Scathing indictment...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can you show me some examples? I have NEVER heard that put forth. Afghanistan still has 100% support as far as I know.

http://blog.johnkerry.com/2006/12/the_importance_of_diplomacy.html

The Importance of Diplomacy

Being willing to talk to your adversaries is a sign of well-grounded diplomacy. JK made some clear statements this week about the importance of diplomacy on a region-wide basis in the Middle East.

The fundamental resolution that I've heard in every country I've been to -- I've been to Egypt -- I met with President Mubarak; I've been to Jordan -- met with King Abdullah yesterday; we're here in Syria today; going to Israel from here; I was in Lebanon yesterday -- everywhere people are saying, "You've got to have a comprehensive political reconciliation process." And we're here to explore whether that can be broader than it's been in the past and we think it can.

[...]

But nothing is going to resolve Iraq without this fundamental political reconciliation. You have a divide between Sunni and Shia. And you have criminal elements. You have ex-Baathist elements. You've just got an enormous historical cultural problem. And the only way to overcome it is with major assistance from outside countries and from us to get that political resolution.

[...]

And I'll tell you, right out here in the Middle East, David, this is more of a tinderbox than a lot of people are focused on.

--Interview with David Gregory on the Today Show

"I think you've got to talk with people," Kerry said. "You can disagree with them and disagree with them and disagree with them, and you may not get anywhere, but you've got to talk to people."

--The Boston Globe article on 12-21-2005

Ronald Reagan talked to Gorbachev. Richard Nixon sent Kissinger to talk to the Chinese. We need to engage. This is too dangerous a world not to. And ...we're trying to help the administration and I think they will be pleased with today's discussion, I really do.

--Interview with Alex Chadwick on NPR's Day-To-Day program

The Need for Diplomacy

"The United States should embark on a robust diplomatic effort to establish an international support structure intended to stabilize Iraq and ease tensions in other countries in the region. This support structure should include every country that has an interest in averting a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq's neighbors--Iran and Syria among them. Despite the well-known differences between many of these countries, they all share an interest in avoiding the horrific consequences that would flow from a chaotic Iraq, particularly a humanitarian catastrophe and regional destabilization." (page 43)

"Iraq's neighbors and key states in and outside the region should form a support group to reinforce security and national reconciliation within Iraq, neither of which Iraq can achieve on its own." (p. xiv)

--Iraq Study Group Report

I was trying to determine why you named targets.

I didn't name them as targets. New York was the target and they are based in NY and thus their ability to report the news would cease to exist.

I give them no credit.

I believe that your exact quote was:

Pat Roberson and Jerry Falwell would be overjoyed. Bringing about the rapture seems their life work.

Although they can espouse the existence of the possibility of the "rapture" to those who will listen; bringing the "rapture" about would not be within their purvue.

I've asked different people this question and haven't had a coherent response, maybe you could give it a whirl:
What does a victory in the war on terrorism entail?

A large part of that would be the negatuion of state sponsored terrorism such as that of Syria, Iran, and formerly Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. Look at what happened when we marched intom Iraq. Libya gave up everything they had pertaining to the development of WMD. We have restored full diplomatic ties with Libya. Here is what Libya's leader, Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi in April of 2003, in which he quotes Gadaffi as saying "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."

Here are some points to consider in your response:
a) It only takes one person to carry out a terrorist attack

True, whether that "one" is Mohammad Atta or Timothy McVeigh. Wasn't Richard Speck a terrorist on a smaller scale? Richard Ramirez? The Zodiac killer? Angelo Buono Jr.? Albert DeSalvo?

How many of that group cost us any of our freedoms? We accepted the Specks, Ramirez', Zodiacs, Buonos, and DeSalvos as acceptable losses in a free society. The only ones who lost any freedoms, with the exception of the Zodiac, were the perpetrators themselves.

b) There will always be people that hate us (rationally or not)

That has to be a "Master of the Obvious" response if I ever saw one.

The fact is that these people hate us not for what we have done but for who we are. They hate us for our religion -- or the lack of one. They hate our willingness to allow our women freedom. They hate us for our technology, yet use that very technology against us as a weapon. They hate our freedom. they hate our liberty. They hate our wealth.

