Americans ignore risks, go try to interfere with U.S. drone strikes!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/05/14241712-americans-ignore-great-risks-travel-to-pakistan-to-protest-us-drone-strikes?lite

By Amna Nawaz, NBC News
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Dozens of anti-drone activists have traveled to Pakistan to join a march to the country's tribal areas, where more than 300 strikes have killed thousands of people in the last eight years.
The 32 members of Code Pink (http://www.codepink4peace.org/) have ignored a State Department travel warning (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_5764.html) to take part in Pakistani presidential candidate Imran Khan's "peace rally" to the remote area bordering Afghanistan, where the vast majority of the nearly 350 US drone strikes in Pakistan have occurred.
Advertise (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31066137/media-kit/) | AdChoices (http://g.msn.com/AIPRIV/en-us)
<IFRAME id=dapIfM0 height=250 src="about<strong></strong>:blank" frameBorder=0 width=300 allowTransparency name=dapIfM0 scrolling=no></IFRAME>


<IFRAME id=dapIfM1 height=0 src="about<strong></strong>:blank" frameBorder=0 width=0 allowTransparency name=dapIfM1 scrolling=no></IFRAME>





"People are taking great risks to come here," said Medea Banjamin, co-director of Code Pink. "It shows the depth of conviction that we have to say that 'I don't want my government killing innocent people in my name and I'm going to put my body on the line to try to stop it.' "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If any of them are kidnapped and put to death by the muslims they are ignorantly trying to help I will laugh my ass off. I have no pity for such stupidity.. none.. -Tyr

[aboutime]

Let the IDIOTS in Pink become the Inhuman Shields they want to be.

Hope the DRONE operators save the video record of STUPIDITY in action as the IDIOTS in Pink WAVE OFF the Unstoppable Last Thing they will See.

Spreading their PINKNESS around in Pakistan is a GIFT to the people of the Earth...who try to hide their laughter while watching.

[logroller]

So risking one's life in defense of their convictions is stupid now...seems I've heard Tyr endorse that previously. :confused:

[fj1200]

And quite humorous when they get killed apparently too.

[Dilloduck]

So risking one's life in defense of their convictions is stupid now...seems I've heard Tyr endorse that previously. :confused:

It depends on who is doing the risking. :laugh2:

[Robert A Whit]

Let the IDIOTS in Pink become the Inhuman Shields they want to be.

Hope the DRONE operators save the video record of STUPIDITY in action as the IDIOTS in Pink WAVE OFF the Unstoppable Last Thing they will See.

Spreading their PINKNESS around in Pakistan is a GIFT to the people of the Earth...who try to hide their laughter while watching.

Why is Obama blasting with bombs an ally? I forget.

Actually, Code Pink has a right to protest.

Here is my way is sizing up the various wars we are involved in.

Iraq. I partly blame that one on Democrats and Clinton who crafted a law to get rid of him.
When the war started, I wrote a sort essay about that war. I tried to answer the question of the justness of the war. We had a pretty good idea of the scale of the Saddam killings and that he killed innocents with no remorse. This is a pretty good definition of a terrorist. I do not promote any war. I premote self defense including a defensive war. I do not believe Saddam would have struck the USA though he may have tried to hit us using surrogates, all in all, personally I wish that war had not happened. I still supported Bush for other reasons.
Afghanistan was a clever war on Bush's part. He used not our men as the troops, but he helped the Afghanistani opposition forces win.

Bush's goal in both wars was a fast win followed by a fast exit. He did not want either wars Americanized. He planned for both countries to find their own version of George Washington and start standing up very fast. Best laid plans of mice and men and that rot.

For the life of me, I still do not see the fascination with OBL that Bush and Obama had. I realize that he was at least the symbolic leader but his operation plans on 911 were not his plans, but we locked up the man who did that. Obama has refused to date to prosecute the man. Bush had him ready to prosecute and Obama took that off the table.

Both presidents have killed off many top Al Qaeda leaders.

I can't accept as fact that all of the Al Qaeda members were in on 911.

When you kill a man, at least he should have done something to the USA.

Think of the drones this way. Suppose Pakistan knew of targets they wanted killed off in our country. Suppose Pakistan flew a drone to St. Louis and slammed a target. We would be livid.

I don't understand why we can't respect citizens of other countries.

[logroller]

It depends on who is doing the risking. :laugh2:
Dillo, you obviously can't handle the unvarnished egotism truth.;)

[aboutime]

Why is Obama blasting with bombs an ally? I forget.

Actually, Code Pink has a right to protest.

Here is my way is sizing up the various wars we are involved in.

Iraq. I partly blame that one on Democrats and Clinton who crafted a law to get rid of him.
When the war started, I wrote a sort essay about that war. I tried to answer the question of the justness of the war. We had a pretty good idea of the scale of the Saddam killings and that he killed innocents with no remorse. This is a pretty good definition of a terrorist. I do not promote any war. I premote self defense including a defensive war. I do not believe Saddam would have struck the USA though he may have tried to hit us using surrogates, all in all, personally I wish that war had not happened. I still supported Bush for other reasons.
Afghanistan was a clever war on Bush's part. He used not our men as the troops, but he helped the Afghanistani opposition forces win.

Bush's goal in both wars was a fast win followed by a fast exit. He did not want either wars Americanized. He planned for both countries to find their own version of George Washington and start standing up very fast. Best laid plans of mice and men and that rot.

For the life of me, I still do not see the fascination with OBL that Bush and Obama had. I realize that he was at least the symbolic leader but his operation plans on 911 were not his plans, but we locked up the man who did that. Obama has refused to date to prosecute the man. Bush had him ready to prosecute and Obama took that off the table.

Both presidents have killed off many top Al Qaeda leaders.

I can't accept as fact that all of the Al Qaeda members were in on 911.

When you kill a man, at least he should have done something to the USA.

Think of the drones this way. Suppose Pakistan knew of targets they wanted killed off in our country. Suppose Pakistan flew a drone to St. Louis and slammed a target. We would be livid.

I don't understand why we can't respect citizens of other countries.

I have no problem with CODE PINK demonstrating, or exercising their freedoms of speech anywhere.
If they want to demonstrate, and become targets in Pakistan.

I am behind them ONE-HUNDRED percent.

As for respecting the citizens of other countries.
Where do you draw the line of Respect, when the targets of our drones...happen to be the Enemy...hiding in Pakistan?

You almost sound like you feel a need to DEFEND the POOR people who intend to Kill Americans every chance they get. But you
must turn and look the other way...because...THEY NEVER DID ANYTHING TO YOU..............YET!

[Dilloduck]

Dillo, you obviously can't handle the unvarnished egotism truth.;)

Jack Nicholson tells me the same thing all the time----It's embarassing

[gabosaurus]

So risking one's life in defense of their convictions is stupid now...seems I've heard Tyr endorse that previously. :confused:

It's quite OK for OTHERS to risk their lives in defense of a cause. That is why some choose to back up their words, and other sit around drinking, smoking, getting fat and posting obscure slurs and threats on message boards. :rolleyes:

[aboutime]

It's quite OK for OTHERS to risk their lives in defense of a cause. That is why some choose to back up their words, and other sit around drinking, smoking, getting fat and posting obscure slurs and threats on message boards. :rolleyes:


So, tell us gabby. When do you plan to start backing up your words here? Without knowing it, or understanding it. Each of your posts here are as Liberally Obscure, and threatening to your own mentality anyone might find on a message board.
Have you always been this foolish, or did they teach you how to be that way?

