Fighting terrorism by rethinking our national policies

ebrown_p wrote:

Quote:

I accuse you, here for all to see, of deliberate dishonesty. Show me where in my original post, I indicated that my statement was intended metaphorically.

I am just having fun with you Brandon. No need to take it so seriously. I just liked the metaphor... that's all.

next time you want to have fun with someone here let me know and I'll pm you a list of posters who actually have a sense of humor :wink:

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Actually,

If I didn't know Brandon and read his reponse to freedom4free's original post

I would think he was justifying the acts of the terrorists.

You know what I hate about this site? I not only have to state my position, I then have to spoonfeed a simple explanation of it to people over and over until they get it.

when I hate something I just don't go there. Of course, I'm smarter than the average bear.....

You have a good point, but I also hate to see people who are smug about their errors, which tends to keep me on the Politics board.

you're one happy guy Brandon, another thing I really like about you.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I apologize for my deliberate dishonesty.

You, farmerman, Craven, and one or two others are the only liberals with the integrity.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
Quote:

I accuse you, here for all to see, of deliberate dishonesty. Show me where in my original post, I indicated that my statement was intended metaphorically.

I am just having fun with you Brandon. No need to take it so seriously. I just liked the metaphor... that's all.

I'm accusing you of deliberate dishonesty. Show me where I indicated it was a metaphor.

ROTFL. Maybe I've misjudged you Brandon, as playing it straight is the essence of comedy.

Nah.

0 Replies

freedom4free wrote:

Special Correspondent
Posted September 25 2005[/i]

On 9-11, suicide terrorism entered our consciousness in one searing moment....The president has the right and, through his bully pulpit, the ability to try to persuade us as to our national policies. The citizen has the right -- and the obligation -- to consider coherent counter-arguments such as those that Pape has laid out in this volume.

Sun sentinel

I'm sure that in school, if a bully took your lunch money, you also re-thought antagonizing him by having lunch at school.

0 Replies

Professor Pape is one of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject, Professor Pape has created the first comprehensive database of every suicide terrorist attack in the world from 1980 until today. With striking clarity and precision, Professor Pape uses this unprecedented research to debunk widely held misconceptions about the nature of suicide terrorism and provide a new lens that makes sense of the threat we face.

FACT: Suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islamic fundamentalism.

FACT: The world’s leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka–a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families.

FACT: Ninety-five percent of suicide terrorist attacks occur as part of coherent campaigns organized by large militant organizations with significant public support.

FACT: Every suicide terrorist campaign has had a clear goal that is secular and political: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.

FACT: Al-Qaeda fits the above pattern. Although Saudi Arabia is not under American military occupation per se, one major objective of al-Qaeda is the expulsion of U.S. troops from the Persian Gulf region, and as a result there have been repeated attacks by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden against American troops in Saudi Arabia and the region as a whole.

FACT: Despite their rhetoric, democracies–including the United States–have routinely made concessions to suicide terrorists. Suicide terrorism is on the rise because terrorists have learned that it’s effective.

In this wide-ranging analysis, Professor Pape offers the essential tools to forecast when some groups are likely to resort to suicide terrorism and when they are not. He also provides the first comprehensive demographic profile of modern suicide terrorist attackers. With data from more than 460 such attackers–including the names of 333–we now know that these individuals are not mainly poor, desperate criminals or uneducated religious fanatics but are often well-educated, middle-class political activists.

More than simply advancing new theory and facts, these pages also answer key questions about the war on terror:

• Are we safer now than we were before September 11?
• Was the invasion of Iraq a good counterterrorist move?
• Is al-Qaeda stronger now than it was before September 11?

Professor Pape answers these questions with analysis grounded in fact, not politics, and recommends concrete ways for today’s states to fight and prevent terrorist attacks. Military options may disrupt terrorist operations in the short term, but a lasting solution to suicide terrorism will require a comprehensive, long-term approach–one that abandons visions of empire and relies on a combined strategy of vigorous homeland security, nation building in troubled states, and greater energy independence.

Read The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism

Brandon9000 tell me why we should not believe him ?

0 Replies

Brandon, cease the idiocy!

You may not have intended to write a metaphor, but you did. An unintentional metaphor, lol.

People, this is Brandon's favorite type of argument; a circular masturbatory exercise which goes nowhere, and, derails the topic simultaneously. Let's ignore him.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

freedom4free wrote:
Special Correspondent
Posted September 25 2005[/i]

On 9-11, suicide terrorism entered our consciousness in one searing moment....The president has the right and, through his bully pulpit, the ability to try to persuade us as to our national policies. The citizen has the right -- and the obligation -- to consider coherent counter-arguments such as those that Pape has laid out in this volume.

Sun sentinel

I'm sure that in school, if a bully took your lunch money, you also re-thought antagonizing him by having lunch at school.

Can I call that a metaphor?

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
freedom4free wrote:
Special Correspondent
Posted September 25 2005[/i]

On 9-11, suicide terrorism entered our consciousness in one searing moment....The president has the right and, through his bully pulpit, the ability to try to persuade us as to our national policies. The citizen has the right -- and the obligation -- to consider coherent counter-arguments such as those that Pape has laid out in this volume.

Sun sentinel

I'm sure that in school, if a bully took your lunch money, you also re-thought antagonizing him by having lunch at school.

Can I call that a metaphor?

An honest person tries to win a debate by making his own points, and countering those of his opponent. Harassment, on the other hand, is the debating technique of a dishonest person, and also, usually, the technique of a person whose viewpoint can't be supported honestly. Go ahead and say that you're not debating. This thread needs one more deliberate lie from you.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon, cease the idiocy!

You may not have intended to write a metaphor, but you did. An unintentional metaphor, lol.

People, this is Brandon's favorite type of argument; a circular masturbatory exercise which goes nowhere, and, derails the topic simultaneously. Let's ignore him.

Cycloptichorn

If you can show that the statement I made couldn't stand as a direct speculation about freedom4free's life, or if you can show where I indicated the intent to draw a metaphor, I will apologize at once and without reservation. You have now exposed your basic dishonesty for all to see.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

An honest person tries to win a debate by making his own points, and countering those of his opponent. Harassment, on the other hand, is the debating technique of a dishonest person, and also, usually, the technique of a person whose viewpoint can't be supported honestly. Go ahead and say that you're not debating. This thread needs one more deliberate lie from you.

I've already stated that I'm ridiculing you. Honestly. Now prove that I'm being dishonest, or retract the statement!

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
An honest person tries to win a debate by making his own points, and countering those of his opponent. Harassment, on the other hand, is the debating technique of a dishonest person, and also, usually, the technique of a person whose viewpoint can't be supported honestly. Go ahead and say that you're not debating. This thread needs one more deliberate lie from you.

I've already stated that I'm ridiculing you. Honestly. Now prove that I'm being dishonest, or retract the statement!

Certainly:

DrewDad wrote:

...Although personally, I think Brandon has more in common with ebrown's little brother. His thought errors make him incapable of winning a straight-up argument, so he dances around trying to deny that he said what he said.

Yet when asked to demonstrate that it was a metaphor, you refused. You either deliberately say things that you know to be false, or else, when later realizing that they're false, do not retract them and still try to make it look as though you were right. You are a dishonest person, and it is one of your favorite methods of debate.

0 Replies

Nah. That was a personal observation, anecdotal, and not subject to verification. Besides, that was before I started ridiculing you. Neener neener.

0 Replies

Oh, yeah. You've proven nothing, because you simply didn't read my post the right way. It's not my fault if you can't follow the thread.

0 Replies

Oh no!

My basic dishonesty has been laid bare for all to see?

Drew, how can I recover from this shame?

Cycloptichorn

/snark

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
freedom4free wrote:
Special Correspondent
Posted September 25 2005[/i]

On 9-11, suicide terrorism entered our consciousness in one searing moment....The president has the right and, through his bully pulpit, the ability to try to persuade us as to our national policies. The citizen has the right -- and the obligation -- to consider coherent counter-arguments such as those that Pape has laid out in this volume.

Sun sentinel

I'm sure that in school, if a bully took your lunch money, you also re-thought antagonizing him by having lunch at school.

Can I call that a metaphor?

As I see it, it can be one of three things.

1. It's a metaphor. But if that's the case, then it is a particularly baffling metaphor (maybe it's a meta-metaphor). In any event, Brandon claims that it's not a metaphor, so if it's a metaphor it's an inadvertent one (we'll call that a "metafaux").

2. It's a subtle attempt at belittling free4free by implying that s/he was bullied in school and had to surrender his/her lunch money. That's possible, but then one has to wonder why Brandon brings up the subject in the first place. Was it a purely gratuitous insult, or is there really some kind of connection between bullying and terrorism?

3. It's completely irrelevant. Perhaps the key here is that Brandon has some serious residual childhood issues that he's still working through, and that he really wants to talk to somebody about them. That he has chosen this particular forum in which to exorcise his inner demons is of no importance -- it could have been anywhere, I suppose. If that's the case, we should all be more considerate and do what we can to help Brandon get back on the path to sound mental health.

0 Replies

He definitely has serious issues.

BTW, Brandon, you still haven't proven that I am dishonest. You've shown that I made a statement; you have not shown the statement to be false.

Now you've made an additional false statement against me.

Brandon9000 wrote:

You are a dishonest person, and it is one of your favorite methods of debate.

I call you a liar. Prove or retract this statement as well.

0 Replies

Was it a metaphor or analogy?

0 Replies

Still waiting for Brandon to either support his accusation or retract it.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
freedom4free wrote:
Special Correspondent
Posted September 25 2005[/i]

On 9-11, suicide terrorism entered our consciousness in one searing moment....The president has the right and, through his bully pulpit, the ability to try to persuade us as to our national policies. The citizen has the right -- and the obligation -- to consider coherent counter-arguments such as those that Pape has laid out in this volume.

Sun sentinel

I'm sure that in school, if a bully took your lunch money, you also re-thought antagonizing him by having lunch at school.

Can I call that a metaphor?

As I see it, it can be one of three things.

1. It's a metaphor. But if that's the case, then it is a particularly baffling metaphor (maybe it's a meta-metaphor). In any event, Brandon claims that it's not a metaphor, so if it's a metaphor it's an inadvertent one (we'll call that a "metafaux").

2. It's a subtle attempt at belittling free4free by implying that s/he was bullied in school and had to surrender his/her lunch money. That's possible, but then one has to wonder why Brandon brings up the subject in the first place. Was it a purely gratuitous insult, or is there really some kind of connection between bullying and terrorism?

3. It's completely irrelevant. Perhaps the key here is that Brandon has some serious residual childhood issues that he's still working through, and that he really wants to talk to somebody about them. That he has chosen this particular forum in which to exorcise his inner demons is of no importance -- it could have been anywhere, I suppose. If that's the case, we should all be more considerate and do what we can to help Brandon get back on the path to sound mental health.

It's #2. I am suggesting that his/her international policy is a continuation of a flawed personal policy. Now, if you don't grasp this, I'll conclude that this is simply a dishonorable attempt to defeat my point by asking me to justify it over and over, and not respond further. You cannot defeat my ideas by asking a flurry of intentionally stupid questions, and you can't defeat my ideas by belittling me personally. Those practices will only reveal you and these other liberals as people who intentionally debate dishonestly.

0 Replies

Fighting terrorism by rethinking our national policies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know