraq and without a UNSC resolution the invasion was illegal.
I thought lying to congress was impeachment material?
Starting an illegal war is certainly a war crime.

Recently he let slip WMD were part of the reason, not the main reason.
He did change the pretext. Its quite a stretch from 'Iraq is an immediate threat to the US' to 'God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'.'

While Duhbya is too dumb to know you need to chew a pretzel, we know there are plenty in the wings yanking his ropes, and they certainly have agendas to see about the return of the great electric lettuce, get their hands on Iraqi oil and make lots of money.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-07-18 00:16:21)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2008-07-18 02:14:12
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6411|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Your characterization of "for other reasons" implies that they wouldn't have been worthwhile.
Worthwhile or not, since he presented WMD and Al Quaeda links as the only reasons at best he's not been truthful.
Worthwhile or not, since the US did not face any kind of threat from Iraq and without a UNSC resolution the invasion was illegal.
You keep forgetting there were 17 UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq, several of which authorized the use of force. That argument doesn't have a leg to stand on, no matter how much you want it to.

You keep applying the word "illegal" to invasion and war. There's no such thing. There's ill-advised, wrong, etc...but not "illegal". If the causus belli is arguably correct at the time and then proves to be incorrect later (as was the case with Iraq), it's not "illegal".

Dilbert_X wrote:

I thought lying to congress was impeachment material?
Starting an illegal war is certainly a war crime.
It is. He didn't. Therefore, no impeachment.

"illegal war": see above.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Recently he let slip WMD were part of the reason, not the main reason.
He did change the pretext. Its quite a stretch from 'Iraq is an immediate threat to the US' to 'God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'.'
Source, pls.

Where do you get your fanciful quotes? Do you even pay attention to the context in which the statement is made or the surrounding verbiage? No, because that's too inconvenient.

Dilbert_X wrote:

While Duhbya is too dumb to know you need to chew a pretzel, we know there are plenty in the wings yanking his ropes, and they certainly have agendas to see about the return of the great electric lettuce, get their hands on Iraqi oil and make lots of money.
Prove it or it's just tinfoil hat nonsense.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-07-19 01:26:05
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX
You keep forgetting there were 17 UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq, several of which authorized the use of force. That argument doesn't have a leg to stand on, no matter how much you want it to.
They were based on the theory, based on 'intel' put forwards by the US that Iraq had WMD, which they didn't.
If the causus belli is arguably correct at the time and then proves to be incorrect later (as was the case with Iraq), it's not "illegal".
Either its correct at the time or its not and you bear the consequences. Kind of like shooting someone breaking into your neighbours house only to find its his son who forgot his keys. Hard luck, your mistake, you go to prison.
If the real reason was 'regime change' or 'god told me to' then its a war crime.
Source, pls.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/iraq/god- … 52070.html
I don't remember Bush denying it.

'Part of the reason we went into Iraq, uh, was, uh the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction.'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5W … re=related

Liars catch themselves out eventually.

Prove it or it's just tinfoil hat nonsense.
Will do, busy now.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-07-19 02:15:34)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2008-07-19 04:18:21
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6411|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

You keep forgetting there were 17 UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq, several of which authorized the use of force. That argument doesn't have a leg to stand on, no matter how much you want it to.
They were based on the theory, based on 'intel' put forwards by the US that Iraq had WMD, which they didn't.
Oh, so now that it's not "illegal", you're going to change the requirement?

Dilbert_X wrote:

If the causus belli is arguably correct at the time and then proves to be incorrect later (as was the case with Iraq), it's not "illegal".
Either its correct at the time or its not and you bear the consequences. Kind of like shooting someone breaking into your neighbours house only to find its his son who forgot his keys. Hard luck, your mistake, you go to prison.
If the real reason was 'regime change' or 'god told me to' then its a war crime.
You're mixing apples and oranges--and once again, your analogy fails.

I wasn't talking about whether the "real" reason was something other than what was given. I was talking about whether the "real" reason ended up being correct or not.

And if you don't think the consequences of that are being borne, you're on crack.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Source, pls.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/iraq/god- … 52070.html
I don't remember Bush denying it.
A single, unsubstantiated, third-hand account? That's really reaching.

Sometimes when things are that ridiculous, even responding to them lends them credence they don't deserve.

Dilbert_X wrote:

'Part of the reason we went into Iraq, uh, was, uh the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction.'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5W … re=related

Liars catch themselves out eventually.
So now you're using Bush's public speaking "challenges" to "prove" that he changed the reason for going into Iraq?