[logroller]

It's quite OK for OTHERS to risk their lives in defense of a cause. That is why some choose to back up their words, and other sit around drinking, smoking, getting fat and posting obscure slurs and threats on message boards. :rolleyes:

Hey wazzock, I resemble that remark... Betta watch yo'self.;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Recently there was a news story of a guy that climbed into the cage with a tiger , "to be one with the tiger", he survived but minus one foot. I had no pity for him. NONE.. SUCH STUPIDITY BRINGS ITS OWN JUSTICE.
Same thing with these idiots that attempt to interfere with our military operation that uses drone strikes in Pakistan. First its treasonous for Americans to go to give aid and comfort to our enemies. Secondly, they are on a fool's errand and I have no pity for such meddling fools.
Now to the raving idjits that attempt to paint their actions as heroic I say -bullshit!
When has it become a heroic thing to go give aid and comfort to our enemies ? I believe thats called treason. Fonda and Kerry made it fashionable alright but they did not make it a valid or heroic cause. Only a damn fool would think so!
These women deserve whatever treatment they get there. I have not an ounce of sympathy for them should they receive the typical thanks from the scum they seek to serve! In fact, I hope that they do..-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So risking one's life in defense of their convictions is stupid now...seems I've heard Tyr endorse that previously. :confused:

Depends on the conviction and exactly what one is defending, but you go ahead and pretend that those fools are on a heroic mission. That way you can attack me for laughing at their idotcy. Have they a right to attempt to interfere with a United Staes military operation on foreign soil? To give aid and comfort to the enemy of this nation. To give aid and comfort to terrorists in hiding? Come on state your case and what you are attempting to defend log! Do more than attempt to take a clever potshot at me while pretending brilliant enlightenment.
Explain how just their cause is or admit your selling out honor for a quick attempted hit me. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It's quite OK for OTHERS to risk their lives in defense of a cause. That is why some choose to back up their words, and other sit around drinking, smoking, getting fat and posting obscure slurs and threats on message boards. :rolleyes:

You are on board with their cause, when are you going over there Gabs? Oh, thats right , you arent. You are just trying to score cheap points anyway you can by making dumbass comments. Which is your usual M.O.--:laugh2:

HOW ABOUT YOU GIVE US AN EXPLAINATION OF HOW AND WHY THEIR CAUSE IS JUST AND HEROIC..
OR ARE YOU DEFENDING SOMETHING YOU THINK NOT HEROIC AND NOT JUST?
LETS HEAR YOUR JUSTIFICATION OR ADMIT THAT YOU AVAILED YOURSELF OF A CHANCE TO MAKE A FEW CHEAP , DUMBASS SHOTS AT ME.-Tyr

[Drummond]

... yes ... excellent post. But I especially agree with ...


You almost sound like you feel a need to DEFEND the POOR people who intend to Kill Americans every chance they get. But you
must turn and look the other way...because...THEY NEVER DID ANYTHING TO YOU..............YET!

That hits the nail on the head.

You can't just wait for an enemy to strike first, take the opportunity to do its worst, and ONLY THEN consider that you have any right to act. That is a nonsense.

Imagine that principle applied overseas, to Iran v Israel. Should Israel consider itself justified in recognising and acting against its Iranian enemies only AFTER Iran has used nukes against their territory, and their citizens ?

Far better to recognise an enemy AS an enemy, and then neutralise that enemy's capacity for harm .. BEFORE the harm happens.

[logroller]

Recently there was a news story of a guy that climbed into the cage with a tiger , "to be one with the tiger", he survived but minus one foot. I had no pity for him. NONE.. SUCH STUPIDITY BRINGS ITS OWN JUSTICE.
Same thing with these idiots that attempt to interfere with our military operation that uses drone strikes in Pakistan. First its treasonous for Americans to go to give aid and comfort to our enemies. Secondly, they are on a fool's errand and I have no pity for such meddling fools.
Now to the raving idjits that attempt to paint their actions as heroic I say -bullshit!
When has it become a heroic thing to go give aid and comfort to our enemies ? I believe thats called treason. Fonda and Kerry made it fashionable alright but they did not make it a valid or heroic cause. Only a damn fool would think so!
These women deserve whatever treatment they get there. I have not an ounce of sympathy for them should they receive the typical thanks from the scum they seek to serve! In fact, I hope that they do..-Tyr
Why is the tiger in a cage? I would think being one with a tiger wouldn't include being caged. Anymore than being oppressed by a government is being one with the nation.

Depends on the conviction and exactly what one is defending, but you go ahead and pretend that those fools are on a heroic mission. That way you can attack me for laughing at their idotcy. Have they a right to attempt to interfere with a United Staes military operation on foreign soil? To give aid and comfort to the enemy of this nation. To give aid and comfort to terrorists in hiding? Come on state your case and what you are attempting to defend log! Do more than attempt to take a clever potshot at me while pretending brilliant enlightenment.
Explain how just their cause is or admit your selling out honor for a quick attempted hit me. -Tyr
What's been your mantra since day 1-- Stand up America; don't let the traitorous President/CIC (ie the government) take your rights blah blah blather. Now, when someone actually does something, you say "look at these fools" ....well pot, meet kettle.

Who defines this enemy: you? the government? The president? Haven't we a right to stand up against our government, or anybody, when we determine it's actions are not in our interests? The people there, these pink people, believe that innocent people are being killed in their name--They have a problem with this and have chosen, of their own free will, as endowed by their Creator, to stand up against what they perceive as an injustice. Hell yes I defend that right! You seem to only when it suits your conceited position.

I need not explain how just their cause; nor is anyone's honor even on the floor for debate-- but nice attempt to paint the debate into your own single-minded alternatives.

Nor do I have to agree with someone's position to defend their right to act in defense of that position. I don't agree with the Phelps' gang's atrocious positions, but I defend their right to say it. I don't agree with homosexuality, but I support the inalienable right of all people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Just as if/when the drones kill those pink people; I would consider rather their individual right to life is necessarily forlorn in defense of the greater interest. That they would die doesn't make the pink people foolish or stupid, just casualties to the cause of freedom. You're right about one thing though, there's nothing to pity them for if they were to die; freedom is as worthy a cause to die for as any other.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What's been your mantra since day 1-- Stand up America; don't let the traitorous President/CIC (ie the government) take your rights blah blah blather. Now, when someone actually does something, you say "look at these fools" ....well pot, meet kettle.

Are you crazy? Standing against our government is valid even if its giving aid and comfort to the enemy on foreign shores! Is that your stand? Your lame attempt at justifying their idiotcy!--Tyr

Who defines this enemy: you? the government? The president? Haven't we a right to stand up against our government, or anybody, when we determine it's actions are not in our interests? The people there, these pink people, believe that innocent people are being killed in their name--They have a problem with this and have chosen, of their own free will, as endowed by their Creator, to stand up against what they perceive as an injustice. Hell yes I defend that right! You seem to only when it suits your conceited position.

We do not have a right to help America's enemies and call it heroic, valid or anything other than what it is--treason. That you try to spin it otherwise points to your own foolishnes and grasping at straws!-Tyr

I need not explain how just their cause; nor is anyone's honor even on the floor for debate-- but nice attempt to paint the debate into your own single-minded alternatives.

Yes you do if you are stating that its valid , justified and/or heroic. Because you tried to equate it to my stand you do have to explain and not with lies , half truths , spinning or the freaking lame shit that you are so desperately trying now.-Tyr

Nor do I have to agree with someone's position to defend their right to act in defense of that position. I don't agree with the Phelps' gang's atrocious positions, but I defend their right to say it. I don't agree with homosexuality, but I support the inalienable right of all people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Just as if/when the drones kill those pink people; I would consider rather their individual right to life is necessarily forlorn in defense of the greater interest. That they would die doesn't make the pink people foolish or stupid, just casualties to the cause of freedom. You're right about one thing though, there's nothing to pity them for if they were to die; freedom is as worthy a cause to die for as any other.

You are free to spout the shat you just spit out and I am free to call you a fool and if you are sincere call you a damn dumbass as well. Which I do on both counts!-Tyr
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You call valid or heroic people interfering in our miltary operations overseas and then you attempt to equate that with Constitutional protest . How ffing stupid. Our constitution does not insure the right for Americans to help people that are waging war against us ! Are you completely daft!?? Or just that damn desperate to defend them because I rightly attacked their idiotcy? Both I suspect.. -Tyr

[jimnyc]

The 32 members of Code Pink (http://www.codepink4peace.org/) have ignored a State Department travel warning (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_5764.html) to take part in Pakistani presidential candidate Imran Khan's "peace rally" to the remote area bordering Afghanistan, where the vast majority of the nearly 350 US drone strikes in Pakistan have occurred.

