Kohr-Ah, Ministry of Truth Thought-Crime Officer

[Kohr-Ah]

Fair enough - hold him to it.

"The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

How are you going to judge this? What standards are you going to have? If he's right, is it going to change your mind about anything? If he's wrong are you going to get some sense of satisfaction from that?

Even if you don't personally like the current administration or the justifications for this war, you do hope he's correct on this, right?[/quote]

[Split from http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=70347 - DW]

[Durandal]

Fair enough - hold him to it.

"The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

How are you going to judge this? What standards are you going to have? If he's right, is it going to change your mind about anything? If he's wrong are you going to get some sense of satisfaction from that?

How about starting with an overall decrease in the number of suicide bombings, car bombings, deaths and injuries due to bombings and hostage taking for starters?

Even if you don't personally like the current administration or the justifications for this war, you do hope he's correct on this, right?

Sure, I'd love to see Iraq stabilize so we can pull our troops back home, so they can be with their families and ready to actually address a real threat sometime down the road.

But I'm not naïve enough to think this is anything more than pie-in-the-sky, smoke-up-the-ass optimism from the Bush administration. Par for the course. Remember how many "turning points" Iraq was supposed to have had, where the Magic Democracy Effect would finally kick in and make everything all peachy? These are the same people who claimed it was "hard to imagine" needing more troops than required for a military victory to stabilize the country after the end of military combat.

The immediate trend has been that the attacks have risen in number and in ferocity. Overall, the attacks have been coming in pretty consistently. There was a big hooplah about the 45,000 troops Iraq was supposedly going to deploy, but it turns out that they were about 8,000 short of that goal.

Cheney doesn't bring up any kind of facts to back up his statements. He just says it is. "The fighting will stop before 2008." Uhh, gee, thanks for those assurances. So if it stops December 31st, 2007, does that mean that the insurgency was still in its death throes in 2005?

[Plekhanov]

How are you going to judge this? What standards are you going to have? If he's right, is it going to change your mind about anything? If he's wrong are you going to get some sense of satisfaction from that?

Even if you don't personally like the current administration or the justifications for this war, you do hope he's correct on this, right?

Of course he wants Iraq to be at peace you asshole, god I hate how pricks like you continually try to insinuate that if you’re being sceptical about Bush administration propaganda in some way means that you want the Jihadists to win.

[Durandal]

Of course he wants Iraq to be at peace you asshole, god I hate how pricks like you continually try to insinuate that if you’re being sceptical about Bush administration propaganda in some way means that you want the Jihadists to win.

No, we liberals cackle with glee every time we hear about innocent men, women and children being ripped to shreds by a car bomb in Baghdad. We love it because it vindicates our point of view, and we only wish more death and destruction just to satisfy our vendetta against George W. Bush.

[Plekhanov]

Of course he wants Iraq to be at peace you asshole, god I hate how pricks like you continually try to insinuate that if you’re being sceptical about Bush administration propaganda in some way means that you want the Jihadists to win.

No, we liberals cackle with glee every time we hear about innocent men, women and children being ripped to shreds by a car bomb in Baghdad. We love it because it vindicates our point of view, and we only wish more death and destruction just to satisfy our vendetta against George W. Bush.

Dammit Durandal will please keep your evil cackling & gloating over death & destruction to the secret liberal only board, I think we just about had Kohr-Ah fooled, now you’ve gone and blown it by blabbing your true feelings as liberal.

[Kohr-Ah]

How are you going to judge this? What standards are you going to have? If he's right, is it going to change your mind about anything? If he's wrong are you going to get some sense of satisfaction from that?

Even if you don't personally like the current administration or the justifications for this war, you do hope he's correct on this, right?

Of course he wants Iraq to be at peace you asshole, god I hate how pricks like you continually try to insinuate that if you’re being sceptical about Bush administration propaganda in some way means that you want the Jihadists to win.

Don't give me any of this "of course he wants Iraq to be at peace" as though it's self-evident. There are way too many people that do want the U.S. to fail and relish the thought of this taking a long time. Go visit Democratic Underground or any number of other of looney left-wing web sites and tell me again that I'm being a prick when I ask a question like that. I've been reading a lot of the old posts on this board to get a feel for a number of posters and quite frankly it wouldn't surprise me if many of them hope Cheney is wrong.

[Hamel]

Even if you don't personally like the current administration or the justifications for this war, you do hope he's correct on this, right?

Of course he wants Iraq to be at peace you asshole, god I hate how pricks like you continually try to insinuate that if you’re being sceptical about Bush administration propaganda in some way means that you want the Jihadists to win.

