How? Eva has simply projected an immediate future that is very similar to the immediate past, a standard tool of all sorts of planning. It only is invalid if she didn’t take into account all likelihoods. “And then a miracle occurred!” does not qualify as a likelihood.
Hmmm, considering many people EXPECT that to happen in one of their October Surprise scenarios AND since there are valid suspicions that a similar thing happened in Taiwan recently where a (possibly staged) assasination attempt may have put the incumbent over the top, it’s not particularly offensive.
Not in the least novel. Gaudere’s initial impression of the post was entirely accurate, since the moral idiot in question admitted in a subsequent post that trolling is exactly what he was doing -
In other words, he deliberately phrased his OP to be inflammatory and extremist, in order to get a reaction. And expressing a desire he now denies that he holds. In what way is this not trolling?
I agree with you that the poster in question and terrorists share a similar morality. And that what they do is barbaric.
The Bush administration wanted fewer casualties. The bridge-dweller under discussion wants more.
Imagine if december had made the OP. How do you think you would have reacted then? Why is it any different now?
The most charitable thing I can hope for the person who wished for the death of my nephew is that he gets neither what he wishes for, nor what he deserves.
Stop it with your nephew already. I bet he doesn’t even know your nephew. You’re bringing emotional baggage into the argument.
How does it help a debate if people personalize it? People here are saying that dinsdale is, in effect, calling for their loved ones to be murdered specifically.
That is like me wishing for the Earth to be destroyed by a meteor because I think life is meaningless and full of pain and suffering, and you accusing me of wanting YOUR FAMILY personally singled out and killed.
That’s a rationalization a sixth grader would make. If you suggest that I kill myself instead, that’s a fair argument, but for you to be insulted only shows how thin your skin is.
If you’re so close to the issue that it effects your emotions so much, maybe you’re in a sort of mental conflict of interests and can’t think properly.
We don’t put our phazers on stun when we go to war, you know. Lots of innocent people die. I’m sure that’s a calculation George Bush factored in. I bet it doesn’t stop him from taking his morning jog.
To those folk who have posted in manners not entirely opposed to my OP, I trust you are doing so out of a desire to express your personal views, rather than to support me personally.
And those who choose to equate my OP with a wish that any particular person die – well, I consider that a pretty ignorant and dishonest interpretation. But if that is what you choose, knock yourself out.
Though I have been known to demonstrate thin skin concerning this issue, and I do not agree with Shodan in this case. I suggest you consider the feelings of those involved in, have friends or relatives involved in, of have been involved in combat.
dropzone: “How? Eva has simply projected an immediate future that is very similar to the immediate past, a standard tool of all sorts of planning. It only is invalid if she didn’t take into account all likelihoods. “And then a miracle occurred!” does not qualify as a likelihood.”
Urggh.
If the “immediate future…is very similar to the immediate past”, I don’t see where one gets the conviction that big increases in U.S military casualties are in the offing. One could get equally valid scenarios from the Psychic Hotline.
Yet another instance of not being able to tell the difference between expecting an occurrence and actively wishing for it.
And if you are speculating that GWB & Co. would stage a faux terrorist attack with big civilian casualties to influence the election, I think you are beyond goofy.
Jesus, Jack, you really ARE too stupid to debate with! Or just get too stuck in your worldview to see out of it. To the rest of you, I apologize for wasting your time. After all these years I should know better.
Dinsdale, yes, in part I am defending you because I like you, but it is also because you have a history of not being a moron AND of being a person I usually agree with. I will make extra effort to understand a non-moron’s position, even if, at first glance, the position seems totally moronic. However, I assume some of the morons in the audience will completely misunderstand what I said.
Oh, but Dinsdale is counting on that emotional baggage. His little plan won’t work without it.
Unless people have an emotional stake in the body count, there won’t be a sense of outrage from its increase that Dinsdale is hoping for.
This whole argument has been predicated on the emotional impact of casualties of the war. Shodan is reacting angrily to somebody who seems to desire his nephew’s death. Dinsdale is a sick bastard who would tolerate that death to serve, not a necessary geopolitical purpose, but a narrow partisan one.
One’s a human sentiment, the other strikes me as essentially inhuman.
I think that if you took the words “reasonably intelligent” out of your post, i’d agree with you. I believe that it is precisely the “reasonably intelligent” people of this world who realize that individuals have their own viewpoints on particular issues, and should not simply be lumped together indiscriminately. I still contend that anyone who thinks that Dinsdale is the de facto spokesperson for all things liberal on this Board is an ignoramus.
And again, i say that without wishing any ill on Dinsdale. He’s probably reject the spokesperson tag, too.
You’re probably right on all these counts.
Many people are indeed too busy and/or too lazy to engage in the sort of research and discriminating thinking that this sort of debate requires.
And i don’t like it.
And i do resent it.
And i’m probably not going to change it.
But that doesn’t mean i’m going to sit idly by and watch it perpetuated.
Debate? All you posted were some idiotic meanderings that showed you had not read the posts you were responding to, as well as a sidestep into conspiratorial nonsense.
That goes without saying.
Up until this time I did not have you pegged as a flaming moron, but that’s the great thing about this board. There are always new insights just around the corner.
One last try: People keep shooting or blowing up our men. There isn’t any reason to expect them to stop anytime soon. Therefore, it is a logical conclusion to draw that more GIs will die. It doesn’t take a crystal ball. You do yourself a disservice by refusing to see that and, especially, by harping on Eva for it.
As for the conspiracy theorists, I did not say that I agree with them. I only noted the similarity of what many people suspect to the scenario you suggested. Kindly read what I write rather than what you assume I write.
To refresh your memory - this thread was begun to castigate Dinsdale for having lamented the “steady drip, drip, drip of casualties we are currently enjoying. Let’s see some dramatic losses, if that would galvanize opposition to this unnecessary wasteful policy, and its proponents.”
When Eva, in the course of defending him predicts that “really significant numbers of U.S. troops are going to die”, the context suggests that “really significant” and “dramatic” losses are one and the same.
If not, and this is more sloppy writing on her part, that would be another story…but she’s had ample time for clarification without doing so (i.e. vacillating between saying that things aren’t getting any better re casualties and then suggesting that the threat is worsening).
It is a common dodge here for people to post drivel about some conspiracy theory or other (one recent example was the subject of the woman who filed suit over George Bush and the Secret Service supposedly raping her, in language suggesting an advanced case of paranoid schizophrenia), and when challenged, saying something like “Well, it was in the news and I just wanted to see what you-all thought of it”.
If you want to be thought of as rational, don’t tell us about what “many people suspect” and in the same breath declare the validity of “suspicions” that the Taiwanese President staged an assassination attempt just prior to his re-election (the opponents’ claims have not been validated the last I heard).
:rolleyes:
I wish I could say I’ve never seen a bigger mountain made out of a smaller mole hill, but I’d have to say this is up there.
:yawn:
carry on.
You just recruited at least two votes for Bush. I personally loathe Bush and his cronies, I think they are dangerous and lack an understanding of world politics. On the other hand, the thought of having someone who thinks like yourself in power is appalling.
Your attitudes represent the very worst of what is referred to as “the lunatic left.”
Good Heavens. So malleable, yet so capable of subscription.
You, Testy, have slept and shat in an Arab sovereign for more than a year, yet you represent yourself as not much more than a waffling douchebag. In the name of your leader Bush, you should remain in your house. Stay calm and we will find you. Software conglomerates are on their way to rescue your land holdings, you and your co-voter.
By the way, old topic, but any chance you’ve developed the testicles to even set foot in a mosque? I think not, you foul, foul, disgraceful American.
My two pence as a member of somewhat left but not out of his mind: The OP was **way, way **, over the top and frankly indefensible and revolting as originally stated. At least give a thought to a third party.
