Former CIA station chief detained, convicted for kidnapping Egyptian Muslim cleric

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

I'll stand by what I said earlier - there's no rationality in the reply you gave.

In other words, you don't like the facts I posted, but you are unable to argue against any of them.

I get that facts are hard to argue against (they are facts after all), but the best recourse when you are confronted with facts is "acceptance of reality".

vikorr wrote:

mild schizophrenia.

It's pretty sleazy for you to use slander and innuendo to deride people who post facts you cannot argue against.

vikorr wrote:

I don't buy into the other posters image of you (that's a long winded explanation though),

I'm not sure what image you are talking about, but it's likely a good idea to not buy into whatever it is, because odds are those other posters are just lying because they didn't like me posting facts.

vikorr wrote:

but I do think a number of the things they've described are accurate (eg. you do seem obsessive regarding particular topics)

Well, I post on the topics I find interesting as opposed to the ones that bore me. Seems like the sensible thing to do.

Anyway, my first choice would be to have an interesting factual discussion here (or perhaps a discussion of the best way for the US to eradicate the Italian judiciary), but if you have no interest in addressing any facts, all the nonsense you keep posting isn't doing much to advance the conversation. Perhaps we should wait for someone who is interested in facts and logic to come along and join in.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

In other words, you don't like the facts I posted, but you are unable to argue against any of them.

You aren't arguing facts - just your opinion - which don't contain rationality. So there's nothing to argue against.

That you are so unable to differentiate between facts and your own opinion highlights one part of the irrationality problem (the other part appears to be paranoia). I think the cause is medical / physiological.

Quote:

It's pretty sleazy for you to use slander and innuendo to deride people who post facts you cannot argue against.

This statement lacks knowledge one two counts :
A. it was fact, and where there's fact there's no libel (slander is spoken defamation, libel is written), but that would only matter if you could prove B.
B. libel requires an identity - no identity, no slander. Can you name this person? Or identify (ie name) one person as being the only possible person I could be talking about? Of course not.

Quote:

I'm not sure what image you are talking about, but it's likely a good idea to not buy into whatever it is, because odds are those other posters are just lying because they didn't like me posting facts.

You aren't posting facts here, just irrational murderous opinion.

Quote:

all the nonsense you keep posting isn't doing much to advance the conversation

You at least understand the concept of being unable to converse with an irrational person, but you believe it's everyone else that's irrational.

I'd suggest you go speak with your doctor about these particular things. Though I doubt you'd believe him/her either.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

In other words, you don't like the facts I posted, but you are unable to argue against any of them.

You never post any facts, Oralboy. You are a 100% fact-free zone.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Lady, who left Panama on Friday morning, was “either en route or back in the United States,” Marie Harf, State Department deputy spokeswoman, told reporters at a midday briefing.

No rogue states forced his plane to land before touching down in rogueland USA?

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

oralloy wrote:
In other words, you don't like the facts I posted, but you are unable to argue against any of them.

You aren't arguing facts

Liar.

vikorr wrote:

just your opinion

Liar.

vikorr wrote:

which don't contain rationality.

Liar.

vikorr wrote:

So there's nothing to argue against.

Liar.

vikorr wrote:

you are so unable to differentiate between facts and your own opinion

Liar.

vikorr wrote:

(the other part appears to be paranoia). I think the cause is medical / physiological.

More slander and innuendo because you are too dishonest to deal with facts that you don't like.

vikorr wrote:

This statement lacks knowledge one two counts :
A. it was fact,

Liar. It was you engaging in slander and innuendo because you are too dishonest to confront the facts I posted.

vikorr wrote:

B. libel requires an identity - no identity, no slander. Can you name this person? Or identify (ie name) one person as being the only possible person I could be talking about? Of course not.

Yes I can. You posted that bunch of nonsense to suggest that *I* have that condition (in order to try to discredit the facts I posted).

I am quite capable of identifying myself, thank you very much.

vikorr wrote:

You aren't posting facts here,

Liar.

vikorr wrote:

just irrational murderous opinion.

Liar.

vikorr wrote:

You at least understand the concept of being unable to converse with an irrational person, but you believe it's everyone else that's irrational.

Nope. I do not accuse you of irrationality. I accuse you of dishonesty.

And I do not suggest that everyone shares your dishonesty.

vikorr wrote:

I'd suggest you go speak with your doctor about these particular things. Though I doubt you'd believe him/her either.

I doubt that any doctor would care much that I came across someone who lies incessantly while always refusing to address any facts.

I predict the doctor would tell me not to waste my time responding to you. But calling you a liar was not all that tedious (at least so far).

Now, since you are so dishonest, and since you have no interest in intelligent discussion, why don't you think more about my suggestion that you stop wasting electrons and let this thread wait until someone a little more honorable comes along?

2 Replies

@oralloy,

are you ******* 12 years old?

I'd bet money on it...

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

This oughta be great news for Snowden. What country wouldn't want to give him asylum after this, yet annnnnnother, display of rank hypocrisy on the part of the US.

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

are you ******* 12 years old?
I'd bet money on it...

If it bothers you so much that I respond when dishonest people spew a string of lies about me, maybe you should complain more about the people spewing all the lies.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

you argue like a preteen girl.

if that doesn't bother you, who am I to change you...

