Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness

okie wrote:

Old Europe, correct me if I am wrong, but by reading your posts, you seem to resent the U.S. going after terrrorists, and have a sympathy for them? My apologies if that is not the case, but on whose side are you here?

Looks to me like you accused OE of having sympathy for the terrorists. You also said you would aplogize if you were wrong. No other way to interpret your statements okie.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:
Offer now seems to mean "not interfering with" or "whatever."

I always interpreted it in that manner. Any assistance in any way, as agreed ahead of time, I would view it as an offer. Offering OBL never meant to me that he had to be handcuffed and in ball and chain, then flown to the U.S. on a Sudanese jet to Gitmo to be presented at the gate.

By that interpretation, Russia offered Saddam to the US.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

okie wrote:
parados wrote:
Offer now seems to mean "not interfering with" or "whatever."

I always interpreted it in that manner. Any assistance in any way, as agreed ahead of time, I would view it as an offer. Offering OBL never meant to me that he had to be handcuffed and in ball and chain, then flown to the U.S. on a Sudanese jet to Gitmo to be presented at the gate.

By that interpretation, Russia offered Saddam to the US.

russia also offered hitler to the allies. generous, them russkies...

0 Replies

parados wrote:

okie wrote:
parados wrote:
Offer now seems to mean "not interfering with" or "whatever."

I always interpreted it in that manner. Any assistance in any way, as agreed ahead of time, I would view it as an offer. Offering OBL never meant to me that he had to be handcuffed and in ball and chain, then flown to the U.S. on a Sudanese jet to Gitmo to be presented at the gate.

By that interpretation, Russia offered Saddam to the US.

OBL was in Sudan, remember? Sudan would have something to offer in the way of assistance. At the minimum, they would have had to offer to let us remove him from their country. When did Russia offer Saddam Hussein to the U.S. and how? I don't recall Hussein being in Russia.

Keep it up guys. Your confusion provides humor here.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:
okie wrote:
parados wrote:
Offer now seems to mean "not interfering with" or "whatever."

I always interpreted it in that manner. Any assistance in any way, as agreed ahead of time, I would view it as an offer. Offering OBL never meant to me that he had to be handcuffed and in ball and chain, then flown to the U.S. on a Sudanese jet to Gitmo to be presented at the gate.

By that interpretation, Russia offered Saddam to the US.

OBL was in Sudan, remember? Sudan would have something to offer in the way of assistance. At the minimum, they would have had to offer to let us remove him from their country. When did Russia offer Saddam Hussein to the U.S. and how? I don't recall Hussein being in Russia.

Keep it up guys. Your confusion provides humor here.

Projecting yet again?

0 Replies

So, Roxxxanne - who is that in your avatar?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

At the minimum, they would have had to offer to let us remove him from their country.

And this minimum offer is where in Clinton's statement?

Quote:

CLINTON: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [Al Qaeda]. We got -- well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

Quote:

Keep it up guys. Your confusion provides humor here.

You are providing humor, now and for generations to come.

They released him and he went to Afghanistan. But somehow after they released him they still had him to offer him? You have achieved the point where you will now contradict yourself on this one.

0 Replies

By the way okie, when are you going to apologize to Old Europe?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

So, Roxxxanne - who is that in your avatar?

That is a self-portrait by the great Mexican artist and, for a time, San Franciscan Frida Kahlo.

http://www.fbuch.com/images/TheBrokenColumn44c.JPG

http://www.fbuch.com/images/FridaatHF_c.JPG

0 Replies

parados wrote:

By the way okie, when are you going to apologize to Old Europe?

I did, conditional on his clarification, but I haven't heard from him.

By the way, the availability of OBL in Sudan was before he was "released" and he went to Afghanistan. That brings up another point. If they "released" him, then it sounds like they were "holding" him in some manner, which implies they had some control over him there, at least in terms of allowing him to leave. The reason Clinton gave for not bringing him here was that we had no basis on which to hold him. It implies that he was available to bring him here if not for that reason, and if the Sudanese subsequently "released" him, it seems obvious OBL was under their jurisdiction so that if Clinton thought he could have brought him here, Clinton must have had some kind of "offer" in terms of him being "released" to the U.S.

This whole conversation has been going on for pages, and is patently ridiculous in terms of some here obfuscating the obvious. I don't know if you are simply playing games with me or if you are truly that dense? I am done with talking about it and trying to explain the obvious.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

This whole conversation has been going on for pages, and is patently ridiculous in terms of some here obfuscating the obvious.

Actually, it isn't just obfuscation, it is a logical fallacy on your part. Look up the principle of parsimony and Occam's razor.

Quote:

I don't know if you are simply playing games with me or if you are truly that dense? I am done with talking about it and trying to explain the obvious.

The only one playing games is you okie. You are playing games with the meaning of words. You are playing games by calling into quesiton whether others here support terrorism. You are playing games by refusing to apologize.

OE's statements were pretty clear. You claimed the only way to get a terrorist is if it was offered. OE pointed out the US could invade as we did to get most of those held at Gitmo. Your response was not to argue with his point but to say he supported terrorists. OE laid it out pretty well.

Quote:

okie: Clinton said he didn't take bin Laden. So bin Laden must have been offered to him.

me: Well, I'd say many people in Guantanamo have been "taken" without having been "offered".

okie: They are in Guantanamo because they became available.

me: What do you mean by "available"?

okie: We've caught them on the battlefield.

me: So they became "available" through an invasion.

okie: Your statements are way over the top! Your accusations don't even dignify an answer!

me: What accusations?

okie: You are implying the U.S. would attack anybody in the world! Your posts sound like you are supporting the terrorists!

and here

Quote:

Or maybe the availabilty of OBL was only via the battlefield and Clinton decided against it. Could be, couldn't it?

He has explained it, (everyone else didn't need an explanation but he still did it for you.)... your turn now.

0 Replies

When and where was the battlefield in Sudan?

0 Replies

I wrote:

Or maybe the availabilty of OBL was only via the battlefield and Clinton decided against it. Could be, couldn't it?

okie wrote:

When and where was the battlefield in Sudan?

0 Replies

Maybe it's just me, but I'm unable to understand your logic, okie.

0 Replies

I hope this is simple enough for you to understand. Since there was no battlefield in Sudan, then perhaps the means by which Clinton was to gain custody of OBL from Sudan was not by means of a battlefield. Get it?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

perhaps

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

0 Replies

I hope this is simple enough for you to understand. Clinton said "I did not bring him". Since there was no battlefield in Sudan, then perhaps the means by which Clinton was to gain custody of OBL from Sudan was only by means of a battlefield and Clinton decided against it. Get it?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

When and where was the battlefield in Sudan?

When and where was the battlefield in Afghanistan before we invaded?

The point is that we took people from Afghanistan that were not offered before we invaded. The decision was made to get those people and bring them here. One way to do it was to invade and get them. I seem to recall that the Taliban briefly took OBL into custody after 9/11. ( Osama in our Custody: :Taliban ) They released him. George Bush didn't bring him here at that time. Instead we invaded. As OE pointed out, invasion is one way to capture and bring here. It doesn't require an offer.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Maybe it's just me, but I'm unable to understand your logic, okie.

You and 6 billion other people that don't suck up every word of Sean Hannity.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

old europe wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but I'm unable to understand your logic, okie.
You and 6 billion other people that don't suck up every word of Sean Hannity.

The blind leading the blind.

Okie's logic is fine, but you can't get past the preconceived notions cemented in your heads to see it.

0 Replies

Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know