Marcus Luttrell's Dog Murdered

Wrong answer dude. Post number 6 doesn't make the connection you made. You had to assume a LOT to make that connection.

Her next response to you begins "The way I remember it .....

You then tried to twist the words around and tailor them to suit your baseless personal attack.

Either you lied, or you can't read. Take your pick. You got plenty of woulds to lick and I'm just going to pile them on.

Don't put words in my mouth. Just because I don't agree with you wanting to armchair quarterback and impose a set of morals on our troops Christ himself would be proud of doesn't mean I'm 100% to the opposite extreme.

I find it hypocritical as Hell that you lefties scream and whine about the right trying to impose its morals on you while you're busy doing the same damned thing.

I have already stated that in their position I would have tied the shepherds up and left them there. I don't condone murder. I also don't condone cutting my own throat.

Doesn't actually take much assuming when reading a line of type in which two thoughts are connected by a couple of dots.

And how is DvDud 'armchair quarterbacking' but not Gezz? Gezz wasn't there, either, yet he, too, offered an opinion on the situation.

Wow. Talk about your deflections. I didn't say anyone was not entitled to their opinion. Just as I am entitled to pick and choose who I wish to disagree with.

See how that works?

It's not that you aren't entitled to your opinion and/or to pick and choose with whom you disagree. However, you said, "Just because I don't agree with you wanting to armchair quarterback ...." and I was commenting on your dissing people as 'armchair quarterbacks' solely because you disagree with them. Anyone who wasn't there who offers an opinion is an 'armchair quarterback,' including yourself.
 
I've read all the responses on this thread so far. Seems to me that the willingness to discuss this situation doesn't go much further than *&#$@!! Murtha and #%$&*!! liberals.

And there are other inaccuracies due to certain posters' inability to correctly recall facts, which is one thing in face-to-face, casual conversations, but puzzling on a MB where, one would assume, all posters have access to search tools they can utilize to prevent their making incorrect statements.

Murtha sucks. Sorry if you don't like that opinion, but he does.

Some people like to converse without having to back up everything they say with 3 links. Cut-n-paste back and forth arguments are boring.

The "inaccuracy" began when one person chose to make a connection that does not exist and build a strawman to go on the personal attack. If someone caveats a statement with "IIRC ..." then that person is telling you up front they are unsure of their memory.

There's nothing puzzling about it at all.

Championing conversing without having to "back up everything they say" is another way of saying it's okay to hold opinions based on fallacies.

And the connection in this case does exist. The two comments aren't located in two different documents or two different paragraphs. No one had to make a leap to connect two phrases joined by a couple of dots.

Incorrect. It's saying a couple of things. One, things are common knowledge do not have to be backed up by a link each and every time they are mentioned.

It also says people can say what they want for the most part on this board. That is their choice. You don't get to decide how people debate.

And no, the comment in post number 6 does NOT make the connection you and whatever-his-name is claim that it does.
 
Doesn't actually take much assuming when reading a line of type in which two thoughts are connected by a couple of dots.

And how is DvDud 'armchair quarterbacking' but not Gezz? Gezz wasn't there, either, yet he, too, offered an opinion on the situation.

Wow. Talk about your deflections. I didn't say anyone was not entitled to their opinion. Just as I am entitled to pick and choose who I wish to disagree with.

See how that works?

It's not that you aren't entitled to your opinion and/or to pick and choose with whom you disagree. However, you said, "Just because I don't agree with you wanting to armchair quarterback ...." and I was commenting on your dissing people as 'armchair quarterbacks' solely because you disagree with them. Anyone who wasn't there who offers an opinion is an 'armchair quarterback,' including yourself.

You've got those handbook arguments down pat, don't you? Sorry, but your ignorance on the subject of me is shining bright. I've been trained for YEARS -- 20 to be exact -- to make that call. That hardly includes me in your little idealistic-but-unrealistic gaggle of two.

