Vote on Palestinian Statehood Looms

[mistermack]

Yeah, i'm pretty much over arguing with Coito. It's totally pointless as you point out. As I said, if he thinks Iraq was a success, and that Iraq wasn't sold to us on a lie, then he's an ideological revisionist. I'm not interested in wasting my time with the likes of that.

It's not just me then. I don't mind debating people of opposite views, and if it's one point at a time, it can be entertaining.
Coito just produces a sheer deluge of garbage, which would take more time than is worth it to correct. And you know that if you did, each point would get another deluge of garbage in reply.
It's a fast breeding chain reaction of shite.

[sandinista]

Yeah, i'm pretty much over arguing with Coito. It's totally pointless as you point out. As I said, if he thinks Iraq was a success, and that Iraq wasn't sold to us on a lie, then he's an ideological revisionist. I'm not interested in wasting my time with the likes of that.

It's not just me then. I don't mind debating people of opposite views, and if it's one point at a time, it can be entertaining.
Coito just produces a sheer deluge of garbage, which would take more time than is worth it to correct. And you know that if you did, each point would get another deluge of garbage in reply.
It's a fast breeding chain reaction of shite.

No, it's definitely not just you!

[Seth]

Yeah, i'm pretty much over arguing with Coito. It's totally pointless as you point out. As I said, if he thinks Iraq was a success, and that Iraq wasn't sold to us on a lie, then he's an ideological revisionist. I'm not interested in wasting my time with the likes of that.

We've heard this before, but you've always turned out to be a liar in that regard, because like a bad penny, you keep right on turning back up no matter how many times you tell us you're fucking off elsewhere.

Can we trust you this time? Please? Pretty please?

[Seth]

coito gets backed up by the other two neo-con musketeers, now just to wait for seth to jump in...predictable...yet hilarious.

Ian and Gawdzilla are "neo-cons" too?

You have to be the only one that read his posts.

Besides you you mean? GET OFF THE GOD DAMNED LAWN!!!

Good posts rEvolutionist, very few people have the patience to deal with coito's, and others nonsense.

I am curious though. What do you think America should have done as a response to 9/11?

"America, FUCK YEAH!"
The above is not a counter argument. It is a misrepresentation of Coito's views(as I find it hard to imagine Coito representing a Team America mentality

Got the fuck out of the middle east. In the meantime arrest and put on trial the group involved. Defiantly NOT invade two countries and occupy them for over a decade and start a "war on terror ".

How does the above misrepresent coitos views? seems spot on.

How exactly do you propose that we "arrest and put on trial" the group involved when they are hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan and are willing to fight to the death to avoid being arrested, as Osama himself proved?

We put our military into Afghanistan to find Osama, destroy Al Quaeda, and we had to put down the Taliban to accomplish that. The same thing is true of Iraq, where in order to "arrest and put on trial" the person responsible for triggering our invasion through his failure to abide by the terms of the cease fire agreement, we had to commit our military because Saddam was being protected by the Iraqi Republican Guard and large groups of insurgents who were and are attempting to destabilize the government the Iraqi people voted into office.

It's not like we can send Danno and the Five-O team in to pluck Al Quaeda, Osama or Saddam from their hidey holes and put the cuffs on them.

To think it's that easy is perhaps the most egregiously stupid thing I've ever heard.

If you think it's so easy, why don't you go "arrest" Al Quaeda for us. You do know that there was a 25 million dollar reward on Osama's head, don't you?

Sheesh.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, i'm pretty much over arguing with Coito. It's totally pointless as you point out. As I said, if he thinks Iraq was a success, and that Iraq wasn't sold to us on a lie, then he's an ideological revisionist. I'm not interested in wasting my time with the likes of that.

We've heard this before, but you've always turned out to be a liar in that regard, because like a bad penny, you keep right on turning back up no matter how many times you tell us you're fucking off elsewhere.

Can we trust you this time? Please? Pretty please?

Well sometimes I just can't let stupid go un-pointed out. I try my hardest, but you and your folk just keep presenting me with stoopid. It's hard being me.

[pErvinalia]

It's not like we can send Danno and the Five-O team in to pluck Al Quaeda, Osama or Saddam from their hidey holes and put the cuffs on them.

Oi! I put up with a lot of shit from you... but this is going too far! There's nuffing Five-O can't do.

[sandinista]

coito gets backed up by the other two neo-con musketeers, now just to wait for seth to jump in...predictable...yet hilarious.

Ian and Gawdzilla are "neo-cons" too?

You have to be the only one that read his posts.

Besides you you mean? GET OFF THE GOD DAMNED LAWN!!!

Good posts rEvolutionist, very few people have the patience to deal with coito's, and others nonsense.

I am curious though. What do you think America should have done as a response to 9/11?

"America, FUCK YEAH!"
The above is not a counter argument. It is a misrepresentation of Coito's views(as I find it hard to imagine Coito representing a Team America mentality

Got the fuck out of the middle east. In the meantime arrest and put on trial the group involved. Defiantly NOT invade two countries and occupy them for over a decade and start a "war on terror ".