If they thought the Grand Canyon was a monument to God, they would fill it in. These people have no concept of freedom, liberty, justice, or sanctity of life. Their entire premise is woven into the thousand year old vaguaries of a religion they have hijacked to their own means.
 
Last edited:
I don't get excited over the latest political play regardless of who wins for the same reason I don't get excited over a WWE wrasslin' match. The reason is simple. Both are scripted. Both have characters playing to a predetermined script. I don't take political commentators opinions any more serious than I take ringside announcer's commentary. I don't get excited when the ref appears to be snookered or biased because he is part of the script.

The reality of the situation is Bush and the democrats struck a deal early on wherein both teams would be able to struggle in a cage match with all the ladders, table, and chairs one would expect with a first class Legismania. The deal was Bush would get his war funding if he would not defend himself on the subject of WMD and the democrats would get to just beat the snot out of him for not finding WMD. Both side play to the audience. Both side get their fans lathered up. Both sides make points with the ticket holder. Both sides leave 'em wanting more. Both sides play with injuries and blood. Both sides endure an occasional bodyslam. While the festivities appear to be brutal the reality is both sides are playing to their supporters. There was no chance at all of democrats cutting off funding or even setting a date for withdrawl.

Yeah, I've been call a cynic upon occasion.
 
True, whether that "one" is Mohammad Atta or Timothy McVeigh. Wasn't Richard Speck a terrorist on a smaller scale? Richard Ramirez? The Zodiac killer? Angelo Buono Jr.? Albert DeSalvo?

How many of that group cost us any of our freedoms? We accepted the Specks, Ramirez', Zodiacs, Buonos, and DeSalvos as acceptable losses in a free society. The only ones who lost any freedoms, with the exception of the Zodiac, were the perpetrators themselves.

No. Terrorism's definition is that the violence has to have a purpose, usually the overthrow of the existing government. The act of killing, because one wants to kill, is murder, nationally and internationally.

Your last sentence is pretty dumb. What freedoms did the victims get to keep and exercise after they were murdered? Following that poor attempt at logic, the school-yard bully would be guilty of terrorism. Didn't we hear from you over the definitions of terrorism in the Patriot Act? I believe that your thought was that the definition was too vague. Yet, here you are.
 
Your last sentence is pretty dumb. What freedoms did the victims get to keep and exercise after they were murdered?

They lost one freedom -- the right to life. All else went with it. We, on the other hand have lost numerous freedoms although we get to live. I don't like being searched. I don't like my property being thrown in a bin at the airport by a thief who operates under color of law. I don't like the current rush to martial type law as proposed in some cities. I don't like the proposed firearms laws that are being proposed to try to stop the inevitable.

Following that poor attempt at logic, the school-yard bully would be guilty of terrorism.

I was unaware that the schoolyard bully terrorized whole segments of the population and made them fearful of going out at night because he might sneak up and blow their head off with a .44 mag Bulldog Special, strangle them and throw them off of a roadway in the Hollywood hills, or rape and strangle them in their beds. Schoolyard bullies certainly have come a long way baby.

Didn't we hear from you over the definitions of terrorism in the Patriot Act? I believe that your thought was that the definition was too vague. Yet, here you are.

I am displeased with much of the patriot act. The sneak and peek, the indeterminate detention without charges, etc. in other news, I also am displeased with the search and seizure laws which came before the patriot act was enacted. I don't like the stop and search laws which came before the patriot act was enacted. I don't like the probable cause laws that have been abused which came before the patriot act was enacted. I don't like the no knock warrants that have cost numerous lives which came before the patriot act was enacted.

I don't remember that I stated anything on the vagueries of the patriot act's language but this site has an excellent search engine that you could avail yourself of if you desire.
 