What are you? This dude's mommy? He accused another member of lying while lying to make his accusation. I called him on it. He fired the first round downrange, not me. I just responded with overwhelming firepower. Too bad for him, and you by extension since you seem to be his guardian angel.

He has done little else but assume, and make absolute statements based on those assumptions. You want to defend THAT, go ahead.
 
I know this you know that, I read this you read that, some use this as fodder for thier idealogy, big whoop of shit.

All of you know nothing, zero zip. You watch a video or read a book, that dont mean a lick of beans, never will, never did.

I dont care who wrote the book or who made the movie or what murtha says. You cannot judge a war form outside a war. That is a plain, cold fact.

What we can judge is Murtha, as a elected official, and murtha's behavior during a time of war, we can judge him accordingly, did his comments help our fighting men on the ground or did they have the potential to harm our fighting forces.

That is the only question of relevance.
 
Murtha sucks. Sorry if you don't like that opinion, but he does.

Some people like to converse without having to back up everything they say with 3 links. Cut-n-paste back and forth arguments are boring.

The "inaccuracy" began when one person chose to make a connection that does not exist and build a strawman to go on the personal attack. If someone caveats a statement with "IIRC ..." then that person is telling you up front they are unsure of their memory.

There's nothing puzzling about it at all.

Championing conversing without having to "back up everything they say" is another way of saying it's okay to hold opinions based on fallacies.

And the connection in this case does exist. The two comments aren't located in two different documents or two different paragraphs. No one had to make a leap to connect two phrases joined by a couple of dots.

Incorrect. It's saying a couple of things. One, things are common knowledge do not have to be backed up by a link each and every time they are mentioned.

It also says people can say what they want for the most part on this board. That is their choice. You don't get to decide how people debate.

And no, the comment in post number 6 does NOT make the connection you and whatever-his-name is claim that it does.

So it's "common knowledge" that Murtha had something to do with the incident under discussion?

And I'm not trying to "decide how people debate." Just trying to ascertain the standard for truth.
 
Championing conversing without having to "back up everything they say" is another way of saying it's okay to hold opinions based on fallacies.

And the connection in this case does exist. The two comments aren't located in two different documents or two different paragraphs. No one had to make a leap to connect two phrases joined by a couple of dots.

Incorrect. It's saying a couple of things. One, things are common knowledge do not have to be backed up by a link each and every time they are mentioned.

It also says people can say what they want for the most part on this board. That is their choice. You don't get to decide how people debate.

And no, the comment in post number 6 does NOT make the connection you and whatever-his-name is claim that it does.

So it's "common knowledge" that Murtha had something to do with the incident under discussion?
Asked and answered DUmmie!

And I'm not trying to "decide how people debate." Just trying to ascertain the standard for truth.
I got a feeling you would not know truth if it smacked you in the azz.



Live with it.
 
Wow. Talk about your deflections. I didn't say anyone was not entitled to their opinion. Just as I am entitled to pick and choose who I wish to disagree with.

See how that works?

It's not that you aren't entitled to your opinion and/or to pick and choose with whom you disagree. However, you said, "Just because I don't agree with you wanting to armchair quarterback ...." and I was commenting on your dissing people as 'armchair quarterbacks' solely because you disagree with them. Anyone who wasn't there who offers an opinion is an 'armchair quarterback,' including yourself.

You've got those handbook arguments down pat, don't you? Sorry, but your ignorance on the subject of me is shining bright. I've been trained for YEARS -- 20 to be exact -- to make that call. That hardly includes me in your little idealistic-but-unrealistic gaggle of two.

What are you? This dude's mommy? He accused another member of lying while lying to make his accusation. I called him on it. He fired the first round downrange, not me. I just responded with overwhelming firepower. Too bad for him, and you by extension since you seem to be his guardian angel.

He has done little else but assume, and make absolute statements based on those assumptions. You want to defend THAT, go ahead.

A poster attempted to connect Murtha with an incident to which he had no connection. That poster was called on it by DvDud.

