dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 03:23 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
An apologist for Saddam Hussein. Typical right wing hysterical rhetoric. Overused to boot.


Well, when the shoe fits ....


You use the term Saddam apologist to describe anyone whose opinion differs from yours and imply that they are "on Saddams side", or defending him.

Wrong. I don't use the term "Saddam apologist" to describe anyone whose opinion differs from mine ... I use it to describe those who defend Saddam or his policies, or who I believe are "on Saddam's side."



BVT wrote:
Here's a little English language 101 for you. If a person is supporting or defending Saddam Hussein or anyone else, they are not apologizing for them, they are rather denying that they did anything wrong. In that context, Bush apologist is much more accurate a statement.

Thanks for the lesson. Here's one for you:

Quote:
a·pol·o·gist Audio pronunciation of "apologist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pl-jst)
n.

A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.[/size]



LINK



Then your "beliefs" are liable to be based on such breath-takingly false dichotomies, and of such thin and seemingly wantonly foolish fabric that, frankly, I am stunned.

The intellectual bankruptcy of equating anti-war or Bush with pro-Hussein beliefs actually shocks me in one with your abilities.

I am almost inclined to steal the stupid vomiticon which you sometimes stoop to using.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 03:25 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Based on the overreaction by the muslim world to the news of a flushed koran, now it makes you wonder...maybe this interrogation technique deserves further investigation....

I see them burning US flags daily...they probably wipe their ass with bibles...doesn't bother me a bit, just makes them look silly.


Then you show your ignorance again.

Muslims generally respect the Bible - ever heard the phrase "people of the Book."?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 03:28 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
I still fail to see where parados defended Hussein or his policies....just because he states that Saddam was given an impossible task does not mean he defends him...except in your world of course...what color is the sky there?


Parados justified Saddam's actions and argued in opposition to the assertion of the US Dep. Secretary of State Richard Armitage that Saddam did fail to cooperate. In the context of our debate, he defended Saddam's actions and tried to disprove my argument that Saddam hadn't cooperated with UN weapons inspectors. I've stated the definition of "defend" I'm relying on ... which one are you relying on?

Right now it's mostly cloudy, so I guess it's kinda gray.


While you are at it in the previous post you can point out where I justified or defended any of Saddam's actions.

Some simple facts I stated. Saddam claimed he had no WMD. No WMD were found. I don't see that they justify anything. They are facts.

If I am a Saddam apologist simply because I questioned your claim that Saddam hadn't cooperated then I think BVT was correct in his assessment of your use of the term.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 03:32 pm
dlowan wrote:
Then your "beliefs" are liable to be based on such breath-takingly false dichotomies, and of such thin and seemingly wantonly foolish fabric that, frankly, I am stunned.


I'm sure I've stunned you before, and will again.

Deb wrote:
The intellectual bankruptcy of equating anti-war or Bush with pro-Hussein beliefs actually shocks me in one with your abilities.


Parados defended Saddam in our argument regarding whether Saddam cooperated with UN weapons inspectors. An "apologist" is someone who argues in defense or justification of something. In this case, since Parados defended Saddam or his policies, he is an apologist for Saddam. Feel free to point out my error.

And point out where I called him "pro-Hussein" while you're at it.

Deb wrote:
I am almost inclined to steal the stupid vomiticon which you sometimes stoop to using.


Feel free to do that also. Here 'tis .... http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/puke.gif
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 03:51 pm
dlowan wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
Based on the overreaction by the muslim world to the news of a flushed koran, now it makes you wonder...maybe this interrogation technique deserves further investigation....

I see them burning US flags daily...they probably wipe their ass with bibles...doesn't bother me a bit, just makes them look silly.


Then you show your ignorance again.

Muslims generally respect the Bible - ever heard the phrase "people of the Book."?


Dlowan, kiss my grits. Apparently the constant burning of US flags is somehow less offensive to you than flushing a koran? Flush away I say.

Silliness.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 03:52 pm
One is a holy book, the other a symbol of nationalist pride. They aren't even in the same category.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 03:53 pm
Nah - I will never sink that low, I decide, Tico. You do yourself a grave disservice by doing so.

How is stating a reality "supporting"? Except in your mind.

Here is a wee bit of evidence suggesting he DID co-operate". However unwillingly and annoyingly.

There were NO WMD.

Even your own CIA agrees with this.

Are we now inhabiting an Orwellian universe where simply stating a fact is evidence of treason in our hearts?

Pshaw.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 03:53 pm
It really highlights just how far down a bad path we've come in a few short years, Dlowan.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 03:56 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
One is a holy book, the other a symbol of nationalist pride. They aren't even in the same category.

Cycloptichorn


And what does that argument have to do with anything? Apparently you have a problem with being proud of America, that much is obvious.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 04:03 pm
I don't have a problem with being proud of America and our accomplishments.