Don't give me any of this "of course he wants Iraq to be at peace" as though it's self-evident. There are way too many people that do want the U.S. to fail and relish the thought of this taking a long time. Go visit Democratic Underground or any number of other of looney left-wing web sites and tell me again that I'm being a prick when I ask a question like that. I've been reading a lot of the old posts on this board to get a feel for a number of posters and quite frankly it wouldn't surprise me if many of them hope Cheney is wrong.

Hey, a freeper asshole is referencing DU! How original.

[Vendetta]

hope Cheney is wrong.

People don't "hope Cheney is wrong", we know damn well he's lying through his teeth, and that people are going to be paying with their lives for it.

[Darth Wong]

Don't give me any of this "of course he wants Iraq to be at peace" as though it's self-evident. There are way too many people that do want the U.S. to fail and relish the thought of this taking a long time. Go visit Democratic Underground or any number of other of looney left-wing web sites and tell me again that I'm being a prick when I ask a question like that. I've been reading a lot of the old posts on this board to get a feel for a number of posters and quite frankly it wouldn't surprise me if many of them hope Cheney is wrong.

Let's have a look at your so-called "logic", shall we? Since it's rather obvious that you're a card-carrying Republitard, let me ask you this: when you scoffed at Democrats who said before the election that we could negotiate with Iran, does this mean you hoped that negotiations would be impossible?

[Kohr-Ah]

Hey, a freeper asshole is referencing DU! How original.

Does that make my arguement invalid somehow?

How about if I quote this board then? In particular this statement:

Which is the disastrous consequence of this war. It'll be over quickly, Shrub's approval ratings will skyrocket, and he'll have no problem winning in 2004.

and to avoid being accused of taking it out of context:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... ht=#389602

That was in a post about Ted Rall, but the quote was talking about the Iraq war. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think someone could take that to mean that the person hopes the war lasts longer to benefit his political beliefs.

I doubt Durandal really meant that he wanted the war to go on longer, but I'm using that quote as an illustration. Some people really do want things to go badly in Iraq so this administration will suffer.

[Darth Wong]

Hey, a freeper asshole is referencing DU! How original.

Does that make my arguement invalid somehow?

You have not presented an argument. You simply repeat your assertion ad nauseum.

I doubt Durandal really meant that he wanted the war to go on longer, but I'm using that quote as an illustration. Some people really do want things to go badly in Iraq so this administration will suffer.

So you admit that you don't think he actually meant that, yet you use him as proof that people here do?

[Kohr-Ah]

Hey, a freeper asshole is referencing DU! How original.

Does that make my arguement invalid somehow?

You have not presented an argument. You simply repeat your assertion ad nauseum.

I doubt Durandal really meant that he wanted the war to go on longer, but I'm using that quote as an illustration. Some people really do want things to go badly in Iraq so this administration will suffer.

So you admit that you don't think he actually meant that, yet you use him as proof that people here do? :roll:

Follow this logically Darth

I questioned whether Durandal hopes Cheney is right about this ending soon

Someone else calls me an asshole and then claims I insinuated that people skeptical of the Bush Admin want the Jihadis to win. Ignoring the strawman, he basically says how dare I question someone.

I replied that it's valid to question certain views because of evidence that people do want things to go badly.

I link a specific quote from this board showing just such a opinion. There are other opinions similar to that.

Whether I believe Durandal actually believes that or not is irrelevant. I used him as an example that one can question the desires and motivations of people. Because I know the difference between evidence and proof I did not say anywhere that this is proof of anything.

To recap (slowly for the retarded):

There is evidence that people want things to go badly in Iraq to satisfy their political beliefs. It is therefore justifiable to question them.

Everyone got that?

[Plekhanov]

Don't give me any of this "of course he wants Iraq to be at peace" as though it's self-evident. There are way too many people that do want the U.S. to fail and relish the thought of this taking a long time. Go visit Democratic Underground or any number of other of looney left-wing web sites and tell me again that I'm being a prick when I ask a question like that.

If you asked that question on one of these “looney left-wing web sites” you might have had a point however you didn’t YOU ASKED IT HERE so what the fuck has DU got to do with anything?

I've been reading a lot of the old posts on this board to get a feel for a number of posters and quite frankly it wouldn't surprise me if many of them hope Cheney is wrong.

I hope you realise how offensive that statement is you are actually arguing that there are “MANY” posters on this board who want the killings in Iraq to continue, I suggest you either post abundant proof of that outrageous and offensive claim or post a withdrawal pronto.

