What's new
By:

Bin Laden is dead

YB85 said:
So your "if-then" was not based upon a presumption of what TheDude thought? Interesting.
Click to expand...

First of all, you should note the initial unfounded assumption is on the part of TheDude, who thinks I meant him specifically when I was referencing SawltyDawg and you.

However, if you have a fault with the "if-then" construction, based on some scenario other than misreading the posts or something similar, feel free to offer it. I know you're fine with bin Laden hypothetically being executed after surrender, but if you did object to such an event, why argue against people who are just saying we need to make sure that didn't happen?

At this point, I'm not sure what the TheDude was objecting to a few pages ago. He just said he doesn't mind questioning what happened, but spent several posts saying, among other things, that we shouldn't be questioning what happened, but just to trust the SEALs, and making a show of repping you after you specifically said it was fine if they executed bin laden without a trial. No real consistency there, so it's hard to say at this point if he has a position at all, besides confusing people who have a problem with what happened with those wanted to make sure of what happened.
 
Wow, you like to twist words to your liking don't you?

When I said trust the Seals, it was very clear that I meant we should trust their side of what happened. The Seals were engaged in combat and killed Osama. That is what we had been told at the time, which was later confirmed in more detail over the last few days. Am I missing something here?

Secondly, I was repping YB for the fact that he said he felt that the Seals were 100% justified in killing Osama. I still 100% agree with that, and you are a fool if you don't think the same given the info we have.

You are simply assuming too much and spewing BS.
 
TheDude said:
When I said trust the Seals, it was very clear that I meant we should trust their side of what happened. The Seals were engaged in combat and killed Osama. That is what we had been told at the time, which was later confirmed in more detail over the last few days. Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

At the time, we had been told there was combat, and that Osama was killed. We had not been told the two events were simultaneous, although that was later confirmed.

TheDude said:
Secondly, I was repping YB for the fact that he said he felt that the Seals were 100% justified in killing Osama.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I pointed out. So, how is that twisting words?

TheDude said:
You are simply assuming too much and spewing BS.
Click to expand...

Coming from a person who accused posters of both making up a scenario, and of having the motive to do it just for the purpose of arguing about it? I'm humbled to the core, pot.
 
1275905143_raging-midget.gif
 
One Brow said:
At the time, we had been told there was combat, and that Osama was killed. We had not been told the two events were simultaneous, although that was later confirmed.



That's pretty much what I pointed out. So, how is that twisting words?



Coming from a person who accused posters of both making up a scenario, and of having the motive to do it just for the purpose of arguing about it? I'm humbled to the core, pot.
Click to expand...

It's been a while since I could check in here. Bottom line is we as a nation joined the "Imperialist" tradition as a johnny-come-lately in the Spanish-American war in 1898. Our "elite" financial folks followed our adventurism into Cuba and the Philippines. Today, our adventurism is largely dictated by similar "elite" financial folks/corporatists. All of these exploits have generally gone afield of the founder's basic grasp of reality which held forth that our "American Experiment" in the ideals of human liberty/human rights cannot be spread by military force. It requires whatever people who aspire to liberty to seize upon the initiative of their own will. I suppose we could be firendly to these human aspirations, but we cannot dictate them nor enforce them. Our Constitution largely limits the perogatives of our federal government, and our whole adventure into the heady insanity of world power and dominance is an excursion from those limits we should seriously question.

Simple souls who don't care what we do so long as we win fail of the basic understanding of what freedom or liberty really are.

The elements of human virtue inherent in the common US citizens who have gone abroad in any fashion supportive of US foreign adventurism have done the world some good. Whatever goodwill we find for us in the peoples of foreign lands derives from this source. The cronys who profit from our "elitists" usually turn out to be more dull oppressors of their own peoples than we would really be able to stomach.

Ferdinand Marcos(and Imelda) in the Philippines was a fair example.
 
Look at when the thread was started. Someone necro-bumped it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top