I sure would feel horrible if they tried to stand in the way in had an errant bomb dropped on them. Think of the amount of sleep I would lose. Oh. No. The horror. :rolleyes:

[aboutime]

I sure would feel horrible if they tried to stand in the way in had an errant bomb dropped on them. Think of the amount of sleep I would lose. Oh. No. The horror. :rolleyes:

If we had a Real President who obeyed his Oath, and our constitution. He would tell the State Department, and customs NOT to allow any of those CODE PINK members back into the country, unless they could be placed in custody as Treasonous threats to the United States.

Obviously. They ignored the State Department warnings, and should be punished to the full extent of the law. Which we all know....Under Obama, and Holder, would be nothing more than a Slap on their Disgusting Wrists...where I WOULD PERSONALLY LOVE TO SLAP.....A PAIR OF CUFFS.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If we had a Real President who obeyed his Oath, and our constitution. He would tell the State Department, and customs NOT to allow any of those CODE PINK members back into the country, unless they could be placed in custody as Treasonous threats to the United States.

Obviously. They ignored the State Department warnings, and should be punished to the full extent of the law. Which we all know....Under Obama, and Holder, would be nothing more than a Slap on their Disgusting Wrists...where I WOULD PERSONALLY LOVE TO SLAP.....A PAIR OF CUFFS.


All they had to do was revoke their passports. They could not have left the country unless they chose to be smuggled out of the country. Obama admin chose not to do that because he did not want to anger his loving leftist/socialist dumbass base.-Tyr

[gabosaurus]

What's been your mantra since day 1-- Stand up America; don't let the traitorous President/CIC (ie the government) take your rights blah blah blather. Now, when someone actually does something, you say "look at these fools" ....well pot, meet kettle.


tyr reminds me of an old saying about how men approach impending danger. Heroes step up while cowards step back (and turn on their laptops :p )

[logroller]

You are free to spout the shat you just spit out and I am free to call you a fool and if you are sincere call you a damn dumbass as well. Which I do on both counts!-Tyr
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You call valid or heroic people interfering in our miltary operations overseas and then you attempt to equate that with Constitutional protest . How ffing stupid. Our constitution does not insure the right for Americans to help people that are waging war against us ! Are you completely daft!?? Or just that damn desperate to defend them because I rightly attacked their idiotcy? Both I suspect.. -Tyr



Veiled explicatives, insults and name calling...:yawn: how very persuasive.:rolleyes:


Explain how those people interfere with military operations. theyve been warned against going there. i doubt our military will forgo an attack on a specific threat because of their presence. if they do, then our military is pinker than they are. I didn't say anything about constitutional rights either, I said our rights granted by our creator. So you're either too daft to understand the foundation of rights or purposefully obfuscating...both I suspect.

[gabosaurus]

Pakistan should deal with these intruders the same way Israel does -- Shoot all of them and then claim they were terrorists.

[SassyLady]

... yes ... excellent post. But I especially agree with ...



That hits the nail on the head.

You can't just wait for an enemy to strike first, take the opportunity to do its worst, and ONLY THEN consider that you have any right to act. That is a nonsense.

Imagine that principle applied overseas, to Iran v Israel. Should Israel consider itself justified in recognising and acting against its Iranian enemies only AFTER Iran has used nukes against their territory, and their citizens ?

Far better to recognise an enemy AS an enemy, and then neutralise that enemy's capacity for harm .. BEFORE the harm happens.

I agree Drum ..... in my life I've always been better off when I was proactive rather than reactive. Imagine waiting until my children did something that was inappropriate before I took action. It was better to educate them on what expectations are prior to an event.

I believe in being clear about expectations and the result of not complying with the expectations. Also, I don't usually give a second warning....which is why it's crucial to make sure I'm fully understood about expectations.

[SassyLady]

I believe people have the right to express their opinions and to peacefully protest. However, I will have no sympathy for people who do stupid things to get their point across.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Veiled explicatives, insults and name calling...:yawn: how very persuasive.:rolleyes:

^^^ You mean so very persuasive like when you called me a racist, bigot, liar, traitor, drunk, etc... remove that 2x4 IN YOUR OWN EYE BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO LECTURE ME ..--Tyr


Explain how those people interfere with military operations. theyve been warned against going there. i doubt our military will forgo an attack on a specific threat because of their presence. if they do, then our military is pinker than they are. I didn't say anything about constitutional rights either, I said our rights granted by our creator. So you're either too daft to understand the foundation of rights or purposefully obfuscating...both I suspect.

Go ahead try to excuse their breaking the law by giving aid and comfort to America's enemies. You are a pathetic little git.--Tyr

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more you post, the more I feel sorry for you.. -Tyr

[logroller]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more you post, the more I feel sorry for you.. -Tyr


At least my posts properly use the quote function.

FYI--Ignoring a travel warning, while unwise, is not a crime.

[fj1200]

Same thing with these idiots that attempt to interfere with our military operation that uses drone strikes in Pakistan. First its treasonous for Americans to go to give aid and comfort to our enemies. Secondly, they are on a fool's errand and I have no pity for such meddling fools.
...
When has it become a heroic thing to go give aid and comfort to our enemies ? I believe thats called treason.

It doesn't appear that they are neither guilty of treason nor giving aid and comfort. We are not at war with Pakistan.


http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/05/14241712-americans-ignore-great-risks-travel-to-pakistan-to-protest-us-drone-strikes?lite

By Amna Nawaz, NBC News
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Dozens of anti-drone activists have traveled to Pakistan to join a march to the country's tribal areas, where more than 300 strikes have killed thousands of people in the last eight years.
The 32 members of Code Pink (http://www.codepink4peace.org/) have ignored a State Department travel warning (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_5764.html) to take part in Pakistani presidential candidate Imran Khan's "peace rally" to the remote area bordering Afghanistan, where the vast majority of the nearly 350 US drone strikes in Pakistan have occurred.

It seems that so far it's been reported that they are only joining a "peace rally."

[gabosaurus]

I believe people have the right to express their opinions and to peacefully protest. However, I will have no sympathy for people who do stupid things to get their point across.

I agree with you. And apparently Jim does as well, because he continues to allow them to do so. :p

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It doesn't appear that they are neither guilty of treason nor giving aid and comfort. We are not at war with Pakistan.

No, idjit we are at war with those that we dronestrike in Pakistan , that is unless you think we dronestrike their for target practice.-Tyr



It seems that so far it's been reported that they are only joining a "peace rally."

^^^^^ Aid and comfort , look it up genius. Such support qualifies.. That obama admin will turn a blind eye to it does not negate the truth of that.--Tyr

[logroller]

^^^^^ Aid and comfort , look it up genius. Such support qualifies.. That obama admin will turn a blind eye to it does not negate the truth of that.--Tyr


The war on terror is insanely ubiquitous. Has congress declared war on Pakistan...no. The war on terror has given the CIC the authority to engage in acts of war anywhere at anytime. I thought you were against that sort of overly broad- reaching authority. I guess it's different when it serves your agenda of being worldwide bully. That's the been our policy agenda for the last 100 years. Manipulating diplomatic and military actions for their economic reward. Now we have the ultimate trump justification-- terrorists. Never mind we literally trained them on how to maximize the use guerrilla tactics in order to inflict emotional damage....they're our enemies now. Same tactic u employ here: I'm my friend until I dont swallow your rhetoric and ask for seconds. If it quacks like a duck...You're no different than a terrorist or a nazi in my estimation. Preaching hate under the guise of security.
Well I'm not scared of you or them. For even if I shall perish, I know love and peace and will be with my father. You'll be throwing sticks and stones...at least at those weaker than you unless you can roust up some support from brave people who actually put their asses in the line of fire.

[Abbey Marie]

As long as we are not expected to risk lives to rescue them when they are in trouble, go ahead and protest away.

