Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/world/middleeast/trump-strikes-syria-attack.html

Distraction from the ever growing shit-show that is the Trump admin and nothing distracts better than war.

Remember, one of the main reasons Clinton was unelectable from the Trumpers was that she was going to attack Syria and start a war and Trump was all about leaving Syrian business to Syria :0

Twitter thread showcasing the extent of U.S. airstrikes across Syria: https://twitter.com/3z0ooz/status/984963018336456704

We're really going all-out, damn.

Originally posted by Robtard
Distraction from the ever growing shit-show that is the Trump admin and nothing distracts better than war.

Remember, one of the main reasons Clinton was unelectable from the Trumpers was that she was going to attack Syria and start a war and Trump was all about leaving Syrian business to Syria :0 Unfortunately, Trump supporters didn't really pick up on the obvious fact that he is utterly inconsistent in every way. I'd say they do now, but even that is probably too generous, lol.

ew

Who the hell cares? You don't live there.

Whoa, lmfao.

This is the Gulf War Air Campaign all over again.

This is nothing to lose your shit over.

Originally posted by Impediment
This is the Gulf War Air Campaign all over again.

This is nothing to lose your shit over. Was Iraq backed by Russia and Iran?

Originally posted by NewGuy01
ew

If you it's particularly quiet tonight, and you listen very closely, you just might be able to hear John Bolton moaning in ecstasy off in the distance.

Also - https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/375609403376144384

When I do that I don't moan, I roar.

But Gee... I thought Messiah Obama got all of the Chemical Weapons out of Syria 4 EVUH!?

This is tragic. Luckily I doubt there'd be too much damage since President Dumbass already told everyone this would happen so they were likely prepared for this.

What's troubling is that as I understand it this happened hours before inspectors would have arrived to investigate the site of the chemical attack. I'm not confident that we'll get the real story of what happened there any time soon now.

Yeah. Send in Inspectors AFTER the Chemical Attacks happen.

Gotta LOVE that Loony Lefty Logic.

Alex Jones literally starting crying over this on his show. So at least that happened.

Only congress could declare war.

But the President can authorize strikes.

That's kind of a catch 22 for congress, isn't it? A sitting president could essentially force their hand by attacking another country until they declare war on us, and then whattya gonna do?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

Well what do you know, apparently Presidents technically haven't had the power to authorize military action sans war since 1973.

This is interesting, because back in school, they taught us differently, and claimed a president can do what they want for 90 days.

About when Clinton was in office, in fact.

Funny, that.

But I guess a toothless law is like no law at all, so as it stands a president can do what they want for 90 days.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DaoviWYUMAAZL0E.jpg

Personally I still think it's awfully convenient that Assad would choose to gas his own people right after Trump says he wants to pull out, in such a way as to almost guarantee he'll be pressured into renewing conflict by the generals who never want to leave. It's just plain idiotic. Afaik it still hasn't been confirmed at all who carried the attack out.

I'm not saying that the US military orchestrated it, but it really is too damn perfect.

The US Regime, it's lies, hypocrisy and propaganda.

Ten commandments of propaganda

1 We do not want war.
2 The opposite party alone is guilty of war.
3 The enemy is the face of the devil.
4 We defend a noble cause, not our own interest.
5 The enemy systematically commits cruelties; our mishaps are involuntary.
6 The enemy uses forbidden weapons.
7 We suffer small losses, those of the enemy are enormous.
8 Artists and intellectuals back our cause.
9 Our cause is sacred. "The ages-old 'God Bless America' is playing once more."
10 All who doubt our propaganda, are traitors and conspiracy theorists.

Worked in Vietnam, Irak and Libya.

Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe
The US Regime, it's lies, hypocrisy and propaganda.

