Originally posted by Rajk999Dance around the points and then put a smiley at the end of it and say something like "lets agree to disagree".
I have nothing personal against you Karoly .. certainly no animosity so dont get wound up. If we disagree with each others views which will certainly happen from time to time then lets take it in good stride. 🙂
Sure...if that floats your boat.🙂
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo...you are claiming that assassination is a reasonable policy. I raised an objection. You tell me why my objection is unreasonable. You tell me why there's no reason to fear that X will lead to Y.
No, you are making an assertion. you are declaring that if X then Y will follow.
I am saying you don't just get to assert that, you have to back it up.
I am not making the claim, you are.
As usual you don't want to have to justify anything you say.
You just want to assert your opinions as truth and the ridicule anyone who has the temerity to ask for justification.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by rwingettNo, you have me confused with twhitehead.
No...you are claiming that assassination is a reasonable policy. I raised an objection. You tell me why my objection is unreasonable. You tell me why there's no reason to fear that X will lead to Y.
And whether you raised it as an objection or not, you Asserted that allowing one thing is wrong
Because it leads to something else and that something else is wrong.
I then asked you to demonstrate that the something else is inevitable and you refused.
If it isn't inevitable, and I see no reason why it is, then your argument is bunk.
So make a reasoned argument why Y follows X.
Otherwise your just asserting stuff with no basis as per usual and running away whenever anyone
challenges your assertions.
And it isn't my tune, I am simply asking that you justify what you assert, no more than is reasonable.
Originally posted by googlefudgeAnd you must have me confused with a trained monkey.
No, you have me confused with twhitehead.
And whether you raised it as an objection or not, you Asserted that allowing one thing is wrong
Because it leads to something else and that something else is wrong.
I then asked you to demonstrate that the something else is inevitable and you refused.
If it isn't inevitable, and I see no reason why it is, ...[text shortened]... sn't my tune, I am simply asking that you justify what you assert, no more than is reasonable.
It appears that yet another exchange between us has come to an end. Feel free to just ignore my post next time. It'll save us both a lot of trouble. Thanks.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by rwingettWhy and miss an opportunity to annoy you?
And you must have me confused with a trained monkey.
It appears that yet another exchange between us has come to an end. Feel free to just ignore my post next time. It'll save us both a lot of trouble. Thanks.
Post drivel and I will point it out, don't post drivel and I will happily ignore you.
I would love to have had an actual debate on the subject you raised on farming.
But you declined, and made a strop about it, having started the subject in the first place.
And I would never confuse you with a trained monkey.
You're not that well trained.
Originally posted by googlefudgeFarming? What thread was that?
Why and miss an opportunity to annoy you?
Post drivel and I will point it out, don't post drivel and I will happily ignore you.
I would love to have had an actual debate on the subject you raised on farming.
But you declined, and made a strop about it, having started the subject in the first place.
And I would never confuse you with a trained monkey.
You're not that well trained.
5 edits
Originally posted by rwingettPlus the ever present danger exists of a policy of assassination being expanded to include not just notable terrorists and foreign dictators, but also domestic political dissenters. The threat of an expanding US police state is at least as great of a threat as the potential terrorist plots it is supposedly countering.
Funny how we supported Bin Laden as long as he was fighting the Soviets.
Because of the rank hypocrisy of US foreign policy, I do not think we are morally qualified to determine who is worthy of assassination and who is not. Plus the ever present danger exists of a policy of assassination being expanded to include not just notable terrorists and foreign ...[text shortened]... e is at least as great of a threat as the potential terrorist plots it is supposedly countering.
But then you could argue, similarly, that the policy of maintaining a military force primed to kill only aggressors from "naughty" countries comes with the ever present danger that they'll be used to dominate peaceful countries - or worse get us killed.
Indeed the threat of an all out nuclear war is at least as great of a threat as as the potential of an over expansive US police state which you fear. Moreover it's usually a small collection of people that can determine the course of (or lack of) life for millions. The lesser of two evils would be to deal with police states once we permit ourselves to reach a point in the future where they can manifest. If this means assassinating people who want to kill (or incite others to kill) millions now (or in the near future) then so be it.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI don't think it's a good idea. I don't know what "evidence" I could possibly introduce that would placate you. Then you'd just start carping about procedural matters yet again, and we'd end with several pages of insults. Same as always. I think I'll pass.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=142109&page=1
Originally posted by AgergAssassinating people who want to kill? Brilliant. Would all assassins be required to commit suicide?
[b]Plus the ever present danger exists of a policy of assassination being expanded to include not just notable terrorists and foreign dictators, but also domestic political dissenters. The threat of an expanding US police state is at least as great of a threat as the potential terrorist plots it is supposedly countering.
But then you could argue, similarl ...[text shortened]... want to kill (or incite others to kill) millions now (or in the near future) then so be it.[/b]
4 edits
Originally posted by rwingettAssassinating people who want to kill? Brilliant. Would all assassins be required to commit suicide?
Assassinating people who want to kill? Brilliant. Would all assassins be required to commit suicide?
I think what you actually wanted to say is (so your, ahem... "sharp" response is at least consistent with what I posted):
Assassinating people who want to kill millions of people? Brilliant. Would all assassins be required to commit suicide?
At which point I would have said no because I never implied one assassin should assassinate millions of people. Try again please.
Originally posted by sonhouseyou're free to think what you like, but all the evidence, or rather lack of it points to the concept of bin laden serving as a snowball the pig figure: someone to blame for all the problems on the farm. now we have iran as the new boogieman and bin laden is no longer needed.
[b]So you are just starting another conspiracy theory. I don't think there was any conspiracy to keep them alive to justify war, although I do think the Bush administration was being bloodthirsty in attacking Iraq, more like "finishing what Daddy started and was too cowardly to go to Baghdad" kind of thing and Cheney was just short of evil IMHO.
That aside, Bin Laden deserved to die, I don't think there is any controversy over that but the US government should have gone with full force to find Bin Laden right after 9-11 rather than attack Iraq, for one thing, it would have kept Iran and Iraq at loggerheads, fighting each other and not trying to take over the whole middle east like Iran is trying now.
how do you know he deserved to die? you don't know anything about the man except what the US government and their allies have told you about him. now, if the US government were bastions of truth, justice and integrity, there might be something there. but as it turns out, they're a bunch of honorless liars.
I don't think there is anyone with a sane mind who would think now that Iran is after nukes and would use them as insane as that would be considering Israel already has them and would use them immediately if Tel Aviv were nuked.
If a team could be sent to off Bin Laden or Hitler or Pol Pot or Idi Amin I would be all for it, assuming we could leave a strong enough message for someone else to just step in and be as ruthless as that lot.
how about the people behind the circumstances that created these people? hitler was a direct result of french and british attempts to wipe out german identity. hitler was a hero from the perspective of millions of people and only persistent negative propaganda from the victors changed that tune.