How does the above misrepresent coitos views? seems spot on.

How exactly do you propose that we "arrest and put on trial" the group involved when they are hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan and are willing to fight to the death to avoid being arrested, as Osama himself proved?

We put our military into Afghanistan to find Osama, destroy Al Quaeda, and we had to put down the Taliban to accomplish that. The same thing is true of Iraq, where in order to "arrest and put on trial" the person responsible for triggering our invasion through his failure to abide by the terms of the cease fire agreement, we had to commit our military because Saddam was being protected by the Iraqi Republican Guard and large groups of insurgents who were and are attempting to destabilize the government the Iraqi people voted into office.

It's not like we can send Danno and the Five-O team in to pluck Al Quaeda, Osama or Saddam from their hidey holes and put the cuffs on them.

To think it's that easy is perhaps the most egregiously stupid thing I've ever heard.

If you think it's so easy, why don't you go "arrest" Al Quaeda for us. You do know that there was a 25 million dollar reward on Osama's head, don't you?

Sheesh.

One reason i don't respond (or read) to most of your posts. You make no sense. Just a bunch of words strung together. There are many people who commit crimes who will fight to the death before being arrested. That doesn't mean you have to drop bombs on people. Iraq? WTF? Iraq had nothing to do with those planes/buildings thing. What are you talking about? No one ever said anything was "easy"...yet another reason I don't respond (or read) most of your posts. You make shit up over and over again. Put words in peoples mouths etc. Of course, none of this is surprising since, as anyone who has been here long enough knows, you don't even believe half the stuff you write. Why would I go "arrest" anyone? Pay me billions of dollars and maybe, till then forget it.

[Seth]

It's not like we can send Danno and the Five-O team in to pluck Al Quaeda, Osama or Saddam from their hidey holes and put the cuffs on them.

Oi! I put up with a lot of shit from you... but this is going too far! There's nuffing Five-O can't do.

Except get a decent haircut or a suit that doesn't look like something out of Men in Black.

[.Morticia.]

It's not like we can send Danno and the Five-O team in to pluck Al Quaeda, Osama or Saddam from their hidey holes and put the cuffs on them.

Oi! I put up with a lot of shit from you... but this is going too far! There's nuffing Five-O can't do.

Except get a decent haircut or a suit that doesn't look like something out of Men in Black.

They weren't that cool.

[Seth]

One reason i don't respond (or read) to most of your posts. You make no sense. Just a bunch of words strung together.

Actually, that's a cognitive problem on your end, probably having something to do with your brains turning to mush due to an overload of socialist propaganda.

There are many people who commit crimes who will fight to the death before being arrested.

Not many of them have an army armed with automatic weapons, RPG's, IED's and like to hide among the civilian population so as to make it difficult to identify them when they aren't hiding in caves. Police aren't trained or equipped to handle warfare like that, which is why we send soldiers.

That doesn't mean you have to drop bombs on people.

Yeah, actually it does. When they shoot at you and fire RPG's at you, it's generally a good idea to use stand-off weapons to wipe them out without so much risk to our soldiers.

Iraq? WTF? Iraq had nothing to do with those planes/buildings thing. What are you talking about?

Don't be a fucking idiot. Saddam invaded Kuwait, one of our allies, and we kicked his ass in the first Gulf War, and then he refused to abide by the terms of the cease fire agreement for 12 years and he defied 14 UN resolutions regarding inspections for WMD's while at the same time, by his own admission, doing everything he could to convince the world that he WAS engaging in WMD research and development because he wanted to look powerful. Then we had to go back in and fuck him in the ass again, after dragging him out of a hole in the ground. And on top of that, Saddam was well known for financing and supporting international terrorism, in part by establishing THOUSANDS of anonymous bank accounts into which he poured tens of millions in Iraqi money and to which he gave access to all sorts of terrorists and terrorist organizations. His people were recorded meeting with known terrorists in many places, including Paris, over the years. He was absolutely and indisputably a sponsor of terrorism in addition to his other malfeasance.

No one ever said anything was "easy"...yet another reason I don't respond (or read) most of your posts.

Right, it's too hard for you to come up with a cogent answer when your crapola and bullshit is challenged. That's fine by me, it's one more Netwit off my plate. Go crawl back under your rock.

You make shit up over and over again.

I just repeat known facts because you and your ilk like to deny them.

Put words in peoples mouths etc.

Kinda hard to do from behind a computer screen, but I do love cutting through all the obfuscatory bullshit you socialist jackasses like to blather and tell it like it really is. Sucks for you though, because your Marxist propaganda looks pretty weak when it's challenged. And whenever it is, you are utterly unable to make a cogent, rational argument in defense of your dogma, all you can do is hurl petty personal insults and try to divert the discussion, as you're doing here. So go fuck yourself why dontcha?

