Actually, you have the sequence all wrong. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's unintentional on your part.
One more time, it's quite simple.
Original question:
"and if some al qaeda was found living in whatever city/town you are in right now, question:you would be for the US landing helicopters and gunning the town up? Dropping some bombs? killing some kids?"
Your answer in which you "changed the circumstances of the hypothetical scenario upon which the question is based" (this is what you accused me of)
So here you can see quite cleary you changed the scenario yourself.
"If the overwhelming majority of people in my neighborhood were supplying, sheltering, and acting as look-outs for Al Qeada, "answer":I would move to a different neighborhood."
My answer: "First of all, prove to me that "the overwhelming majority of people" (twist on your part, hence the question to explain or at least provide some answer as to why you'd change the question so radically) in that town were al-Qaeda my mistake, and prove that the people in this town knew that "the overwhelming majority" was Al-Qaeda."
So, apparently, you do think it's important to know whether or not the residents support al qeada or can willfully move when discussing the subject of civilian casualties.
Your changed the circumstances of the question. Here's a direct question, sponger, fairly easy and I hope you have the balls to at least answer this one:
Why did you change "some al-Qaeda" into "the overwhelming majority".
There's a huge difference between the two.
So, like I have been saying, those are parameters I had mentioned in my first post, and you couldn't directly respond to it without customizing those parameters to your preferences.
Ah, I guess this is the problem. Your "first" post was a complete distortion of the original question and you didn't even answer it.
You said you'd move. Totally irrelevant. I should have nipped your bullshit in the bud right there. Instead, I answered it and I added a little part - "customizing those parameters"
Remember the original question and your answer: "If some al-Qaeda lived in your town, would you be okay with it if the US bombed it" - Answer: "If the overwhelming majority .... I'd move."
Talk about customizing parameters :rolleyes:
Anyway, I "customized your parameters" because I wanted to go back to the original question, which you ignored and still ignore (I think I have a pretty good idea why, too).
"I'd move" Reply: "Yes, but what if you can't" = original question.
So, sponger, I think you are a coward and I cannot give you the benefit of the doubt.
You accuse me of not being able to answer directly without changing the circumstances of the question, while YOU changed the circumstances of the original question to your preferences!
I cannot believe how you're trying to twist this whole thing, it's not working and no one is buying it, sponger. I think your motives for avoiding the question are becoming increasingly more clear.
I never brought up the relevance of Saddam being ousted, you did. You brought up the peoples’ reaction. “What you're forgetting is that when Saddam was toppled, the Iraqi people were jumping for joy.”
you are attempting to paint the Iraq invasion as some kind of liberation from tyranny – the third reason given for the war. You did this after justifying raids into yet another country with excuse for mass-murder #2 – support for Al-Qaeda. How’s that Bush doctrine been workin for ya?
You also ignored the fact that Saddam has been removed from power for years, the Iraqi people want the US OUT, and instead they’ve set up permanent bases, with no plans for full withdrawl. So since you brought up the peoples’ reaction, and keep mentioning how happy they were to have the US remove the leader (and destroy their country then lend them the money to have US companies rebuild it)….what say you about their opinion now? Or does that opinion only matter when it supports your views?
Mass bombing IS immoral…and because I can’t come up with a practical alternative, it’s excusable? Talk about circular reasoning. Why did they have to flatten Baghdad to get to Saddam? Why did they bomb the infrastructure and the pipelines if they were just there to remove a tyrant?
Are you going to answer my question? Who would you consider the terrorists if you were Syrian? Don’t give me the line about it not being black and white again. You’re mixing up your Iraq/Syria argument by mentioning varying levels of support for their government….these raids had NOTHING to do with the Syrian government, or freeing the Syrian people from a brutal regime….its the US doing whatever they want, wherever they want, regardless of international law and opinion. If a foreign military chased some bad guys into the US and ended up killing 8 civilians, how would you react?
The only reason I brought up Saddam was to illustrate the point that it is possible for people to view their own government as terrorists, much like the Iraqi people viewed Saddam.
The fact that you put so much effort into twisting that around into your fantasy conversation scenario where you get to lecture somebody about the debacle that was the invasion of Iraq is, quite frankly, sad.
The only reason I brought up Saddam was to illustrate the point that it is possible for people to view their own government as terrorists, much like the Iraqi people viewed Saddam.