Here are the seven -- count 'em -- SEVEN posts in which I posted the words "patriot act"

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2297593&postcount=124

Mentioned in "Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States"


http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2296501&postcount=115

Mentioned in opinionjournal article

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2283435&postcount=20

Mentioned in Ann Coulter article

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1364193&postcount=1

Mentioned in Reuters article

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=979684&postcount=13

Chiding Topm Ridge on the permanency of the bueauocracy

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=973249&postcount=16

On Ashcroft.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=960559&postcount=1

Mentioned in Tucson Citizen article

So FIVE of the occurrances of the words "patriot act" were in posted articles and TWO were the words in my own hand and neither of those speaks of the vagueries of the patriot act.
 
So let's see if maybe you saw it on The High Road ...

http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=754902&postcount=9

Mentioned in FoxNews story

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=735333&highlight=patriot+act#post735333

Mentioned in Michael Moore article

http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=709687&postcount=7

Mentioned in News-Chronicle article

http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=485736&postcount=1

Thread started by me entitled "My sentiments exactly" in which I agree with a Boulder Weekly article.

http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=406508&postcount=6

Thread in which I state "I agree with their (ACLU) position. The Patriot Act is evil disguised as good." That opinion has not changed.

http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=309204&postcount=57

Post in which I state the patriot act is "major concerns about the way things are going in the good old USA."

http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=270515&postcount=28

Having to agree with Ralph Nader :barf: on the patriot act.
I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Ralph Nader on the Patriot Act. Its a bit like having to kiss him on the lips.

This POS act is antithetical to the American way and the Constitution. Ben Franklin is fairly screaming in my ear. I can hear him but most Americans are saying "Ben who?"

So none of these speaks of the vagueries of the patriot act.

I don't like the patriot act and never have and never will. I will dance on its grave after it is repealed in its entirety.
 
They lost one freedom -- the right to life. All else went with it. We, on the other hand have lost numerous freedoms although we get to live. I don't like being searched. I don't like my property being thrown in a bin at the airport by a thief who operates under color of law. I don't like the current rush to martial type law as proposed in some cities. I don't like the proposed firearms laws that are being proposed to try to stop the inevitable.

No, they lost ALL freedomes.

So, airport security measures are a loss of "freedoms"? At what point were you forced to use the airlines? This definition of freedoms is really great to argue about, but darned hard to live with. Property that is in violation of whose-ever rules, but brought anyway, is thrown in a bin, only if you wish to continue. Should you wish to drop out of line, the property is still yours, and can be transported away from the security check-point. In fact, a cottage business has sprung up in many airports, mailing objects that people were too foolish to remember to leave home, or put in checked baggage, back to their homes. Too stupid to do that, and then accusing ALL of the people checking of theft, is another sign of someone who needs quantity over quality in a discussion.

What exactly is martial-type law? That's another buzz-word that means only what the uttering person means it to be. Under martial law, the military is in charge. You, the citizen, will be tried under the UCMJ, and all orders involving civil life will have the authority of law. Police functions are pre-empted by the Military, and many Constitutional Rights, as generally understood, not as bleated about by the tin-foil hat set, are suspended. I haven't seen that, nor any proposal for that, outside of the Reynolds factory's love-children.

We pick out "proposed firearms laws" because we are sensitive to them. In actuality, just about EVERY facet of our lives are impacted by "proposed" laws that are vote-getters, and not proper legislation. You simply have to look at the number of laws that aren't enforced today. Many are unenforcable, just "feel-good" laws. They are just as silly as those you rail against, and as effective.

I was unaware that the schoolyard bully terrorized whole segments of the population and made them fearful of going out at night because he might sneak up and blow their head off with a .44 mag Bulldog Special, strangle them and throw them off of a roadway in the Hollywood hills, or rape and strangle them in their beds. Schoolyard bullies certainly have come a long way baby.

I see, and you stop your parsing of "terrorist" at mass-murderers? Interesting. Is there some sort of written guide-line that you have, just to clear things up? Is the ".44 mag Bulldog Special" required, or will any means of murder be OK? I believe that Speck strangled his victims. Besides, what the heck is a .44 mag Bulldog Special???? This IS a gun board, think you could at least get that much straight?

