CSNbbs

(01-10-2020 06:18 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 05:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:“I am not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

Good grief.

OK. Let's start with an honest assessment. There are a lot of pictures and videos out there. What percentage of the protesters do you honestly believe were peaceful protesters just there to protest the removal of the statue? I haven't seen any, but I haven't looked at every pictures and video. Your defense only works if there actually was someone there on the right other than the neo-Nazi / white nationalist types.

Vox notes:

Quote:Unite the Right was explicitly organized and branded as a far-right, racist, and white supremacist event by far-right racist white supremacists. This was clear for months before the march actually occurred. So by casting the rally instead as a sort of spontaneous outpouring from Confederate statue enthusiasts, Trump is rewriting history.

Quote:So by August 2017, when the Unite the Right rally was scheduled to take place, it was fairly clear that the organizers behind the rallies on behalf of keeping the Lee statue in place had a very specific ideological bent. That was clear in a police affidavit detailing who was expected at Unite the Right — including roughly 250 to 500 Klansmen and more than 150 “Alt-Knights,” the military division of the Proud Boys.

Quote:The affiliations of the organizers were also clear. Jason Kessler, a “pro-white” activist, filed the permits for the rally.

On a radio show before the event, Kessler said, “the number one thing is I want to destigmatize Pro-White advocacy. … I want a huge, huge crowd, and that’s what we’re going to have, to come out and support not just the Lee monument but also white people in general, because it is our race which is under attack.”

Lovely image promoting the event on Facebook:



From Roanoke Times editorial:

Quote:Here’s where the problem begins. In an academic sense, Trump is right that “not all of those people were neo-Nazis” because there was a bewildering taxonomy of far-right groups present. Some have counted as many as 17 different groups present — some actual Nazis, some Klansmen and some from lots of other groups lesser-known to the general public but well-known to those who monitor fringe groups. The neo-Nazis get the attention because we all recognize a swastika but not the more obscure symbols that were on display. However, it’s possible to lump all these fringe groups together under the heading of “white supremacists” or “white nationalists.” Academics might draw some nuanced ideological difference between the “Stormer Book Club” and the “Loyal White Knights” and “Identity Evropa” but for our purposes, they’re all part of the same foul movement.

Quote:Here’s where Trump is fundamentally wrong. He seems to think that the rally consisted of some neo-Nazis over here and some others over there who were simply there to protest the plans to move the Lee statue. That is simply not true. This was not some protest organized by history buffs who think that the statue should stay because that’s one way for us to understand the past. This was always an event organized by white nationalists. The history-minded people who genuinely believe we shouldn’t take down Confederate statues because their presence can be informative about an uncomfortable past were never part of this event — and had the good sense to stay far, far, far away. Anyone who showed up to march was knowingly joining a white supremacist rally.

So when Trump says of the rally that “there were very fine people on both sides,” he may think there were some fine people on the pro-statue side in Charlottesville that day, but there weren’t. There were only white supremacists.

So the problem with your defense is that there were not very fine people on both sides. One side was all bad people. The other side had a few bad people and a lot of peaceful counter-protesters.


Also, from Trump earlier in the same press conference where he doesn't try to qualify his remarks:

Quote:I will tell you something. I watched those very closely -- much more closely than you people watched it. And you have -- you had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group -- you had a group on the other side that came charging in, without a permit, and they were very, very violent.

Later:

Quote:Reporter: "Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?"

Trump: "I’m not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I’m saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs -- and it was vicious and it was horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch.

"But there is another side. There was a group on this side. You can call them the left -- you just called them the left -- that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is.

Reporter: (Inaudible) "… both sides, sir. You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides. Are the --"

Trump: "Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If you look at both sides -- I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say."

"One side was all bad people".

So *everybody* who marched against tearing down the statues, and *everybody* who went to the protest and was against tearing down the statues is a 'bad person'. Got it.

Wow, that is some pretty fing potent kool aid you got going there.

As a lawyer, you actually should be cognizant of 'extreme' words like "all". Apparently either you arent, or you actually think that drivel.