Of course, none of this is surprising since, as anyone who has been here long enough knows, you don't even believe half the stuff you write. Why would I go "arrest" anyone? Pay me billions of dollars and maybe, till then forget it.

You're just a coward is all. You haven't the courage, wit or the intelligence, much less the skill to arrest anyone, much less take on a terrorist like Osama who is hiding in Pakistan. You just like to armchair quarterback and try to tell other people how to prosecute a war that you have no fucking clue about. You're a nitwit and a moron with delusions of grandure.

Not in the least unusual though, for people like you to armchair quarterback and engage in 20/20 hindsight critique. Not so fucking easy when you actually have to be at the sharp end, like Seal Team 6 was. They are worthy of respect. You're worthy of disdain and revilement. And so I wave my privates at your aunties! Pfffffft!

[Seth]

Yeah, i'm pretty much over arguing with Coito. It's totally pointless as you point out. As I said, if he thinks Iraq was a success, and that Iraq wasn't sold to us on a lie, then he's an ideological revisionist. I'm not interested in wasting my time with the likes of that.

We've heard this before, but you've always turned out to be a liar in that regard, because like a bad penny, you keep right on turning back up no matter how many times you tell us you're fucking off elsewhere.

Can we trust you this time? Please? Pretty please?

Well sometimes I just can't let stupid go un-pointed out. I try my hardest, but you and your folk just keep presenting me with stoopid. It's hard being me.

Not really. I've encountered a goodly number of Netwits exactly like you, and none of them has to work very hard at being a Netwit. It appears to be incredibly easy. Just surrender to Marxist propaganda, let your brains drain out your ears till there's a hard vacuum in your skull, and then post something on a discussion group that appears to be rational, but isn't.

[sandinista]

Judging from the suspension of Aos si or whatever his name was, who was in no way any worse than seth when it comes to personal attacks, I would guess seth's suspension is just around the corner.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, apparently there is a rule against personal attacks on this site. Could have fooled me.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Seth, this post contains repeated personal attacks on Sandinista. Our rules are very clear on this and you have been reminded enough times to be in no doubt about that.

Another outburst like this and your account will be suspended for at least 24 hours.

[Coito ergo sum]

Iraq? WTF? Iraq had nothing to do with those planes/buildings thing. What are you talking about? .

I think what he's talking about ends up illustrating the key difference between the sides of this particular debate. One side is of the view that ONLY those specific individuals who planned or carried out the 9/11/01 events ought to have been subject to the response to it. The other side generally is of the view that not only those specific individuals, but also any international terrorist organization of global reach and those States that harbor and support state sponsors of international terrorism (particularly if they are totalitarian regimes with designs on catastrophic weapons and proliferation and have a demonstrated habit of aggression).

This is where we get the general "talking past each other" part of this debate. One side says that "no connection with 9/11 proved" means that there should not have been any involvement of a person or group in the war on terrorism. The other side says that the response ought not be so narrow, and that to merely wage a battle against Al Qaeta and the few folks who can be proved in a court of law to have been involved in the attack on 9/11/01 would not be wide enough as it would allow changes of names to allow persons and groups that are involved in the larger, overarching problem (global terrorism) to not be addressed until they too commit a similar attack. The narrow response would also allow States who are harborers and sponsors of global terrorism to escape any repercussions for that involvement.

This really boils down to whether the war on terrorism is actually a war, or should be addressed as a law enforcement issue. The law enforcement strategy is what was used prior to 9/11/01, and it was in that arena that the "dots were not connected," and that overseas groups were outside of prosecutorial jurisdiction and also the creaking, slow moving laws of criminal justice could not efficiently address the problem. In a situation where the violent "crimes" have escalated beyond the kind that are a mugging, shooting (even a mass shooting) or some other more traditional violent crime that can be addressed with domestic law enforcement machinery, and risen to the level of an international incursion across international borders on a military scale, using only law enforcement means would be to repeat the mistakes of history.

This is why, in 2001 and 2002, the war on terrorism was clearly described as a long, enduring struggle against global terrorism. It was clearly described as being fought on "many fronts" both domestically and internationally. It was clearly described as being against terrorists and terrorist organizations, but also state sponsors of terrorism and harborers of terrorists. The war would be fought militarily, diplomatically, economically, judicially and on a law enforcement level.

So, perhaps, without descending again into expletives and ad hominems, the essential differences of opinion could be distilled here. And, one of the essential differences, I think is the distinction between the whole ball of wax being about "who was responsible for 9/11 and prosecuting them," and "finally being awakened to the fact that global terrorism, including but not limited to Al Qaeta, and the States that sponsor and harbor terrorism" are an ongoing and existential problem which must be addressed militarily, in addition to being addressed diplomatically, economically, judicially and as a law enforcement issue.

queue response...."America FUCK YEAH!" in 3.....2.....1....

You make shit up over and over again. Put words in peoples mouths etc. .

Let's not do that, shall we?