[Durandal]

Dammit Durandal will please keep your evil cackling & gloating over death & destruction to the secret liberal only board, I think we just about had Kohr-Ah fooled, now you’ve gone and blown it by blabbing your true feelings as liberal.

It's a double-bluff, you fool! I must be lying, because no one would ever tell the truth about that! What I didn't tell him is that liberals all have weekly circle jerks to the Communist News Network's coverage of the latest car bombing in Baghdad. We get off on being proven right, you see. Boy, I'll bet a paranoid, arm-chair inquisitor like him would never guess that one!

Follow this logically Darth

I questioned whether Durandal hopes Cheney is right about this ending soon

Someone else calls me an asshole and then claims I insinuated that people skeptical of the Bush Admin want the Jihadis to win. Ignoring the strawman, he basically says how dare I question someone.

And how dare you accuse me of being some monster who wants to see innocent people killed to satisfy my political agendas. Those people belong to a special club: The Bush Administration.

I replied that it's valid to question certain views because of evidence that people do want things to go badly.

I link a specific quote from this board showing just such a opinion. There are other opinions similar to that.

Whether I believe Durandal actually believes that or not is irrelevant. I used him as an example that one can question the desires and motivations of people. Because I know the difference between evidence and proof I did not say anywhere that this is proof of anything.

In other words, anyone who contests the administration's rosy-red pictures of the events in Iraq must be questioned to make sure he is not a traitorous liberal scum-bag acting as a cheerleader for the Iraqi insurgency and masturbating to the deaths of innocents and American troops.

To recap (slowly for the retarded):

There is evidence that people want things to go badly in Iraq to satisfy their political beliefs. It is therefore justifiable to question them.

Everyone got that?

Hey pal, you're not the Loyalty Police, okay? I don't appreciate being "questioned" by some paranoid little shit over the Internet, especially when those questions are, "Do you enjoy it when innocent children are killed so long as your political views are justified?"

Hey, I don't see an American flag as your avatar or in your signature! In fact, your nickname sounds very Muslim to me. Under my authority as an ... um ... Internet ... guy, I am holding you for questioning! Do you support the Iraqi resistance? Is that why you chose such a Muslim-sounding name? Do you hate America, or just freedom in general?

[RedImperator]

Don't give me any of this "of course he wants Iraq to be at peace" as though it's self-evident. There are way too many people that do want the U.S. to fail and relish the thought of this taking a long time. Go visit Democratic Underground or any number of other of looney left-wing web sites and tell me again that I'm being a prick when I ask a question like that. I've been reading a lot of the old posts on this board to get a feel for a number of posters and quite frankly it wouldn't surprise me if many of them hope Cheney is wrong.

How about you name some of those names, then? Go on, I'm curious. I want to hear your take on SDN's political culture.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Kohr-Ah, your apparent baiting here of Durandal and others with such comments will not win you any friends here, only enemies. Either you buck up your ideas, lad, or you're out. Because frankly, while we don't want to see the whole world go to Hell because of Bush, praising his Iraq idea to show you're not on the other side wanting soldiers to be blown to pieces is one big black and white fallacy.

Or do you consider criticism of a clusterfuck a bad thing?

[Kohr-Ah]

Dammit Durandal will please keep your evil cackling & gloating over death & destruction to the secret liberal only board, I think we just about had Kohr-Ah fooled, now you’ve gone and blown it by blabbing your true feelings as liberal.

It's a double-bluff, you fool! I must be lying, because no one would ever tell the truth about that! What I didn't tell him is that liberals all have weekly circle jerks to the Communist News Network's coverage of the latest car bombing in Baghdad. We get off on being proven right, you see. Boy, I'll bet a paranoid, arm-chair inquisitor like him would never guess that one!

Follow this logically Darth

I questioned whether Durandal hopes Cheney is right about this ending soon

Someone else calls me an asshole and then claims I insinuated that people skeptical of the Bush Admin want the Jihadis to win. Ignoring the strawman, he basically says how dare I question someone.

And how dare you accuse me of being some monster who wants to see innocent people killed to satisfy my political agendas. Those people belong to a special club: The Bush Administration.

I replied that it's valid to question certain views because of evidence that people do want things to go badly.

I link a specific quote from this board showing just such a opinion. There are other opinions similar to that.

Whether I believe Durandal actually believes that or not is irrelevant. I used him as an example that one can question the desires and motivations of people. Because I know the difference between evidence and proof I did not say anywhere that this is proof of anything.