Ten commandments of propaganda

1 We do not want war.
2 The opposite party alone is guilty of war.
3 The enemy is the face of the devil.
4 We defend a noble cause, not our own interest.
5 The enemy systematically commits cruelties; our mishaps are involuntary.
6 The enemy uses forbidden weapons.
7 We suffer small losses, those of the enemy are enormous.
8 Artists and intellectuals back our cause.
9 Our cause is sacred. "The ages-old 'God Bless America' is playing once more."
10 All who doubt our propaganda, are traitors and conspiracy theorists.

Worked in Vietnam, Irak and Libya. Iraq? Otherwise I agree.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Iraq? Otherwise I agree.
Weapons of mass destruction. It was a lie, there were none.

Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe
Weapons of mass destruction. It was a lie, there were none. Very true, however, it's Iraq, not Irak. Which is why, I agree apart from Irak.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Very true, however, it's Iraq, not Irak. Which is why, I agree apart from Irak.
In germany we write Irak, sorry mea culpa.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Personally I still think it's awfully convenient that Assad would choose to gas his own people right after Trump says he wants to pull out, in such a way as to almost guarantee he'll be pressured into renewing conflict by the generals who never want to leave. It's just plain idiotic. Afaik it still hasn't been confirmed at all who carried the attack out.

I'm not saying that the US military orchestrated it, but it really is too damn perfect.


No, it's been confirmed this morning. They found some of the nerve gas molecules and the larger ones can function a "marker" and it serves as a signature for the US Military. The nerve gas used is a solution of multiple, not just a single attack vector: this is why it is so deadly, effective, and prohibited in the Geneva Protocol. So some of the molecules in it can be manufactured in such a way that a unique "signature" can be quickly identified. Russian nerve gas has something similar and it is quite easy to tell the two apart even for the some exact 'concoction.'

CNN did a write-up on it this morning:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/14/pol...ikes/index.html


Likely, there is a justification from the Trump administration on this and it will be spun to somehow make it not so obvious...but I cannot see a way out of this.

You almost scared the shit out of me there. The shitstorm that would ensue if that were true would be unfathomable.

Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe
Weapons of mass destruction. It was a lie, there were none.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/wmd



Turns out, there were plenty of specific cases, even reported by the MSM, of WMDs in Iraq:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0






So there's go that narrative. Should be closed and people (which includes me), need to admit we were wrong about the WMDs in Iraq. Turns out there were and there were plenty. Tons and tons of them.

Originally posted by Nephthys
You almost scared the shit out of me there. The shitstorm that would ensue if that were true would be unfathomable.


It's not as though my post was unfounded in actual science. The idea of "signatory molecules" comes from GMO DNA sequences that are signatures from large corporations such as Monsanto so they can tell if their crops have been stolen or bred with other crops (this has won Monsanto cases and is the subject of a documentary):

https://www.jove.com/science-education/10044/testing-for-genetically-modified-foods

Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe
In Germany we write Irak, sorry mea culpa. Fair enough, I did not know that. I was in Berlin in Oct, at the Radisson at Alexanderplatz by the TV tower for the festival of light. Love Germany, about my favourite place to be honest.

https://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/who-was-right-about-w-m-d-s-in-iraq/



Perhaps the narrative should be reworded for technicality, but the message remains the same.

Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe
Weapons of mass destruction. It was a lie, there were none.

So all those SCUD Rocket they had were just party poppers?

So sad to see the Left still LYING about what really happens in the real world.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
https://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/who-was-right-about-w-m-d-s-in-iraq/



Perhaps the narrative should be reworded for technicality, but the message remains the same. True enough.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
https://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/who-was-right-about-w-m-d-s-in-iraq/



Perhaps the narrative should be reworded for technicality, but the message remains the same.

There's nothing about this being a technicality:



And the fact that many people did not come forward to admit they were wrong about the WMDs, including many news organizations and politicians, and the systematic suppression of these facts, should disturb you.

This is one of those circumstances where, even in the face of absurd amounts of evidence, you still try to side-step, deny, or play words games. That's lame as f*ck and it is quite telling of the kind of person you are (a lame, partisan, pile).