I wonder how differently Trump's sound byte that has been taken (badly) out of context would have played if he had said there were BAD people on both sides.

(01-10-2020 06:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 06:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 05:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 02:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]The Democratic response to the 'droning':

Yes, he was a murderer, and a terrorist, and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds (if not thousands) of US personnel and civilians, and was most likely planning to kill more United States citizens and military....... but.....

That position is not a weird one to have. The possibility of taking out Soleimani has apparently been on the table for multiples presidents, and the action wasn't taken because of the potential consequences. And, from what I've heard, that option was put out there as a way to encourage POTUS' to take a more measured approach.

Maybe that decision was wrong to delay the action, but not being supportive of the decision because of the potential repercussions is well within the bounds of logic and patriotism.

I mean, what you are saying is that you are seemingly at some level comfortable with allowing not just an individual to continue to murder US servicemen, but allowing a terrorist exporting state to do the same.

And from that, you must see how the position of the opposition to the droning actually seems to be fairly copacetic in allowing a directed murdering of US personnel.

Edited to add: Not a single Democratic member of the Senate has lent their support to a Republican-driven congressional effort to praise the U.S. military and intelligence community members who helped carry out the successful strike that killed Iranian terror leader Qassem Soleimani. The resolution is structurally identical to the 2011 Senate resolution praising former president Barack Obama for the operation that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Yay team!

I mean, what you’re saying, is that at some level, you don’t care about ramifications or consequences of your actions and that we should not think about strategy when carrying out military operations. That, if a US citizen is killed, we should not worry about anything besides exacting revenge with force and bloodshed.

When the number is hundreds or thousands of Americans, you mean. At least have your argument fit the facts instead of reverting to your 'edge-case' thingy that you default to so often.

Please note where I said *a single* citizen lad.

In the case when the shitbucket has killed hundreds, or thousands -- yeah thats a pretty gd strong case. Apparently the entire Democratic party is willing to bend over and show their behinds in the case of this particular shitbucket.

Please note where I said I was OK with allowing a terrorist to kill servicemen?

Fun game we got here.

All you said was servicemen - so would me indicating that, at some level, you’re saying you don’t care about ramifications of avenging two or more servicemen be better?

In short, it’s stupid to try and paint me as a terrorist sympathizer because I argue that we should always be strategic with our use of force, and that those who don’t agree with this specific use of force aren’t immediately terrorism sympathizers.

(01-10-2020 07:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]In short, it’s stupid to try and paint me as a terrorist sympathizer because I argue that we should always be strategic with our use of force, and that those who don’t agree with this specific use of force aren’t immediately terrorism sympathizers.

I agree with you that we should be strategic with our use of force. And I will further state that this was one of those strategic times. Probably more strategic than about 99% of what we have done in the last 60 years.

(01-10-2020 07:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 07:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]In short, it’s stupid to try and paint me as a terrorist sympathizer because I argue that we should always be strategic with our use of force, and that those who don’t agree with this specific use of force aren’t immediately terrorism sympathizers.

I agree with you that we should be strategic with our use of force. And I will further state that this was one of those strategic times. Probably more strategic than about 99% of what we have done in the last 60 years.

And I think it’s fine to have that opinion. I also think it’s fine to have the opinion that it wasn’t strategic, without the need to be labeled in such a way.

Personally, I think the jury is still out.

(01-10-2020 07:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 07:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 07:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]In short, it’s stupid to try and paint me as a terrorist sympathizer because I argue that we should always be strategic with our use of force, and that those who don’t agree with this specific use of force aren’t immediately terrorism sympathizers.

I agree with you that we should be strategic with our use of force. And I will further state that this was one of those strategic times. Probably more strategic than about 99% of what we have done in the last 60 years.

And I think it’s fine to have that opinion. I also think it’s fine to have the opinion that it wasn’t strategic, without the need to be labeled in such a way.
Personally, I think the jury is still out.

Well, we have spent 60 years basically playing the patsy for the rest of the world. Even when we have "gone to war" (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq 2 if not 1), we have only done so half-assed. We've been trying to fight wars without trying to win wars.

We have fought asymmetric engagements in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq the way wars were fought i continental Europe--capture territory, occupy and control that territory, assimilate the people--and that doesn't work. We've tried to fight the snake, and in asymmetric warfare you have to chop the head off the snake. The people who lead these terrorist organizations tend not to be very brave. They rouse up the rabble, and then hide behind human shields. They don't care how many of their followers they lose, as long as they are safe and can recruit more. You don't win their hearts and minds. You kill the people at the top, until they get tired of dying.

The strategic importance of this action to me is that this says we really will go after the head of the snake. After 60 years of not doing so, it may take more than once to convince people. But once we do convince them, the whole balance will shift and we won't have to do these stupid winless wars any more. That's how I see it.

(01-10-2020 07:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 06:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 06:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 05:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]That position is not a weird one to have. The possibility of taking out Soleimani has apparently been on the table for multiples presidents, and the action wasn't taken because of the potential consequences. And, from what I've heard, that option was put out there as a way to encourage POTUS' to take a more measured approach.

Maybe that decision was wrong to delay the action, but not being supportive of the decision because of the potential repercussions is well within the bounds of logic and patriotism.

I mean, what you are saying is that you are seemingly at some level comfortable with allowing not just an individual to continue to murder US servicemen, but allowing a terrorist exporting state to do the same.

And from that, you must see how the position of the opposition to the droning actually seems to be fairly copacetic in allowing a directed murdering of US personnel.

Edited to add: Not a single Democratic member of the Senate has lent their support to a Republican-driven congressional effort to praise the U.S. military and intelligence community members who helped carry out the successful strike that killed Iranian terror leader Qassem Soleimani. The resolution is structurally identical to the 2011 Senate resolution praising former president Barack Obama for the operation that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Yay team!

I mean, what you’re saying, is that at some level, you don’t care about ramifications or consequences of your actions and that we should not think about strategy when carrying out military operations. That, if a US citizen is killed, we should not worry about anything besides exacting revenge with force and bloodshed.

When the number is hundreds or thousands of Americans, you mean. At least have your argument fit the facts instead of reverting to your 'edge-case' thingy that you default to so often.

Please note where I said *a single* citizen lad.

In the case when the shitbucket has killed hundreds, or thousands -- yeah thats a pretty gd strong case. Apparently the entire Democratic party is willing to bend over and show their behinds in the case of this particular shitbucket.

Please note where I said I was OK with allowing a terrorist to kill servicemen?

Fun game we got here.

All you said was servicemen - so would me indicating that, at some level, you’re saying you don’t care about ramifications of avenging two or more servicemen be better?

In short, it’s stupid to try and paint me as a terrorist sympathizer because I argue that we should always be strategic with our use of force, and that those who don’t agree with this specific use of force aren’t immediately terrorism sympathizers.

I was responding to your comment trying to place words in my mouth I never said, and your strawman attempt at making an edge position my position. This comment in particular:

Quote:I mean, what you’re saying, is ... [t]hat, if a US citizen is killed, we should not worry about anything besides exacting revenge with force and bloodshed.

No I am not saying that. Please denote where I said this in the slightest.

When you increase your edge example of *a* US citizen to hundreds, perhaps thousands, I find it problematic *not* to respond. Your democratic party, en toto, has chosen to kneel over and show Iran their rear on this apparently.

They are literally refusing to support the removal of a man responsible for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of US deaths. Proud on that stand?

Perhaps you havent noticed that I have consistently used the "hundreds and thousands" statement fairly extensively. But please, focus on the fing time I did not. Good for you.

It is interesting to me that liberals divide the world into good and bad based on ONE point of data. Racism.

The guys marching to keep statues were all bad.

The guys wearing masks and attacking people were all good.

For example

I prefer a more general approach.

(01-10-2020 07:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 07:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 06:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 06:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 05:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I mean, what you are saying is that you are seemingly at some level comfortable with allowing not just an individual to continue to murder US servicemen, but allowing a terrorist exporting state to do the same.

And from that, you must see how the position of the opposition to the droning actually seems to be fairly copacetic in allowing a directed murdering of US personnel.

Edited to add: Not a single Democratic member of the Senate has lent their support to a Republican-driven congressional effort to praise the U.S. military and intelligence community members who helped carry out the successful strike that killed Iranian terror leader Qassem Soleimani. The resolution is structurally identical to the 2011 Senate resolution praising former president Barack Obama for the operation that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Yay team!

I mean, what you’re saying, is that at some level, you don’t care about ramifications or consequences of your actions and that we should not think about strategy when carrying out military operations. That, if a US citizen is killed, we should not worry about anything besides exacting revenge with force and bloodshed.

When the number is hundreds or thousands of Americans, you mean. At least have your argument fit the facts instead of reverting to your 'edge-case' thingy that you default to so often.

Please note where I said *a single* citizen lad.

In the case when the shitbucket has killed hundreds, or thousands -- yeah thats a pretty gd strong case. Apparently the entire Democratic party is willing to bend over and show their behinds in the case of this particular shitbucket.

Please note where I said I was OK with allowing a terrorist to kill servicemen?

Fun game we got here.

All you said was servicemen - so would me indicating that, at some level, you’re saying you don’t care about ramifications of avenging two or more servicemen be better?

In short, it’s stupid to try and paint me as a terrorist sympathizer because I argue that we should always be strategic with our use of force, and that those who don’t agree with this specific use of force aren’t immediately terrorism sympathizers.

I was responding to your comment trying to place words in my mouth I never said, and your strawman attempt at making an edge position my position. This comment in particular:

Quote:I mean, what you’re saying, is ... [t]hat, if a US citizen is killed, we should not worry about anything besides exacting revenge with force and bloodshed.

No I am not saying that. Please denote where I said this in the slightest.

When you increase your edge example of *a* US citizen to hundreds, perhaps thousands, I find it problematic *not* to respond. Your democratic party, en toto, has chosen to kneel over and show Iran their rear on this apparently.

They are literally refusing to support the removal of a man responsible for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of US deaths. Proud on that stand?

Perhaps you havent noticed that I have consistently used the "hundreds and thousands" statement fairly extensively. But please, focus on the fing time I did not. Good for you.

Tanq, I just played the exact same, stupid semantics game you started with me - the whole "you are seemingly at some level comfortable with allowing not just an individual to continue to murder US servicemen, but allowing a terrorist exporting state to do the same."

Sorry that flipping it back around at you made you butt hurt.

My point is that people who are not supporting Trump's actions are rationale actors that have very solid ground to stand on, that is unrelated to being terrorist sympathizers or being comfortable with allowing US servicemen to be murdered. Because the world is not a vacuum, it's stupid to try and hurl these rather offensive accusations at people - that is one of the reasons we bulldozed our way into Iraq.

It has been said that politics makes strange bedfellows.

A long time ago, the ACLU defended the right of a Nazi group to parade in Skokie, Ill. Did that make the ACLU a nazi sympathizer? No. But it sure benefited the Nazis.

I am afraid that opposing Trump has become such a fixture in some parts of our society that it is becoming unimportant who benefits from that opposition.

(01-11-2020 11:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 07:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 07:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 06:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 06:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I mean, what you’re saying, is that at some level, you don’t care about ramifications or consequences of your actions and that we should not think about strategy when carrying out military operations. That, if a US citizen is killed, we should not worry about anything besides exacting revenge with force and bloodshed.

When the number is hundreds or thousands of Americans, you mean. At least have your argument fit the facts instead of reverting to your 'edge-case' thingy that you default to so often.

Please note where I said *a single* citizen lad.

In the case when the shitbucket has killed hundreds, or thousands -- yeah thats a pretty gd strong case. Apparently the entire Democratic party is willing to bend over and show their behinds in the case of this particular shitbucket.

Please note where I said I was OK with allowing a terrorist to kill servicemen?

Fun game we got here.

All you said was servicemen - so would me indicating that, at some level, you’re saying you don’t care about ramifications of avenging two or more servicemen be better?

In short, it’s stupid to try and paint me as a terrorist sympathizer because I argue that we should always be strategic with our use of force, and that those who don’t agree with this specific use of force aren’t immediately terrorism sympathizers.

I was responding to your comment trying to place words in my mouth I never said, and your strawman attempt at making an edge position my position. This comment in particular:

Quote:I mean, what you’re saying, is ... [t]hat, if a US citizen is killed, we should not worry about anything besides exacting revenge with force and bloodshed.

No I am not saying that. Please denote where I said this in the slightest.

When you increase your edge example of *a* US citizen to hundreds, perhaps thousands, I find it problematic *not* to respond. Your democratic party, en toto, has chosen to kneel over and show Iran their rear on this apparently.

They are literally refusing to support the removal of a man responsible for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of US deaths. Proud on that stand?

Perhaps you havent noticed that I have consistently used the "hundreds and thousands" statement fairly extensively. But please, focus on the fing time I did not. Good for you.

Tanq, I just played the exact same, stupid semantics game you started with me - the whole "you are seemingly at some level comfortable with allowing not just an individual to continue to murder US servicemen, but allowing a terrorist exporting state to do the same."

Sorry that flipping it back around at you made you butt hurt.

My point is that people who are not supporting Trump's actions are rationale actors that have very solid ground to stand on, that is unrelated to being terrorist sympathizers or being comfortable with allowing US servicemen to be murdered. Because the world is not a vacuum, it's stupid to try and hurl these rather offensive accusations at people - that is one of the reasons we bulldozed our way into Iraq.

1) Notwithstanding your wingflapping and attempt to color my statement as "offensive', nothing in your response detracts from my comment you are not fully backing the removal of a shitbag whom is responsible for rhe death of hundreds, if not thousands, of American servicemen. With that not full backing, there is seemingly at least a portion of your thought process copacetic with those hundreds, if not thousands of US servicemen deaths and copacetic with letting the shitbag continue as such.

2) If you count a 'turnaround' as ignoring the several previous statements made as to the 'hundreds if not thousands' to focus on one that did not contaun that phrase..... uhhh.. good job there sparky. lolz.

(01-11-2020 02:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-11-2020 11:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 07:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 07:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020 06:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]When the number is hundreds or thousands of Americans, you mean. At least have your argument fit the facts instead of reverting to your 'edge-case' thingy that you default to so often.

Please note where I said *a single* citizen lad.

In the case when the shitbucket has killed hundreds, or thousands -- yeah thats a pretty gd strong case. Apparently the entire Democratic party is willing to bend over and show their behinds in the case of this particular shitbucket.

Please note where I said I was OK with allowing a terrorist to kill servicemen?

Fun game we got here.

All you said was servicemen - so would me indicating that, at some level, you’re saying you don’t care about ramifications of avenging two or more servicemen be better?

In short, it’s stupid to try and paint me as a terrorist sympathizer because I argue that we should always be strategic with our use of force, and that those who don’t agree with this specific use of force aren’t immediately terrorism sympathizers.

I was responding to your comment trying to place words in my mouth I never said, and your strawman attempt at making an edge position my position. This comment in particular:

Quote:I mean, what you’re saying, is ... [t]hat, if a US citizen is killed, we should not worry about anything besides exacting revenge with force and bloodshed.

No I am not saying that. Please denote where I said this in the slightest.

When you increase your edge example of *a* US citizen to hundreds, perhaps thousands, I find it problematic *not* to respond. Your democratic party, en toto, has chosen to kneel over and show Iran their rear on this apparently.

They are literally refusing to support the removal of a man responsible for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of US deaths. Proud on that stand?

Perhaps you havent noticed that I have consistently used the "hundreds and thousands" statement fairly extensively. But please, focus on the fing time I did not. Good for you.

Tanq, I just played the exact same, stupid semantics game you started with me - the whole "you are seemingly at some level comfortable with allowing not just an individual to continue to murder US servicemen, but allowing a terrorist exporting state to do the same."

Sorry that flipping it back around at you made you butt hurt.

My point is that people who are not supporting Trump's actions are rationale actors that have very solid ground to stand on, that is unrelated to being terrorist sympathizers or being comfortable with allowing US servicemen to be murdered. Because the world is not a vacuum, it's stupid to try and hurl these rather offensive accusations at people - that is one of the reasons we bulldozed our way into Iraq.

1) Notwithstanding your wingflapping and attempt to color my statement as "offensive', nothing in your response detracts from my comment you are not fully backing the removal of a shitbag whom is responsible for rhe death of hundreds, if not thousands, of American servicemen. With that not full backing, there is seemingly at least a portion of your thought process copacetic with those hundreds, if not thousands of US servicemen deaths and copacetic with letting the shitbag continue as such.

2) If you count a 'turnaround' as ignoring the several previous statements made as to the 'hundreds if not thousands' to focus on one that did not contaun that phrase..... uhhh.. good job there sparky. lolz.

Soleimani certainly deserved his fate, based on his actions.

But not wholly endorsing the US taking him out at this moment, does not, in any way, mean anyone is seemingly copacetic with letting him continue to live. By that thought process, you not calling for his death since his first act means you were copacetic with him living. It’s a stupid and juvenile argument.

The decision by Trump to strike Soleimani then directly led to Iran shooting down a plane full of innocent people, because Iran went into a defensive posture. So, that means you not even being willing to admit there are rational reasons to oppose the decision to strike means you must have a portion of you that is copacetic with that kind of collateral damage.

(01-11-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Soleimani certainly deserved his fate, based on his actions.

And I'm betting that if someone other than Donald Trump had been the president who ordered him killed, you would have been 100% supportive.

Quote:The decision by Trump to strike Soleimani then directly led to Iran shooting down a plane full of innocent people, because Iran went into a defensive posture.

Unproved, and actually quite a reach.

(01-11-2020 05:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-11-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Soleimani certainly deserved his fate, based on his actions.

And I'm betting that if someone other than Donald Trump had been the president who ordered him killed, you would have been 100% supportive.

Quote:The decision by Trump to strike Soleimani then directly led to Iran shooting down a plane full of innocent people, because Iran went into a defensive posture.

Unproved, and actually quite a reach.

First of all, I’m still waiting to see how the next few months play out as to whether or not it was the right decision. If tensions don’t escalate, then it will have been a very good decision.

And with Iran admitting it mistakenly shot down the plane, I don’t know how you can say it is a reach that the mistake was entirely due to the heightened tensions immediately following the Soleimani assassination and the missile attack in Iraq, which happened the day before.

You are doing a smashing job of mixing and matching crap there, lad. (and making **** up as well for that matter).

If you stop flapping your wings and think about it you might see.

Not wholly endorsing his takeout means either one does not support him being taken out, or one can live with him still on the run, all things considered. In either case, one is copacetic with his continued actions; that is they have at least a part of them okay with the fact that Soleimani would be walking around, that is they are okay with a person responsible murderer of hundreds, perhaps thousands, US servicemen still bounding about.


You yourself have noted that 'well golly perhaps other reasons exist to not have killed this shitbag'. Not saying you are mad about him being droned, or despondent, just that some part of you sees a reason for a man responsible for the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of US servicemen still being able and free to do so.

Not really hard cypher that there. But by god you are fighting that label *even when* you have previously admitted that a part of you can justify his still walking around --- like the paraphrase in the previous paragraph.

An example: I think that Hillary Clinton is a criminal and should have gone to prison. I am okay that she wasnt charged. So, some part of me actually supports the proposition that Hillary shouldnt have been charged. Is that too gd hard for you to understand?

Quote: By that thought process, you not calling for his death since his first act means you were copacetic with him living.

What the **** are you spouting here, lad? good grief, there are so many logical issues with your statement there I will just let it stand.....

Quote:It’s a stupid and juvenile argument.

I agree that your comment above certainly is.

Quote: So, that means you not even being willing to admit there are rational reasons to oppose the decision to strike means you must have a portion of you that is copacetic with that kind of collateral damage.

World class flapping now. Look up the term 'proximate cause' lad. It will help you immensely.

Sorry you are having such a conniption fit over the accurate assessment that at least a portion of you is copacetic with Solemaini still running around.

(01-11-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The decision by Trump to strike Soleimani then directly led to Iran shooting down a plane full of innocent people, because Iran went into a defensive posture. So, that means you not even being willing to admit there are rational reasons to oppose the decision to strike means you must have a portion of you that is copacetic with that kind of collateral damage.

This is the the "See what you made me do" defense. Lots of domestic violence happens under this theory.

It goes somethings like this:

You made me mad so I was not paying attention when I ran that stop sign and killed three people. It's your fault they are dead.

Or:

The top on my drink was loose, and when it came off I was distracted, and ran a red light, hit a car. It is all the fault of the kid at the fast food place.

(01-11-2020 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The decision by Trump to strike Soleimani then directly led to Iran shooting down a plane full of innocent people, because Iran went into a defensive posture. So, that means you not even being willing to admit there are rational reasons to oppose the decision to strike means you must have a portion of you that is copacetic with that kind of collateral damage.

This is the the "See what you made me do" defense. Lots of domestic violence happens under this theory.

It goes somethings like this:

You made me mad so I was not paying attention when I ran that stop sign and killed three people. It's your fault they are dead.

Or:

The top on my drink was loose, and when it came off I was distracted, and ran a red light, hit a car. It is all the fault of the kid at the fast food place.

(01-11-2020 05:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]You are doing a smashing job of mixing and matching crap there, lad. (and making **** up as well for that matter).

If you stop flapping your wings and think about it you might see.

Not wholly endorsing his takeout means either one does not support him being taken out, or one can live with him still on the run, all things considered. In either case, one is copacetic with his continued actions; that is they have at least a part of them okay with the fact that Soleimani would be walking around, that is they are okay with a person responsible murderer of hundreds, perhaps thousands, US servicemen still bounding about.


You yourself have noted that 'well golly perhaps other reasons exist to not have killed this shitbag'. Not saying you are mad about him being droned, or despondent, just that some part of you sees a reason for a man responsible for the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of US servicemen still being able and free to do so.

Not really hard cypher that there. But by god you are fighting that label *even when* you have previously admitted that a part of you can justify his still walking around --- like the paraphrase in the previous paragraph.

An example: I think that Hillary Clinton is a criminal and should have gone to prison. I am okay that she wasnt charged. So, some part of me actually supports the proposition that Hillary shouldnt have been charged. Is that too gd hard for you to understand?

Quote: By that thought process, you not calling for his death since his first act means you were copacetic with him living.

What the **** are you spouting here, lad? good grief, there are so many logical issues with your statement there I will just let it stand.....

Quote:It’s a stupid and juvenile argument.

I agree that your comment above certainly is.

Quote: So, that means you not even being willing to admit there are rational reasons to oppose the decision to strike means you must have a portion of you that is copacetic with that kind of collateral damage.

World class flapping now. Look up the term 'proximate cause' lad. It will help you immensely.

Sorry you are having such a conniption fit over the accurate assessment that at least a portion of you is copacetic with Solemaini still running around.

I just think your peddling a bunch of bull**** with this, and you obviously don’t think it is a bunch of bull****.

You must agree that it’s bull**** if you are calling the exact same logic to your apparent copaceticness to any reaction from Iran. Because to fully support that strike, one must be copacetic with any actions that come as a direct relation to it - either direct or indirect.

Tanq, what you’re missing is it isn’t being OK with Soleimani running around, it is a value judgement about whether or not the outcome of him running around is better than him not running around because of the final outcomes of the two events.

Someone can not be copacetic with him being around, but still feel that the potential negative consequences of that strike would have been far more detrimental, and thus him running around is preferred.

When you start saying people are copacetic with him being around, you’re adding an unneccesRy value judgement that is only meant to inflame.