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

This oughta be great news for Snowden. What country wouldn't want to give him asylum after this, yet annnnnnother, display of rank hypocrisy on the part of the US.

What hypocrisy? We merely acted to prevent a third-world hellhole (Italy) from imprisoning an innocent American on false charges.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

No facts in that post, Oralboy.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

You note Oralloy that in other threads - the Zimmerman one for example - I actually accepted spedific corrections by you? Because what you presented (when correcting me), was a fact, and you were correct (and it was a subject I was only just learning about).

Here, you are only posting your opinions, and they are irrational, and murderous.

There's a lesson in the difference between my response to you in these two threads...but I doubt you'll arrive at the right one - just the one that you need to believe.

___________________________________

No matter how many times you wish to delude yourself with calling me 'Liar' (or any other response you may wish to come up with), it won't change that your thoughts on this topic are irrational.

Go and speak your thoughts to your doctor. Ask his or her opinion.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

You never post any facts

Here is a list of facts that I've posted in this thread alone:

FACT: The moment the US is penalized for capturing and detaining enemy fighters, it immediately becomes legal for us to execute all enemy fighters in cold blood when they try to surrender to us.

FACT: "Level of offense" is the wrong way of looking at it. This is capturing an enemy fighter during a war.

FACT: this was not just the US coming uninvited into a European country and doing this. The US not only had the permission of the Italian government, it was a joint operation that was carried out by US and Italian agents working together.

FACT: if we are denied our right to capture and detain enemy fighters in wartime, we will instantly gain the legal right to kill all enemy fighters in cold blood when they try to surrender to us.

FACT: Since the UK would be doing grave harm to an innocent person, we would be fully justified in forcing the UK to pay her massive compensation for what they did to her. And of course, that confession would have no legal validity.

FACT: the US is not violating any law when we capture enemy fighters and detain them.

FACT: this isn't about us violating any laws. This is about the Italian judiciary intentionally and maliciously finding innocent Americans guilty of false charges on multiple occasions.

FACT: Should the US decide that military action is the best way forward, nearly all Italian judges will become valid military targets.

FACT: should all of a judge's children be incinerated along with him or her, that falls well within the acceptable meaning of collateral damage.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Which country is it that keeps torture chambers around the world?

Which country is it that uses a program of illegal rendition?

Which country is it that keeps prisoners it bought in a hellhole for 10 years just to make its gullible citizenry believe there was a "War on Terror"?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You never post any facts, Oralboy. You are a fact free zone. You're confusing 'fanciful' and 'fact' because they both start with 'f'.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Here, you are only posting your opinions,

Nope. I posted facts. You just couldn't cope with them.

vikorr wrote:

and they are irrational,

Nope. They are merely factual.

vikorr wrote:

and murderous.

Wrong. Wartime strikes on military targets are not murder.

vikorr wrote:

No matter how many times you wish to delude yourself with calling me 'Liar'

No delusion. You are lying about me.

vikorr wrote:

it won't change that your thoughts on this topic are irrational.

Telling the truth is hardly irrational.

vikorr wrote:

Go and speak your thoughts to your doctor. Ask his or her opinion.

Why waste their time? They will just tell me to not waste time posting to people who do nothing but lie.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

No facts in that post either, Oralboy.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Which country is it that uses a program of illegal rendition?

There is nothing illegal about capturing enemy fighters and transporting them to a detention site.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

It's pretty sleazy for you to use slander and innuendo to deride people who post facts you cannot argue against.

Oops, I misread that - I was presuming you were referring to my post regarding my friend.

In answer to the actual intent of your statement - Yes, it does appear to me that you have a medical condition. Is that Libel? Or Fact? Or Factual inference? Or Likely probability? Or diagnosis? Or similar comparison to previous experience?

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

You never post any facts

Wrong.

FACT: The moment the US is penalized for capturing and detaining enemy fighters, it immediately becomes legal for us to execute all enemy fighters in cold blood when they try to surrender to us.

FACT: "Level of offense" is the wrong way of looking at it. This is capturing an enemy fighter during a war.

FACT: this was not just the US coming uninvited into a European country and doing this. The US not only had the permission of the Italian government, it was a joint operation that was carried out by US and Italian agents working together.

FACT: if we are denied our right to capture and detain enemy fighters in wartime, we will instantly gain the legal right to kill all enemy fighters in cold blood when they try to surrender to us.

FACT: Since the UK would be doing grave harm to an innocent person, we would be fully justified in forcing the UK to pay her massive compensation for what they did to her. And of course, that confession would have no legal validity.

FACT: the US is not violating any law when we capture enemy fighters and detain them.

FACT: this isn't about us violating any laws. This is about the Italian judiciary intentionally and maliciously finding innocent Americans guilty of false charges on multiple occasions.

FACT: Should the US decide that military action is the best way forward, nearly all Italian judges will become valid military targets.

FACT: should all of a judge's children be incinerated along with him or her, that falls well within the acceptable meaning of collateral damage.

1 Reply

Former CIA station chief detained, convicted for kidnapping Egyptian Muslim cleric

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know