It is indeed true that a people can view their leader or government as terrorists. We can all find plenty examples of that. There are quite a lot of Americans, for example, who see the countless bombings and slaughters their country is responsible for as terrorism and rightly so.
Now, there's of course merit in what Drowned Out said. Are you claiming that because the Iraqi people were glad Saddam was toppled they are automatically satisfied and happy with US presence in their country?
The Red Army "liberated" Prague and defeated the Germans, yet I don't think the Czech(oslovakian) people were very please with the regime that followed.
Syria has filed a formal protest against the U.S. raids. What is Bush trying to do? He is using our military like they are a bunch of African rebels illegally crossing borders to conduct raids and killing civilians in other nations. This is not what our military is about and I would hope that the so called Brass in the Pentagon would step up and never let Bush or any commander-in-chief abuse the honor of the military by compromising their role as soldiers and not rebels.
Iraq has now put on the Accord table that the U.S. can not use its nation to launch military strikes against its neighboring countries. An amendment that could delay any reasonable means to meet the December 31, 2008, deadline for the US to decease all activities in Iraq and begin immediate withdrawal of all its military forces.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
The only reason I brought up Saddam was to illustrate the point that it is possible for people to view their own government as terrorists, much like the Iraqi people viewed Saddam.
The fact that you put so much effort into twisting that around into your fantasy conversation scenario where you get to lecture somebody about the debacle that was the invasion of Iraq is, quite frankly, sad.
Well, I’m glad you were able to circle back and figure out why you brought him up in the first place…to prove a point that was common sense to begin with. I find it ironic that you think I’M the one twisting things, while you grasp for examples of people that are happy to have their country destroyed in the name of regime change.
Not sure what part of my posts you find to be fantasy, but I can tell you that it hasn’t taken much effort to point out your flawed reasoning. The fact that you can’t directly answer a question shows that you recognize those flaws, so maybe the lectures are working
Being an apologist for state-sponsored mass murder is, quite frankly, sad.
Syria has filed a formal protest against the U.S. raids. What is Bush trying to do? He is using our military like they are a bunch of African rebels illegally crossing borders to conduct raids and killing civilians in other nations. This is not what our military is about and I would hope that the so called Brass in the Pentagon would step up and never let Bush or any commander-in-chief abuse the honor of the military by compromising their role as soldiers and not rebels.
Iraq has now put on the Accord table that the U.S. can not use its nation to launch military strikes against its neighboring countries. An amendment that could delay any reasonable means to meet the December 31, 2008, deadline for the US to decease all activities in Iraq and begin immediate withdrawal of all its military forces.
unfortunately, in light of US military actions over the last few years, these protests and accords mean nothing....if anything, I would hope that it would raise some awareness in the American public. But that Iraqi ammendment defeats the whole purpose of being there; even if it's ratified, it won't hold water.
You are 100% right in saying that it's time for the military to stand up to this. But there are some here that will tell you that the military not obeying the executives' every command would be the downfall of your country.
unfortunately, in light of US military actions over the last few years, these protests and accords mean nothing....if anything, I would hope that it would raise some awareness in the American public. But that Iraqi ammendment defeats the whole purpose of being there; even if it's ratified, it won't hold water.
You are 100% right in saying that it's time for the military to stand up to this. But there are some here that will tell you that the military not obeying the executives' every command would be the downfall of your country.
Every nation in the Middle East has to be looking at the actions of the U.S. against Pakistan and Syria and thinking its not about terrorists anymore. Its about creating conflict to control movement in the Middle East; the flow of oil, the routes, the ports, the waterways and the airspace. They see Blackwater is no better than any other terrorist group operating in the Middle East, yet they're protected by the same laws that protect U.S. troops with the backing of the U.S. government. The line has been blurred.
If the world begins to see our military as no better than any other rebel force because of bad policy and leaders, then there is no argument left to defend when it comes to other nations acting accordingly. There is no argument left when other nations seek nuclear weaponry. There is only murder and genocide because the rules of engagement have changed from combat missions to raids and excursions into other countries. This will only lead to an expansion of the nations joining in this conflict.
