What would you say to change in tack?

Originally posted by UhihaJax
Eric.
I mean stuff like that. It's not very constructive. Trying to slander my views because I dont know somebody who died in 9/11.

Try tackling with the points i'm making rather then dismissing the point becuase I don't meet your accepted criteria for making a point, that 's just childish.

Post when you actually have something relevant to ADD to this post.

This why arguing with liberals is frustrating. We offer points and you choose to either dismiss them outright as unimportant or choose to take the conversation into a personal battle.
 
First of all, let me set you straight; You don't tell me when and when not to post or I will show you the door very quickly. That said if you have not lost anyone then your view of these people is skewed, plain and simple. As far as being childish, tell me what you find childish in what I wrote, lets start there. Just because I don't agree with your naive views of this world makes me childish ?

Funny I am able to run a mid-size corporation with my childish views. Tell me where your views have got you !
 
Insein, I am not saying that you have to have lost someone to form an opinion, not at all, but these people whose primary policy of appeasement do get under my skin. It's funny how people feel sympathy for criminals until a crime is committed against one of their family members.
 
Originally posted by eric
Insein, I am not saying that you have to have lost someone to form an opinion, not at all, but these people whose primary policy of appeasement do get under my skin. It's funny how people feel sympathy for criminals until a crime is committed against one of their family members.

100% agreed.
 
I run my own company. What is your point. Are we now going to exchange stats?

I made my point becuase you answered my vast dialogue with slander.

You attempted to make my points invalid becuase I had not experienced the loss of a friend in 9/11.

Now you try to make my points invalid because I do not run a medium sized company.

Can we get back to the point please? Othrwise we merely fill this thread with irrelevant posts.

Calling people naive is childish, it is slander and you do nothing to explain WHY my points are naive. If you are not willing to debate in a logical manner you yourself will end up naive because you are not willing to take peoples views into account because you dismiss them this way.

For example, if the warning for 9/11 came from a "naive" individual who didn't run their own business you would dismiss it and have made a mistake.
 
Now you are the one getting hung up !

What is wrong with feeling someone is naive. Do you really in your heart belive you can win the hearts and minds of radical Islamists, for if you do, you are definately in the minority of expert opinion. Furthermore I did not discredit your post because you did not lose someone on 9-11, I discredited it because of the above said. The fact that you did not have a personal stake does skew your view though, tell me that is untrue. You want to debate fine, I have no problem with that, but don't call my views childish because you don't agree, now that is childish.
 
ok if we're going to have an intelligent conversation then, respond to my post above before you started to stray from the topic at hand. The one about how i fear for our safety if people like you were in charge (aka John "Appeasement" Kerry).
 
Hey Insein have you noticed North Korea's offical newspapers are touting Kerry's praises, wonder why ?
 
UhihaJax Welcome, with that said I must query your locale, Europe perhaps? Canada?


There are a bunch of dis-enfrancised with American foreign policy (and rightly so, steel tariffs, kyoto to name other things)
 
Okay, then where do you get your points of view what are your favourite media sources?

Mine:

BBC (primarily Radio4, their reporting is excellent and impartial)
BBC documentries (again very impartial).
Washington Post
Independant
Guardian

I dont believe that we can win the heart of the radicals.
What I do believe we can do is reduce the amount of people that become radicals and cast doubt into those who already are.
Is that not a desirable aim? I feel that it is more realistic then attempting to blow up everywhere that apparently has terrorists.

In regards to John Kerry I do not particulary like the fellow and will be voting third party.

And having someone killed in 9/11 skews your view as much as it does if you dont.
 
Thankyou very much for you welcome Kathianne.
It's nice to be welcomed an it's a pleasure to be here.
 
Is that not a desirable aim?

Desirable yes, realistic no !

While we are winning the hearts and minds over generations, because you well know that is how long it will take if even possible, what do we do in the meantime, suffer loss after loss ?
 
Please work with what we already have if you are interested in this conversation. What is important are the points I have made not my location.

I feel like i'm going to be the victim of a republican smear campaign otherwise. :)
 
Is trying to eliminate terrorists using force a more realistic aim?
 
Actually, your location is important, not exact of course, but it's relative to the conversation. See those posters from NY tend to be a bit testy regarding the 'trivialness' of the conflict. I am from Chicagoland area, do not know anyone that died on 9/11, but gave mucho bucks for my income and felt personally attacked on 9/11. It could have been the Sear's Tower or John Hancock ya' know.
 

Forum List

Back
Top