News What is the solution to America being a terrorist nation?

[Art]

I'm sorry, which question is this that you are referring to?

Ref post #18

Let me see if I understand this, you are saying that 37% of the civilian casualties are due to US personnel. You are also saying that the US forces claim great accuracy due to training and technology, and therefore you conclude that these civilian casualties are purposefully inflicted.

No, Ref post #9

However, I do not see how you can make that conclusion when the US military forces are operating in response to the insurgency. If a gunmen is in a building shooting at people (civilians and US soldiers) the soldiers are expected, in the interest of their security, the security of the civilians and the stability of the Iraq, to shoot back. In the process I agree that civilians will die, but my point is that this is unavoidable and largely the blame falls upon the insurgents. They wish to engage US forces in populated areas, so who's fault is that?

You might think it is okay but per the Geneva convention the US action is illegal Ref post #45.

The other week in the news, here in the US, some scumbag was toting a gun and waving it at police...and he happened to use his 2 year old daughter as a shield. He began shooting. The police could not let a crazed gunmen start shooting, since this was in a public place and they have a duty to protect the people. They shot back, and in the gunfight that ensued the child was sadly killed. You cannot blame the officers for this, they were not the ones who dragged the child into that situation.

Yes the story even made the news here. And why is that? It's because the actions of the police were considered highly controversial.

Yes, but I am talking about people who have actually spent more than a year on the ground in Baghdad, the very people that we read about in the news. I'm not talking about some drunk at a bar. While I realize that this is not a citeable source, it is useful for this conversation since you have raised the question of US troops using children as human shields..I find this hard to believe. Whatever you may think of our soldiers, and whatever you may hate about the US for invading Iraq, I can assure you that cowards they are not.

Perhaps the people you know are very decent folk but that doesn't mean to say there are no rotten apples in the US military. As for cowardice - check out the murder of civilians by US helicopter pilots on Haifa Street caught on live TV and the subsequent squirming by the US military authorities (3 sets of excuses superseding each other as earlier excuses were demolished) for an example of cowardice. Or even the links supplied above to the school incident, looks like some US forces are very tough when it's only unarmed kids they have to deal with.

And yet you are the only one making this claim, so I am supposed to take your legal advice regarding the matter? Where is a UN ruling finding the US in violation of the Geneva Convention?

I think you will find I am not a lone voice on this issue either in this forum or internationally. Here's a sample of the numerous reports you can find on the net.

UN Report Slams Use of Torture to Beat Terror
By Thalif Deen
Inter Press Service
November 11, 2004
No country can justify torture, the humiliation of prisoners or violation of international conventions in the guise of fighting terrorism, says a U.N. report released here. The 19-page study, which is likely to go before the current session of the U.N. General Assembly in December, does not identify the United States by name but catalogues the widely publicised torture and humiliation of prisoners and detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. troops waging the so-called ”war on terrorism.”

The hard line taken by the United Nations comes amidst the controversial appointment of a new U.S. attorney general, who has implicitly defended the use of torture against ''terrorists'' and ''terror suspects''.

U.N. Accuses U.K. and U.S. Forces of Breaching Geneva Convention

2003-04-12 | PHOTO: U.S. soldiers in Iraq
LONDON
"'This inaction by the occupying powers is in violation of the Geneva Conventions, which explicitly state that medical establishments must be protected ..'

UN Human Rights Expert Charges US Using Food Access as Military Tactic

GENEVA -- A UN human rights expert sharply condemned the invasion of Iraq and the global anti-terror drive, accusing the US-led coalition of using food deprivation as a military tactic and of sapping efforts to fight hunger in the world.

Jean Ziegler sharply condemned the invasion of Iraq and the global anti-terror drive, accusing the US-led coalition of using food deprivation as a military tactic in a report to the UN human rights commission. (AFP/Orlando Sierra)

"The situation of the right to food in Iraq is of serious concern," the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, said in a report to the UN human rights commission.

The report also highlighted "widespread concerns about the continued lack of access to clean drinking water" and allegations by British campaigners that water sources were deliberately cut off by coalition forces.

"Those are the allegations, but what is proven is that at Fallujah, denial, the blockade imposed on food and the destruction of water reservoirs was used as weapon of war," Ziegler told journalists.

He insisted that the practice was a "clear violation" of the Geneva Conventions and delivered a firm condemnation of any attempt to deny food or water supplies.

 

[alexandra]

Two things:

1) That strategy was proposed by Jason Burke, not Noam Chomsky.

2) That strategy was a proposed solution to Islamic terrorism, not American terrorism.

I stand corrected on point 1 - yes, Chomsky reports on Burke's report

Regarding point 2 - obviously, American military actions (or, as the thread title states, 'American terrorism') are being justified on the grounds that they are necessary to protect US citizens against terrorism. Burke and Chomsky (among others) argue that American militarism will not necessarily achieve this aim - so they suggest that American militarism (my preferred terminology despite the thread title) is counter-productive. In that sense they are proposing a solution - ie, that the military actions cease, and that the root causes of terrorism be addressed.

 

[DM]

Regarding point 2 - obviously, American military actions (or, as the thread title states, 'American terrorism') are being justified on the grounds that they are necessary to protect US citizens against terrorism. Burke and Chomsky (among others) argue that American militarism will not necessarily achieve this aim - so they suggest that American militarism (my preferred terminology despite the thread title) is counter-productive. In that sense they are proposing a solution - ie, that the military actions cease.

And with this point I absolutelly agree with. In addition to the reference text, I believe that above police work, there should exist a greater magnitude of intelligence. Police work often comes to the rescue of atrocities whereas intelligence is capable to stymie the atrocities in the first place.

 

[Townsend]

So if America became isolationist...completely...

The world would be a better, safer place?

 

[DM]

Townsend

So if America became isolationist...completely...

The world would be a better, safer place?

I'm not sure if you're being jingoistic or chauvistic. I don't think that by being isolationist is the case anyway, personally I believe that it's the way in which America conducts its actions against terrorists that makes it so mire. Revamping its system would help.

 

[Smurf]

So if America became isolationist...completely...

The world would be a better, safer place?

there are better solutions than that.

 

[DM]

Smurf

there are better solutions than that.

I agree but I see the revamping as crucial to an iniciating point. Care to elaborate?

 

[Townsend]

there are better solutions than that.

Well you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Are you suggesting that the US should be involved in world affairs but only if it obeys the commands for the rest of the world?

What about the US acting in its own interest? In the best interest of it people? The United States has NO obligation to do anything for any other country ever.

 

[Townsend]

Townsend
I'm not sure if you're being jingoistic or chauvistic.

I hold that the US should act in its own best interest ONLY. If it is in the interest of the US to help another country then it should. Otherwise it should never do anything for anyone.

I don't think that by being isolationist is the case anyway, personally I believe that it's the way in which America conducts its actions against terrorists that makes it so mire. Revamping its system would help.

By revamping I think you mean capitulating. Am I wrong?

 

[BobG]

... The next major contribution to the growth of Al Qaeda and the prominence of bin Laden was Bush's bombing of Afghanistan following September 11, undertaken without credible pretext as later quietly conceded. As a result, bin Laden's message "spread among tens of millions of people, particularly the young and angry, around the world," Burke writes, reviewing the increase in global terror and the creation of "a whole new cadre of terrorists" enlisted in what they see as a "cosmic struggle between good and evil," a vision shared by bin Laden and Bush...

... The appropriate response to terrorist crimes is police work, which has been successful worldwide. ...

I would consider the Afghanistan invasion to be one method of increasing the commitment to 'police work' done in some of the less diligent countries. If Afghanistan, Pakistan, or other countries can't police their own countries well enough to prevent terrorists from setting up camp, then the countries those terrorists attack will police their country for them. In the case of Afghanistan, it was Bin Laden's assistance that kept theTaliban in power in a highly fragmented country - fragmented enough that we had no trouble finding locals willing to assist in eliminating the Taliban. In other words, there was a direct, proven link between the Afghanistan's government and Bin Laden.

The short term effect might have been to increase the cadre of terrorists, but the long term effect of a military campaign directed solely against terrorism and the countries that shelter them would have been better policing of terrorism worldwide and fewer places for terrorists to set up operations and training.

The Afghanistan invasion had an immediate effect on the attitude of Musharaf, Pakistan's ruler. The proper second step would have been to eventually increase the pressure on Pakistan to both step up their efforts along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and to crack down on the numerous terrorist groups acting within Pakistan. The Afghanistan invasion could have also been used to put pressure on Syria to reduce its presence in Lebanon. Putting a little bite behind your requests can go a long way towards encouraging cooperation from the remaining countries.

It's not US invasion of Afghanistan that has made the world a more dangerous place, nor is it the threat of the US invading another country unwilling to control its own people - it's destroying US credibility by taking a detour through Iraq based on bad evidence. You have to be right every time or else you run the risk of turning the war on terror into a war on the evil US empire.

 

[DM]

Townsend

By revamping I think you mean capitulating. Am I wrong?

I think you're changing things slightly. Capitulate to what?

By revamping I mean overhauling the American system. The way of perceiving and differentiating terrorists from muslim rebels. Authenticity is imperative when dealing with terrorists. I believe the United States and its allies have not succeeded in this area.

 

[DM]

BobG

If Afghanistan, Pakistan, or other countries can't police their own countries well enough to prevent terrorists from setting up camp, then the countries those terrorists attack will police their country for them.

I concur with this view but I think it's awfully optimistic to believe that these countries are able to police and should therefore police its vicinities better. In order to ameliorate police movements, these countries are in need of serious principles and I'm afraid religion plays a crucial role in this. In addition I think there's far too much insurgency to make police movements successful, terrorists that attack those countries and culminate in patroling and hence policing them is in my opinion not viable.

 

[Smurf]

Well you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Are you suggesting that the US should be involved in world affairs but only if it obeys the commands for the rest of the world?

Yes. Yes I am. The US is not above the rest of the world.

What about the US acting in its own interest? In the best interest of it people? The United States has NO obligation to do anything for any other country ever.

What about the US acting in it's own interest? The interests of the US do not outweight the interests of any other nation, or the citizens therein. The US does not need to invade countries to take care of it's self, and if it ever does reach the point where it's national integrity depends upon the killing of any number of people of any group, it no longer deserves it's own sovereignity. It's that simple.

 

[Smurf]

I hold that the US should act in its own best interest ONLY. If it is in the interest of the US to help another country then it should. Otherwise it should never do anything for anyone.

Any paticular reason why you're so ungenerous?

 

[Townsend]

Any paticular reason why you're so ungenerous?

I am generous, very...I have donated well over 3,000 dollars to charities and various projects that I believe in. The best part is that my generosity was, I believe, in my own best interest.

Why do you assume that acting in one own best interest is not generous?

 

[Townsend]

Yes. Yes I am. The US is not above the rest of the world.

Well, then the rest of the world can do without the US...

What about the US acting in it's own interest? The interests of the US do not outweight the interests of any other nation, or the citizens therein.

I would expect that each nation would indeed act in their own best interest. I don't think Canada would like the US telling it how it conducts it's affairs.

The US does not need to invade countries to take care of it's self,

Right...It only needs to invade other countries to take care of other countries. Like it did in WWII when it invaded France to remove the Germans. Then..but only then, the US can invade, because it is helping out OTHER countries. But if the US is attacked...what? We need permission to do anything at that point?

and if it ever does reach the point where it's national integrity depends upon the killing of any number of people of any group, it no longer deserves it's own sovereignity. It's that simple.

I don't understand what your saying here...sorry.

My point is not that I think we should have invaded Iraq, because I don't (or at least not under false pretenses like we did). Just so you do realize what I am saying has nothing to do with Iraq...

Regards,

 

[Townsend]

Townsend
I think you're changing things slightly. Capitulate to what?

How America deals with terrorist is not even half the story. The message I have been getting from people on this board is that America has nothing of value to offer. The think the entire America way of life and government is the problem. They cannot acknowledge a single positive aspect of America that I have brought up. Not one.

By revamping I mean overhauling the American system. The way of perceiving and differentiating terrorists from muslim rebels. Authenticity is imperative when dealing with terrorists. I believe the United States and its allies have not succeeded in this area.

I have not once said that I support the way America is fighting the war or terrorism. I have not attempted to defend it at all. If America never made the mistake of invading Iraq due to bad Intel, nothing that I have discussed on this board would have changed. Nothing.

The topic is that America, if it invaded Iraq or not, is a terrorist nation that is no better than Al Qaeda. What should be done to dismantle this country if we are to believe such diatribe is true?

I want to list some example of anti-Americanism, posted on this board, that has NOTHING to do with Iraq.

The history of South America for the last 100 years (and even longer) has largely been the history of U.S. intereference (many would call it terrorism).

In fact, the U.S. run academy for installing illigitimate Latin American dictators is still around (The School of the Americas).

Same person goes on..

It is about saying we have no right to say muslims are terrorists etc etc when we do the same thing. That doesn't mean it is OK one way or the other, obviously it is not.

He goes on..

Something I've always found interesting: There are declassified documents titled Project Northwoods which were signed off on by the Joint Chiefs ("i before except after c" my ass by the way) but never carried out.

Basically they detailed a plan in which the U.S. government would hijack and crash civilian airliners into buildings and blame the attacks on Cuba, in order to justify an invasion.

This isn't conspiracy theory unfortunately, the information is in the public domain since being declassified, do a google search if you don't take my word for it =(.

They act like we are just a puppet who's strings need to be pulled before we make a move...for example...

We must now redouble our efforts to find the perpetrators of 9/11 in Afghanistan and crush them under foot for he is the true evil in this war."

You already had support for this position.

Why did you destroy all of your support in the world by creating the lies that you cling to to justify your actions?

SO NOW WE NEED THE SUPPORT OF THE WORLD TO ACT?


Again...I WAS NOT AND DO NOT CONDONE THE IRAQ WAR...

I could go on and find more Anti-Americanism...but I think the point is clear.

Our forigen policy alone is not the problem in the eyes of so many. The problem is America, from 1776 to present. I have yet to hear anything that would make me think otherwise.

 

[Smurf]

I am generous, very...I have donated well over 3,000 dollars to charities and various projects that I believe in. The best part is that my generosity was, I believe, in my own best interest.

Why do you assume that acting in one own best interest is not generous?

I'm using the traditional definition that acting in one's own interest includes acts that increase one's material wealth and perceived power alone. If this is not what you mean, please explain what a goals a nation has if it is acting purely in self interest and what you're definition of self interest is.

 

[Smurf]

How America deals with terrorist is not even half the story. The message I have been getting from people on this board is that America has nothing of value to offer. The think the entire America way of life and government is the problem. They cannot acknowledge a single positive aspect of America that I have brought up. Not one.

I consistantly acknowledge the good the USA has caused, and I've seen many 'liberals' do the same, albeit less frequently than you. However America seems to be consistantly getting worse, this tends to blunt our perception by showing the future as being worse. So we assume America is worse. It's a fallacy of human perception.

The topic is that America, if it invaded Iraq or not, is a terrorist nation that is no better than Al Qaeda. What should be done to dismantle this country if we are to believe such diatribe is true?

1. No one is equating the US with Al Qaeda.
2. The solution is an anarchist revolution.

 

[Townsend]

I'm using the traditional definition that acting in one's own interest includes acts that increase one's material wealth and perceived power alone. If this is not what you mean, please explain what a goals a nation has if it is acting purely in self interest and what you're definition of self interest is.

Self interest means exactly what you think it means. In the effort to improve ones own material wealth one is forced to improve the material wealth of others. To expand markets you work to help other countries build stronger economies. That way you can sell to them. By donating money I am helping to make the world a better place, a place where material wealth is an achievable goal for more people. In doing so I will continue to expand my own material wealth until I die. More people will benefit this way than could have otherwise.

 

[Smurf]

I would expect that each nation would indeed act in their own best interest. I don't think Canada would like the US telling it how it conducts it's affairs.

... but it does!

Right...It only needs to invade other countries to take care of other countries. Like it did in WWII when it invaded France to remove the Germans. Then..but only then, the US can invade, because it is helping out OTHER countries. But if the US is attacked...what? We need permission to do anything at that point?

What does ww2 have to do with this if Iraq doesn't have anything to do with this?

 

[Townsend]

1. No one is equating the US with Al Qaeda.

I disagree, look at this board with the scathing anti-American diatribe covering every inch of this board its pretty hard for me to care what anyone thinks or says anymore.

In case you haven't noticed, equating America's actions with the actions of Terrorist was not my idea.

Regards,

 

[Townsend]

... but it does!

So how does that make you feel?

What does ww2 have to do with this if Iraq doesn't have anything to do with this?

It was only an example of when the world thinks America is allowed to do anything.

 

[Smurf]

So how does that make you feel?

It doesn't. I don't relate myself to "my" country. I don't care who controls it. I'm an anarchist, If I had my way neither the US nor Canada would exist at all (except Canada would, but purely as a name for a large chunk of land).

It was only an example of when the world thinks America is allowed to do anything.

Are you sure it wasn't a weak attempt to make America the hero of the world that we're all indebted to? I mean, if that's all you were looking for Afghanistan would be the simplest most reasonable example. Hell even the Canadians sent troops to Afghanistan.

 

[Smurf]

But I think I understand you Townsend, you're saying that the US is a sovereign state and therefor has no obligation to listen to anyone else just because, correct?

 

[Townsend]

It doesn't. I don't relate myself to "my" country. I don't care who controls it. I'm an anarchist, If I had my way neither the US nor Canada would exist at all (except Canada would, but purely as a name for a large chunk of land).

I see...

Are you sure it wasn't a weak attempt to make America the hero of the world that we're all indebted to?

Perhaps...but not intentionally...

I mean, if that's all you were looking for Afghanistan would be the simplest most reasonable example. Hell even the Canadians sent troops to Afghanistan.

What made Afghanistan ok for the US to invade? Just because the rest of the world said it was ok?

 

[Smurf]

What made Afghanistan ok for the US to invade? Just because the rest of the world said it was ok?

No, the rest of the world said it was OK because you had a legitimate reason, and by legitimate I mean one that conforms with international western standards of justice. That's the definition of when the world will accept thinks it's ok for the US to act.

 

[Townsend]

But I think I understand you Townsend, you're saying that the US is a sovereign state and therefor has no obligation to listen to anyone else just because, correct?

No...not entirely. I think it was irresponsible for the United States to go to war in Iraq like it did. But even if the rest of the world had said, 'go for it, we got your back' I would still think it was irresponsible.

That being said, if the United States finds FACTS(real facts) that it is about to be attacked by another terrorist, the United States does not need to get the permission of anyone to act in its own defense.

 

[Smurf]

No...not entirely. I think it was irresponsible for the United States to go to war in Iraq like it did. But even if the rest of the world had said, 'go for it, we got your back' I would still think it was irresponsible.

That being said, if the United States finds FACTS(real facts) that it is about to be attacked by another terrorist, the United States does not need to get the permission of anyone to act in its own defense.

Right, that's what I meant. You don't think the rest of the world's opinion should have any influence on the US's actions. Well, I agree with you... sorta.

I don't see why if Nation X says something, it should be considered law and Nation Y has no choice but to comply. However I think that a legal international body, such as the UN, can greatly help the world if it is put in such a position as to be able to legally enforce it's rulings on any nation.

 

[Townsend]

No, the rest of the world said it was OK because you had a legitimate reason, and by legitimate I mean one that conforms with international western standards of justice. That's the definition of when the world will accept thinks it's ok for the US to act.

Right...my point is, what if we had KNOWN that the attacks were about to happen but didn't when or how they were going to happen. What if, in an effort to stop them, the US invaded Afghanistan to capture OBL? Would the rest of the world have been ok with that?

 

[The Smoking Man]

That being said, if the United States finds FACTS(real facts) that it is about to be attacked by another terrorist, the United States does not need to get the permission of anyone to act in its own defense.

Does it surprise you that I agree?

Does it surprise you that everything from Kellogg-Briand and the UN Charter also agrees?

The only problem was that there were no 'real facts' apparently however, there has been evidence emerge that the 'facts' were invented and this is what the world judges you on.

That does not make America a 'nation of terrorists' but an 'administration of terrorists'.

 

[Smurf]

Right...my point is, what if we had KNOWN that the attacks were about to happen but didn't when or how they were going to happen. What if, in an effort to stop them, the US invaded Afghanistan to capture OBL? Would the rest of the world have been ok with that?

Probably not, because you didn't need to start a war to stop 9/11 had you known about it.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I don't see why if Nation X says something, it should be considered law and Nation Y has no choice but to comply. However I think that a legal international body, such as the UN, can greatly help the world if it is put in such a position as to be able to legally enforce it's rulings on any nation.

That's where you need to re-read the charter of the United Nations again ... What it was for and why America was so wise in its creation.

 

[Smurf]

That's where you need to re-read the charter of the United Nations again ... What it was for and why America was so wise in its creation.

I'm not saying 'it is', I'm saying 'it should'.

 

[Townsend]

Does it surprise you that I agree?

Yes...

Does it surprise you that everything from Kellogg-Briand and the UN Charter also agrees?

The UN might say it but like you they don't practice it.

The only problem was that there were no 'real facts' apparently however, there has been evidence emerge that the 'facts' were invented and this is what the world judges you on.

So what your saying is that if we come up with real facts, then the UN will be behind the actions of the US 100 percent? Then troops from around the world will come to the aid of a US lead invasion? Even if the invasion exposes the corruption of the UN?

Yeah right dude...your killing me here...

 

[Townsend]

Probably not, because you didn't need to start a war to stop 9/11 had you known about it.

Had we known what and where it was going to happen, then you are right. But if we only knew who was going to do it but not where or what was that terrorist organization was going to do, then we could not have stopped it any other way.

 

[Smurf]

So what your saying is that if we come up with real facts, then the UN will be behind the actions of the US 100 percent? Then troops from around the world will come to the aid of a US lead invasion? Even if the invasion exposes the corruption of the UN?

Yeah right dude...your killing me here...

Well, no. You still went to war before you had facts, that's wrong. I will condemn that no matter what, even if it is later determined that that invasion undoubtably saved the world from utter destruction it was just a fluke because they still did it without justification. And I think that's what a lot of people would say. (well no, people are stupid, most would say 'good US' and forgive you forever).

 

[Smurf]

Had we known what and where it was going to happen, then you are right. But if we only knew who was going to do it but not where or what was that terrorist organization was going to do, then we could not have stopped it any other way.

If you didn't know 'what' they were going to do you don't have a case. You can't have a criminal without a crime. So no, you still have no reason to invade.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Yes...

The UN might say it but like you they don't practice it.


So what your saying is that if we come up with real facts, then the UN will be behind the actions of the US 100 percent? Then troops from around the world will come to the aid of a US lead invasion? Even if the invasion exposes the corruption of the UN?

Yeah right dude...your killing me here...

And if the evidence wuggests the corruption of the US administration at the same time?

Reality is ... you DID kill innocents while 'killing you' is merely a figure of speech.

 

[Townsend]

And if the evidence wuggests the corruption of the US administration at the same time?

So, are you choosing to not answer the question? Do you believe the UN is a purely benevolent organization that acts in the best interest of everyone equally? Or is the UN a corrupt organization that is rarely willing to do anything at all?

 

[Smurf]

I'm leaning towards option 1.

 

[The Smoking Man]

So, are you choosing to not answer the question? Do you believe the UN is a purely benevolent organization that acts in the best interest of everyone equally? Or is the UN a corrupt organization that is rarely willing to do anything at all?

You are naieve.

You think your own administration innocent while the UN is guilty.

I look upon who is the most dangerous.

UN or USA ... Who waged a war?

 

[Townsend]

You are naieve.

ditto

You think your own administration innocent while the UN is guilty.

No, I think they have acted irresponsibly and make mistakes. You have assumed too much, like always.

I look upon who is the most dangerous.

UN or USA ... Who waged a war?

So you are not willing to answer my question then. Well you will have to forgive me if I no longer value any thing you say. I have answered questions that have been directed at me but you seem to pretend they don't exist. That is not communication...

 

[Smurf]

The point is Townsend, the UN is incapable of corruption on it's own, it only reflects the corruption that may be in the countries that it is composed of. The UN is a council of nations, not a governing body in it's self.

 

[The Smoking Man]

ditto


No, I think they have acted irresponsibly and make mistakes. You have assumed too much, like always.



So you are not willing to answer my question then. Well you will have to forgive me if I no longer value any thing you say. I have answered questions that have been directed at me but you seem to pretend they don't exist. That is not communication...

You assume I am here to be interviewed by YOU?

You are presumptuous.

I stand for free speech which you seem to think should be directed by you.

I refuse to be led down garden paths with lame attempts at ambush at the end.

 

[Townsend]

You assume I am here to be interviewed by YOU?

You are presumptuous.

I stand for free speech which you seem to think should be directed by you.

I refuse to be led down garden paths with lame attempts at ambush at the end.

In other words you refuse to participate in an act called communication. While I and many others have had to question their positions you steadfastly refuse to communicate in such a manner that might make you have to agree with anyone that disagrees with you. Thats a real nice debate trick you got there...

So like I said...since you are unwilling to take a different perspective or question your own beliefs I will no longer find any value in your words.

 

[Smurf]

both of you grow up.

 

[The Smoking Man]

In other words you refuse to participate in an act called communication. While I and many others have had to question their positions you steadfastly refuse to communicate in such a manner that might make you have to agree with anyone that disagrees with you. Thats a real nice debate trick you got there...

So like I said...since you are unwilling to take a different perspective or question your own beliefs I will no longer find any value in your words.

LOL ... Then you are familiar with the word 'debate'.


This would explain why you have a penchant for posting unverified opinion as fact and then explain it away as your 'opinion'.

THAT's why most people stopped taking YOU seriously EONS ago.

When the debate gets tough for you, you just declare it opinion and WE have to accept it.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

 

[Townsend]

both of you grow up.

I am more than willing to answer questions...I am willing to admit it when I make a mistake. What more can I do?

I don't think there is anything wrong with asking a question when I have been willing to answer questions directed at me. It's a bit rude to not return the favor.

 

[Townsend]

LOL ... Then you are familiar with the word 'debate'.


This would explain why you have a penchant for posting unverified opinion as fact and then explain it away as your 'opinion'.

THAT's why most people stopped taking YOU seriously EONS ago.

When the debate gets tough for you, you just declare it opinion and WE have to accept it.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Can you please show me where I posted an opinion as a fact? I can show you where you have.

I have also admitted to being wrong...have you ever?