This is not what the U.S. military is about. I wonder if the military brass given into the perks of the job while neglecting the soldiers, while neglecting what it means to wear that uniform, or what it means to be a soldier. No one would ask any service personnel to disobey the commander-in-chief, however, when a commander-in-chief abuses his authority for personal and political gain to the extent that it compromises the military and the soldiers on a battlefield, it is the duty of the Military Brass to stand up for these soldiers and for the institution of the U.S. military. If no agreement is reached by December 31, 2008, Bush and the Military Brass will have failed these soldiers.
It'll be interesting to see if the EU and other countries will withdraw their soldiers? Especially, seeing how they pride themselves on the laws of the Hague.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
This is not what our military is about and I would hope that the so called Brass in the Pentagon would step up and never let Bush or any commander-in-chief abuse the honor of the military by compromising their role as soldiers and not rebels.
There's nothing new about any of that. They're called black ops and they've been happening since the days of the OSS.
But, I guess when it happens under an administration that has been criticized by Pearl Jam, it's time to start caring, right?
Well, I’m glad you were able to circle back and figure out why you brought him up in the first place…to prove a point that was common sense to begin with. I find it ironic that you think I’M the one twisting things, while you grasp for examples of people that are happy to have their country destroyed in the name of regime change.
Not sure what part of my posts you find to be fantasy, but I can tell you that it hasn’t taken much effort to point out your flawed reasoning. The fact that you can’t directly answer a question shows that you recognize those flaws, so maybe the lectures are working
Being an apologist for state-sponsored mass murder is, quite frankly, sad.
Yes it was a common sense point, but you were the one who needed it rehashed to you.
If you can find a logic of mine that is flawed, I'll be more than happy to simplify it to you in a way that you can understand.
So far, this thread has been largely about me explaining the obvious to you as you search for angle that actually makes any sense at all. All you have to do is start using your head and you can save me a lot of trouble.
Yes it was a common sense point, but you were the one who needed it rehashed to you.
If you can find a logic of mine that is flawed, I'll be more than happy to simplify it to you in a way that you can understand.
So far, this thread has been largely about me explaining the obvious to you as you search for angle that actually makes any sense at all. All you have to do is start using your head and you can save me a lot of trouble.
Actually, half of this thread has been you dodging straightforward questions; taking the offensive every time someone has asked you to clarify your position. The other half has been me trying to point out flaws in your logic. I feel like you just told me to go back to the start without collecting $200. I say we just continue with the denigration and sarcasm instead.
There's nothing new about any of that. They're called black ops and they've been happening since the days of the OSS.
But, I guess when it happens under an administration that has been criticized by Pearl Jam, it's time to start caring, right?
the fact that they've been conducting these black ops for some time does not excuse the criminal aspect of them.
I think people started caring when these "ops" killed innocent people, not when some band said the administration responsible should be held responsible.
When people die, and our gov't is at fault-its with our consent. That's why I care about this issue.
Comments
One more time, it's quite simple.
Original question:
"and if some al qaeda was found living in whatever city/town you are in right now, question: you would be for the US landing helicopters and gunning the town up? Dropping some bombs? killing some kids?"
Your answer in which you "changed the circumstances of the hypothetical scenario upon which the question is based" (this is what you accused me of)
So here you can see quite cleary you changed the scenario yourself.
"If the overwhelming majority of people in my neighborhood were supplying, sheltering, and acting as look-outs for Al Qeada, "answer": I would move to a different neighborhood."
My answer: "First of all, prove to me that "the overwhelming majority of people" (twist on your part, hence the question to explain or at least provide some answer as to why you'd change the question so radically) in that town were al-Qaeda my mistake, and prove that the people in this town knew that "the overwhelming majority" was Al-Qaeda."
Your changed the circumstances of the question. Here's a direct question, sponger, fairly easy and I hope you have the balls to at least answer this one:
Why did you change "some al-Qaeda" into "the overwhelming majority".
There's a huge difference between the two.
Ah, I guess this is the problem. Your "first" post was a complete distortion of the original question and you didn't even answer it.
You said you'd move. Totally irrelevant. I should have nipped your bullshit in the bud right there. Instead, I answered it and I added a little part - "customizing those parameters"
Remember the original question and your answer: "If some al-Qaeda lived in your town, would you be okay with it if the US bombed it" - Answer: "If the overwhelming majority .... I'd move."
Talk about customizing parameters :rolleyes:
Anyway, I "customized your parameters" because I wanted to go back to the original question, which you ignored and still ignore (I think I have a pretty good idea why, too).
