excuse me dumbass but one article doesn't change the fact that you and the other sheep have provided ample reasons why iraq is a part of the war on terror..now when people remind you about it you don't want to hear it... we get the point that you will this war until your death..WE GOT IT.. you are still to this day trying to justify an unecessary war.. So now it's hard to keep track of why are in Iraq still..is it al-qaida? other terror groups? how did those groups get there? ...
reading is
Why read when you can ridicule?
why post an original thought when you can plagerize a blog..
There are no fewer than 40 links, in that article, that point to various sources to support every point he make in his piece.
You would know that if you had read it.
Get a tutor.
Exactly. But, I only plagiarize those with whom I agree so, at least, I've read that which I post.
Sorry but I don't count right wing blogs as objective sources..
Nor do I but, when they link to actual data, transcripts, or objective reports from which they draw their conclusions,...ah nevermind, you've got to be able to read to even follow the logic.
Ok yoni..
The source used to justify this position is an opinion of one person.. yet somehow this piece is based on obejective reports and transcripts..etc..There is still religious persecution, but it is coming from outsiders. The one exception is in Basra, where the British left too soon. If we abandon Iraq, the dirtbags are still strong enough to intimidate, but they have already lost the battle for hearts and minds. Their thuggery will just make them more hated, until the democratic government is strong enough to purge these interlopers from Iraqi society.
That's just one that I picked out..should I go on and find more opinion pieces being passed on as objective data?
Absolutely...go for it.
But, for the record, what kind of data would it take to support such an opinion...to your satisfaction?
And that one person's opinion was based on a video -- which he posted, from yet another source (A british source), that seemed to support that leaving Basra as soon as they did wasn't such a good idea.
Keep it going, this is how reasonable, rational discourse occurs.
After viewing the video, it doesn't seem the opinion, that Britain left Basra prematurely, was that far off the mark
Rawls bull is an opinion piece rotten with unproven assertions.
I figure movement conservatives/neo- s either paid him to write this and/or fed him all the bull .
Well, I would sit here and argue with you, but i'm off to pickup by Neo paycheck. Which reminds me, i need to deposit all of it but 20 dollars. Gotz to go buy me a bunch of PaleoCon scratch tickets, and pickup a bottle of Evangelical Bigot bug spray at the Big Lotz in my Tahoe.
Takers? Anyone?
Didint think so. Truth hurts.
They are completely valid conclusions, and of course I read the article since my initial post.
And don't you remember we stand down as they stand up? You're saying the Iraqi security forces cannot stand up to 200 guys. You say there are other parties -- who are they? How many of them are there? Why didn't the economics grad school dropout address these groups in his "history" paper?
Well George, you obviously need to look up the definition for "plagiarise."
From wiktionary; plagiarise:
Since a source link is cited, I see no plagerizing...To use, and pass off as one's own, someone else's writing/speech.
Want people to consider your thought? Then use words and facts correctly. Habbits of misuse leads to others ignoring what you say.
What color are liberal tinted shades?
look skippy the entire board knows that yoni , in the past, has given the impression that he passed other's writings as his own.. when you get up to speed let me know..
Last edited by George Gervin's Afro; 01-10-2008 at 08:16 AM.
Doesn't mean that claiming because of that history, THAT group of people is INCAPABLE of enjoying the fruits of liberty and Democracy.
But that's not what you want, or according to your own words, in the best interests of the US. What you want is a non-religious, tolerant democracy.
The US is not interested in democracies like the Palestinian where an armed and intolerant group like Hamas wins the elections.
And I do claim THAT group is INCAPABLE of having a tolerant, non-religious democracy. History *is* the prime example here.
If you mean Hamas but THAT group, then absolutely.
Not so if you are including the whole of Islamic people. A good chunk of Egypt and Palestine have showed a move towards tolerance of religion and a desire for democratic ideals, and well as smaller groups in Lebanon and a few other places.
The area itself is tiring of fighting everday while almost the entirety of the rest of the world enjoys peace most of the time, and is sliding to a more agreeable position to US ideals.
Hamas is not THAT group. THAT group (the group?) I was referring to was, simply, Muslims.
I called a spade a spade originally when a poster claimed that Muslims, because of "blowing each other up weekly", or some such thing, could NEVER enjoy freedom and democracy. I disagree. The poster was a bigot (by definition, frankly).
That's not the impression I was going for and when asked I never lied about stealing material. My reasons for posting in manner I do has been explained ad nauseum, search it out if you like.
When you get a clue...meh, might as well have said when monkeys fly out of your butt...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
