• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Photos show U.S. GIs posing with dead Afghans[W:1146]

Boo Radley said:
I've insulted no one. I didn't take you as one with poor esteem for the military, but if you're reading an insult in there, your thinking is skewed somehow.
Click to expand...


Then explain why you felt in neccessary to cackle on about how we've lowered standards to get into the military. what was it's purpose, what was the point? it was irrellevent and served no purpose other to disparage those in harms way.


Nor am I excusing the Taliban. Being factually correct is not making excuses. Rev, clear your head, read for comprehension, and address what is actually said.
Click to expand...

Right, you play these silly little games... Taliban harbored al qaeda, I demonstrated through that link the connection. you ignored it. the patented "Boo Radley shuffle".
 
To consolidate this issue, can we agree on these points?

• It's great to kill Taliban/Al Qaeda/insurgents.
• It was against professional code to take these pictures.
• What these soldiers did is understandable.
• Many people have no idea of the hell soldiers go through.
• These soldiers shouldn't be dishonorably discharged from the military.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Then explain why you felt in neccessary to cackle on about how we've lowered standards to get into the military. what was it's purpose, what was the point? it was irrellevent and served no purpose other to disparage those in harms way.
Click to expand...

Some said we did, that person was called on it, and I supported that the person was correct, as a factual issue. My hope was we could move on from that. But I always underestimate the effect of low esteem. The effort to ignore facts i order to be seen in a positive light just surprises me. If the lowering of the standards says anything at all, it speaks to the need and not the military itself.




Right, you play these silly little games... Taliban harbored al qaeda, I demonstrated through that link the connection. you ignored it. the patented "Boo Radley shuffle".
Click to expand...

I don't see being factually correct as a game. The trouble with letting factually inaccurate claims stand is that people believe them and we don't address the real issue. The real issue is can we invade a country were our enemies are as opposed to acts by that country. I suggest if we can, we have a lot of invading to do. Making the false claim that the Taliban attacked us skips the real issue.
 
Boo Radley said:
Some said we did, that person was called on it, and I supported that the person was correct, as a factual issue. My hope was we could move on from that. But I always underestimate the effect of low esteem. The effort to ignore facts i order to be seen in a positive light just surprises me. If the lowering of the standards says anything at all, it speaks to the need and not the military itself.
Click to expand...


My self esteem is just fine, thank you. Weak attempt to deflect from your besmirching those who served. Those, who, unlike you IIRC, have actually seen combat. What point again was it to bring up this whole waiver issue, does it apply to the OP? if so, will you be providing evidence of this, as I can't seem to find it.


I don't see being factually correct as a game. The trouble with letting factually inaccurate claims stand is that people believe them and we don't address the real issue. The real issue is can we invade a country were our enemies are as opposed to acts by that country. I suggest if we can, we have a lot of invading to do. Making the false claim that the Taliban attacked us skips the real issue.
Click to expand...


What post number did I claim the taliban attacked us? if you want to claim that you are being "factually correct", perhaps you shouldn't be dishonest about what other posters say. :pimpdaddy:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
My self esteem is just fine, thank you. Weak attempt to deflect from your besmirching those who served. Those, who, unlike you IIRC, have actually seen combat. What point again was it to bring up this whole waiver issue, does it apply to the OP? if so, will you be providing evidence of this, as I can't seem to find it.
Click to expand...

Your own words here speak to the esteem issue. I have besmirched no one. And I explained where it came in at and why.



What post number did I claim the taliban attacked us? if you want to claim that you are being "factually correct", perhaps you shouldn't be dishonest about what other posters say. :pimpdaddy:
Click to expand...

You didn't, Mac did. You jumped in. You do that a lot, and then don't know the context.
 
Boo Radley said:
Your own words here speak to the esteem issue. I have besmirched no one. And I explained where it came in at and why.



You didn't, Mac did. You jumped in. You do that a lot, and then don't know the context.
Click to expand...



Whatever boo. It's clear to me... I guess you are just bitter since war is just theoretical to you.... :shrug:
 
Boo Radley said:
I think it is responsive to military personal, and not in any way seeking to put the military in a poor light, and that they quoted military personnel.
Click to expand...

However responsive it's not official. It is not the PR wing of "the military". It's a private, commercial organization seeking a military audience.
 
Boo Radley said:
Your own words here speak to the esteem issue. I have besmirched no one. And I explained where it came in at and why.





You didn't, Mac did. You jumped in. You do that a lot, and then don't know the context.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim they attacked us, I stated that they are complicit in the attacks. They are.
 
mac said:
So, you beleive then that the Afghans are responsible for the actions of the Taliban and share in the repsonsibility for the attacks on 9/11?
Click to expand...