This is why almost everything you post cannot be taken seriously as almost none of it comes with an honest impetus.


It's quite simple:


Were there WMDs in Iraq that Saddam Hussein's regime was sitting on, stockpiling, and refusing to give up (requirements from losing the Golf War)?

Yes. So very many it is absurd. Was this the exact set of circumstances which led the US to take action against Hussein's regime for violating Roslution 1441? Yes. He was uncooperative with inspectors. He was supposed to 1. Cease all production. 2. Give up all WMDs and WMD precursors.

He didn't cooperate with #2. Hence the often stated "Hussein is hiding WMDs." And he was.


It is your job, if you want to be honest, to correct every person who says we never found the WMDs in Iraq. We did. There were literally tons and tons of them.

Nice to see the Lefty Crew try to DEFLECT this issue off of the Real Villains of the Piece ...aka MESSIAH OBAMA AND His Lefty Pals! Like the Press.


Videos of Obama and Others Saying Syria Cleared of Chemical Weapons

Well done double d, you regurgitated what you said last while failing to acknowledge the context I added, adding a bit of ad hominem to avoid the argument.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Personally I still think it's awfully convenient that Assad would choose to gas his own people right after Trump says he wants to pull out, in such a way as to almost guarantee he'll be pressured into renewing conflict by the generals who never want to leave. It's just plain idiotic. Afaik it still hasn't been confirmed at all who carried the attack out.

I'm not saying that the US military orchestrated it, but it really is too damn perfect.

I agree. Assad had no reason at all to do this.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There's nothing about this being a technicality:



And the fact that many people did not come forward to admit they were wrong about the WMDs, including many news organizations and politicians, and the systematic suppression of these facts, should disturb you.

This is one of those circumstances where, even in the face of absurd amounts of evidence, you still try to side-step, deny, or play words games. That's lame as f*ck and it is quite telling of the kind of person you are (a lame, partisan, pile).

This is why almost everything you post cannot be taken seriously as almost none of it comes with an honest impetus.


It's quite simple:


Were there WMDs in Iraq that Saddam Hussein's regime was sitting on, stockpiling, and refusing to give up (requirements from losing the Golf War)?

Yes. So very many it is absurd. Was this the exact set of circumstances which led the US to take action against Hussein's regime for violating Roslution 1441? Yes. He was uncooperative with inspectors. He was supposed to 1. Cease all production. 2. Give up all WMDs and WMD precursors.

He didn't cooperate with #2. Hence the often stated "Hussein is hiding WMDs." And he was.


It is your job, if you want to be honest, to correct every person who says we never found the WMDs in Iraq. We did. There were literally tons and tons of them.

So why did they suppress it?

To slander the other side? That's down the rabbit hole conspiracy theory stuff.. We'd need to believe the press is basically a propaganda machine for the Feds. And that WOULD be scary..

The WMD's that we went to war for in Iraq were supposed to be nukes that Saddam had been building or built. Hence the whole 'yellow cake uranium' start and what lead us eventually to war. If the target WMDs had been found, Bush would have been on camera doing back flips and rightfully so.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Well done double d, you regurgitated what you said last while failing to acknowledge the context I added, adding a bit of ad hominem to avoid the argument.

No, you simply stated just some of the things I already stated and then tried to marginalize the significance.

And no you just avoided addressing anything I said with you psuedo-tantrum, above.

Originally posted by cdtm
So why did they suppress it?

To slander the other side? That's down the rabbit hole conspiracy theory stuff.. We'd need to believe the press is basically a propaganda machine for the Feds. And that WOULD be scary..

This is not a conspiracy. The narrative that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was hammered and beaten into everyone's minds so much that it's something they just want to quietly ignore. Also, the anti-Bush bias is strong.

Some of these organizations quietly rescinded their positions, such as NYT. An online article here, a brief 5-10 second spot in the mews recap, etc.