"I'd move" Reply: "Yes, but what if you can't" = original question.
So, sponger, I think you are a coward and I cannot give you the benefit of the doubt.
You accuse me of not being able to answer directly without changing the circumstances of the question, while YOU changed the circumstances of the original question to your preferences!
I cannot believe how you're trying to twist this whole thing, it's not working and no one is buying it, sponger. I think your motives for avoiding the question are becoming increasingly more clear.
naděje umírá poslední
The only reason I brought up Saddam was to illustrate the point that it is possible for people to view their own government as terrorists, much like the Iraqi people viewed Saddam.
The fact that you put so much effort into twisting that around into your fantasy conversation scenario where you get to lecture somebody about the debacle that was the invasion of Iraq is, quite frankly, sad.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
It is indeed true that a people can view their leader or government as terrorists. We can all find plenty examples of that. There are quite a lot of Americans, for example, who see the countless bombings and slaughters their country is responsible for as terrorism and rightly so.
Now, there's of course merit in what Drowned Out said. Are you claiming that because the Iraqi people were glad Saddam was toppled they are automatically satisfied and happy with US presence in their country?
The Red Army "liberated" Prague and defeated the Germans, yet I don't think the Czech(oslovakian) people were very please with the regime that followed.
naděje umírá poslední
Iraq has now put on the Accord table that the U.S. can not use its nation to launch military strikes against its neighboring countries. An amendment that could delay any reasonable means to meet the December 31, 2008, deadline for the US to decease all activities in Iraq and begin immediate withdrawal of all its military forces.
Not sure what part of my posts you find to be fantasy, but I can tell you that it hasn’t taken much effort to point out your flawed reasoning. The fact that you can’t directly answer a question shows that you recognize those flaws, so maybe the lectures are working
Being an apologist for state-sponsored mass murder is, quite frankly, sad.
You are 100% right in saying that it's time for the military to stand up to this. But there are some here that will tell you that the military not obeying the executives' every command would be the downfall of your country.
Every nation in the Middle East has to be looking at the actions of the U.S. against Pakistan and Syria and thinking its not about terrorists anymore. Its about creating conflict to control movement in the Middle East; the flow of oil, the routes, the ports, the waterways and the airspace. They see Blackwater is no better than any other terrorist group operating in the Middle East, yet they're protected by the same laws that protect U.S. troops with the backing of the U.S. government. The line has been blurred.
If the world begins to see our military as no better than any other rebel force because of bad policy and leaders, then there is no argument left to defend when it comes to other nations acting accordingly. There is no argument left when other nations seek nuclear weaponry. There is only murder and genocide because the rules of engagement have changed from combat missions to raids and excursions into other countries. This will only lead to an expansion of the nations joining in this conflict.
This is not what the U.S. military is about. I wonder if the military brass given into the perks of the job while neglecting the soldiers, while neglecting what it means to wear that uniform, or what it means to be a soldier. No one would ask any service personnel to disobey the commander-in-chief, however, when a commander-in-chief abuses his authority for personal and political gain to the extent that it compromises the military and the soldiers on a battlefield, it is the duty of the Military Brass to stand up for these soldiers and for the institution of the U.S. military. If no agreement is reached by December 31, 2008, Bush and the Military Brass will have failed these soldiers.
It'll be interesting to see if the EU and other countries will withdraw their soldiers? Especially, seeing how they pride themselves on the laws of the Hague.
There's nothing new about any of that. They're called black ops and they've been happening since the days of the OSS.
But, I guess when it happens under an administration that has been criticized by Pearl Jam, it's time to start caring, right?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Yes it was a common sense point, but you were the one who needed it rehashed to you.
If you can find a logic of mine that is flawed, I'll be more than happy to simplify it to you in a way that you can understand.
So far, this thread has been largely about me explaining the obvious to you as you search for angle that actually makes any sense at all. All you have to do is start using your head and you can save me a lot of trouble.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Actually, half of this thread has been you dodging straightforward questions; taking the offensive every time someone has asked you to clarify your position. The other half has been me trying to point out flaws in your logic. I feel like you just told me to go back to the start without collecting $200. I say we just continue with the denigration and sarcasm instead.
I think people started caring when these "ops" killed innocent people, not when some band said the administration responsible should be held responsible.
When people die, and our gov't is at fault-its with our consent. That's why I care about this issue.