In other words, anyone who contests the administration's rosy-red pictures of the events in Iraq must be questioned to make sure he is not a traitorous liberal scum-bag acting as a cheerleader for the Iraqi insurgency and masturbating to the deaths of innocents and American troops.

To recap (slowly for the retarded):

There is evidence that people want things to go badly in Iraq to satisfy their political beliefs. It is therefore justifiable to question them.

Everyone got that?

Hey pal, you're not the Loyalty Police, okay? I don't appreciate being "questioned" by some paranoid little shit over the Internet, especially when those questions are, "Do you enjoy it when innocent children are killed so long as your political views are justified?"

Hey, I don't see an American flag as your avatar or in your signature! In fact, your nickname sounds very Muslim to me. Under my authority as an ... um ... Internet ... guy, I am holding you for questioning! Do you support the Iraqi resistance? Is that why you chose such a Muslim-sounding name? Do you hate America, or just freedom in general?

Durandal I asked you a question, you answered it, and I've got no problem. But don't go acting all indignant that I dared question you. Hell, I quoted something perfectly relevant to my question, a direct quote from you, that would seem to indicate that you would hope the insurgency went on if it would hurt the Bush admin.

And of course here come the hyper-emotional responses to things I never said but must have meant. Try not to use "other words", try using my actual words. I wasn't questioning your loyalty. I was questioning your attitude on the subject. At any rate, I don't give a damn whether you appreciate being questioned or not. You're going to post something with a sarcastic comment then you're going to get replies.

[Lord Zentei]

Don't give me any of this "of course he wants Iraq to be at peace" as though it's self-evident. There are way too many people that do want the U.S. to fail and relish the thought of this taking a long time. Go visit Democratic Underground or any number of other of looney left-wing web sites and tell me again that I'm being a prick when I ask a question like that. I've been reading a lot of the old posts on this board to get a feel for a number of posters and quite frankly it wouldn't surprise me if many of them hope Cheney is wrong.

What a load of crap. There are many on this board who are very much opposed to the war, but not because they want America to fail, but because they either think that Bush fucked up the handling of the war and/or because they feel that America shouldn't have gone to war in the first place. Subtle difference, yes? You can root for your team but hate the coach when he fucks up on strategy. You can even still root for your team when you have become cynical about the general situation. Don't confuse criticism with trechery, you tool. Hell, there are members on this board who are millitary personel and who have fought/will fight in Iraq. Are you suggesting that they have a deathwish, you little shit?

And incidentally, the Democratic Underground is circle jerk central. I frankly don't give a rat's ass about those losers.

[Darth Wong]

Follow this logically Darth

One cannot follow illogical arguments logically.

Whether I believe Durandal actually believes that or not is irrelevant. I used him as an example that one can question the desires and motivations of people.

No you can't, you moron, because the Appeal to Motive is a fallacy. A statement is either true or false; your attempt to divert the subject from the validity of a statement to the supposed hidden motive beneath it is a fucking red herring, and as such, as completely fallacious.

Everyone got that?

Yes. We got that you don't know logic from lasagna.

[Durandal]

Durandal I asked you a question, you answered it, and I've got no problem. But don't go acting all indignant that I dared question you. Hell, I quoted something perfectly relevant to my question, a direct quote from you, that would seem to indicate that you would hope the insurgency went on if it would hurt the Bush admin.

Yes, a quote from March 2003 in which I made a prediction about the Iraq War's effect on American politics. I don't care if the issue at the time was whether or not Chasey Lain was coming to my apartment to give me a blow job. If Bush would've gotten reelected as a result, I would've considered that a bad consequence.

That quote was also made before the war actually started and before any insurgency sprung up.

And of course here come the hyper-emotional responses to things I never said but must have meant. Try not to use "other words", try using my actual words. I wasn't questioning your loyalty. I was questioning your attitude on the subject. At any rate, I don't give a damn whether you appreciate being questioned or not. You're going to post something with a sarcastic comment then you're going to get replies.

Yeah, sure pal. You're the one running around asserting your "right to question" me because some retards over at the DU happen to have the asinine attitude that thousands of people dying is okay as long as it negatively impacts Bush in the polls. You're the one who dug into my posting history to find some indication that I might be a secret cheerleader for the Iraqi insurgency. You're the one who made a blanket statement about posters on this board (who you won't name, except me) who you think want the war to go badly just so Bush is negatively impacted, which was your justification for questioning my decency as a human being.

Which one of us is being paranoid, here?