Hell, we have documentaries about how the Media was used as a weapon to get us into Iraq when we "knew" there were no WMDs to not find when there were actually stockpiled WMDs that Saddam wouldn't let us in to find and dispose of.

Here's the documentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFkqtxTJPoU

Originally posted by Robtard
The WMD's that we went to war for in Iraq were supposed to be nukes that Saddam had been building or built. Hence the whole 'yellow cake uranium' start and what lead us eventually to war. If the target WMDs had been found, Bush would have been on camera doing back flips and rightfully so.

No, that's not correct. It was Biological, Chemical, and Nuclear:

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_09/Cleminson_09

And, as fact, the chemical WMDs were the primary, known quantities in this ordeal - not nuclear.

To quote the head of the Army at the time, "...we expected to find large warehouses full of chemical or biological weapons, or delivery systems."

They even prepped for this type of warfare leading up to and during the primary military campaigns in Iraq.

That article was written in 2003, to give you clear context of what they were looking for. And we didn't get clear WMD cache findings until 2008, from what I discovered. With the most recent WMD findings being discussed in 2014.


Why is this? Because nuclear is much more difficult to hide. The radiation screams "Hey, we're doing some serious shit that's probably nuclear WMD related...look at me!!!!" Chemical and Biological weapons, not so much.


Also, here's your news article about 550 tons of yellow cake uranium being removed from Iraq in 2008:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.WtTM0ogbNhE



Pretty shocking, right? Why weren't we told about this? Why was this not a big deal? Two very big stories about WMD shit in Iraq, one nuclear and one chemical, and it wasn't plastered all over the news for weeks on end with the media crawling all over the Government's ass, demanding interviews, demanding information, like they are with the Trump shit-show.

Pretty simple explanation really.

Golden showers > yellow cake.

Duh.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, that's not correct. It was Biological, Chemical, and Nuclear:

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_09/Cleminson_09

And, as fact, the chemical WMDs were the primary, known quantities in this ordeal - not nuclear.

To quote the head of the Army at the time, "...we expected to find large warehouses full of chemical or biological weapons, or delivery systems."

They even prepped for this type of warfare leading up to and during the primary military campaigns in Iraq.

That article was written in 2003, to give you clear context of what they were looking for. And we didn't get clear WMD cache findings until 2008, from what I discovered. With the most recent WMD findings being discussed in 2014.


Why is this? Because nuclear is much more difficult to hide. The radiation screams "Hey, we're doing some serious shit that's probably nuclear WMD related...look at me!!!!" Chemical and Biological weapons, not so much.


Also, here's your news article about 550 tons of yellow cake uranium being removed from Iraq in 2008:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.WtTM0ogbNhE



Pretty shocking, right? Why weren't we told about this? Why was this not a big deal? Two very big stories about WMD shit in Iraq, one nuclear and one chemical, and it wasn't plastered all over the news for weeks on end with the media crawling all over the Government's ass, demanding interviews, demanding information, like they are with the Trump shit-show.

Nuclear weapons being it was pushed over and over as the reason. It was drilled into our minds. Nothing would have stopped Bush from holding a massive press conference and declaring "The WMDs have been found and I was right!" and he would have been.

"There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." -Condolezza Rice circa Jan 2003

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Pretty simple explanation really.

Golden showers > yellow cake.

Duh.

So, R. Kelly is a WMD?

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
So, R. Kelly is a WMD?

Chemical weapon right there, man!

What they found though was not what we went to war for, defunct programs and aging bombs that were dangerous to the user as the target was not what the war was sold to us on.

It's like the FBI raiding your home because they think you're making IEDs in your basement, but instead they find an old unregistered sawed-off shotgun tossed in a corner and use that for the justification of the raid after the fact.

Absolutely nothing would have stopped Bush from holding a press conference had the WMD/reason for war been found and the whole world would have listened, no amount of media spin could have buried that.

edit: From the story sourced earlier:

"From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein's rule.

"In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

"The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West," -snip

Hey. I just realized. We already have a Thread dedicated to Prez Trump.

This Thread should be moved and or closed.

The Mods should get on that.

Originally posted by Robtard
What they found though was not what we went to war for, defunct programs and aging bombs that were dangerous to the user as the target was not what the war was sold to us on.

It's like the FBI raiding your home because they think you're making IEDs in your basement, but instead they find an old unregistered sawed-off shotgun tossed in a corner and use that for the justification of the raid after the fact.

Nah, it's not like that.

There were WMDs. Stockpiled. Hidden. Some assembled. Some in partial assembly and stored. And some in precursor forms.

And there was a massive amount of yellow cake uranium.

How does "5000 WMDs: warheads and bombs" amount to "nah, nothing was really found"? Colbert even did a skit on this.

In Colbert's words, "I feel a strong combination of two strong emotions: oh my God, shock and awe!" lol



It was sold on us that they were secretly stockpiling WMDs (they were), refusing to let UN inspectors in (they were but later let them in...somewhat), refusing to turn over their WMDs and WMD precursors (they were as we later discovered), hiding their yellow-cake uranium (they were), and trying to revamp a nuclear ("nuculer" weapons program (they once did but stopped).

So it would be like the FBI raiding your house because you were reported as trying to hide some pipe bombs and you were trying to make more. And then they find thousands of pipe bombs all over the place: fully assembled, partially assembled, and in complete parts ready to assemble. And on top of that, they also found massive amounts of fertilizer. But the Warrant the FBI got was approved under false-pretenses and overly-inflated notions of how long it would take you to become fully pipe-bomb ready.

Originally posted by Robtard
Absolutely nothing would have stopped Bush from holding a press conference had the WMD/reason for war been found and the whole world would have listened, no amount of media spin could have buried that.

No no, you're right. Bush is documented as pushing soooooo so very hard to 'get Saddam" with something. He was looking for every reason. The quotes are there. Which is very creepy, in hindsight. As in "murderess" creepy. Because I know he know his dick-war with Saddam would result in the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents.

Originally posted by Robtard
What they found though was not what we went to war for, defunct programs and aging bombs that were dangerous to the user as the target was not what the war was sold to us on.

It's like the FBI raiding your home because they think you're making IEDs in your basement, but instead they find an old unregistered sawed-off shotgun tossed in a corner and use that for the justification of the raid after the fact.

Absolutely nothing would have stopped Bush from holding a press conference had the WMD/reason for war been found and the whole world would have listened, no amount of media spin could have buried that.

edit: From the story sourced earlier:

"From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein's rule.

"In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

"The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West," -snip


this revisionism is sad.

Yeah. The World would be a better place with Saddam Hussein in it.

Because Leftists LOVE Dictators and Tyrants.

Probably why Obama won twice.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang


this revisionism is sad.

Agreed. Why are people like you trying to change History because you weren't aware that there really were WMDs and Saddam was going to revitalize his WMD programs?

Is it the fact that you've been saying "there are no WMDs in Iraq!!!" for so long that it's just too hard to change one of your partisan talking points?

What happens if you say, "Yes, there were WMDs in Iraq, Saddam was hiding them, and Saddam was clearly vamping up his yellow-cake uranium stores for a nuke program"? Will you implode? Will you cry? What happens to you if you admit to facts that you had been, understandably, denying for years?


Try this: stop sucking Dem Dick so much, stop hating GOP peeps so much, and get out of your partisan talking points. Then assess based more on facts.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Yeah. The World would be a better place with Saddam Hussein in it.

Because Leftists LOVE Dictators and Tyrants.

Probably why Obama won twice.

Actually yes.

True Saddam was no angel, but at the end of the day, he was a necessary evil. It was through Saddam iron rule that kept the tribes from warring everyday. And once we killed him, the tribe had no one to keep them in check.

