Will the anti-war crowd denounce this idiot?

FreeDuck wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Wouldn't it better for them to just turn their guns in? Why this cry for blood?

I'm having a hard time believing you actually said this.

Why? I am not out to see any people die unnecessarily. If someone wants to effect true political change, it would be far better to suggest an actual method than to bloviate about firing on ones superior officers.

0 Replies

You seem to be saying that violence would not solve the problem. But that's not true for every problem, is it?

And you don't really want the soldiers to turn in their weapons...

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Why? I am not out to see any people die unnecessarily. If someone wants to effect true political change, it would be far better to suggest an actual method than to bloviate about firing on ones superior officers.

I see . . . then we can assume that you are unyieldingly opposed to regime change in Iraq by violent, military means, and always have been . . . oh wait . . .

0 Replies

I have no idea how you translated what I said into "we can assume that you are unyieldingly opposed to regime change in Iraq by violent, military means, and always have been"

I have never expressed that opinion, nor would I.

0 Replies

But you have claimed that you are opposed to seeing people die unnecessarily, and that you prefer to see true political change effected by method. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to construct the syllogism that you consider the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis since March, 2003 to have been an unacceptable means of having solved what the conservatives now allege was a political problem--since they can't float the weapons of mass destruction canard any longer . . .

0 Replies

Leadership change through military action is a method of political change. One I believe in, in certain circumstances, and approve of.

Soldiers "fragging" their commanding officers is one I disapprove of.

I find the deaths of innocent civilians at the hands of terrorists to be abhorrent and I fully support any and all actions that will put a stop to the actions of those people.

That you, or others, find this opinion unacceptable bothers me not.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I find the deaths of innocent civilians at the hands of terrorists to be abhorrent and I fully support any and all actions that will put a stop to the actions of those people.

Why this cry for blood?

0 Replies

As you can well imagine that your opinion on any matter is a subject of indifference to me, given the contempt i entertain for based upon your "contributions" to this site.

Your hypocricy reeks in this instance. You disapprove of Joe's suggestion--which i think may have been "tongue-in-cheek"--that soldiers kill the politicians who sent them to war, but you approve of attacking the Iraqi regime by military means, even if it results in the deaths of thousands of innocents--to numbers that dwarf the number who died in New York and Washington on September 11th. And, of course, you're attempting by infernece to connect the Iraqi regime to that event, although you cannot provide a shred of credible evidence that the Iraqis were in any way involved. You don't opposed bloodshed in aid of political process, you're just very selective, in a highly bigoted manner, about who you are willing to see die and who you are not willing to see die.

No surprises here . . . move along folks, nothing to see . . .

0 Replies

Set, I am worried. Doggies or Irish leprechauns i can handle but some cross between an iman and Alec Guinness is disturbing.

0 Replies

My Sweetiepie Girl refers to that photograph as "Moamar Setanta" . . .

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I find the deaths of innocent civilians at the hands of terrorists to be abhorrent and I fully support any and all actions that will put a stop to the actions of those people.

Why this cry for blood?

You don't wish to see terrorists brought to justice?

This cry for blood has basis in reality. It's what keeps our nation and our families safe. There are people in this world that do not subscribe to the liberal belief in pacification through non-violence. They desire to see their political motivations acheived through extreme forms of terrorism. They strap bombs to themselves and destroy lives of people who are guilty of nothing more than living.

Setanta wrote:

As you can well imagine that your opinion on any matter is a subject of indifference to me, given the contempt i entertain for based upon your "contributions" to this site.

Your hypocricy reeks in this instance. You disapprove of Joe's suggestion--which i think may have been "tongue-in-cheek"--that soldiers kill the politicians who sent them to war, but you approve of attacking the Iraqi regime by military means, even if it results in the deaths of thousands of innocents--to numbers that dwarf the number who died in New York and Washington on September 11th. And, of course, you're attempting by infernece to connect the Iraqi regime to that event, although you cannot provide a shred of credible evidence that the Iraqis were in any way involved. You don't opposed bloodshed in aid of political process, you're just very selective, in a highly bigoted manner, about who you are willing to see die and who you are not willing to see die.

No surprises here . . . move along folks, nothing to see . . .

Your contempt means less to me than the dirt on my shoes.

I have never inferred, speculated, surmised, rationalized or conjectured that Iraq or Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

Please stop wasting my time with your haughty interpratations of what I contribute to A2K.

0 Replies

The Adirondack Hypocrite wrote:

You don't wish to see terrorists brought to justice?

Do you allege that the terrorists responsible for the slaughter of thousands on September 11th were Iraqi? Do you allege that those who committed those acts were in any way supported by Iraqi officials? If so, you are in direct contradiction of the conclusions of the September 11th Commission's report.

We were already going after the terrorists in Afghanistan, because there was credible evidence that they had been sheltered by and aided by the Taliban regime there, and that the headquarters of their organization was there. Then the Idiot in Chief decided to implement the venal and cynical agenda of the PNAC by an invasion of Iraq, based upon specious allegations of weapons of mass destruction, and calculated insinuations of involvement in the September 11th tragedy spread abroad by Cheney in a manner to give the Shrub "deniability,"

As usual, you have only your phoney self-righteousness--you have no case.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I find the deaths of innocent civilians at the hands of terrorists to be abhorrent and I fully support any and all actions that will put a stop to the actions of those people.

Why this cry for blood?

You don't wish to see terrorists brought to justice?

Sure I do. Which ones, where, and in what court?

Quote:

This cry for blood has basis in reality.

Doesn't every?

Quote:

It's what keeps our nation and our families safe.

Next time I'm feeling scared and insecure, I'll give a little cry for blood and see if that works.

Quote:

There are people in this world that do not subscribe to the liberal belief in pacification through non-violence. They desire to see their political motivations acheived through extreme forms of terrorism. They strap bombs to themselves and destroy lives of people who are guilty of nothing more than living.

Violence is violence and seldom ever affects only those at which it is directed. Non-violence has very little to do with liberalism and pacification is something else altogether. You are a bhuddist, no? I mean no offense but it's an odd contradiction you have.

0 Replies

I try not to let my religion define me.

0 Replies

Can I take that for my sig line?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

My Sweetiepie Girl refers to that photograph as "Moamar Setanta" . . .

ah ok fine carry on

0 Replies

Yes, i am embarrassed (occasionally) to admit that i do carry on . . .

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I try not to let my religion define me.

No offense, but is that not the sign of a hypocrite?

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I try not to let my religion define me.

No offense, but is that not the sign of a hypocrite?

There's a difference between using religion to define oneself and using religion to define others.

Really.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I try not to let my religion define me.

No offense, but is that not the sign of a hypocrite?

How do you figure? Are you not a sum of your parts, rather than letting each individual part define who you are? I am a conservative, I am a Buddhist, I am an American, I am a caucasion, I am a husband, I am a father, I am a son, I am a brother, I am many things that help define me. I am NOT any single one of those, I am ALL of them and I will not let any single characteristic define who I am.

0 Replies

Will the anti-war crowd denounce this idiot?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know