Just because DvDud doesn't agree with you and/or you don't agree with him on some aspects of this discussion, that doesn't change other facts in evidence.

So my point is that just because you think somebody's wrong about one thing, it doesn't logically follow that s/he is wrong about everything.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day!
 
Don't matter what the standard of truth is. What matters is only if what Murtha said was politically motivated and if Murtha's comments had the potential to put our forces in harms way, in any way.

I'm talking about the standard of truth for discussion on this board.

Is it the 'making shit up' school of debate? Or do people debate their varying opinions formed from a standard set of facts?
 
sorry, I am tired, going to bed, I deleted my post, sorry
 
Last edited:
Championing conversing without having to "back up everything they say" is another way of saying it's okay to hold opinions based on fallacies.

And the connection in this case does exist. The two comments aren't located in two different documents or two different paragraphs. No one had to make a leap to connect two phrases joined by a couple of dots.

Incorrect. It's saying a couple of things. One, things are common knowledge do not have to be backed up by a link each and every time they are mentioned.

It also says people can say what they want for the most part on this board. That is their choice. You don't get to decide how people debate.

And no, the comment in post number 6 does NOT make the connection you and whatever-his-name is claim that it does.

So it's "common knowledge" that Murtha had something to do with the incident under discussion?

And I'm not trying to "decide how people debate." Just trying to ascertain the standard for truth.


Desperation knows no bounds, huh? The problem here seems to be quite obvious. You and the dud like to read things that don't exist into statements, and you like to make dishonest implications putting words into people's mouths that weren't said.

The conclusion you imply in your first sentence is taking my words out of context, and you will find no ACTUAL statement made by me to support such an implication.

Whose standard for truth? Mine or yours? Yours appears to be however you want to twist the words.
 
It's not that you aren't entitled to your opinion and/or to pick and choose with whom you disagree. However, you said, "Just because I don't agree with you wanting to armchair quarterback ...." and I was commenting on your dissing people as 'armchair quarterbacks' solely because you disagree with them. Anyone who wasn't there who offers an opinion is an 'armchair quarterback,' including yourself.

You've got those handbook arguments down pat, don't you? Sorry, but your ignorance on the subject of me is shining bright. I've been trained for YEARS -- 20 to be exact -- to make that call. That hardly includes me in your little idealistic-but-unrealistic gaggle of two.

What are you? This dude's mommy? He accused another member of lying while lying to make his accusation. I called him on it. He fired the first round downrange, not me. I just responded with overwhelming firepower. Too bad for him, and you by extension since you seem to be his guardian angel.

He has done little else but assume, and make absolute statements based on those assumptions. You want to defend THAT, go ahead.

A poster attempted to connect Murtha with an incident to which he had no connection. That poster was called on it by DvDud.

Just because DvDud doesn't agree with you and/or you don't agree with him on some aspects of this discussion, that doesn't change other facts in evidence.

So my point is that just because you think somebody's wrong about one thing, it doesn't logically follow that s/he is wrong about everything.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day!

You are incorrect. Dud pulled your same lame game and read into a statement something that wasn't there and built himself a strawman to accuse another member of lying.

You're right the facts in evidence don't change. You have to read into the statements that were made to come to the conclusion that he did with nothing more than assumption to support his accusation.

Your "point" is just another strawman since I have not stated anything that would remotely elicit such a response.

You appear to be real good at addressing what people DON'T say. When do you get to the part where you address what they actually DO say?

Whatever else you may wish to the think it is, the standard for truth is NOT what you assume someone else meant.

Your little act is about as transparent as crystal. Your buddy can't discuss the topic so he goes into strawman accusation mode and this thread has been nothing since but an exercise on yours and his part in deflection, dishonest word games and building strawmen.

I've seen a lot better.
 
Wow. Talk about your deflections. I didn't say anyone was not entitled to their opinion. Just as I am entitled to pick and choose who I wish to disagree with.

See how that works?

