TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- beheaded americans....
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

Re: Re: Re: Re: QUO

quote:

Originally posted by eXstatic "Capitol Cities/ABC/Disney gave $569,000 to the Democrats" "$491,450 to the Republicans between 1991 and 1997" "Viacom gave $418,400 to the Dems and $122,700 to the GOP." "Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox, gave $750,000 to the California Republican Party in October 1996 alone." First off, take note of the quantities. Three companies giving half a million. Half a million. DO you realize that this firgure means absolutely nothing to them. They spend this money wiping their fucking asses on a daily bases. Another half a million over a span of 6 years, once again, pennies. The only significant number in that little statistic paragraph is the Fox contribution of 750k. But come to think of it, it's Fox. Isn't that funny, especially considering that they are responsible for broadcasting the presidents bullshit he has to say to the country. Isn't it only right that a company should give back to the person that keeps them in business.

Why would they pay more when they can get what they want for that price? Your lack of basic reasoning skills astounds me. It just goes to show how easy it is for America's corporate entities to make the government do whatever they want.

quote:

Nowhere did I say that they were pushed around. I simple said they are told by the government as to what they can show. OF course it makes perfect sense. You give me what to show, you make business for me. You lie to the country, keep people in suspense to continue watching our show and you boost ratings. We gain money for the lies you have told us to show, and we give a small portion back to you. You scratch my back, and I sratch yours.

Here's a good tip: support your arguments with facts, not baseless speculation. Just do a search on google news:

http://news.google.com/news?q=war%2...off&sa=N&tab=wn

Then look at all the U.S. media sources discussing the bad side of the war in Iraq:

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/9755153.htm?1c
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...fallujah13.html
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twinc.../9754938.htm?1c

Look at what is being reported. Would George Bush rather no one knew about any of this? I'm sure he would. Now, I know this is going to take a little bit of elementary logic, so put your thinking cap on:

If the U.S. government wanted to hide information on the war in Iraq from the public, then they would be successful in doing so. Information critical of the war in Iraq is widely available. Therefore, the U.S. Government doesn't want to hide any of that information on the war in Iraq.

So what is it exactly that you're alleging that they are hiding? So, here's a challenge: anything in Iraq which you can prove happened, I can show you a U.S. media source reporting it.

quote:

What you just said supports my arguement. Nonetheless, American culture is exported to countries around the globe. The media is a large factor in the exportation of their culture. This media, created falsely, is exported as false, and when imported by another country, is taken in falsely.

You don't even have an argument for me to support. All you have is a bunch of fallacious appeals to authority (yourself). You believe that you are privy to some information about Iraq to which the rest of the world is held oblivious. But, you can't support this claim with any evidence whatsoever.

Honestly: do you actually believe that anyone is going to take you seriously? You don't have logic, you don't have facts, you don't have evidence - you don't even really have an argument!

quote:

"...you give no viable alternative, so your opinions are worthless." First off, critisism standing alone is not worthless. The critisism of one person can help another person develope a solution. Your ignorance is once again causing you to blurp out false statements such as that one.

Your criticism is most certainly devoid of the smallest ounce of worth. You condemn U.S. actions in Iraq, but you offer no constructive criticism as to how the same goals can be accomplished in a superior fashion whatsoever. There is a word for what you've offered us, and it isn't criticism - it's whining. You whine about civilian casualties, but don't even offer any evidence to support the hypothesis that they can be further reduced.

quote:

Second, since the Americans spend, literally, trillions of dollars on military structure and developement, you would think that they have the technology to pin-point targets, which of course they do, but why spend money on using these pin-pointing target weapons when you can get away with bombing the fuck out of a city? Much more effecient, is it not?

You might be inclined think that, but you don't have the slightest understanding of military tactics or technology, and once again you're baselessly speculating. If you believe that we have the technology to destroy an arms depot in the basement of a hospital without damaging the hospital then by all means provide some evidence of it. If you can't support your claims, they I'd suggest you re-evaluate your position instead of blindly believing in mystical, magical weapons which can maneuver up down over and through civilians to get to the intended target, destroy it, and then control collateral damage caused by the destruction of that target.

quote:

In regard to your question, you have to first understand that these people, opressed as you say, are opressed for one reason, and that is because of the placement of Sadam in Iraq by the American government. As "hardcore trancer" further explains, Americans tried to invest in this leader, but it soon proves as a failure. So what happens when your own creation gets out of hand, you eliminate or restrain it. This is your answer. Sadam causes oppression, capture Sadam, stop opression.

No, you don't have to first understand anything of the sort. Saddam never should have been put into power by America, but that bears no relevance as to whether or not he should be removed from power by America. In particular, it is a textbook example of the: Red Herring fallacy.

Logical fallacies and baseless speculation: that's what eXstatic calls an "argument."

quote:

American Solution: bomb so called "military target" in civilian cities, to eliminate the treat these people must endure. Then once most of the country is chaotic due to the mass bombings, you infiltrate with your pussy ass military soldiers and ground units to capture Sadam. Why go through with bombing the country first, simple, to encounter less resistence. If you do not think that this is true, look up the events of the war a few months ago, there were multiple incidents in which ground units encountered resistence so they delt with it by bombing the cities in which these forces were located in.

You don't say! Of course they bomb to reduce resistance when they enter a city! What a mastery of inductive logic it must have taken to figure that out. And why do you think we want to reduce resistance? Oh yes, of course, to reduce our own casualties naturally.

So what your warped reasoning probably comes up with is that all we had to do was endure a few more casualties of our own, and we could have avoided killing so many civilians - that's the typical myopic liberal viewpoint.

Of course, if we had entered the cities without bombing them, there would have been soldiers disguised as civilians with grenades, car bombs, and other munitions everywhere we went. When we encountered an individual who appeared to be a civilian, we would have to either kill them, or trust them. If we killed them, you'd be whining even more than you are now - and if we trusted them, they would have stabbed us in the back, blown up our supply lines, and made the conflict most likely impossible to successfully resolve.

But, why let little things like logic get in the way of whining and ranting? I'm sure it's fun to suggest military strategies which could never work. Too bad you don't have what it takes to come up with one that actually would work: but I can see you won't let that stop you from spouting off uninformed criticism and ultracrepidating the U.S. military tactics. I can only find some relief in the fact that no one smart enough to hold a position of authority would ever be dumb enough to give your ideas a chance.

quote:

The tactics to capture an enemy follow basic principles. They do adapt dependant on their traget, but a person claimed to have WMD and a person running around town with a Glock, are both threats to their surrounding environments.

Yes, you're right: a person claimed to have WMD and a person running around town with a Glock are both threats to their surrounding environment. What's your point? That we should have just sent a couple of police cruisers to Baghdad to arrest Saddam Hussein?

quote:

The fact of the matter is, if it was your country that was in this situation, you would be saying the exact opposite of what you are now.

Once again, you have nothing but baseless speculation. What evidence do you have to suggest that if it were my country that was "in this situation" that I would be saying the opposite of what I am now? Even if it were true, it would merely mean that I was wrong. You can't provide any evidence to support your position, and you can't back it up with any logic, so I guess all you have left to do is throw speculative ad hominems my way. Pathetic.

quote:

No where have a said that a revolution won by force is a failure. I am aware of the Revolutions that have existed in our world. But, taking the Cuban Revolution as an example, this was taking by force, but it's objective was not to create a surperior power like the American mentality. It's objective was to create a society in which the people of the country have a say in what goes, and that every individual, no matter sex, hadicap, etc. are all treated and giving resources equally. Of course, this idealogy is to superior to the mind sets of you Capitalists idiots.

Just what power is it that you think America is trying to become "superior" to? There isn't a force on the planet which could hope to match us at this point in history. The best criticism of going to war in Iraq is that it was a waste of American resources on a war that stands to benefit Iraq more than it will ever benefit America.

I suggest you keep dreaming about your little "equality," because that's all it ever will be: a dream. Equality is the always the doctrine of failures - why would the successful want equality when it would only bring them down? Of course, the weak and stupid of the world want equality: it's called jealousy. Jealousy, equality, laziness, stupidity: you're right, that's soooooo much better than capitalism.

quote:

http://ventingmedia.com/bush04/ Peaceful protestors, speaking their opinion. Yet they are arrested. Isn't is amazing that it is required that over 30 police units are necessary at a peaceful protest AGAINST BUSH. Watch that and then stfu...

Those protesters left the designated protest areas, so they were arrested. The police obviously were required, since the "peaceful" protesters weren't peaceful enough to follow a few simple rules.

Are you living in a dream world? Do you honestly expect a horde of hostile protesters to be allowed as near to the man they're protesting as they want to be? If the protesters had simply followed the rules, they wouldn't have been targeted. It's pretty simple: you can say whatever you want, but that doesn't give you the priviledge to say it wherever you want, whenever you want. For example, I can't march onto the Senate floor during session to complain about a bill I don't like. If I did, I would deserve to be arrested - and if I resisted arrest, I would deserve to be beaten into submission. Free speech isn't just a right, it's also a responsibility. Those who refuse to adhere to the responsibility part of it don't deserve the right, either.

quote:

First off, wearing a shirt MAY not completely respresent your voice or beliefs, but it does have a lot of say in it. People do not ware shirts that they are in disagreement with, it's just not logical. Third, I have been to the states on a number of occasions, and have seen how the colored people of the country live in their 'ghettos' and the white people have their nice fancy houses, with their colored maids attending them for whatever they please. And please, if you do not think anything will happen to you, I encourage you to take on my challenge. I'll be there timing it for you, hopefully I get to start the timer in time.

Ok, but I don't have the shirt so you'll have to provide the money for me to purchase one. Just post your credit card number here, and I'll let you know when you can fly down to time me right away!

Just one question: do you have any idea how silly you look writing that ridiculous drivel? I'm not white, either, nor am I poor. Sorry to burst your bubble.

quote:

Your ignorance ammuses me. If you want torture, go take a look at Israel, and how Palestines are being persecuted and kicked out of their own homes by the Jews of the country (of course not all Jews) Everyday hundreds of these people are murdered because of their nationality and religion. Who provides the Israeli army with the weapons and supplies to commit such acts? Your good ol' American Fucking Yankees.

Hey look, another red herring. Instead of responding to the point, you change the subject. Since you probably don't have the first clue what a "red herring" is, I'll do you the favor of trying to educate you, even though I have grave doubts about your capacity for learning:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fall...ed-herring.html

quote:

"Uh, I hate to break it to you, but the American government doesn't kidnap innocent civilians and hold them hostage making ludicrous demands and ultimately beheading them." This implies that you believe the Iraqi government did have something to do with the prisoners, if not, then word your statements correctly.

Now I see where you went wrong. And - yes I do get my jollies out of pointing this out - it's yet another logical fallacy! This time, it's a false dilemma.

You asked "So tell me now, who is the real terrorist here," then provided two (and only two) potential answers. Neither answer was strictly correct, so I gave you one which was correct (the Iraqi resistance groups responsible for the beheadings of various civilians). An intelligent person would have figured this out easily, but I can see you're the type for whom I'm going to need to draw everything out in crayon.

quote:

Before you decide to defend your fucking American government think about the harm that is being inflicted onto these people, and think that you are supporting terrorists such as Bush of commiting these acts. (Images removed by Arbiter due to a lack of logical relevance and an unnecessary waste of space and bandwidth) http://babykiller.com/ *For all you cold-hearted, ignorant, dumbass yankees...take a look at this site, and maybe you can open your eyes to what your country does for greed*

Well you've amassed quite a collection of fallacies already: why not finish with a whole barrel of them:

1. Appeal to Pity
2. Argument By Emotive Language
3. Argumentum Ad Nauseam
4. Equivocation, and
5. The Reductive Fallacy

If your success in life is anything like your success in debate, then I can see why you're so quick to clamor for equality. What a mess!

It's always amusing when logic and illogic clash violentely.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Again as was discussed in another thread, American's don't base their president solely on a single event, there are lots of issues and if you aren't keen on the issues then you have no right declaring what is right and wrong for us.

AHAHA, but you DO have the right to say whats right and wrong right?(for other people and nations)

Just say yes, we know how arrogant you all are, makes the discussion easier.

Well obviously the people of Iraq couldn't choose what was right or wrong for them because they never had the choice. Now they do so lets see what THEY CHOOSE. Perhaps you believe too that Saddam won 100% of the vote in their last elections.

For Sudan does the world choose what is right or wrong for them or do you let them die because you don't want to interfere?

In North Korea the people have no choice, their leader makes their choices for them. Is it wrong, YES.

If wanting everyone on this planet to have free choice in their country is arrogance then so be it, I'm arrogant.

this is for our buddy exstatic

quote:

Bombs exploded near a U.S. convoy in western Baghdad on Thursday, killing 35 children and seven adults, a hospital official said. Hours earlier, a suicide car bomb killed a U.S. soldier and two Iraqis on the capital's outskirts. Latest headlines: � Baghdad Bombings Kill 35 Children AP - 3 minutes ago Special Coverage The day of violence left a total of 46 people dead and 208 wounded. The bombs in Baghdad's al-Amel neighborhood caused the largest death toll of children in any insurgent attack since the conflict began 17 months ago. It was unclear if the bombs � which also wounded 141 people, including 10 U.S. soldiers � targeted the convoy or a ceremony marking the opening of a new sewage system that was taking place at the same time.

Re: Re: Re: Re: QUO

quote:

Originally posted by eXstatic http://babykiller.com/ *For all you cold-hearted, ignorant, dumbass yankees...take a look at this site, and maybe you can open your eyes to what your country does for greed*

Did you vote liberal for the Canadian election?

Something you fail to mention is the moral delima of 'Child Fighters' in third world nations, including Iraq. (Even if you don't agree with me, read some of these pages, they are a really good eye opener!)
http://www.findarticles.com/p/artic..._18/ai_95150325
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/L...d_Soldiers.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0116-04.htm

All I ask is before you go ranking 'think of the children', we don't know if those children are being used as tools for war.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.