[fj1200]

^^^^^ Aid and comfort , look it up genius. Such support qualifies.. That obama admin will turn a blind eye to it does not negate the truth of that.--Tyr



I already did. Please explain how a peace march with an ally on the war on terror is aid and comfort.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The war on terror is insanely ubiquitous. Has congress declared war on Pakistan...no. The war on terror has given the CIC the authority to engage in acts of war anywhere at anytime. I thought you were against that sort of overly broad- reaching authority. I guess it's different when it serves your agenda of being worldwide bully. That's the been our policy agenda for the last 100 years. Manipulating diplomatic and military actions for their economic reward. Now we have the ultimate trump justification-- terrorists. Never mind we literally trained them on how to maximize the use guerrilla tactics in order to inflict emotional damage....they're our enemies now. Same tactic u employ here: I'm my friend until I dont swallow your rhetoric and ask for seconds. If it quacks like a duck...You're no different than a terrorist or a nazi in my estimation. Preaching hate under the guise of security.
Well I'm not scared of you or them. For even if I shall perish, I know love and peace and will be with my father. You'll be throwing sticks and stones...at least at those weaker than you unless you can roust up some support from brave people who actually put their asses in the line of fire.

Now you are spitting out what you really think and its not very bright. Also were I to do that as an attack on you it would be considered rude, and an attack upon the messenger because attacking the message fails. Yet you think it briliance on your part.
Now you have added to that list you started on me a while back.
Now I am a terrorist/nazi according to you.. Yet by most people's standard(that arent blind) I would be called a hardcore patriot. You remember that word dont you? Sure you do , for you have decided that America is wrong, always has been wrong and the word patriot signifies a lout! As evidenced by your comment that I bolded and enlarged in your quote above. Then you have the damn audacity to try to lecture me using your righteous indignant voice about my manner of posting here..
You sir are
1. a damn fraud,
2. a damn liar
3. a coward
4. most likely a damn traitor to boot..
Thats my new list on you and your recent posts made attacking me and my patriotism including this last one which easily verifies it for me.

"Last hundred years military action= manipulation for their economic reward" , = WW2 !! You sir, are a damn liar and scum in my book. I have family that died fighting in WW2. I've never asked or demanded that you be afraid of me but you talking shat like that I'd advise you to never do it to my face , ever! Advice you'd do well to understand and heed.. As I've about had enough of your arrogant and self-righteous insults.. Also , your damn utter contempt for my freedom of speech that I exercise as an American citizen!!
Damn glad you finally got around to spitting out your true feelings about our nation. I bolded and enlarged that for others to read and understand. For it to me , clearly puts you into the liberal camp despite your clever attempts to portray differently. You are a liberal in hiding and why you hide is because you are a coward too...-Tyr

[logroller]

Now you are spitting out what you really think and its not very bright. Also were I to do that as an attack on you it would be considered rude, and an attack upon the messenger because attacking the message fails. Yet you think it briliance on your part.
Now you have added to that list you started on me a while back.
Now I am a terrorist/nazi according to you.. Yet by most people's standard(that arent blind) I would be called a hardcore patriot. You remember that word dont you? Sure you do , for you have decided that America is wrong, always has been wrong and the word patriot signifies a lout! As evidenced by your comment that I bolded and enlarged in your quote above. Then you have the damn audacity to try to lecture me using your righteous indignant voice about my manner of posting here..
You sir are
1. a damn fraud,
2. a damn liar and
3. most likely a damn traitor to boot..
Thats my new list on you and your recent posts made attacking me and my patriotism including this last one which easily verifies it.

"Last hundred years military action= manipulation for their economic reward" , = WW2 !! You sir, are a damn liar and scum in my book. I have family that died fighting in WW2. I've never asked or demanded that you be afraid of me but you talking shat like that I'd advise you to never do it to my face , ever! Advice you'd do well to understand and heed.. As I've about had enough of your arrogant and self-righteous insults.. Also , your damn utter contempt for my freedom of speech that I exercise as an American citizen!! -Tyr

Might want to double check your facts before posting:
1) WWI and WWII were declared wars, not military actions
2) WWII lasted 4 years, 1945- 1941 =/= 100
obviously you're not as gifted at history and math as you are demagoguery and rhetorical intimidation. Unfortunately, your freedom of speech isn't contingent upon your ability to comprehend what you read. Pity. But hope springs eternal-- looks like you managed to get the quote system straight.:clap:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Might want to double check your facts before posting:
1) WWI and WWII were declared wars, not military actions
2) WWII lasted 4 years, 1945- 1941 =/= 100
obviously you're not as gifted at history and math as you are demagoguery and rhetorical intimidation. Unfortunately, your freedom of speech isn't contingent upon your ability to comprehend what you read. Pity. But hope springs eternal-- looks like you managed to get the quote system straight.:clap:

Last hundred years of military action = 1912 to 2012. Your math and attempt at spinning dont cut it!
In case you missed it genius WW2 was a miltary action, as that is what war is =military action. You had better go back and read your own words but I suspect this is just attempted spin because I nailed you so hard and so accurately..
Dont pity me as its you that need it for your previous post that I addressed and this rather lame attempt at spin and CYA. Here are your words exactly!


"I guess it's different when it serves your agenda of being worldwide bully. That's the been our policy agenda for the last 100 years. Manipulating diplomatic and military actions for their economic reward."



^^^^^ Obvious by your words above that your attempted spin fails miserably. And I pity you , your ego and your arrogance defeat you..-Tyr

[logroller]

"Last hundred years military action= manipulation for their economic reward" , = WW2 !!

does not compute... tyr again.


Last hundred years of military action = 1912 to 2012.

Hey now you get it. That's two times now I've been impressed. Now when you grasp the difference between a war and military action (hint: one is declared, not just paid for, by Congress) then we can discuss the influence of economic hegemony and the military-industrial complex.

[jimnyc]

As long as we are not expected to risk lives to rescue them when they are in trouble, go ahead and protest away.

Yep, and not only wouldn't I even risk looking at them through a long distance scope, I would actually giggle a tad should a drone missile happen to find them within it's range. Idiots!

[logroller]

Yep, and not only wouldn't I even risk looking at them through a long distance scope, I would actually giggle a tad should a drone missile happen to find them within it's range. Idiots!

That's grotesquely indecent. Tyr said similar. I don't know about you guys; I think all this talk about Islamic xtremism has infected your sense of human decency.

[tailfins]

That's grotesquely indecent. Tyr said similar. I don't know about you guys; I think all this talk about Islamic xtremism has infected your sense of human decency.

That's how it works in practice: Discrimination, harassment, criminal attacks. For the law abiding that accept this; it conditions the public to accept the TSA and other sacrifices. Let's show those muslims, Mr. TSA, run your hand down my butt crack.

[jimnyc]

That's grotesquely indecent. Tyr said similar. I don't know about you guys; I think all this talk about Islamic xtremism has infected your sense of human decency.

Those going to protest are Islamic extremists? I could have sworn I read that it was code pink idiots. And of they want to go to a place where missiles are dropped, I won't have a damn bit of sympathy if they find themselves at the receiving end of a missile. Don't worry about judging me, Log, I can handle myself, unless of course you want to be judged in return?

[jimnyc]

Btw, I would have said the same back in the day about Jane Fonda. You want to wander into another nation, where perhaps America has fighter jets (drones) or similar tasks going on, then don't whine if an errant bomb hits nearby.

[Abbey Marie]

That's grotesquely indecent. Tyr said similar. I don't know about you guys; I think all this talk about Islamic xtremism has infected your sense of human decency.

And I think all the Islamic terrorist apologetics and relativism recently seen on this board, is causing people to talk more aggressively than they otherwise might.

Sometimes it feels like a frying pan to the head is the only thing that will wake up some people.

(Uh oh, was that indecent?)

[tailfins]

Those going to protest are Islamic extremists? I could have sworn I read that it was code pink idiots. And of they want to go to a place where missiles are dropped, I won't have a damn bit of sympathy if they find themselves at the receiving end of a missile. Don't worry about judging me, Log, I can handle myself, unless of course you want to be judged in return?

Code Pink is trained in Havana. They do the bidding of the Castro brothers. If they get to be too big of an impediment, they should be prosecuted for interfering with a US military exercise.

[logroller]

And I think all the Islamic terrorist apologetics and relativism recently seen on this board, is causing people to talk more aggressively than they otherwise might.

Sometimes it feels like a frying pan to the head is the only thing that will wake up some people.

(Uh oh, was that indecent?)
You've always struck me a decent Abbey-- would you laugh at the death of a human being?