It's not that you aren't entitled to your opinion and/or to pick and choose with whom you disagree. However, you said, "Just because I don't agree with you wanting to armchair quarterback ...." and I was commenting on your dissing people as 'armchair quarterbacks' solely because you disagree with them. Anyone who wasn't there who offers an opinion is an 'armchair quarterback,' including yourself.

You've got those handbook arguments down pat, don't you? Sorry, but your ignorance on the subject of me is shining bright. I've been trained for YEARS -- 20 to be exact -- to make that call. That hardly includes me in your little idealistic-but-unrealistic gaggle of two.

What are you? This dude's mommy? He accused another member of lying while lying to make his accusation. I called him on it. He fired the first round downrange, not me. I just responded with overwhelming firepower. Too bad for him, and you by extension since you seem to be his guardian angel.

He has done little else but assume, and make absolute statements based on those assumptions. You want to defend THAT, go ahead.

I didn't assume anything.
There's no "strawman" argument here. Your buddy WillowTree tried to pin the bloody failure of Operation Red Wing on Murtha. INACCURATELY-what happened to Lutrell and his SEAL team had nothing whatsoever to do with John Murtha.
And the posts are there to plainly see.
Whether poster WillowTree "misremembered", "misrepresented", or spewed out propaganda based on her hatred for John Murtha is essentially irrelevant to the FACT that Murtha had nothing to do with it-NOTHING-but WillowTree represented that he did.
WillowTree has now acknowledged her "inaccuracy"-as well as explaining her hatred for Murtha.
Posting misinformation-and/or disinformation-on a public forum isn't the same as misremembering something in the context of a private conversation...it's not like the facts aren't there at one's fingertips.
Willow brought Murtha into a discussion about Lutrell's DOG, fer chrissake...and in an inaccurate/dishonest context-certainly you aren't saying that we should have just IGNORED that...or are you? Is it OK to let that smear slide since it's John Murtha?
 
It's not that you aren't entitled to your opinion and/or to pick and choose with whom you disagree. However, you said, "Just because I don't agree with you wanting to armchair quarterback ...." and I was commenting on your dissing people as 'armchair quarterbacks' solely because you disagree with them. Anyone who wasn't there who offers an opinion is an 'armchair quarterback,' including yourself.

You've got those handbook arguments down pat, don't you? Sorry, but your ignorance on the subject of me is shining bright. I've been trained for YEARS -- 20 to be exact -- to make that call. That hardly includes me in your little idealistic-but-unrealistic gaggle of two.

What are you? This dude's mommy? He accused another member of lying while lying to make his accusation. I called him on it. He fired the first round downrange, not me. I just responded with overwhelming firepower. Too bad for him, and you by extension since you seem to be his guardian angel.

He has done little else but assume, and make absolute statements based on those assumptions. You want to defend THAT, go ahead.

I didn't assume anything.
There's no "strawman" argument here. Your buddy WillowTree tried to pin the bloody failure of Operation Red Wing on Murtha. INACCURATELY-what happened to Lutrell and his SEAL team had nothing whatsoever to do with John Murtha.
And the posts are there to plainly see.
Whether poster WillowTree "misremembered", "misrepresented", or spewed out propaganda based on her hatred for John Murtha is essentially irrelevant to the FACT that Murtha had nothing to do with it-NOTHING-but WillowTree represented that he did.
WillowTree has now acknowledged her "inaccuracy"-as well as explaining her hatred for Murtha.
Posting misinformation-and/or disinformation-on a public forum isn't the same as misremembering something in the context of a private conversation...it's not like the facts aren't there at one's fingertips.
Willow brought Murtha into a discussion about Lutrell's DOG, fer chrissake...and in an inaccurate/dishonest context-certainly you aren't saying that we should have just IGNORED that...or are you? Is it OK to let that smear slide since it's John Murtha?




I still hate John Murtha and nothing you say can change that.
 
