Bush Speaks Tonight From Fort Bragg- Oooh-Rah!

kickycan wrote:

Wrong. It's the "blame that talking chimp in the whitehouse first" attitude. Get it right, would you? He is not America. If he was, the flag would have a bunch of bananas on it instead of stars.

I thought you were out drinking booze and roaming the streets. What gives?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

kickycan wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Well, he DID start the war, didn't he?

Cycloptichorn

Ahh ... the "blame America first" attitude.

Wrong. It's the "blame that talking chimp in the whitehouse first" attitude. Get it right, would you? He is not America. If he was, the flag would have a bunch of bananas on it instead of stars.

Okay, is it the "let's not blame the terrorists" attitude?

I'm wondering if you know how to comprehend what you read. Didn't I just say what it was?

But in answer to your simple-minded question, I have to ask you which terrorists do you mean? The terrorists that were behind 9-11, or the terrorists that were created by the talking chimp and his war in Iraq?

0 Replies

Quote:

June 29, 2005, 11:43 a.m.
The Day That Binds

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

kickycan wrote:
Wrong. It's the "blame that talking chimp in the whitehouse first" attitude. Get it right, would you? He is not America. If he was, the flag would have a bunch of bananas on it instead of stars.

I thought you were out drinking booze and roaming the streets. What gives?

That's next week. Keep up, will ya? :wink:

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

I'm wondering if you know how to comprehend what you read. Didn't I just say what it was?

What I'm asking, and let me rephrase because you are obviously having difficulties, is shouldn't there be some blame spread to the "terrorists" for these deaths? (Note: I put that in quotes so you can call them what you want. You can call them "insurgents" if you want. I include those folks over in Iraq that have killed the 8,000 Iraqi civilians in the past 6 months that you referred to a few posts back.) You leapt over any criticism of the "terrorists" and pointed the finger of blame squarely at Bush. Are you suggesting they have no part to play in the targeting and killing of innocent Iraqi civilians? It certainly appears so, but I'll let you clarify if you want.

And given your stated attitude regarding the blame in Iraq, are you still incapable of seeing how I have drawn a comparison between that attitude with regard to the culpability for those deaths and the deaths of the people on 9/11. In both cases it was the "terrorists" that was the direct cause of the deaths, but it appears you and Cyclops wish to deny the "terrorists" any blame, and focus blame on Bush. Or do you only blame Bush for the deaths in Iraq, and not blame him for the deaths on 9/11? Please clarify, as I'm trying to figure out your thinking.

Kicky wrote:

But in answer to your simple-minded question, I have to ask you which terrorists do you mean? The terrorists that were behind 9-11, or the terrorists that were created by the talking chimp and his war in Iraq?

See above.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Well, he DID start the war, didn't he?

Cycloptichorn

Well, with that logic, I guess we can blame Henry Ford for all the people killed in auto accidents.

Why blame Henry Ford? He only built automobiles, he did not invent them. That would more likely be Karl Benz. However, your logic is still flawed because people choose to purchase a automobile and then drive it. People did not choose to go to war in Iraq....George Bush chose to go to war in Iraq. Of course, he talked Mr. Blair into joining him.

Cyclo stated a fact. You stated a guess, and a incorrect one at that.

0 Replies

C'mon, Tico.

Of course the guy who holds the gun or sets off the suicide bomb is responsible for the deaths.

But there are LARGER issues, the issues of who went out of their way to CREATE a situation in which this is happening.

Neither I nor Kicky have stated that evey innocent death is Bush's fault. That would be an exaggeration that would not be true at all.

But we do realize that he probably had as much if not more to do with the creation of the UNSTABLE situation in which these terrorists are ALLOWED to get away with what they are doing as any other person on the planet. This bears a certain responsibility.

It's the responsibility issue that gets me. You break it, you bought it, yaknow? Why can't the guys at the top take responsibility for THEIR decisions....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Tyco, you seem to want to simplify it so that all the terrorists are the same.

Let's see if this analogy will make you understand.

There's this monkey, you see, and he's in charge of his little group of monkeys--he's the "alpha male". So this monkey is sitting there in the jungle, playing with his balls, picking his ass...the usual.

Suddenly another alpha male from another pack of monkeys comes, grabs one of our monkey's females, and drags her off into the night.

So our monkey hero decides to declare war and attack some other monkeys who he never liked anyways. He's a stupid monkey after all. What do you expect.

Now, if those monkeys fight back, are they the same monkeys as the one who took the female monkey away?

0 Replies

Seems to me that the alpha monkey was so eager to declare war on other monkeys that he bit his own balls off.

0 Replies

it seems entirely possible that, really, the whole reason for the continuing effort by the grand poobah to at the least infer that iraq, aq and 9/11 are linked is to periodically reignite the conservatives and liberals barking at each other over the "who did what" issue.

kinda distracts from the day to day realities, doesn't it ?

so while we're all out here brawling in the street, who's mindin' the store ?

0 Replies

The talkin' chimp?

0 Replies

kickychin wrote:

Tyco, you seem to want to simplify it so that all the terrorists are the same.

Let's see if this analogy will make you understand.

There's this monkey, you see, and he's in charge of his little group of monkeys--he's the "alpha male". So this monkey is sitting there in the jungle, playing with his balls, picking his ass...the usual.

Suddenly another alpha male from another pack of monkeys comes, grabs one of our monkey's females, and drags her off into the night.

So our monkey hero decides to declare war and attack some other monkeys who he never liked anyways. He's a stupid monkey after all. What do you expect.

You set up a a poor analogy ... you and BVT really need help in this area.