[AdmiralKanos]

I wonder if this idiot troll (notice how his very first post in this thread immediately attempted to switch the subject from "is Cheney full of shit" to "do you celebrate death") is also registered at SB.com. Someone check to see if anyone at SB.com has the E-mail address allenrussell@verizon.net

[Kohr-Ah]

Follow this logically Darth

One cannot follow illogical arguments logically.

Whether I believe Durandal actually believes that or not is irrelevant. I used him as an example that one can question the desires and motivations of people.

No you can't, you moron, because the Appeal to Motive is a fallacy. A statement is either true or false; your attempt to divert the subject from the validity of a statement to the supposed hidden motive beneath it is a fucking red herring, and as such, as completely fallacious.

Everyone got that?

Yes. We got that you don't know logic from lasagna.

Darth, the Appeal to Motive fallacy deals with "challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer". It doesn't apply here.
I wasn't challenging any thesis of Durandals. I wasn't challenging any statement by him either. He didn't make any statement. Try to follow along.

The subject was my questioning Durandal. I showed why I was questioning him. He, in the past, made a statement that basically indicated he thought that the war going well was good for Bush and therefore bad for his political side. Because he made this past statement I questioned whether he hoped Cheney was right and things went well. See how that follows?

You guys are real good at throwing out the names of fallacies without always thinking about whether they apply.

[SirNitram]

Durandal I asked you a question, you answered it, and I've got no problem. But don't go acting all indignant that I dared question you. Hell, I quoted something perfectly relevant to my question, a direct quote from you, that would seem to indicate that you would hope the insurgency went on if it would hurt the Bush admin.

Oh look, the little newbie shithead thinks he's in a place to start assigning motives to people. And not just any motives: Ones that involve wishing the death and/or maiming of thousands. Now, we recignize that insipid little inbreeds like you don't understand what that amounts to.

Walk your ass to whatever sports arena you and your fellow neanderthals coalsce in. Sit in the stands. Now, start mentally filling the stands with stinking, bloated, rotting corpses. Continue this until you fill it.

Now, if this isn't beyond your propagandized worldview, start imprinting entire lives on these rotted things. Brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, wives, husbands.

That is what you just implied Durandal wanted, you worthless troll. That is why you are now in deep shit.

And of course here come the hyper-emotional responses to things I never said but must have meant. Try not to use "other words", try using my actual words. I wasn't questioning your loyalty. I was questioning your attitude on the subject. At any rate, I don't give a damn whether you appreciate being questioned or not. You're going to post something with a sarcastic comment then you're going to get replies.

And you know what you're going to get? If there's justice, you'll get kicked out. Because you're a fucking animal. Just another shitstain generated by political extremism. Just another rabid thing to be booted because yes, you thing that a lawyer wouldn't associate with, you're subhuman. You look at political leanings towards the Left and associate it with a desire to see human lives ended.

Of course, like every other drone like you, you probably don't grok that that's what you implied. No one here cares. You should think before you act.

Politicians would feel slimey around you, at least, those that haven't already sold their souls to the Triad Of Stupid(Fundamentalism, Corporatism, Jingoism).

In short, get in the fucking basket and get ready for a hot eternity after this life is over. You earned it.

[RedImperator]

Split from here. Kohr-Ah, you are in a heap of shit.

[AdmiralKanos]

Darth, the Appeal to Motive fallacy deals with "challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer". It doesn't apply here.
I wasn't challenging any thesis of Durandals. I wasn't challenging any statement by him either. He didn't make any statement. Try to follow along.

In other words, your posts have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread and are motivated purely by malice directed against one individual. That is a clear violation of our rules, not to mention sterling proof that you're a worthless piece of shit.

The subject was my questioning Durandal.

Wrong. The subject is Dick Cheney's moronic statements. You attempted to change the subject, and you actually have the temerity to claim that this is somehow not a red-herring because you never even intended it to be remotely relevant to the thread subject.

I showed why I was questioning him. He, in the past, made a statement that basically indicated he thought that the war going well was good for Bush and therefore bad for his political side. Because he made this past statement I questioned whether he hoped Cheney was right and things went well. See how that follows?

I see how you are a lying shitstain who thinks he can use a lot of handwaving and bullshit to get away with a massive and blatant thread hijack.

You guys are real good at throwing out the names of fallacies without always thinking about whether they apply.

They apply presuming that you were actually attempting to discuss the thread subject. Since you have now admitted that you had no such intention whatsoever, it is clear that what applies is the fact that you are contemptuous of our rules and for that matter, based on your statements, you are obviously quite contemptuous of our whole forum. So how about a new subject? We'll call it "will the door hit your worthless ass on the way out?"