That you're making excuses for an indecent comment by a close friend, that doesn't make you indecent. Its admirable to come to the defense of a friend. Doesn't make his comment decent though. and you're right, people are acting more aggressive; but its not because of terrorist apologetics, that's been around a long time; its because of the rhetoric and demagoguery recently seen on this board.

[jimnyc]

You've always struck me a decent Abbey-- would you laugh at the death of a human being?

That you're making excuses for an indecent comment by a close friend, that doesn't make you indecent. Its admirable to come to the defense of a friend. Doesn't make his comment decent though. and you're right, people are acting more aggressive; but its not because of terrorist apologetics, that's been around a long time; its because of the rhetoric and demagoguery recently seen on this board.

And you never heard of "Darwin Awards" before? And never laughed about them before? People doing VERY stupid things and end up dead qualify for these mythical awards, and there seen by probably millions every year. You sure do have a lot of people out there to contact and put down for thinking these awards are funny.

Here, you can start by chiming in on these threads and telling all of the participants how out of line they are and how they have no decency:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?3303-Darwin-strikes-again&highlight=darwin+awards
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?11621-Stupidity-At-It-s-Finest&highlight=darwin+awards
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?15497-2008-Darwin-Awards&highlight=darwin+awards
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?21158-Iran-says-Obamas-offer-to-talk-shows-US-failure&highlight=darwin+awards
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?24333-The-Darwin-Awards&highlight=darwin+awards
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36757-Fan-falls-to-death-at-Texans-stadium-in-Houston&highlight=darwin+awards

[aboutime]

Code Pink is trained in Havana. They do the bidding of the Castro brothers. If they get to be too big of an impediment, they should be prosecuted for interfering with a US military exercise.

jimnyc, and everyone else.

On this thread. We must first, and foremost remember. Our Constitution does not, and cannot take away any American's right to be STUPID, IGNORANT, or DUMB.

If those ladies from CODE PINK want to stand there and become more of a RED SPRAY on the ground where they are standing. I SAY...LET THEM.

[Gaffer]

wonder if they will wear their vagina costumes for the taliban while they are demonstrating?

[Abbey Marie]

You've always struck me a decent Abbey-- would you laugh at the death of a human being?

That you're making excuses for an indecent comment by a close friend, that doesn't make you indecent. Its admirable to come to the defense of a friend. Doesn't make his comment decent though. and you're right, people are acting more aggressive; but its not because of terrorist apologetics, that's been around a long time; its because of the rhetoric and demagoguery recently seen on this board.

Perhaps your time here being relatively short explains the above, but we as 2 boards never had Islamic apologists as we do lately here. I blame the recent "rhetoric and demagoguery" as you call it, on the constant apologetics. You think it is the other way around. In the face of so much evidence to the contrary, it is frustrating for many to see people saying, "It's not Islam that is behind these atrocious acts", or "Terrorisim is not widespread". Or, "It's just a few bad apples". Or my personal fave, "Christians (1000 yrs ago) are just as bad".

I believe that if the defense of Islam would lessen, so would lots of comments such as the one you feel is so indecent. Personally, I think you are making way too much over the comment.

As for me, I will not be cowed by anyone's description of me as decent, indecent or otherwise. I yam what I yam: A sinner who needs God's mercy every single day.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Perhaps your time here being relatively short explains the above, but we as 2 boards never had Islamic apologists as we do lately here. I blame the recent "rhetoric and demagoguery" as you call it, on the constant apologetics. You think it is the other way around. In the face of so much evidence to the contrary, it is frustrating for many to see people saying, "It's not Islam that is behind these atrocious acts", or "Terrorisim is not widespread". Or, "It's just a few bad apples". Or my personal fave, "Christians (1000 yrs ago) are just as bad".

I believe that if the defense of Islam would lessen, so would lots of comments such as the one you feel is so indecent. Personally, I think you are making way too much over the comment.

As for me, I will not be cowed by anyone's description of me as decent, indecent or otherwise. I yam what I yam: A sinner who needs God's mercy every single day.

You have it right I believe. The apologists want their apologising to go uncontested. We that know the truth about Islam can not and will not abide that deception. I know for sure that I will not do so.-Tyr

[tailfins]

You have it right I believe. The apologists want their apologising to go uncontested. We that know the truth about Islam can not and will not abide that deception. I know for sure that I will not do so.-Tyr



What I can't abide by is simple minded analysis. I'm all for defending the country and even military action when called for. I even agree that we cannot prevent collateral damage. I'm a supporter of Benjamin Netanyahu. It would be the height of comical to label Bibi an Islamic apologist.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What I can't abide by is simple minded analysis. I'm all for defending the country and even military action when called for. I even agree that we cannot prevent collateral damage. I'm a supporter of Benjamin Netanyahu. It would be the height of comical to label Bibi an Islamic apologist.

Hey Hoss, bibi hasnt been posting here , YOU HAVE!!

[fj1200]

I blame the recent "rhetoric and demagoguery" as you call it, on the constant apologetics.

Really? For that to be remotely true then the "apologists" would have to be creating all those Muslim related threads and be defending their actions. You might want to look at the number of threads that have been started along with the tenor of those threads. Most of those "apologists" are anti-US involvement where it always seems to backfire or opposed to the sort of extremism that comes from those threads; we even had the suggestion of reprising internment camps.

[jimnyc]

we even had the suggestion of reprising internment camps.

Certainly not from someone who takes issue with the many problems facing us via Islamic nutcases. It was SO obvious that the thread you speak of was trolling material, as the author doesn't do much more but go to the rest of the Muslim threads and either defend them, or poke at anyone who does take issue with Muslims who pervert the religion and kill or abuse people. I thought it was clear from the get go that the thread you speak of was meant as bait.

[fj1200]

Certainly not from someone who takes issue with the many problems facing us via Islamic nutcases. It was SO obvious that the thread you speak of was trolling material, as the author doesn't do much more but go to the rest of the Muslim threads and either defend them, or poke at anyone who does take issue with Muslims who pervert the religion and kill or abuse people. I thought it was clear from the get go that the thread you speak of was meant as bait.

That's not the thread that I'm referring too. I also don't see much defending of "Islamic nutcases" but then again I've been avoiding most of the new threads that are Muslim in nature.

[Abbey Marie]

What I can't abide by is simple minded analysis. I'm all for defending the country and even military action when called for. I even agree that we cannot prevent collateral damage. I'm a supporter of Benjamin Netanyahu. It would be the height of comical to label Bibi an Islamic apologist.

True dat.

[Abbey Marie]

Really? For that to be remotely true then the "apologists" would have to be creating all those Muslim related threads and be defending their actions. You might want to look at the number of threads that have been started along with the tenor of those threads. Most of those "apologists" are anti-US involvement where it always seems to backfire or opposed to the sort of extremism that comes from those threads; we even had the suggestion of reprising internment camps.

Unlike you, I don't think it always matters who starts the threads. Say Person A starts a thread on something that actually happed, (i.e., a 14 year old Pakistani girl being shot in the head by Muslims), and Person B comes in to say "Oh, come on, Christians are just as bad", or "You are exaggerating the Islamic problem". It is rather unbelievable to many of us to see that reaction to such ongoing horrors. It goes against the preponderance of the evidence. I think that explains the ever-increasing font size and colors in some replies. It is borne of frustration and perhaps anger at people trying to defend the indefensible.

I don't tend to get upset because I see a lot of this as either just debating to try to look like the smartest guy in the room, or just plain old contrarianism. Both behaviors as old as message boards.

In the end, I expect everyone will be forced to see truth for what it is, and we will know who was right.

[fj1200]

Unlike you, I don't think it always matters who starts the threads. Say Person A starts a thread on something that actually happed, (i.e., a 14 year old Pakistani girl being shot in the head by Muslims), and Person B comes in to say "Oh, come on, Christians are just as bad", or "You are exaggerating the Islamic problem". It is rather unbelievable to many of us to see that reaction to such ongoing horrors. It goes against the preponderance of the evidence. I think that explains the ever-increasing font size and colors in some replies. It is borne of frustration and perhaps anger at people trying to defend the indefensible.

I don't tend to get upset because I see a lot of this as either just debating to try to look like the smartest guy in the room, or just plain old contrarianism. Both behaviors as old as message boards.