But I'll do what I can with it ... starting with your basic premise (we have a group of monkeys, and the alpha male from another pack came along and grabbed the female), we must expand our story to reflect that these monkey-nappings have been going on for some time. And the culprits all come from the same "pack," but it's not really a pack in the traditional sense -- it's more of a gang of monkeys. Let's just call them the "Alpha Quadrant" gang. This gang of monkeys is dead-set on attacking our pack, and they attack other packs also. But they themselves don't just belong to one pack, they've been accepted in several other packs. Those other packs know this gang is among them, and they allow them to remain.

In the past, our pack has allowed these attacks to occur, and haven't really taken action against the gang, or the packs that harbor them. We captured any AQ elements we found in our own pack, and a few friendly packs also helped, but the unfriendly packs who harbored the AQ gang would not cooperate.

This particular attack is the last straw. Plus, we now have a new leader who decides to take a different approach. We announce to the entire jungle that our pack is not going to sit idly by and let the AQ gang continue to attack at will, and we ask for assistance from other packs to stop the AQ gang. And we go to the pack where we believe this particular alpha male is at, along with a lot of his gang, and we demand they turn him over to us. They refuse, and we attack them.

While this is going on, there is yet another pack that has been at war with our pack years ago. We put certain conditions on that pack as a condition of the peace treaty, but the pack continues to ignore them. One of the conditions is they are not to possess large sticks to use as weapons. That pack's leader is not allowing us to search his trees very well, and we believe he has weapons he shouldn't have. Also, we believe he is harboring members of the AQ gang. See, it isn't that we just don't like the leader of that pack ... he has violated conditions of the peace treaty and harbored the AQ gang.

kickychin wrote:

Now, if those monkeys fight back, are they the same monkeys as the one who took the female monkey away?

Does it matter?

0 Replies

Oh, Tyco, that's a nice trick. You added all these layers of bullshit on top of my simple analogy that are halfway true, possible, maybe not/maybe so kind of things...did they teach you that trick in lawyerin' school?

I guess you only want to simplify things when it suits your argument.

My analogy stands. Now, I'll ask again.

Are they all the same monkeys?

0 Replies

kickychin wrote:

Oh, Tyco, that's a nice trick. You added all these layers of bullshit on top of my simple analogy that are halfway true, possible, maybe not/maybe so kind of things...did they teach you that trick in lawyerin' school?

I guess you only want to simplify things when it suits your argument.

My analogy stands. Now, I'll ask again.

Are they all the same monkeys?

Did you read all of my reply?

The layers I supplied add up to a more accurate representation of what is really going on. Sometimes making things simple is a good thing, but in this case your simple analogy is too simple, and is just inaccurate.

0 Replies

No, actually, my analogy is dead-on, right down to the part about the monkey picking his ass. Yours, however, is filled with your own personal biases and opinions.

Why do you avoid my question?

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

No, actually, my analogy is dead-on, right down to the part about the monkey picking his ass. Yours, however, is filled with your own personal biases and opinions.

In what way is yours accurate? Mine does a much better job of showing the full and entire picture. Go ahead and isolate what you view as my bias and opinion ... your "picking his ass" comment shows your bias very clearly. And please tell me what is inaccurate about my analogy?

If you intended your analogy to represent the US/Al Qaeda/Afghanistan/Iraq situation, it fails ab initio. You suggest there is this rogue alpha male, who acted alone. That is inaccurate -- he had a gang (his terror organization), and in fact he sent thugs to do the kidnapping for him. In your false analogy, you imply that our pack only attacked one pack after the kidnapping, and not the pack where the alpha male resided. That is inaccurate, as you know, because we initially attacked Afghanistan, and only later Iraq.

Quote:

Why do you avoid my question?

I didn't avoid your question ... I answered it in the context of my more accurate analogy. In the context of my analogy -- which better represents reality than your poor, simple analogy -- it doesn't matter whether the monkeys fighting are the monkeys that did the initial kidnapping. The fact is we attacked the pack we had earlier been at war with (Iraq) -- you may not like it but it is a fact -- and certain monkeys in that pack, whether members of the AQ gang or not -- and again it doesn't matter -- are killing innocent monkeys in that pack. It appears you want to only blame the leader of our pack for as being responsible for those killings, and not the monkeys who are actually doing the killing. Cyclops has backed away from that position, but you haven't.

0 Replies

My god, Tyco, I thought my simple analogy would do. But if I have to explain the goddammed whole thing to you, then obviously one of us (you) is not paying attention.

In my analogy, the monkey who attacked is not--oh, jesus christ, I'm not going to explain to you the whole analogy. And by the way, just because you have trouble with analogies doesn't mean I or BVT are the ones to blame.

Let me just ask you the question (for the third time) in plain english.

Are the people that are killing all those people in Iraq the same people who attacked us on 9-11? I know, in your analogy, it doesn't matter. As long as we're fighting against them, no matter how unjustified our stupid monkey leader's reasons are for going to war, they are all the same to you, right? Just a bunch of monkeys from another part of the jungle, right?

0 Replies

And yes, I blame Bush. He's the f*cking moron who started the war in Iraq for no goddam reason, so every f*cking man, woman, and child that is dead now because of this war is dead because of him.

Of course he isn't doing the killing himself, but he's the incompetent f*ck who put it all into motion, isn't he?

0 Replies

Aside:

There is a well-oiled assembly line of murderous monkeys that are taught in Monkeys for Murder Madrassahs, and are placed on the Conveyer Belt of Carnage at the age of five and fall out the ass of the contraption at 20 or so, ready to kill at a country near you.

One way or another, they were going to murder. That's what they were made for. To get them before they group up and dig in around the world is a much better plan than waiting until they are comfortably hidden away.

0 Replies

Yes, that would be a good idea. Much better than blowing the **** out of some other country to create a training camp for them, like Bush has done.

0 Replies

Bush Speaks Tonight From Fort Bragg- Oooh-Rah!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know