I just see the flag, of any country, as being a completely different type of symbol than a religious book. It is not surprising to me at all that one provokes a much stronger response in people.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 04:09 pm
If "they" were wiping their butts with bibles, I'd say send them more bibles....made from poison oak. Very Happy Wipe away....
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 04:12 pm
Yes, but there are many Christians who would disagree mightily with that statement.

I'm not saying they are right and that you are wrong, just that some people take religion more seriously than others do; and we all know that the Islaam world takes it very seriously.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 04:13 pm
Way too seriously, obviously.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 04:58 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
parados wrote:
...

You stated that Saddam refused to cooperate. I stated you can not provide any evidence that he did refuse to cooperate. Your argument here is simply that he refused to show us where stuff that didn't exist was. Hardly an argument to his non cooperation. Rather it is an argument about setting an impossible standard then accusing someone of failing to cooperate because they couldn't do the impossible.


I asserted Saddam failed to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors ... Parados defended Saddam (by arguing in support of his actions, or by arguing against the claim I was making) and asserted that Saddam did not refuse to cooperate...



June 1997- Iraqi escorts on board an UNSCOM helicopter try to physically prevent the UNSCOM pilot from flying the helicopter in the direction of its intended destination.

June 21, 1997- Iraq again blocks UNSCOM teams from entering certain sites for inspection.

June 21, 1997- The Security Council adopts Resolution 1115, which condemns Iraq's actions and demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM's team immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any sites for inspection and officials for interviews (emphasis added).

September 13, 1997- An Iraqi officer attacks an UNSCOM inspector on board an UNSCOM helicopter while the inspector was attempting to take photographs of unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site designated for inspection.

September 17, 1997- While seeking access to a site declared by Iraq to be "sensitive," UNSCOM inspectors witness and videotape Iraqi guards moving files, burning documents, and dumping ash-filled waste cans into a nearby river.

etc.

Source
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 05:10 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
very interesting commentary and yet I sit here and wonder, was the Newsweek article accurate or not?


FDR would have hanged their asses for publishing such a thing in 42 whether it was accurate or not. The idea of the interests of the United States never entered the minds of the cretins running Newsweek.

Probably true and Churchill blasted the beeb for broadcasting the truth as they saw it at the time, tried to shut them down in fact, but then the beeb is still there which, I think, demonstrates that the people want the truth even more than they want propaganda. You prefer propaganda gunga?

As it turned out, it now looks like what was printed was anti-Bush propaganda, rather than the truth. It appears that they printed a story for which no one posesses any evidence because they were in a hurry. Just out of true puzzlement, what does supporting your country in time of war mean to you? Please don't tell me what it isn't. What do you think it does mean?


Brandon9000 wrote:
Lord Ellpus wrote:
Supporting one's country, and blindly following one's leaders are two entirely different things.

I knew that unable to tell me what it does mean, you guys would attempt to tell me what it doesn't. I knew it so well, that I even incorporated it into my question:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Just out of true puzzlement, what does supporting your country in time of war mean to you? Please don't tell me what it isn't. What do you think it does mean?


If you have the capacity, tell me what supporting your country in time of war does mean, not what it doesn't.

Why are the libs afraid to define "supporting your country in time of war?"
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 05:13 pm
Why do conservatives insist that people support a bullshit war? Were you asleep during Viet Nam or just stupid?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 05:15 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Why are the libs afraid to define "supporting your country in time of war?"


Because they have an alternate agenda - losing the war, overthrowing the government and toppling the wealthy, to steal the power they don't have.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 05:19 pm
Well, that's my agenda but I tend to think of myself as somewhat unique. I am just guessing here but I take it you think that's a bad thing?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 05:25 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Why are the libs afraid to define "supporting your country in time of war?"


Because they have an alternate agenda - losing the war, overthrowing the government and toppling the wealthy, to steal the power they don't have.


try not going to war for nothing, not being forced to behave like murderous profiteering bullies for the exclusive enrichment of a few, and going on about our business without a bunch of pious hypocritical jackasses sticking their noses and their stupid ideaology in our business.

Short of that, I like the Anarchy approach pretty well.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 06:57 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It wasn't a lie.

Newsweek is just trying to do the right thing and calm the situation down.

Funny how you're not angry, Gunga, about how Bush's WMD lies led to thousands of deaths in Iraq.

Cycloptichorn


Funny how you can claim Newsweek didn't lie, but Bush did.


Some discernment, please.

Bush did lie..."There are no war plans on my desk"
Newsweek did not lie. Newsweek carried a story based on a government official's claim that he read of a Koran being flushed and that he'd read it in a particular document. When Isikoff came back a second time, the official said he couldn't be sure it was he'd seen it in that document or in another (but maybe in that document, he just wasn't sure 100% where he'd seen it).

An interesting corner to this is that the rightwing media is giving Isikoff a big pass and going after the editors at newsweek instead. That ought not to surprise.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 10:29:14