Actually, it would be a lie.
Nah… he’s a troll. And not even as articulate as Chumpsky (remember him?)
He don’t know us really well, huh folks? 
Search a little and you will see that I called the invasion and repression taking place in Iraq a crime. The evidence (gained by checking many of the same information channels that you now are trying to stupidly discredit) told me that the intelligence gathered to justify an invasion of Iraq was tainted.
But guess what? Ideology is not a good reason to ignore the evidence that in the case of NK the fact is that we are dealing with the act of a rogue state that does not care for the truth, or allows it to appear in their mist.
I can say and condemn openly what the USA did in Iraq, I would be arrested if I dared to do the same in NK regarding the recent attacks to SK.
The US army helped the Salvadorian military thugs in the old country in the 80’s to kill people, now, even though the former communist rebels won the last elections, the USA army saved many Salvadorean lives in the recent floods.
One has to be able to not allow ideology to make us assign a tag of good or evil to what the leader of a country does just because it is nation X or Y. Or to call it good or evil because they “supposedly” have the right ideology. Evidence and context rule for me.
I think that Bryan has the truth of it. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if our troll is a former-and-returning troll who’s decided to adopt his persona and behaviors specifically to piss of a rationalist, fact-based community such as ours. Or, at the very least, a troll who stumbled upon the Dope and decided to craft a persona to piss folks off.
His levels of ignorance, stupidity, dishonesty and obnoxiousness are a very hard sell to be accidental.
Note, for instance, his reaction to Bryan pointing out that Mao, Stalin, et al had a body count orders of magnitude higher than “the Empire” (itself an obvious troll-phrase). The reaction to Bryan’s point was, naturally, to ignore the question and turn it into babbling about “the Empire” and then offer his two faced ‘well I’m not actually supporting just kinda justifying and…’ the murder of people trying to escape Soviet tyranny.
Of course, the funny thing is that he knows it to be a lie. And he knows that it’s true about him (or I should probably say, his persona). It’s the same reason he’s just babbling and lying about a ‘complete lack of support’ while avoiding the copious cites and chain of logic that I have set up which is both valid and sound He can lie about the facts, he can deny that there are facts, he can try to change the subject from the facts to something else, but he can’t deal with the facts.
That’s his pattern after all, demonstrated again and again (and still no retraction of his idiocy about the Rome Statute’s applicability when only one nation is a signatory).
Well, it was that whole “innocent people shouldn’t be killed, but how innocent could they be if tried to climb the forbidden wall?” bit that just cracked me up. If he’s really THAT stupid, there’s no point engaging him, and if he’s just lying… same deal.
Anyway, I still despise REAL useful idiots, be they wannabe commies, wannabe fascists, wannabe cult recruiters, etc.
Oh, I definitely agree. I was just using him in the GD thread to clean my claws, I didn’t expect intelligence or honesty from him. Pointing out how he was trolling (and still is trolling) is just some good PALATR kind of fun.
Wow, re-opened thread with like 5 pages missing (unless I’m a complete dumbass, which…well, I am…)
And still with der Kommisar…fuck.
He’s the troll that keeps on giving.
I have newfound respect for you.
Which, even if true, would have been irrelevant to the discussion in question. In the now-locked thread, we debated one particular military incident and whether or not blame can conclusively be assigned for it. The debate was not about the relative worth of the North Korean government. As I have stated several times now, I freely concede that it is a deeply flawed state that has managed to fatally corrupt its version of Marxism-Leninism. Nevertheless, this does not mean that I am willing to participate in a screaming, hysterical lynch mob every time that South Korea claims to be a victim of Northern aggression. My distrust of the North has not made me a zealot for the South by default.
Which is exactly what I’ve been saying all along. How many times have I stated that the world is not black and white? Contrary to the lies spread by FinnAgain and his ilk, I have been consistently trying to approach this subject with open eyes and no biases. I am one of the few people advocating that developing stories be approached without preconceived prejudices and emotions.
Precisely. And without either, we cannot in good faith reach any conclusions regarding this specific incident.
And nevertheless you are still making straw men.
I never said that. I did said that even an incident like this is not yet at the level of calling for a war to lynch North Korea. Nor did I said that we should completely rely on SK.
But just continue to show the whole world how you even stupidly shoot down people that could had help you.
Bwaaa Haa Haa!! 
I do disagree (a little) with FinnAgain, you are really more an idiot than a Troll.
Piffle
You are only attempted to discredit even sources that were against the USA, there is plenty of evidence in this and the other thread that you are not doing anything on good faith.
This particular sentence made me chuckle a little bit, so thanks for that. It’s not your characterization of these forums as “rationalistic [and] fact-based” that I find humorous, but rather your pompous use of the word “ours.” Seriously, narcissistic much?
To be fair, perhaps you’ve been having an off week, and your performance in the thread was not an indication of your actual knowledge, intelligence, and logic. Nevertheless, the limited amount of contact that I’ve had with you has left me less than impressed. Your debating style was hostile, dishonest, and juvenile. You unashamedly ignored all inconvenient holes poked in your, er, “arguments,” you spammed the thread with questions that had already been answered numerous times, and you attempted to mislead the readers with outright lies. If you truly believe that such behavior qualifies as “rationalistic [and] fact-based,” then I must extend my deepest sympathies to you and your impoverished, abused brain.
Takes one to know one.
The smilie is for FinnAgain, you are just the apotheosis of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
Only an impoverished, abused brain could had come with something like “Amnesty International is unfair to authoritarians” and attempt to use that as a reason to dismiss the testimony and evidence found by Amnesty International.
Funny trolling, but predictable. Lying in order to claim that someone else is lying is sooooo done to death.
Anybody can check the linked thread and see that, despite your lies here or your lies about me, not only did you not approach the issue with “open eyes” but you are a whore and a shill and bent over backwards to certify thatNorth Korea’s account was accurate, that the SK military had “gone too far” and was apparently reaping what they’d sown, that the west was “hysterical” over the “alleged” North Korean nuclear program, that their war crime was “justified” and appropriate, while ranting about how South Korea was a “puppet” and was being as “belligerent as humanly possible” and were showing “unbridled aggression”. That It was not absurd for NK to see SK as a clear and present danger to its continued existence since “The Empire” is bad and Afghanistan was a “[war] of aggression” and that “it goes without saying that the Empire’s Southern lapdog will jump into action at a single Imperial command.” (Readers will note, naturally, that a war of aggression is an actual crime under customary international law and codified intentional law, but Commissar is fine with making such baseless legal claims when it suits him, and shits himself angrily when other people make such claims with citations)
And that’s just a bit of your relentless dishonest and partisan whoring.
Oh, and of course you’re a liar as the questions that I kept asking were ones you kept dodging. If you’re not a liar, you can cite, immediately, where I “spammed” those questions and you answered them. We all know you can’t, because you’re a liar. Likewise, if I had any “outright lies” in anything I said, you could cite it. You can’t, because you’re lying in order to claim that I’m lying. Very meta, but as stated above, done quite to death.
You poor, poor stupid troll.
Now, you’ve clearly come to this site because you realize that it’s a good place to troll people who are interested in facts, reason and the truth. But coming to a place and trying to disrupt what people do best is really a jerk kinda thing to do.
I mean, we don’t come into your house and try to stop you from fucking your mother, now do we?
Some mutual respect is called for I think.
No dice, my friend; I see what you did there. No matter how I answer the question, you will attempt to declare victory by employing anecdotal testimony and/or propaganda that you believe violates one of your proposed requirements.
Tell you what: let’s even the playing field. You’ve given me a question with three requirements, one of them qualified with a two-pronged test. I’ll pose you a question with the same structure. If you agree to answer my question and face counter-arguments, I will do the same for your query.
So, “put up or shut up:”
Name three countries that follow your governmental ideals where someone can reliably enjoy free education at all levels of study, be free from bourgeois exploitation, and has ability to be upwardly mobile despite whatever class they’re born into.
Just so we’re clear, not having a meaningful opportunity to earn a competitive wage via employment with state-owned enterprises, or having a system clearly susceptible to sudden political change by right-wing extremists, both fall under the term “bourgeois exploitation.”
So, what do you say? My terms are unbalanced, but no more so than yours. Now that we’re both stacking the decks in our respective favor, would you like to play?
From the mind that brought you:
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13226431&postcount=499)
FinnAgain: What does that remind me of? Oh, yes:
“I wouldn’t exactly call the Johns Hopkins Department of Biology an unbiased source, either. It has a very real objective, and that objective tends to make it less than fair to young-Earth creationists.”
Or:
“I wouldn’t exactly call the MIT Department of Physics an unbiased source, either. It has a very real objective, and that objective tends to make it less than fair to perpetual-motion machine builders.”
Or:
“I wouldn’t exactly call the FBI an unbiased source, either. It has a very real objective, and that objective tends to make it less than fair to serial killers.”
So much stupidity, so little time. I’m not sure I should respond to your moronic allegations, but I have some time to kill, so I suppose I can suppress my better judgment just this once…
Stop it - the irony is killing me. 
[emphasis added]
Wait, huh? I was following your argument up to the “open eyes” part, but now I’m a prostitute? You just lost me. Is this how the kids argue these days? No wonder the West is going down the shitter in a handbasket… But do go on.
Yes, very cute. I’m sure that the less intelligent posters here will be duly impressed with your ability to string together a menagerie of links back to the thread in question. Unfortunately, the same posters will not bother to verify your statements about the links, thus missing the fact that you are lying through your teeth here.
For instance, let’s start at the beginning and analyze your first link. You claim, erroneously, that it represents a statement on my part that the North Korean account is, indeed correct. You ever so conveniently fail to mention the fact that you had previously stipulated that the North Korean account was in keeping with your understanding of the situation. I personally made no such statements, and my post was made solely on the basis of your assumed facts.
Naturally. You spammed said questions every chance you got. For starters, I refer you to posts number 460, 467, 470, 473, 478, 481. That is all from one random page, by the way. Ironically enough, you have the nerve to refer to people as “trolls.” Good stuff.
Posts number 411 and 419, among many, many others.
Just off the top of my head, your moronic attempt to pass a non-binding manual off as international law springs to mind. I really can’t believe that you honestly did not expect anyone to catch you out in that particular lie. Once again, your narcissism is your own undoing.
Your level of expertise regarding my motivations is compatible to your expertise on the subject of international law. The only way you can possibly make yourself sound less intelligent, educated, and cultured, at this point, is to break out some bizarre juvenile insult. Maybe something about my mother?
Oh, there we go. Nice one. I repeat what I have previously said to your fellow tween Bryan:
“Why don’t you call me a “faggot” next, and maybe throw in a “yo’ mama” joke or two. The rest of your middle school friends will be astounded and overawed by your caustic wit!”
No, I think not. Respect is earned, not granted by default. Once you prove that you are worthy of said respect, you will automatically receive it. So far, you have proven only that you are an able liar, a pretty good zealot, and a sub-par name-caller. I do not find any of these a worthy cause for respect. Try harder next time.
Not very well-thought-out analogies, my friend.
Let’s start with the last one. The FBI is, of course, not expected to exercise neutrality in regards to the criminals that it is tasked with apprehending. Thus, we can reject this one prima facie.
This leaves us with your first two examples: perpetual motion machines and fanatics that believe that the Earth is 10,000 years old. Let’s analyze that.
Both of your proffered examples are easily disproven using elementary science (physics and archeology, respectively). Do you have a similar categorical refutation to the political ideology of authoritarianism? Any physical proof? No? Then the analogy must fail.
P.S.: Some of the less intelligent specimens amongst you (this mostly means you, FinnAgain) will undoubtedly attempt to argue that authoritarianism never works in practice. Said individuals will doubtlessly proclaim that Western representative democracies are always superior to other forms of government. When I use the PRC as a counter-argument, they will, of course, argue that it does not represent true prosperity. As a preemptive move, I offer the following two alternative capitalist authoritarian states as proof of my position: Saudi Arabia and Singapore.
You are just missing the point, all that was to show that indeed it was a lie of yours to say that you approached this with open eyes and no biases.
Just complaining about the first link does not help your sorry position.
Did not see anyone making this observation so, just more straw men.