It's not that you aren't entitled to your opinion and/or to pick and choose with whom you disagree. However, you said, "Just because I don't agree with you wanting to armchair quarterback ...." and I was commenting on your dissing people as 'armchair quarterbacks' solely because you disagree with them. Anyone who wasn't there who offers an opinion is an 'armchair quarterback,' including yourself.

You've got those handbook arguments down pat, don't you? Sorry, but your ignorance on the subject of me is shining bright. I've been trained for YEARS -- 20 to be exact -- to make that call. That hardly includes me in your little idealistic-but-unrealistic gaggle of two.

What are you? This dude's mommy? He accused another member of lying while lying to make his accusation. I called him on it. He fired the first round downrange, not me. I just responded with overwhelming firepower. Too bad for him, and you by extension since you seem to be his guardian angel.

He has done little else but assume, and make absolute statements based on those assumptions. You want to defend THAT, go ahead.

I didn't assume anything.
There's no "strawman" argument here. Your buddy WillowTree tried to pin the bloody failure of Operation Red Wing on Murtha. INACCURATELY-what happened to Lutrell and his SEAL team had nothing whatsoever to do with John Murtha.
And the posts are there to plainly see.
Whether poster WillowTree "misremembered", "misrepresented", or spewed out propaganda based on her hatred for John Murtha is essentially irrelevant to the FACT that Murtha had nothing to do with it-NOTHING-but WillowTree represented that he did.
WillowTree has now acknowledged her "inaccuracy"-as well as explaining her hatred for Murtha.
Posting misinformation-and/or disinformation-on a public forum isn't the same as misremembering something in the context of a private conversation...it's not like the facts aren't there at one's fingertips.
Willow brought Murtha into a discussion about Lutrell's DOG, fer chrissake...and in an inaccurate/dishonest context-certainly you aren't saying that we should have just IGNORED that...or are you? Is it OK to let that smear slide since it's John Murtha?




Here here! I'll make ya an offer ya cannot refuse.. You get John Murtha to come out publicly and apologize for falsely accusing those soldiers of rape and murder and I'll come out publicly and apologize for my mistaken timeline.. now that's fair. :lol:
 
You've got those handbook arguments down pat, don't you? Sorry, but your ignorance on the subject of me is shining bright. I've been trained for YEARS -- 20 to be exact -- to make that call. That hardly includes me in your little idealistic-but-unrealistic gaggle of two.

What are you? This dude's mommy? He accused another member of lying while lying to make his accusation. I called him on it. He fired the first round downrange, not me. I just responded with overwhelming firepower. Too bad for him, and you by extension since you seem to be his guardian angel.

He has done little else but assume, and make absolute statements based on those assumptions. You want to defend THAT, go ahead.

I didn't assume anything.
There's no "strawman" argument here. Your buddy WillowTree tried to pin the bloody failure of Operation Red Wing on Murtha. INACCURATELY-what happened to Lutrell and his SEAL team had nothing whatsoever to do with John Murtha.
And the posts are there to plainly see.
Whether poster WillowTree "misremembered", "misrepresented", or spewed out propaganda based on her hatred for John Murtha is essentially irrelevant to the FACT that Murtha had nothing to do with it-NOTHING-but WillowTree represented that he did.
WillowTree has now acknowledged her "inaccuracy"-as well as explaining her hatred for Murtha.
Posting misinformation-and/or disinformation-on a public forum isn't the same as misremembering something in the context of a private conversation...it's not like the facts aren't there at one's fingertips.
Willow brought Murtha into a discussion about Lutrell's DOG, fer chrissake...and in an inaccurate/dishonest context-certainly you aren't saying that we should have just IGNORED that...or are you? Is it OK to let that smear slide since it's John Murtha?




Here here! I'll make ya an offer ya cannot refuse.. You get John Murtha to come out publicly and apologize for falsely accusing those soldiers of rape and murder and I'll come out publicly and apologize for my mistaken timeline.. now that's fair. :lol:

Falsely? Isn't Wuterich being court-martialed?
 

Forum List

Back
Top