Brandon9000 wrote:Setanta wrote:I have, twice already.
Earlier, i posed a rhetorical question, which i will now use as a statement, since its character as a rhetorical question seems to have shot right over your head.
So Brandon, you are therefore asserting that the Arabs of Egypt, Morrocco, Saudia Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, whose nations we did not invade because they had no WoMD, have perpetrated terrorist acts by suicide bombers attacking noncombatants with the full knowledge and consent of the respective governments and the approbation of the respective national populations.
Not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that groups like the PLO and Al Qaeda, who try to further their cause via attacks on noncombatants, and other Arab groups who may condemn such attacks, but are secretly glad that they occur, have forfeited the right to have their point of view considered. As usual, you can only contest my viewpoint by misrepresenting it.
Your "viewpoint," such as it were, referred to Buchanan's review of polls conducted in the named Arab countries, and not to polls conducted among the members of the PLO (which no longer exists, by the way) nor the members of al Qaeda. It was therefore not misrepresentation at all. You have provided no evidence that any of the citizens of the Arab nations referred to "are secretly glad" that such events occur. Squirm how you will, you have smeared the people of these nations with a broad brush, but have provided no substantiation for the slander.
Oh, and as the obvious seems easily to elude your grasp, the character of your remarks is racist.
Setanta wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Setanta wrote:I have, twice already.
Earlier, i posed a rhetorical question, which i will now use as a statement, since its character as a rhetorical question seems to have shot right over your head.
So Brandon, you are therefore asserting that the Arabs of Egypt, Morrocco, Saudia Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, whose nations we did not invade because they had no WoMD, have perpetrated terrorist acts by suicide bombers attacking noncombatants with the full knowledge and consent of the respective governments and the approbation of the respective national populations.
Not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that groups like the PLO and Al Qaeda, who try to further their cause via attacks on noncombatants, and other Arab groups who may condemn such attacks, but are secretly glad that they occur, have forfeited the right to have their point of view considered. As usual, you can only contest my viewpoint by misrepresenting it.
Your "viewpoint," such as it were, referred to Buchanan's review of polls conducted in the named Arab countries, and not to polls conducted among the members of the PLO (which no longer exists, by the way) nor the members of al Qaeda. It was therefore not misrepresentation at all. You have provided no evidence that any of the citizens of the Arab nations referred to "are secretly glad" that such events occur. Squirm how you will, you have smeared the people of these nations with a broad brush, but have provided no substantiation for the slander.
I did not condemn all Arab nations and groups. I presumed that my readers possessed normal human intelligence, and would know that I was referring to the groups that do carry out attacks on noncombatants, and those who sympathize with them. Such attacks have been going on for a very long time, and the groups involved have, just as I have said, forfeited the right to have their point of view considered. Please continue to tell me what I meant and argue semantics.
Setanta wrote:Oh, and as the obvious seems easily to elude your grasp, the character of your remarks is racist.
Baloney. I defy you to repeat a post of mine in which I condemn all Arabs for anything. You have merely chosen to misinterpret me as an alternative to arguing against my ideas.
It is not an argument of semantics. You wrote: "As for the Arabs having a point, I doubt it, but even if they did, they forfeited any right to having it considered when they chose to use suicide bombers to deliberately attack noncombatants." That was not qualified in the manner which you have now retrospectively and falsely attempted to suggest you had originally done. It is hilarious to see you sneer at someone else's intelligence when it is such a simple matter to point out the lie in your most recent post.
Setanta wrote:It is not an argument of semantics. You wrote: "As for the Arabs having a point, I doubt it, but even if they did, they forfeited any right to having it considered when they chose to use suicide bombers to deliberately attack noncombatants." That was not qualified in the manner which you have no retrospectively and falsely attempted to suggest you had originally done. It is hilarious to see you sneer at someone else's intelligence when it is such a simple matter to point out the lie in your most recent post.
Well, now I'm telling you what I intended to convey. The groups that carry out attacks on noncombatants, and other Arab people who may sympathize with them, have forfeited the right to have their point of view considered. How about arguing that?
I have argued against your idea. Once again: "As for the Arabs having a point, I doubt it, but even if they did, they forfeited any right to having it considered when they chose to use suicide bombers to deliberately attack noncombatants." That doesn't say some Arabs chose to use suicide bombers, it doesn't say that you refer only to those Arabs who support suicide bombers (a sufficiently vague and unspecified group as to make your "argument" ludicrously meaningless)--it says, simply, the Arabs. Absent any other qualifiers, that makes it a racist condemnation of all Arabs. So, you see, i've been arguing against the idiotic idea you proposed from the outset.
For a cogent analysis of those who support suicide bombers, it would be necessary to review the conditions under which a people become so hopeless as to feel they have nothing more to lose. I'll be happy to go into that with you, if you really want to do that.
Telling what you now want to convey in no way alters the fact that your original statement was a blanket, and therefore racist, condemnation of Arabs.
Setanta wrote:I have argued against your idea. Once again: "As for the Arabs having a point, I doubt it, but even if they did, they forfeited any right to having it considered when they chose to use suicide bombers to deliberately attack noncombatants." That doesn't say some Arabs chose to use suicide bombers, it doesn't say that you refer only to those Arabs who support suicide bombers (a sufficiently vague and unspecified group as to make your "argument" ludicrously meaningless)--it says, simply, the Arabs. Absent any other qualifiers, that makes it a racist condemnation of all Arabs. So, you see, i've been arguing against the idiotic idea you proposed from the outset.
The thread title also implies that all Arabs have a single viewpoint, but persons of normal intelligence know that the poster indended to refer only certain well known advocacy groups. Since you utterly refuse to address my clarification of what my position is, and can only run from it by claiming that my post states something I didn't mean, I find you not worth talking to further.
Setanta wrote:For a cogent analysis of those who support suicide bombers, it would be necessary to review the conditions under which a people become so hopeless as to feel they have nothing more to lose. I'll be happy to go into that with you, if you really want to do that.
No, I've lost interest. I'd rather go home.
No, the thread title refers to the title of the article which Buchanan wrote. He was referring to polls taken in the countries specified, which persons of normal intelligence learn by actually reading the article. I haven't run from your idiotic contention, and i have, in fact, invited discussion.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa . . . .
Want some cheese for your whine?
Hey Setanta - are you retired?
Hey Snood . . . how is that any business of yours?
McGentrix wrote:I doubt "most" arabs are anymore well read than "most" Americans.
I said most Arabs read international news, not that they are more well read than most Americans. That was directly to your contention that the entire Arab world gets their news from propaganda organs.
As Satana would say, So you have a credible basis for asserting that Arabs read more international news than Americans?
Why should I support a statement I haven't made?
FreeDuck wrote:McGentrix wrote:I doubt "most" arabs are anymore well read than "most" Americans.
I said most Arabs read international news, not that they are more well read than most Americans. That was directly to your contention that the entire Arab world gets their news from propaganda organs.
That isn't what you said?
No, it's not. Saying most Arabs read international news, which granted is only backed up by anecdotal evidence, is not the same as saying that "Arabs read more international news than Americans".
Though I will give you that I was certainly making an implication regarding propaganda and Americans.