I admit Mac this is a confusing statement, but if you speak to the people sharing responsibility with the Taliban for the 9/11 attacks, you are saying the Taliban were responsible for 9/11.

But if you want to amend your statement that AQ people were in the country, with training camps, that the Taliban neither ran nor hindered, I'll accept that.
 
Boo Radley said:
Why would what he believes matter? What happens to any country is and should be up to the people of that country. Remember, true believers of communism argue much as our true believers do. I prefer to leave it up to the people of those countries.
Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:
I admit Mac this is a confusing statement, but if you speak to the people sharing responsibility with the Taliban for the 9/11 attacks, you are saying the Taliban were responsible for 9/11.

But if you want to amend your statement that AQ people were in the country, with training camps, that the Taliban neither ran nor hindered, I'll accept that.
Click to expand...

This ideal doesn't just apply when it's convenient. If a people are responsible for what happens to their country, they are also responsible for what it does. Do you care to amend your statement?

Btw, do you understand the concept of conspiracy in a criminal sense? What about aiding and abetting?
 
Last edited:
mac said:
This ideal doesn't just apply when it's convenient. If a people are responsible for what happens to their country, they are also responsible for what it does. Do you care to amend your statement?
Click to expand...

What I took issue with was that Afghanistan is responsible for 9/11.

And no, I do not care to amend my statement. We have to stop thinking we control other countries. If Afghanistan attacked us, we'd be proper to defended ourselves, and that would involved the people. But to in and tell them what they should do or have is simply wrong. Afghanistan is not our country. Neither is Iraq. Anything they do short of an act of aggression would not warrant our invading.
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
wait, so if I let a murderer plan, then murder someone, then put him in my basement and tell the cops to **** off, I am not responsible? Kinda weak logic you have there.




"agreeing with you" is the farthest thing from "listening or looking" objectivley.
Click to expand...

Does that mean you think we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, since that's where most of the terrorists of 9/11 came from?
 
Boo Radley said:
What I took issue with was that Afghanistan is responsible for 9/11.

And no, I do not care to amend my statement. We have to stop thinking we control other countries. If Afghanistan attacked us, we'd be proper to defended ourselves, and that would involved the people. But to in and tell them what they should do or have is simply wrong. Afghanistan is not our country. Neither is Iraq. Anything they do short of an act of aggression would not warrant our invading.
Click to expand...

Afghanistan harbored, aided and abetted those that did. Then they refused to surrender those that did. End of story, bro.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Does that mean you think we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, since that's where most of the terrorists of 9/11 came from?
Click to expand...

Most of the terrorist that conducted the attacks died in them, the masterminds were being harbored by Afghanistan....not Saudi Arabia. Should Britain attack us because a lot of IRA funding comes from Americans?
 
Last edited:
mac said:
Afghanistan harbored, aided and abetted those that did. Then they refused to surrender those that did. End of story, bro.
Click to expand...

That, however, is another argument. They did not, however, attack us. But as I said, and others have echoed, there is a long list that fits this description, and that means we have a lot of invading to do if this is going to be our rationale. And that list includes allies like SA and Pakistan. In fact, those two countries have a greater role than Afghanistan did by your standard.
 
Boo Radley said:
That, however, is another argument. They did not, however, attack us. But as I said, and others have echoed, there is a long list that fits this description, and that means we have a lot of invading to do if this is going to be our rationale. And that list includes allies like SA and Pakistan. In fact, those two countries have a greater role than Afghanistan did by your standard.
Click to expand...

It is not another argument. It is this argument.
 
mac said:
It is not another argument. It is this argument.
Click to expand...

No,it isn't. You suggested the Taliban attacked us. I corrected your factual error. Amending it to something else is a different argument.
 
mac said:
Most of the terrorist that conducted the attacks died in them, the masterminds were being harbored by Afghanistan....not Saudi Arabia. Should Britain attack us because a lot of IRA funding comes from Americans?
Click to expand...

well, we did attack Iraq for supposedly having something to do with 9-11.

;)
 
Boo Radley said:
No,it isn't. You suggested the Taliban attacked us. I corrected your factual error. Amending it to something else is a different argument.
Click to expand...

No, what I said is that they are complicit in the attack, which they are. There is no separate argument, it is the same argument regardless of your excuses.
 
Thunder said:
well, we did attack Iraq for supposedly having something to do with 9-11.

;)
Click to expand...

Have you figured out what a felony is yet, or what the Code of Conduct is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom