You mean this piece of blowhard, high-noon bullshit?
'tis to laugh. Hadn’t realized I was exchanging messages with a WWF fan. Or whatever the fuck the MMA is.
You really fuckin’ think you’re worth a plane ride to the boonies? Come on down, clown. No rules.
Bwahahaaaaaa!
Read it.
With what? A private organization’s opinion piece? It is to laugh. Actually, it is to be nearly incapacitated due to long guffawing.
Maybe not, but what your problem is has been shown by you. Yes, that also would be an opinion. I’m not bandying it around as fact, though.
Well then, try educating yourself with the official pablum:
The Project for the New American Century
Check out the signatories while you are at it.
Then again, never mind. You are too far gone.
From your link:
Looks like non-official stuff. And you accuse me of being far gone?
You know, you really are a worthless piece of shit. And a drunk.** Oakminster **did the honorable thing and chose to make the next level of your conversation private. What do you do? The equivalent of trying to surround yourself with people for protection. “Hey Officers, I’m gonna take this guy ouside and kick his ass. Come watch. Fighting is against the law and you’ll stop it, right?” Why do you choose this course of inaction—I mean, other than you nursing Dewar’s? Because deep down you know about yourself what some posters have learned: that you’re all bluster and no balls. That you are the most common type of cocky coward who confuses the clutching of a scotch bottle with the posession of courage. Your action here has revealed your true spineless character for all to see. And it will not be forgotten soon.
And it was all your own doing.
A particularly sweet justice.
You are mostly correct. “I don’t want to see you getting banned.”
I was trying to calm the waters a little with a sidebar between countrymen. No disrespect intended towards the members of this board, it won’t happen again.
Oh for fucks sake, which part of the following sentence can’t you understand:
“I hope the Iraqis manage to kill them before they kill the Iraqis.”
Just highlight the words you’re struggling with and I’ll see if I can find a monosyllabic replacement or a pictogram to try to help you understand why a person who is opposed to our invasion of Iraq would prefer the invading force to suffer more fatalities than the people who were invaded.
Alternatively, please select from the following which is your preference:
a) I hope the Iraqis manage to kill them before they kill the Iraqis
b) I hope the Iraqis manage to kill them when they kill the Iraqis
c) I hope the Iraqis manage to kill them after they kill the Iraqis
And a request please. If you’re going to refer to the practices of Thomas Bowdler, could you try to get the spelling right.
For the love of all that is good and holy what the wittering fuck are you claiming now? Where did he say such a thing as above?
The RedFury vs. Oakminster discussion is over. Right now.
An infinite number of monkeys mindlessly banging on an infinite number of computer keyboards for eternity will eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare.
In the meantime, expect things like this thread.
Dead is dead and the question of legitimacy or not of a govt makes not difference to whether it’s okay to wish people dead. And I don’t see it keeping order. I see it adopting an ‘own safety first’ approach that inevitably maximises civilian casualties compared to our own. I see it fighting not to keep order but to establish a friendly regime consonant with our own short sighted view of strategic interests.
If we had the slightest interest in peace-keeping and the good of the Iraqi people we’d sit down and talk with others in the region. We’d throw our hands up and admit we’ve made a huge mistake, write a blank cheque to fund a multi-national force excluding our troops and show good faith by cutting a fair deal for the Palestinians. As it is we want a peaceful iraq on our pie in the sky, it’s going to rain ponies terms.
I wish those ethnically cleansing dead too because i’d like to see the civil war end. I don’t believe the current government is legitimate beyond a legalistic sense. It’s writ does not run in the country and it does not hold a monpoloy of force in its borders. It is in practice a set of factions and ministerial fiefdoms engaged in a civil war which will determine what is eventually the ‘legitimate’ government of Iraq in practice.
In theory, if this were more clear cut like the French resistance, I’d hope for an iraqi victory over the coalition. But the coalition aren’t Nazi’s and the the Resistance are a bunch of murdering religious savages.
I do want to see the Coalition defeated. ‘Defeated’ being defined as being denied its strategic aims of regional bases and a compliant govt. I want the USA to learn that might does not make right. That it does not have the right to use force on specious pretexts to pursue the narrow short-term interests defined for it by a bunch of neo-con nut jobs.
I want it to come to its senses and like the Iraq Study Group said - negotiate in good faith with Syria and Iran. I want it to accept the fact that the most likely outcome of the Civil War will be an Iran-friendly Iraq.
I want it to stop trying to shape events to its will and do what it can to sort out the mess it, and its UK lapdog, has created.
Like in Vietnam I would welcome the army just saying, fuck it, we are not risking our lives in pursuit of an unattainable goal just to save Bush’s face.
Unfortunately all I see is more ethnic cleansing and more civilian casualties and a ‘Surge’ that in practice will see the coalition bombing and shelling the parts of the city it is trying to clear, killing more civilians, causing more anger, resentment and butchery in response and making this generally worse all so Bush can hand over the mess to someone else.
And in practice in this situation I do value the lives of civilians more than invading soldiers. I absolutely deny they have the right to adopt tactics that put their own lives above civilians and shrug it off as ‘collateral damage’.
When you bomb a building with civilians in it to kill a sniper you fully intend to kill everyone and you share in the moral culpability. I’m incandescent with rage that US and UK soldiers have been put in harms way, put in a position where they have to take such terrible and understandable actions, by the lying chicken hawks and lapdogs back in Washington and London.
I also posted to the original thread, so it’s not like I was hiding - I’ve posted to threads like that before, saying the same thing. I just don’t feel the need to do it everytime.
Ratel, thanks for the warning, but I don’t think I’m gonna get banned anytime soon, at least not over this. I don’t even think I’ve been warned in years, that I can remember. Certainly not for saying the same things I always say in these threads.
I can understand if people on either side, the US or Iraq, feel like punching out bastards who wish death on their loved ones. There’s really not a satisfactory rhetorical response available. “I hope your son is killed.” “Oh, yeah, well fuck you.” It just doesn’t have the same weight. Much like the balyhooed difference between “nigger” and “honkey”.
Cite? That should be easy. Show me those few times I was complaining about offensive jerks.
Cite?
Well bless your heart. So the only ones who have standing to complain are vets? Thanks for the news flash. You might want to have that put in the FAQs. And you might have clued us in a bit earlier.
Since neither has any chance of actually happening, I fail to see what difference it makes. Every bit of it is just words on a message board, right?
Sure. Thanks. Questions generally have question marks at the end.
Question: “What is your attitude towards military enlistees?”
Answer: “Contempt. Hatred. They are fools and scum, and I hope the Iraqis manage to kill them before they kill the Iraqis.”
Nice friend ya got there.
I’m gonna quote myself from the last thread in which myself and Der both coincided
"
(emphasis added)
But I see that I ended that on something of a dismissive “yeah, whatever” tone, and would like to add that OTOH, if someone can bring forth a good argument/position contrary to what DT presents, they should still bring it forward, but with the understanding that it’s directed at the rest of the audience: most likely HE will NOT concede or stipulate an agree-to-disagree, since in his opinion your position continues to be immoral and evil.
But to lash out madly because he pushes (y)our emotional buttons only serves HIS purpose.
One person can turn his wishes into reality. The other can’t. To me, that’s a huge difference.
And you know what? Even if it’s not a huge difference (since you say it isn’t), there’s no way in hell I’m giving any respect either to the “He started it!” defense or the “Fighting words” defense. I don’t care what DT said, short of a threat. Responding with threats, and there is no way the thugs in this thread are doing anything but making threats and hoping to intimidate and silence others, is vicious and irrational. I’ve got no respect for it and I’m not going to act like I do or be silent about it.
Huh. So why don’t we ever see you in the anti-Fred Phelps threads, wagging your finger at the posters there?
Well, just speculating here, could it be that she maybe hasn’t read them? I know I don’t, for the most part.
I think this is the stupidest post in a thread chock full of stupid posts. You win.
Word. The only difference is that we live in a country that you can spout your
deluded bullshit on a message board or on the street without getting the shit beat out of you. Other countries don’t have it so well. Countries where physical violence is a way of life and running your mouth is something you may have to answer for with your ass.
It was clearly just another case of Gowdere’s Law in action! 