My point, which undoubtedly passed you by, as it would have been unproductive for your discussion, was that terrorism has a few specific qualifiers before it is achieved. "Terrorize" is not interchangeable with "Terrorism". However, if mass-murderers pass your litmus test, then how about gangs? After all, they terrorize their neighborhoods? Or drug dealers, as they terrorize the neighborhood where they operate? Then bullies, as they terrorize the areas that they operate in? Open-ended descriptions are just that, they go both ways, whether you care for it, or not.

You may be correct in denying my assertions about your opinions in the Patriot Act. Sometimes the sun shines off of that Reynolds Wrap, and you all look the same. I apologize.

Besides, I wouldn't want a terrorist with a .44 mag Bulldog Special after me.:D:D:rolleyes:
 
No, they lost ALL freedomes.

I thought I covered that when I stated "They lost one freedom -- the right to life. All else went with it. We, on the other hand have lost numerous freedoms although we get to live." Apparently, you are not tolerant of brevity of thought; but I am not going to parse everything I post to the Nth detail so you will "get it" on the first reading.

So, airport security measures are a loss of "freedoms"?

Sure. Do you like being frisked, undressed, wanded, and x-rayed against your will to have those things done to you? Do you like your private property being wrested from you against your will and which the government then sells at a profit? It is nothing more than legalized theft under color of authority.

At what point were you forced to use the airlines?

Never. I don't and I won't fly again even though I love to fly. You see, I do not like any of the above done to me.

What exactly is martial-type law?
I thought we covered that quite nicely HERE.

Under martial law, the military is in charge.

Thus the comment being "martial-type" law. I guess you needed more parsing.

I see, and you stop your parsing of "terrorist" at mass-murderers?

Gang members are urban terrorists. They terrorize their neighbors and most of them have merely killed one or two people and many have never killed at all. Holding your neighbors under threat of harm is terrorism plain and simple. Like I said, you need every nuance covered for every post lest you point out the obvious which was not included because there was no real need to do so for most of those who gather here.

Is the ".44 mag Bulldog Special" required, or will any means of murder be OK?

Again, you need a litany of murder methods or can't get the post. I did, after all, include strangulation in that post so it should have been obvious that the ".44 mag Bulldog Special" was not the only method; nor is it a requisite device for the carrying out of murder. Again, you failed to "get it" because it was worded too simply.

Besides, what the heck is a .44 mag Bulldog Special???? This IS a gun board, think you could at least get that much straight?

Charter%20Arms.jpg


ARRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!! Ya got me pahdner! Everythings ... gettin' ... dark ....

So I screwed up the fact that it is a .44 special and not a magnum. I also left out the fact that it is a five shot snub-nosed revolver that weighs 22 oz., has a 2.5" barrel, and is available in SS or a black passivate finish, has fixed sights, and rubber grips and was the weapon of choice of David Berkowitz. Did you need all of this also?

gun.jpg


My point, which undoubtedly passed you by, as it would have been unproductive for your discussion, was that terrorism has a few specific qualifiers before it is achieved. "Terrorize" is not interchangeable with "Terrorism".

To terrorize is to commit terrorism. Remember the thread on this board about the guy who was driving and another car cut him off and he pointed his finger like a firearm? It turned out that the other car was, as I recall, being driven by an FBI or SS agent and he pulled the guy from his car at gunpoint. The guy pointing the finger? Charged with "making terroristic threats".

Or how about THIS ONE?

However, if mass-murderers pass your litmus test, then how about gangs? After all, they terrorize their neighborhoods?

See above.

You may be correct in denying my assertions about your opinions in the Patriot Act. Sometimes the sun shines off of that Reynolds Wrap, and you all look the same. I apologize.

An apology wrapped in an insult is not an apology.
 
Sure. Do you like being frisked, undressed, wanded, and x-rayed against your will to have those things done to you? Do you like your private property being wrested from you against your will and which the government then sells at a profit? It is nothing more than legalized theft under color of authority.

I'm guessing that you don't attend court, legislative sessions, concerts, and the like, either. It's not like you don't know this going in. If it's against your will, then you have a fundamental problem with the Freedom of Choice. As for your property, reading is fundamental. YOU chose to accept these restrictions with knowledge of them when you purchased your ticket. Simply removing yourself from the line at that point will enable you to retain the restricted items. As mentioned, there are now kiosks that will mail them to your home. Get back in line, and try to convince the man or woman who finds something else you've foolishly decided to bring against regulation, and you can keep at it until you either manage to run out of proscribed objects, or miss the plane.

I thought we covered that quite nicely HERE.

Sorry, Bubba, but that's an entirely different thread. That type of dishonesty doesn't wash. Nobody should have to research all of your tin-foil posts, in numerous threads, only to be told your quote above. You didn't cover jack, nor bring that information to the table before being called on it. Your quaint opinions on what constitutes "type" are plainly those of someone prouder that they had a thought than actual information.

Thus the comment being "martial-type" law. I guess you needed more parsing.

Nope. Saying it twice only doubles the error, it doesn't make it more correct.

Gang members are urban terrorists. They terrorize their neighbors and most of them have merely killed one or two people and many have never killed at all. Holding your neighbors under threat of harm is terrorism plain and simple. Like I said, you need every nuance covered for every post lest you point out the obvious which was not included because there was no real need to do so for most of those who gather here.

Let's try to excerpt my quotes in order. The fact that you either cannot, or will not, isn't a brilliant ploy on your part, but it does speak volumes about your integrity. You may be right about nuances, as most of the people here will no doubt ignore your specious attempt at explaining your own errors in judgement as "they know, anyway, so why speak of it".

True, whether that "one" is Mohammad Atta or Timothy McVeigh. Wasn't Richard Speck a terrorist on a smaller scale? Richard Ramirez? The Zodiac killer? Angelo Buono Jr.? Albert DeSalvo?

How many of that group cost us any of our freedoms? We accepted the Specks, Ramirez', Zodiacs, Buonos, and DeSalvos as acceptable losses in a free society. The only ones who lost any freedoms, with the exception of the Zodiac, were the perpetrators themselves.

That WAS your quote, correct?

Again, you need a litany of murder methods or can't get the post. I did, after all, include strangulation in that post so it should have been obvious that the ".44 mag Bulldog Special" was not the only method; nor is it a requisite device for the carrying out of murder. Again, you failed to "get it" because it was worded too simply.

I'm going to suppose that the quote needs the mention of strangulation, and rape, added after you were called to task for simplistic statements, to be valid? It wasn't included. Why not? Your leaving out bits and pieces of your argument, and then plugging them in later, is yet another blow to any integrity supposedly possessed.

So I screwed up the fact that it is a .44 special and not a magnum.

It's a GUN BOARD, for cripes sake. If you can't be trusted to verify your facts about the root knowledge of the Board, how is anyone going to trust the rest of your little diatribe?

An apology wrapped in an insult is not an apology.

Well, if you had checked my other threads, you'd have seen that you are correct, and that I don't feel the need to do anything more. After all, the rest of us understood that.

To terrorize is to commit terrorism. Remember the thread on this board about the guy who was driving and another car cut him off and he pointed his finger like a firearm? It turned out that the other car was, as I recall, being driven by an FBI or SS agent and he pulled the guy from his car at gunpoint. The guy pointing the finger? Charged with "making terroristic threats".

Or how about THIS ONE?

You can be charged with anything, same as being sued. Where's the final outcome? You mean that you haven't followed up on it? The phrase "terroristic" is new to the legal lexicon, and encompasses many vague ideas in an attempt to standardize them. Bad law is bad law.

Besides, I'm guessing that you just answered your own question, right?

I was unaware that the schoolyard bully terrorized whole segments of the population and made them fearful of going out at night because he might sneak up and blow their head off with a .44 mag Bulldog Special, strangle them and throw them off of a roadway in the Hollywood hills, or rape and strangle them in their beds. Schoolyard bullies certainly have come a long way baby.

So, instead of making light of the bully, you really meant to include him or her in your "proofs" right? You just needed to blow a little smoke until something worked for you. After all, threatening harm to another school-mate must also be considered "terroristic threats" in your book.

Well, that was fun. The old proverb about arguing with idiots is alive and well. Stick to expectig people to know what's in the relevant thread, and never expect anyone to care enough to remember your bleatings in any other posts in a different thread. Oh, and try not to make the other guy's points for him. :barf:
 
Well, aren't we just the wonderful little name caller.

Bubba?

tin-foil posts?

someone prouder that they had a thought than actual information?

your integrity?

any integrity supposedly possessed?

arguing with idiots?

But let's get back to the meat and potatoes and maybe I can get you to "get it"; but I seriously, seriously doubt it. Just so you don't get lost, let me try to "excerpt your quotes in order".

I'm guessing that you don't attend court, legislative sessions, concerts, and the like, either. It's not like you don't know this going in.

No, I don't attend any of those things and yes, I do know that my rights will be violated if I do.

reading is fundamental

Yes, you should try it some time.

YOU chose to accept these restrictions with knowledge of them when you purchased your ticket.

You are working on the false premise that I would purchase the ticket in the first place which I have clearly stated in THIS POST that I would not. I guess you missed it though.

Reading is fundamental.

Nobody should have to research all of your tin-foil posts, in numerous threads, only to be told your quote above.

I posted ONE link to ONE thread and you refuse to read it.

Reading is fundamental.

Let's try to excerpt my quotes in order.

The order is of no consequence. Reading is fundamental. They are just as specious A, B, C as they are B, C, A or C, B, A. I'm not the one with the problem of things being out of order. OCD, perhaps?

I'm going to suppose that the quote needs the mention of strangulation, and rape, added after you were called to task for simplistic statements, to be valid? It wasn't included. Why not?

They were always there. They never weren't there. You simply missed them and now accuse me of editing them into my posts as an afterthought.

Reading is fundamental.

POST #44 "... made them fearful of going out at night because he might sneak up and blow their head off with a .44 mag Bulldog Special, strangle them and throw them off of a roadway in the Hollywood hills, or rape and strangle them in their beds."

I didn't believe that I needed to list the methodology of known famous killers in POST #41 but I guess you got me -- I was wrong. There are those like yourself that need to hear the gory details reiterated time after time after time. I, on the other hand -- don't.

Reading is fundamental.

If you can't be trusted to verify your facts about the root knowledge of the Board, how is anyone going to trust the rest of your little diatribe?

I see. If any one small detail is out of place or inadvertently incorrect that makes the veracity of the perpetrator of that error suspect in all other aspects of their lives. That OCD is showing again.

Quote:
An apology wrapped in an insult is not an apology.

Well, if you had checked my other threads, you'd have seen that you are correct, and that I don't feel the need to do anything more. After all, the rest of us understood that.

So you admit that you are a disingenous and insincere person; and because every one else here knows that I should have known also.

By the way. Why should I "check your other threads" when I cannot entice you to go to a single link to a single thread. Why do you expect more of me than you are willing to do yourself? Remember this:

Nobody should have to research all of your tin-foil posts, in numerous threads, only to be told your quote above.

You mean that you haven't followed up on it?

Why should I? I don't have OCD.

Besides, I'm guessing that you just answered your own question, right?

You found a question in that post other than whether you remember the case? If so, I guess I did answer that question -- in advance -- by virtue of the fact that I was the one who brought it up.

So, instead of making light of the bully, you really meant to include him or her in your "proofs" right? You just needed to blow a little smoke until something worked for you. After all, threatening harm to another school-mate must also be considered "terroristic threats" in your book

I guess you lack the ability to recognize sarcasm when you see it.

Reading is fundamental.

Stick to expectig people to know what's in the relevant thread, and never expect anyone to care enough to remember your bleatings in any other posts in a different thread. Oh, and try not to make the other guy's points for him.

I guess you made that point well enough considering that it was you who lodged the accusation against me, that was proven false, and for which you made an equally false, disingenous, and insincere apology. I guess you didn't "care enough to remember [my] bleatings in any other posts in a different thread" so you simply made some up. But what else could we expect of someone who is a self admitted disingenuous, insincere person?

Reading is fundamental.

Remember this?

Didn't we hear from you over the definitions of terrorism in the Patriot Act? I believe that your thought was that the definition was too vague.

Reading is fundamental.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top