In the end, I expect everyone will be forced to see truth for what it is, and we will know who was right.

I didn't say anything about who starts the threads, it's the shear quantity of the threads and how they all have the same tone. Add in all the threads that don't start with anything about Islam and end up being about Islam at least in part and it's quite undeniable.

[jimnyc]

I didn't say anything about who starts the threads, it's the shear quantity of the threads and how they all have the same tone.

Ask Islam to stop killing every darn day, and trying to kill innocent Americans, and abusing children - and I'd bet you would see less threads! Otherwise, it sounds like you don't like people posting about current news, or at least the topic of the current news. I'd also imagine that if people ignored threads they don't like, they wouldn't remain in the top 10 all the time. For every single thread you have an issue with, I can show you others keeping them going. With that said, and both sides replying, I would say that means people are interested in discussing the issue. And if so, I say we let them, without personally critiquing either side.

Personally, I would rather such threads don't end up in every forum, and perhaps just the religion forum, and I've got the ball rolling on that attempt already. But the tone goes BOTH ways and wouldn't evolve into what they do without BOTH sides participating.

[fj1200]

Ask Islam to stop killing every darn day, and trying to kill innocent Americans, and abusing children - and I'd bet you would see less threads! Otherwise, it sounds like you don't like people posting about current news, or at least the topic of the current news. I'd also imagine that if people ignored threads they don't like, they wouldn't remain in the top 10 all the time. For every single thread you have an issue with, I can show you others keeping them going. With that said, and both sides replying, I would say that means people are interested in discussing the issue. And if so, I say we let them, without personally critiquing either side.

Personally, I would rather such threads don't end up in every forum, and perhaps just the religion forum, and I've got the ball rolling on that attempt already. But the tone goes BOTH ways and wouldn't evolve into what they do without BOTH sides participating.

Of course, but when ANY pushback is felt by some the immediate call is made that they are apologists/refuse to see/are libs/are closet Muslims, etc. So in short I don't feel that there is any "discussing the issue" but rather pointless yelling that results in nothing and further threads don't really add anything.

But that's the nature of the beast I suppose and I can't claim any innocence on pointless posts. ;) :laugh:

[logroller]

Perhaps your time here being relatively short explains the above, but we as 2 boards never had Islamic apologists as we do lately here. I blame the recent "rhetoric and demagoguery" as you call it, on the constant apologetics. You think it is the other way around. In the face of so much evidence to the contrary, it is frustrating for many to see people saying, "It's not Islam that is behind these atrocious acts", or "Terrorisim is not widespread". Or, "It's just a few bad apples". Or my personal fave, "Christians (1000 yrs ago) are just as bad".

I believe that if the defense of Islam would lessen, so would lots of comments such as the one you feel is so indecent. Personally, I think you are making way too much over the comment.

As for me, I will not be cowed by anyone's description of me as decent, indecent or otherwise. I yam what I yam: A sinner who needs God's mercy every single day.

Your failure to answer what is a rather simple yes/no question is an answer in itself. That's the same answer I got from Jafar regarding apostasy-- nothing. Because when faced with undermining your own position, you dodge. DO I do it too, you bet. But I get surely get called on it when I do; and called must worse than decent.

That you, personally, feel otherwise and that seems to be mantra for this place of late and Jim has outright told me he won't consider a point-by-point rebuttal because it is "playing games"

Though I haven't been here as long you, I have always valued the site for what I thought was its mission
Debate Policy will remain an adult based forum where you are free to post your views on any number of subjects. These rules aren't in place to limit anyone's ability to post their views, but rather to keep a sense of decency about the board. While we like to remain hands-off as much as possible, there will be times where a staff member will need to step in and keep things within the parameters we feel are best for the board.


Perhaps I overstepped my bounds as a contributing member, but I did so out of a general desire for decency -- seems neither is any longer the case. Godspeed. LR out.

[jimnyc]

Of course, but when ANY pushback is felt by some the immediate call is made that they are apologists/refuse to see/are libs/are closet Muslims, etc. So in short I don't feel that there is any "discussing the issue" but rather pointless yelling that results in nothing and further threads don't really add anything.

But that's the nature of the beast I suppose and I can't claim any innocence on pointless posts. ;) :laugh:

I can only speak for myself in that department, I don't think I've ever called anyone a liberal over it or an apologist - but I have seen people get on my case for simply posting current news, and have been referred to as a "hater" many times, Islamaphobic and other crap. As a wise man once said "Just the facts, Ma'am", and that's where I like to be with my posts on the issue. But sometimes those facts get you into hot water or people look at you differently. I'd like to think that those killing and abusing people are the haters, but oddly enough, those people end up not being talked about in the end and it's generally the person who pointed out the facts who gets the heat.

** speaking about myself, I don't speak for anyone else and their threads and their facts.

[jimnyc]

That you, personally, feel otherwise and that seems to be mantra for this place of late and Jim has outright told me he won't consider a point-by-point rebuttal because it is "playing games"

You're out of your effing mind if you think I've EVER avoided a debate - unless you want to count ONE thread today, where I would rather stay out of a thread that has evolved into fighting, name calling and tossing shit at one another. I also don't play the sentence by sentence game as I see it as amateurish. I can type like and adult with paragraphs and I'm confident that those who register here can do so if they try as well.

Please leave me out of your arguments unless it is you and I personally discussing/debating something, speaking of playing games.

[fj1200]

I can only speak for myself in that department, I don't think I've ever called anyone a liberal over it or an apologist - but I have seen people get on my case for simply posting current news, and have been referred to as a "hater" many times, Islamaphobic and other crap. As a wise man once said "Just the facts, Ma'am", and that's where I like to be with my posts on the issue. But sometimes those facts get you into hot water or people look at you differently. I'd like to think that those killing and abusing people are the haters, but oddly enough, those people end up not being talked about in the end and it's generally the person who pointed out the facts who gets the heat.

** speaking about myself, I don't speak for anyone else and their threads and their facts.

I wasn't putting you in that camp. Keeping it to the facts would certainly help the site live up to its name, "Debate Policy," IMO.

[jimnyc]

Perhaps I overstepped my bounds as a contributing member, but I did so out of a general desire for decency -- seems neither is any longer the case. Godspeed. LR out.

The decency is in reference to the community, how everyone interacts with one another, how we all respond to one another when faced with adversity. This has nothing at all to do with how one may feel about a subject/hot topic. I always thought it best that if someone didn't like the tone of a thread/post - just move along to the next one. But getting involved in the "tone" and then complaining about the other person does nothing whatsoever to promote a better environment. I don't see anyone who has overstepped their bounds - but we ALL must be prepared, that when we say something to another person, and it's not something polite, we are very liable to get something posted back to us that we may not like. But yes, I believe there are limitations to how we interact with one another.

But with zero moderation going one, and everyone free to post what they want, and avoid what they want, it makes little sense to not ignore things we don't like, or ignore members with the built in function, or take ourselves away from what we don't like.

[jimnyc]

I wasn't putting you in that camp. Keeping it to the facts would certainly help the site live up to its name, "Debate Policy," IMO.

You have no disagreement from me in that regard. I think we all fail at times to keep it factual, friendly and on topic. But I don't see it as any single person but a group effort when threads fail. And yes, that counts me too, as I know I'm responsible for my own messes at times.

[Abbey Marie]

I didn't say anything about who starts the threads, it's the shear quantity of the threads and how they all have the same tone. Add in all the threads that don't start with anything about Islam and end up being about Islam at least in part and it's quite undeniable.

I believe you referenced both quantity and thread originators:


You might want to look at the number of threads that have been started...

I agree there are a lot of threads that end up being about Islam. Even more end up being about "Dems" or "Libs". I don't think that is at all unusual for a political message board, though.

These things ebb and flow, and my fix is I mostly ignore things that bore or frustrate me. I may not like it if someone is a Johnny-One-Note, but I also don't feel I need to regularly disagree with them on substance because of it. If I did, that would mean I am pretty much doing the same thing they are.

I think you and some others make great posts; don't get waylaid by focusing on people who drive you batty.