Seriously?! Do you realize just how laughable that is?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Prove it or it's just tinfoil hat nonsense.
Will do, busy now.
I figure you'll be busy for a while...unless you can find a third-hand, unsubstantiated, report of private conversation.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-07-19 21:29:03
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX
Oh, so now that it's not "illegal", you're going to change the requirement?
The UNSC did not approve the invasion, it was never put to a vote.
Its highly arguable whether any existing resolutions could be used to allow an invasion
A single, unsubstantiated, third-hand account? That's really reaching.
Its a first hand account. And sometimes thats how people get their information out, a comment here or there, off the record briefings etc.
The Christian Evangelist Extremists are happy as Duhbya is doing their work, Duhbya is happy as he can just ignore any blowback. Politicians have done this for millenia.
I was talking about whether the "real" reason ended up being correct or not.
Me too.
A better analogy -
You think your neighbour is making bombs in his garage, so you go round and shoot him only to find out he was making beer.
Hard luck, you're a murderer, you go to prison.
And if you don't think the consequences of that are being borne, you're on crack.
So where is the picture of Bush hanging upside down from a lampost?
He'll be out of office soon, making $100m a year reading speeches written by someone else. Hardly bearing the consequences.
So now you're using Bush's public speaking "challenges" to "prove" that he changed the reason for going into Iraq?
Its called a Freudian slip. As I said, liars catch themsleves out by blurting out exactly what they don't want to say.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-07-19 21:34:26)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2008-07-20 07:20:38
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6411|'Murka

I love your logic. Changing arguments to meet your needs, contradicting yourself right and left, coming up with analogies that attempt to apply a simplistic solution to a complicated situation...you should go into politics yourself.

And someone reporting what someone else said about someone else is third hand.

And you have completely derailed the thread. GG.

Mod: Please close.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-07-20 07:29:12)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-07-21 01:00:09
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX
Oh don't be such a wuss.

You asked the question, where are the non-muslim groups advocating the equivalent of violent jihad?

The answer is they are deeply entrenched within mainstream Christianity and Judaism, as evidenced by the violent crusades being waged against the muslim world and the unswerving, unquestioning and bottomless support for Israel at great cost to their own countries.

They may not be yelling from the rooftops or strapping bombs to themselves but they are working at least as effectively to secure their objectives, as defined by their particular take on millenium-old mumbo-jumbo.

If you don't like the argument thats too bad.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2008-07-21 01:36:48
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6411|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Oh don't be such a wuss.
How is that, exactly?

Dilbert_X wrote:

You asked the question, where are the non-muslim groups advocating the equivalent of violent jihad?
A question you still haven't answered. Only Cam has actually put forth the effort to answer the question that was asked. You used the question as an excuse to make unfounded claims.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The answer is they are deeply entrenched within mainstream Christianity and Judaism, as evidenced by the violent crusades being waged against the muslim world and the unswerving, unquestioning and bottomless support for Israel at great cost to their own countries.
No, even using your "examples", that is not the answer. You can't point to any doctrine (which was part of the OP) of a particular fringe sect or mainstream denomination that preaches anything close to Wahhabism. So you make broad-brush claims that have no foundation in fact, letting your hatred for Bush specifically and religion in general cloud your objectivity.

Dilbert_X wrote:

They may not be yelling from the rooftops or strapping bombs to themselves but they are working at least as effectively to secure their objectives, as defined by their particular take on millenium-old mumbo-jumbo.
And yet you can't provide a single sect or denomination that does this, only individuals. The point of the OP was to see if there are any parallels in Christianity or Judaism to Wahhabism.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If you don't like the argument thats too bad.
I have no problem with arguments that are on topic or that address the OP. Yours are neither.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-07-21 02:37:27
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX
Its a central teaching of Christianity that for Jeelzebub to return the middle east must be in turmoil and the jews in power over over Israel.
The US has done everything it can to ensure both, the rest seems pretty obvious to me.

How is that, exactly?
And you have completely derailed the thread. GG.
Mod: Please close.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2008-07-21 03:08:13
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX
Annyhoo, here are some fruitloops for you.


The person who forces Israel to make peace with the Arabs is the Antichrist?
We are fighting the moslems because they have Satan behind them?
The Christian Zionists are going to be Iran's worst enemy?
Is that John McCain's Pastor Hagee?

You can surf your way from there.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2008-07-21 03:30:02
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6411|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its a central teaching of Christianity that for Jeelzebub to return the middle east must be in turmoil and the jews in power over over Israel.
The US has done everything it can to ensure both, the rest seems pretty obvious to me.

How is that, exactly?
And you have completely derailed the thread. GG.
Mod: Please close.
I asked a mod to close a thread that I started and you derailed. Derailed. Not argued the OP. Derailed. That means arguing everything BUT the topic in the OP. Is that clear enough for you?

You still haven't pointed out a sect within Christianity. Post all the youtube videos you want. You haven't addressed the question in the OP.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-07-21 04:25:35
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX
Don't be such a pussy.

Anyway, you've achieved your objective which was to prove there is no 'sect within christianity' which exactly mirrors Wahabism.
So why are you having a tantrum now?

The youtube vidoes prove my point, mindless support of Israel and a campaign of attacks on the moslem world are mainstream Christianity now, not some minor sect.

Now find for me which sect within the Republican party espouses 2nd amendment rights and an end to abortions.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-07-21 04:29:44)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2008-07-21 04:45:50
^*AlphA*^
F*ckers
+3,135|6738|The Hague, Netherlands

Thread Closed, We're Done Here
https://bf3s.com/sigs/36eac2cb6af70a43508fd8d1c93d3201f4e23435.png

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard