This thread has more jerks than an indecisive tug-of-war.
More assholes than a donkey cemetery?
Sorry. 
Sometimes, you just have to play back what you’ve said, and study it:
Now. In looking at this, can you recognize where you appear to be using sarcasm and snide tone to poke at others?
Sailor, the poem is set on the Indian Northwest Frontier–in the Kyber Hills. That is close enough to the Middle/Near East for my purposes. Now all you have to do is find me the two strong men–so far all I’ve got is the ragged dun with a heart of hell, a mouth like a bell and the head of a gallows tree.
That first part is just sooo much bullshit. Kuwait was NOT a “repressive regime” similar to Iraq. The Kuwaitis were (and are) annoyingly arrogant and totally corrupt but they had very little in common with Iraq. Not even close. The Iraqis had and have a secular society whereas the Kuwaitis tend to be much more religiously correct. (At least publicly.)
As far as the interest of the US being due to Kuwait’s oil, I would completely agree. Aside from the oil, what other rational reason would ANYONE have for being interested in the place?
Testy
Interesting how 3 Americans are killed in a foreign country and there’s all the moral outrage in the world. Yet, it’s perfectly OK fro the U.S. to bomb villages and kill innocent people at weddings without any kind of recourse. Very interesting indeed.
Just woke up…did I miss anything?
Can you provide cites? What specific events are you talking about? I’d really like to read about them. I’ve heard lots of rumors, but would really like to read about this from a reliable source. Thanks!
Wedding. Here we go, never mind!
So, mongol, are you saying that one justifies the other?
DNFTT, folks. We all know there was extensive coverage of that tragic mistake at the wedding.
I seriously hope you are not calling me a troll because I asked for information.
Nothing you wouldn’t have seen earlier had you not been debating with a mirror instead of any of the other participants of this thread;)
To recap:
Statement A: “It was an horrific, and monstrous act. Still, you’ve got to ask yourself why this has only started happening in the last few years. (upon request for clarification on meaning of “few”) Since the Gulf War, let’s say.”*
Statement B: “Oh, yes SIR! And don’t ever let me catch you quoting me on words [But don’t ever let me hear you say a dumbass thing like, “Muslim extremists have only been targeting innocent people since the Gulf War” again.] I never said.”
How are these two not congruent?
*If you beg a question, you have to ensure that you’re begging a question with valid premises. The premise “this [targeting of innocents by Muslim extremists] has only started happening since the Gulf War” is not true, as DDG has quite obviously shown. Slow down, read, and learn. It’s okay to be wrong.
Heloise, I’m guessing that Mehitabel was directing her comment towards FeistyMongol’s comment:
Snide remarks abound.
Rider:
Hey, guess what? I just woke up, too.
A recap of the conversation:
Me: “It was a snide remark and a potshot at the Gulf War and the perpetrators thereof.”
You: “So the USA perpetrated the Gulf War?”
Rockford: “Yes.”
Me, talking to you, looking for you to clarify your position: “It’s funny how often when I see someone take snide potshots at the Gulf War, I also see them hold the U.S. responsible for it. Are you different?”
<< meaning I was asking you who you hold responsible for the Gulf War. The issue here is not who I think is responsible, but who you think is responsible for it, since apparently you also think that the Gulf War is ultimately responsible for the fact that a Muslim extremist shot three people at a hospital in Yemen. >>
And you replied: “I’m just gonna have to defer to Rockford as explaining my position better than I did.”
In other words, yes, you believe the U.S. was responsible for the Gulf War.
And then you decided to go back and misinterpret my remark, the intent of which was clearly, "It was a snide remark and a potshot at the Gulf War and the perpetrators thereof, who in your mind are probably the Americans, since people who make snide remarks about the Gulf War also tend to blame the U.S. for it."
So, glad we got that all cleared up. I hereby withdraw the “putz”, as it appears it all may simply have been a miscommunication.
Nah. He’s a putz.
Thank you to DDG for a complete and virtually totalitarian overreaction to my comments. The thoughtless spleen venting you display is a fine example of the venom and bile one would expect of the closed-minded grandstanding that I have come to expect from you.
Sam Stone, many thanks for your valuable input.
Hey, no problem. If you need another insult, let me know. I’ve got lots of them. Idiot, moron, dipstick, yahoo, goat-felcher, you name it. Insults R’ Us.
Very thought-provoking. Your articulation does you credit.
And thank you for your contributions to this board! While you’ve only been here less than a month, regular visitors to the SDMB like myself have found your posts to be educational if not downright revelational. While I can’t speak for others here, I can say that I’ve been saving all of your posts (I’d really hate to lose 'em- never know when we’ll have another board crash!), printing them out, and placing the printouts in a time capsule so that a future generation may someday find these treasures and model this post-apocalyptic society in their image.
Mojo…This seems like a scenario where certain posters attempt to bait one who opposes their views in the hope that he will say something to get himself banned. Interesting.
Stop reading the reaction that will fuel your own agenda into the reactions of others, ok?
Did Protestants worldwide speak out at their disaproval of the murder of Gerald Lawlor, murdered by Protestant Loyalist forces for being Catholic? did their Silence indicate implicit approval?
of course not, but because its Muslim, its ok to read your own reaction into it, right?