Decently yours,
Abbey
:salute:

[Abbey Marie]

Your failure to answer what is a rather simple yes/no question is an answer in itself. That's the same answer I got from Jafar regarding apostasy-- nothing. Because when faced with undermining your own position, you dodge. DO I do it too, you bet. But I get surely get called on it when I do; and called must worse than decent.

That you, personally, feel otherwise and that seems to be mantra for this place of late and Jim has outright told me he won't consider a point-by-point rebuttal because it is "playing games"

Though I haven't been here as long you, I have always valued the site for what I thought was its mission


Perhaps I overstepped my bounds as a contributing member, but I did so out of a general desire for decency -- seems neither is any longer the case. Godspeed. LR out.

What did I fail to answer? If it's whether I value human life, I surely won't dignify that question with an answer. Not sure what else you've asked me. Looks to me like you've decided that Jim and I are indecent. Nice.

What is the board's mission in your opinion?

[Kathianne]

Really? For that to be remotely true then the "apologists" would have to be creating all those Muslim related threads and be defending their actions. You might want to look at the number of threads that have been started along with the tenor of those threads. Most of those "apologists" are anti-US involvement where it always seems to backfire or opposed to the sort of extremism that comes from those threads; we even had the suggestion of reprising internment camps.

I'm certainly not of the school of tailfins, but will say that for awhile now, the over the top posts regarding 'kill all Muslim vermin' and such is more than I can go with.

Personally I think there is likely a real problem with orthodox Islam, which is the fertile ground of the terrorists. Many believe in it, whether or not they would act upon it. An apologist I am not.

That doesn't jive though with 'killing all Muslim vermin.' IMO.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm certainly not of the school of tailfins, but will say that for awhile now, the over the top posts regarding 'kill all Muslim vermin' and such is more than I can go with.

Personally I think there is likely a real problem with orthodox Islam, which is the fertile ground of the terrorists. Many believe in it, whether or not they would act upon it. An apologist I am not.

That doesn't jive though with 'killing all Muslim vermin.' IMO.

IIRC, few on this board (Jim being one of them) had shown a stronger response to 9-11 than you. No one who knows you would call you an apologist. I believe there is a wide area in between apologist and "kill all Muslim vermin" , and I think that is where reasonable people tend to fall.

I suspect that like me, you choose to ignore much of what falls on the ends of the spectrum.

[Kathianne]

IIRC, few on this board (Jim being one of them) had shown a stronger response to 9-11 than you. No one who knows you would call you an apologist. I believe there is a wide area in between apologist and "kill all Muslim vermin" , and I think that is where reasonable people tend to fall.

I suspect that like me, you choose to ignore much of what falls on the ends of the spectrum.

Agreed. Which is why I find it impossible to rep/thank the posts that claim such. Indeed, I've taken lots of hits for my disagreement with this philosophy.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Agreed. Which is why I find it impossible to rep/thank the posts that claim such. Indeed, I've taken lots of hits for my disagreement with this philosophy.

I've repeatedly made it known that I do not support rounding muslim up, or any" kill all muslims" presentations .
The problem is, that Islam and its core priniciple of Jihad must be addressed and hiding from it is not a solution!
Thousands of innocent people are being murdered , are we to sit idly by and not make any attempt to stop it? Are we to simply ignore it as appeasers suggest so often?
American citizens are being fed a line by our government that wants the issue to not be properly addressed.
I post linked proof repeatedly about the murders but get bullcrap replies defending the indefensible. Now I get members that defended Islam wanting the truth not to be posted because they can not defeat the truth of the matter--Reality bites them too hard. Such crybabies should be watching childrens cartoons instead of defending murderers that target innocent women and children but it is what it is..-Tyr

[Pulsaronova]

Let the IDIOTS in Pink become the Inhuman Shields they want to be.

Hope the DRONE operators save the video record of STUPIDITY in action as the IDIOTS in Pink WAVE OFF the Unstoppable Last Thing they will See.

Spreading their PINKNESS around in Pakistan is a GIFT to the people of the Earth...who try to hide their laughter while watching.

So in a foreign country it is acceptable to kill unarmed Americans but do that same action in Nebraska and what happens? The idea of America is not bound by geography.

[aboutime]

So in a foreign country it is acceptable to kill unarmed Americans but do that same action in Nebraska and what happens? The idea of America is not bound by geography.


Who said anything about being acceptable? If they are stupid enough to place their bodies where a KNOWN attack is probably going to take place. They still have their Constitutional Right to be stupid...even if it means they die.

The constitution is far more important than the level of stupidity.

[Pulsaronova]

Who said anything about being acceptable? If they are stupid enough to place their bodies where a KNOWN attack is probably going to take place. They still have their Constitutional Right to be stupid...even if it means they die.

The constitution is far more important than the level of stupidity.

Isn't it stupid to arbitrarily kill unarmed people?

[aboutime]

Isn't it stupid to arbitrarily kill unarmed people?

Have you ever been to a rifle range? Logic, and common sense tells Thinking, Smart people. There is something deadly serious about standing DOWN RANGE in front of the TARGETS while other people are aiming their LOADED weapons at the target where you happen to be standing.

The only reason those Unarmed people might be killed is...THEY ARE DUMBER THAN DIRT if they think their BODY will stop a drone.

[jimnyc]

Isn't it stupid to arbitrarily kill unarmed people?

I think you're misstating what people mean. America may use a drone attack to target terrorists in Pakistan. Idiots go there to protest. Should they get hit with an errant bomb, while trying out for the Darwin Awards 2012, they get no sympathy and none of America's ideals are lost. I'm confident that going and protesting the use of drones to target terrorists isn't one of our ideals.

[Pulsaronova]

I think you're misstating what people mean. America may use a drone attack to target terrorists in Pakistan. Idiots go there to protest. Should they get hit with an errant bomb, while trying out for the Darwin Awards 2012, they get no sympathy and none of America's ideals are lost. I'm confident that going and protesting the use of drones to target terrorists isn't one of our ideals.

How do you know the civilians being targeted and those that have been killed are all terrorists?

[jimnyc]

How do you know the civilians being targeted and those that have been killed are all terrorists?

Because many terrorists have already been targeted and killed. Are you implying that America is sending drones into Pakistan to target innocent civilians? Any proof of that?

[Pulsaronova]

Have you ever been to a rifle range? Logic, and common sense tells Thinking, Smart people. There is something deadly serious about standing DOWN RANGE in front of the TARGETS while other people are aiming their LOADED weapons at the target where you happen to be standing.

The only reason those Unarmed people might be killed is...THEY ARE DUMBER THAN DIRT if they think their BODY will stop a drone.

I'm confident none of them believe their bodies will stop a drone. It appears some are willing to sacrifice their lives because they believe putting pictures of dead Americans in the public domain will help motivate an effort to stop using drones to arbitrarily kill civilians.

I think they are brave and quite naive because Americans as a whole do not care.

[Abbey Marie]

Because many terrorists have already been targeted and killed. Are you implying that America is sending drones into Pakistan to target innocent civilians? Any proof of that?

Sounds like he is saying exactly that, and also that we as a country are stupid.

[jimnyc]

I'm confident none of them believe their bodies will stop a drone. It appears some are willing to sacrifice their lives because they believe putting pictures of dead Americans in the public domain will help motivate an effort to stop using drones to arbitrarily kill civilians.

I think they are brave and quite naive because Americans as a whole do not care.

Outside of ONE American, who was a terrorist - do you have proof that they are targeting civilians?

[jimnyc]

Sounds like he is saying exactly that, and also that we as a country are stupid.

Oh well, that's not my problem, but he's free to make baseless accusations and support nitwits, I suppose. :coffee:

[aboutime]

I'm confident none of them believe their bodies will stop a drone. It appears some are willing to sacrifice their lives because they believe putting pictures of dead Americans in the public domain will help motivate an effort to stop using drones to arbitrarily kill civilians.

I think they are brave and quite naive because Americans as a whole do not care.



Funny how YOU use the word 'naive'. Now, go back and read all of your previous posts. Then you will agree with YOURSELF.

[Pulsaronova]

Because many terrorists have already been targeted and killed. Are you implying that America is sending drones into Pakistan to target innocent civilians? Any proof of that?

