Obscene Apologies

[PoliticalChic]

Link?

"An Afghan policeman shot and killed two American soldiers Monday in northern Afghanistan, the province's deputy governor said, and protests flared for a fourth straight day in several Afghan cities and towns over an American pastor's burning of the Koran.

For the first day since lethal riots erupted Friday, resulting in the deaths of seven foreign U.N. workers in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, no fatalities were reported Monday in the protests, which have taken 22 lives."


Afghanistan: 2 U.S. soldiers killed by Afghan policeman - latimes.com



Not only was I 100% correct, but now I'm going to have to contend with toxic carping about this being a 'cut and paste'!

Even though it is reported in the same article it isn't clear that the Americans were killed because of the book burning. If they were, the pastor should rot in hell.

Is it possible that you don't see that the logic you are using would indict the mini-skirt wearer to hell with the rapist?

 

[Immanuel]

Link?

link I count 21.

It doesn't sound, from your link, that Americans were killed by the people outraged over the book burning.

To me, it sounds as if this "policeman" was a sympathizer with the rioters and the Taliban and he took the opportunity to shoot and kill the two soldiers.

Immie

 

[Mr Liberty]

The sickening part, High_Gravity is they were looking for AMERICANS...couldnt find any....so decided those people would have to make do.

I guess any non Muslim will do.

 

[xotoxi]

Now, toxic, if I get your drift, you're disagreeing with my style of posting....

I want you to watch, breathlessly, until I decide on my next OP...

...it will reveal exactly how much I allow others to decide on my posting-style.


But, you're a smart guy...I bet you know already.

I'm not disagreeing with anything. You can do whatever you want.

I'm just saying that I open your threads expecting to find original material...but I never do.

The material is always original...that's why you open it.

I often provide it in the words of those I agree with. (sorry to end the sentence
with a preposition.)

Surely, you see that, Shirley.

But the material is not yours.

And the fact that the material written by others matches with what you agree, just means that you are regurgitating talking points.

Not that there is anything wrong with that...

 

[Ravi]

They already controlled most of it, with or without the pastor.

Incorrect.

How so? so your saying this book burning turned the tide for the Taliban?

I'm saying the Taliban doesn't control most of Afghanistan, as you asserted. It is being used, from the reports, by the Taliban as propaganda to try to turn support back to them.

 

[Ravi]

"An Afghan policeman shot and killed two American soldiers Monday in northern Afghanistan, the province's deputy governor said, and protests flared for a fourth straight day in several Afghan cities and towns over an American pastor's burning of the Koran.

For the first day since lethal riots erupted Friday, resulting in the deaths of seven foreign U.N. workers in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, no fatalities were reported Monday in the protests, which have taken 22 lives."


Afghanistan: 2 U.S. soldiers killed by Afghan policeman - latimes.com



Not only was I 100% correct, but now I'm going to have to contend with toxic carping about this being a 'cut and paste'!

Even though it is reported in the same article it isn't clear that the Americans were killed because of the book burning. If they were, the pastor should rot in hell.

Is it possible that you don't see that the logic you are using would indict the mini-skirt wearer to hell with the rapist?

No it wouldn't, unless you are making the claim that men are at war with women.

 

[High_Gravity]

Incorrect.

How so? so your saying this book burning turned the tide for the Taliban?

I'm saying the Taliban doesn't control most of Afghanistan, as you asserted. It is being used, from the reports, by the Taliban as propaganda to try to turn support back to them.

They may not have a direct control of most of the country but they do control large parts of the country and fighting for more, we dont have enough troops on the ground to be everywhere they are, basically.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Dream on...but wouldn't it be awesome if the Prez would say something to the effect...

"While it is regrettable that there are people among us that have no respect for other people's beliefs and what they hold dear to them...it is a far greater concern that in retaliation others just arbitrarily murder other people who happen to be from the same country or same race who have absolutely nothing...let me repeat...nothing...to do with what happened in the first place.
I will go on to say that the recent events in Afghanistan is suggestive of a far greater problem than one nut burning a holy book. A whole group of people murdering other people that not only goes unpunished by their government - but in fact encouraged by that government is something we must address"

End of dream. Ronald Reagan is past.

 

[Ravi]

link I count 21.

It doesn't sound, from your link, that Americans were killed by the people outraged over the book burning.

To me, it sounds as if this "policeman" was a sympathizer with the rioters and the Taliban and he took the opportunity to shoot and kill the two soldiers.

Immie

That could be true but I am not seeing anything definite to confirm that. Yet.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Even though it is reported in the same article it isn't clear that the Americans were killed because of the book burning. If they were, the pastor should rot in hell.

Is it possible that you don't see that the logic you are using would indict the mini-skirt wearer to hell with the rapist?

No it wouldn't, unless you are making the claim that men are at war with women.

Obfuscating?

The claim that I am making is the confluence of

a) any thinking person stating that the pastor burning the koran made the killers do what they did, and

b) any thinking person stating that a young lady wearing a mini-skirt made a rapist perform as he did.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm not disagreeing with anything. You can do whatever you want.

I'm just saying that I open your threads expecting to find original material...but I never do.

The material is always original...that's why you open it.

I often provide it in the words of those I agree with. (sorry to end the sentence
with a preposition.)

Surely, you see that, Shirley.

But the material is not yours.

And the fact that the material written by others matches with what you agree, just means that you are regurgitating talking points.

Not that there is anything wrong with that...

The absurdity of your position that anyone who gives an opinion other than one they thought of in perfect isolation is- to use your terminology, "regurgitating talking points"
would obviatge approximately 100% of the items on the message board.

No, I see it as tortuous logic on your part, an attempt to argue with an OP without actually producing a cogent argument.

Could it be the difference in our political perspectives has more to do with your thesis than any kind of style critique?

I think so.

 

[Immanuel]

Even though it is reported in the same article it isn't clear that the Americans were killed because of the book burning. If they were, the pastor should rot in hell.

Is it possible that you don't see that the logic you are using would indict the mini-skirt wearer to hell with the rapist?

No it wouldn't, unless you are making the claim that men are at war with women.

Isn't it the other way around, women are at war with men?

I think us guys would prefer peace but then every time we turn around a woman is blaming us for everything from the toast burning to the asteroid that we all know is headed our way and going to put us all out like the one that destroyed the dinosaurs.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

Is it possible that you don't see that the logic you are using would indict the mini-skirt wearer to hell with the rapist?

No it wouldn't, unless you are making the claim that men are at war with women.

Obfuscating?

The claim that I am making is the confluence of

a) any thinking person stating that the pastor burning the koran made the killers do what they did, and

b) any thinking person stating that a young lady wearing a mini-skirt made a rapist perform as he did.

I don't think it is the same thing at all. I don't think men rape women because women wear mini skirts. But I do think some people will become enraged at a slight to their religion....and the pastor knows this and did it anyway.

 

[Kalam]

The sickening part, High_Gravity is they were looking for AMERICANS...couldnt find any....so decided those people would have to make do.

Barbaric indeed. Now they're no better than those who decided to make due with Iraqis and Afghans after their main man dropped off the radar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No it wouldn't, unless you are making the claim that men are at war with women.

Obfuscating?

The claim that I am making is the confluence of

a) any thinking person stating that the pastor burning the koran made the killers do what they did, and

b) any thinking person stating that a young lady wearing a mini-skirt made a rapist perform as he did.

I don't think it is the same thing at all. I don't think men rape women because women wear mini skirts. But I do think some people will become enraged at a slight to their religion....and the pastor knows this and did it anyway.

I think I'll leave it to the reader to consider our two posts on this matter.

 

[Ravi]

Obfuscating?

The claim that I am making is the confluence of

a) any thinking person stating that the pastor burning the koran made the killers do what they did, and

b) any thinking person stating that a young lady wearing a mini-skirt made a rapist perform as he did.

I don't think it is the same thing at all. I don't think men rape women because women wear mini skirts. But I do think some people will become enraged at a slight to their religion....and the pastor knows this and did it anyway.

I think I'll leave it to the reader to consider our two posts on this matter.

Also, PC, the pastor isn't the victim in this scenario. So your analogy is doubly stupid. The victims are basically innocent people that were trying to do their jobs.

If the pastor wasn't such an evil fuck they'd be having lunch right about now instead of funeral services.

 

[xotoxi]

The material is always original...that's why you open it.

I often provide it in the words of those I agree with. (sorry to end the sentence
with a preposition.)

Surely, you see that, Shirley.

But the material is not yours.

And the fact that the material written by others matches with what you agree, just means that you are regurgitating talking points.

Not that there is anything wrong with that...

The absurdity of your position that anyone who gives an opinion other than one they thought of in perfect isolation is- to use your terminology, "regurgitating talking points"
would obviatge approximately 100% of the items on the message board.

That is not my point at all. Of course each and every one of us has opinions that align with those opinions that have been written by others.

But, you are the only person who exclusively starts posts by cutting and pasting the words of others.

Again, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with it...in fact, I appreciate that you stick around in your thread to actually discuss the quoted article, rather than just hit and run.

I'm just pointing out that it is what you do.

 

[xotoxi]

No, I see it as tortuous logic on your part, an attempt to argue with an OP without actually producing a cogent argument.

And I'm not arguing with the OP at all. I don't have much of an opinion on the matter except that the actions of all people on both sides of the issue are childish and reactionary and should all be killed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't think it is the same thing at all. I don't think men rape women because women wear mini skirts. But I do think some people will become enraged at a slight to their religion....and the pastor knows this and did it anyway.

I think I'll leave it to the reader to consider our two posts on this matter.

Also, PC, the pastor isn't the victim in this scenario. So your analogy is doubly stupid. The victims are basically innocent people that were trying to do their jobs.

If the pastor wasn't such an evil fuck they'd be having lunch right about now instead of funeral services.

Did you notice how I avoid terms like 'doubly stupid' in my posts?

You might take a lesson from that.

 

[Ravi]

I think I'll leave it to the reader to consider our two posts on this matter.

Also, PC, the pastor isn't the victim in this scenario. So your analogy is doubly stupid. The victims are basically innocent people that were trying to do their jobs.

If the pastor wasn't such an evil fuck they'd be having lunch right about now instead of funeral services.

Did you notice how I avoid terms like 'doubly stupid' in my posts?

You might take a lesson from that.

I notice how quickly you back away from your silly assertions and change the subject.