What is your evidence the drones are only targeting terrorists? Since you support them the burden of proof is on you to prove they have only killed terrorists.

Look forward to reviewing your evidence.

[Pulsaronova]

Sounds like he is saying exactly that, and also that we as a country are stupid.

That is not what I said. I'm asking for proof from drone supporters that only terrorists have been killed by the drones. I'm sure you are eager to post your evidence and look forward to reading it.

[jimnyc]

What is your evidence the drones are only targeting terrorists? Since you support them the burden of proof is on you to prove they have only killed terrorists.

Look forward to reviewing your evidence.

Sorry, I'm not interested in playing baby games. I saw the crap you lined up in the Kennedy thread and I have no interest in "prove this and prove that" crap. You know damn well that America is not out there in foreign lands purposely trying to kill civilians. If you do believe that, oh well, that's your issue. But I have no desire to debate things with someone who is intellectually dishonest.

[Pulsaronova]

Outside of ONE American, who was a terrorist - do you have proof that they are targeting civilians?

There is no question civilians are being targeted. The question is: how do you know they are terrorists?

Im sure you would not support such a program without having the facts to back it up. Surely nobody here would be naive to the point of supporting the program based on nothing more than some politician saying the drones are only killing terrorists.

[Pulsaronova]

Sorry, I'm not interested in playing baby games. I saw the crap you lined up in the Kennedy thread and I have no interest in "prove this and prove that" crap. You know damn well that America is not out there in foreign lands purposely trying to kill civilians. If you do believe that, oh well, that's your issue. But I have no desire to debate things with someone who is intellectually dishonest.

It was expected you would rely on petty personal false accusations in place of providing any actual evidence.

Aside from any correction, this will be seen as an implied admission you have no actual evidence to support your claim and support the drone program based on sheer faith.

(Why don't you go into the Kennedy thread and highlight the "crap" I lined up. Or is this another false assertion to which you have no facts to support?)

[aboutime]

There is no question civilians are being targeted. The question is: how do you know they are terrorists?

Im sure you would not support such a program without having the facts to back it up. Surely nobody here would be naive to the point of supporting the program based on nothing more than some politician saying the drones are only killing terrorists.


Pulsarnova. Perhaps the AK-47's, and Shoulder Granade Launchers they are using gives their Terrorist Identity away?

[Abbey Marie]

There is no question civilians are being targeted. The question is: how do you know they are terrorists?

Im sure you would not support such a program without having the facts to back it up. Surely nobody here would be naive to the point of supporting the program based on nothing more than some politician saying the drones are only killing terrorists.

If the host country would do more to root out terrorists within their borders, we could be spared the expense of doing the dirty work. Same goes double for anyone harboring terrorists. And triple for anyone who deliberately goes into harms way to show their displeasure.

As for your question to me above about civilian casualties, I let the military leaders do what they do best and don't go around second-guessing them. Perhaps you could share your superior military expertise with us and we will be convinced.

[jimnyc]

It was expected you would rely on petty personal false accusations in place of providing any actual evidence.

Aside from any correction, this will be seen as an implied admission you have no actual evidence to support your claim and support the drone program based on sheer faith.

(Why don't you go into the Kennedy thread and highlight the "crap" I lined up. Or is this another false assertion to which you have no facts to support?)

You're new here, have a handful of posts, I suggest you lose the attitude. Hell, I'm not even convinced you are "new" as not many people find this place, register and begin posting all from their cell phone. I might suggest you debate like an adult and be here for awhile before you pull out the attitude.

[Abbey Marie]

You're new here, have a handful of posts, I suggest you lose the attitude. Hell, I'm not even convinced you are "new" as not many people find this place, register and begin posting all from their cell phone. I might suggest you debate like an adult and be here for awhile before you pull out the attitude.

Word.

[aboutime]

Pulsarnova. At another time, and another place. I suspect many of us here would dare to identify you as a SOCKPUPPET of sorts. But then. That would be a major Insult to known Sock Puppets.

[Pulsaronova]

You're new here, have a handful of posts, I suggest you lose the attitude. Hell, I'm not even convinced you are "new" as not many people find this place, register and begin posting all from their cell phone. I might suggest you debate like an adult and be here for awhile before you pull out the attitude.

It was expected you would rely on petty personal false accusations in place of providing any actual evidence.

[jimnyc]

Pulsaronova removed from discussion. It's obvious he has no interest in adult debate and would prefer creating animosity and getting a rise out of others.

[aboutime]

It was expected you would rely on petty personal false accusations in place of providing any actual evidence.



Thank you Pulsarnova. Your response above is exactly what most of us have heard, and experienced from YOU previously. Sounding so much like Obama, and his Liberal talking point tactics of BLAMING others with liberal accusations to hide your own ignorance is typical.

[SassyLady]

What is your evidence the drones are only targeting terrorists? Since you support them the burden of proof is on you to prove they have only killed terrorists.

Look forward to reviewing your evidence.

If one civilian is killed along with 20 terrorists do you think the drones should be grounded?

[CSM]

... It appears some are willing to sacrifice their lives because they believe putting pictures of dead Americans in the public domain will help motivate an effort to stop using drones to arbitrarily kill civilians. ...

Hey, they have their suicide bombers, the least we can do is send them some suicide meat shields. Besides, I've heard that the terrorists are running out of women and children to hide behind.
I will also point out that pictures of dead Americans in the public domain helped insitigate the drone strikes in the first place. As for arbitrarily killing civilians, don't be silly. It's not arbitrary at all but rather really, really random.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Hey, they have their suicide bombers, the least we can do is send them some suicide meat shields. Besides, I've heard that the terrorists are running out of women and children to hide behind.
I will also point out that pictures of dead Americans in the public domain helped insitigate the drone strikes in the first place. As for arbitrarily killing civilians, don't be silly. It's not arbitrary at all but rather really, really random.

Now, now, its terrible to not show support for such brave women!
We must overlook their stupidity, silliness and leftist /communist ways while we also overlook (because they are dems) that they are actively giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies! Which are actually acts of treason..
The libs/dems/leftists demand that we overlook all that and consider them heroes.
Which one could not force me to do even at gunpoint! They are stupid, treasonous pieces of socialist/dem scum!
Thank John Kerry and Jane Fonda for making treason fashionable and no longer a crime if its done by dems...-Tyr

[CSM]

Now, now, its terrible to not show support for such brave women!
We must overlook their stupidity, silliness and leftist /communist ways while we also overlook (because they are dems) that they are actively giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies! Which are actually acts of treason..
The libs/dems/leftists demand that we overlook all that and consider them heroes.
Which one could not force me to do even at gunpoint! They are stupid, treasonous pieces of socialist/dem scum!
Thank John Kerry and Jane Fonda for making treason fashionable and no longer a crime if its done by dems...-Tyr

Support? Definitely not. I think it is ill advised at best to put oneself at risk unnecessarily. I do admire their commitment to their cause even though I think they are misinformed and naive. I am sure in their mind it is a noble intent. I also suspect that they may not be as welcomed as they think by those whom the believe they are helping. We shall see. I hope that (as has been posted previously) that should things go poorly, they do not expect others to risk life and limbe to rescue them.

[Gaffer]

So will the pinkies wear their vagina costumes? I'm sure the taliban will be impressed.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So will the pinkies wear their vagina costumes? I'm sure the taliban will be impressed.

The Taliban would rape them , then kill them . Yes, they'd rape even women that damn ugly.. better than late dating each other.-:laugh:--Tyr

[aboutime]

The Taliban would rape them , then kill them . Yes, they'd rape even women that damn ugly.. better than late dating each other.-:laugh:--Tyr

Tyr. If the Taliban had the courage to rape them before killing them. They might think twice about that 72 Year Old, Male Virgin.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr. If the Taliban had the courage to rape them before killing them. They might think twice about that 72 Year Old, Male Virgin.

They all are going to be 72 year old virgins , stripped down and awaiting their turn in the mullahs's paradise!-:laugh2:--Tyr

[aboutime]

They all are going to be 72 year old virgins , stripped down and awaiting their turn in the mullahs's paradise!-:laugh2:--Tyr

Will they serve Pork Rinds to replace the Popcorn for the demonstrational MINUTE?