Saddam was performing genocide...

But it was against muzzie browns like the Kurds so who cares something something it's their business. America.

Originally posted by Robtard
But it was against muzzie browns like the Kurds so who cares something something it's their business. America. Yup, sadly, pretty much.

I was in 2 minds about the first Gulf War, I did not want an Arab superstate controlling all oil.

I was in 2 minds about the 2nd. Genocide for me was reason enough to intervene.

Originally posted by SquallX
Actually yes.

True Saddam was no angel, but at the end of the day, he was a necessary evil. It was through Saddam iron rule that kept the tribes from warring everyday. And once we killed him, the tribe had no one to keep them in check.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Saddam was performing genocide...


.....


arabia

I am just savoring the concept that PootButt AGREED with Me!

Oh how his circuits must be sizzling now!

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Yup, sadly, pretty much.

I was in 2 minds about the first Gulf War, I did not want an Arab superstate controlling all oil.

I was in 2 minds about the 2nd. Genocide for me was reason enough to intervene.

No Western nation went to war in Iraq 2.0 cos of genocide, that was just an excuse. The people that Saddam was killing, no government cared about.

Originally posted by Robtard
No Western nation went to war in Iraq 2.0 cos of genocide, that was just an excuse. The people that Saddam was killing, no government cared about.

So Robbie has just stated that He approved of Government Sanctioned Genocide as long as "No One Cares About Them".


Gee I can think of a few others that apperantly Thought the Same Way as Robbie!


http://drmiguelfaria.com/sites/default/files/HitlerStalinMao.jpg


Robbie does fit in with this little Group of Leftists.

Originally posted by Robtard
No Western nation went to war in Iraq 2.0 cos of genocide, that was just an excuse. The people that Saddam was killing, no government cared about.

That was something I heard people start saying after a year of no WMDs being found. "We just had to take the evil Saddam out." More cognitive dissonance.

Originally posted by Robtard
No Western nation went to war in Iraq 2.0 cos of genocide, that was just an excuse. The people that Saddam was killing, no government cared about. No they didn't, and they didn't in the first to stop an Arab superstate. If they had it might have been much more palatable although I doubt the people at home would have allowed it to happen.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Agreed. Why are people like you trying to change History because you weren't aware that there really were WMDs and Saddam was going to revitalize his WMD programs?

I've already admitted that it's wrong to say there were no wmd's, however to claim that we found what was used to justify the war is wrong.


This was not why we went to war:


Emphasis on "long abandoned". Bush's pretense for war was bs, getting techincal about the defintion of a wmd isn't going to change that. That you refuse to address the singular point I've made is rather telling of how desperate your revisionism is.

I don't get it, was the war on Iraq (getting rid of Saddam) a good thing ("stop the genocide" or a bad thing ("but they were not WMD's even tho technically they were?" now?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I don't get it, was the war on Iraq (getting rid of Saddam) a good thing ("stop the genocide" or a bad thing ("but they were not WMD's even tho technically they were?" now?

Depends on what point the far left is trying to make.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I don't get it, was the war on Iraq (getting rid of Saddam) a good thing ("stop the genocide" or a bad thing ("but they were not WMD's even tho technically they were?" now?
If I'd ever claimed they weren't wmd's, this might be more than strawmanning. Reading is good.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
If I'd ever claimed they weren't wmd's, this might be more than strawmanning. Reading is good.

And who said I was only talking about what you said? A bit presumptuous aren't we?

Also, a little reading comprehension is in order here, too, sport.

Notice the "even tho technically they were" (meaning: an acceptance that they were WMD's but not the WMD's that were "acceptable" as justification) as part of the quotations?

Fail.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I've already admitted that it's wrong to say there were no wmd's,

Thanks!

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
...however to claim that we found what was used to justify the war is wrong.

You will look long and hard at my entire posting history and you won't find me supporting foreign wars like that and I was especially vocal about my opposition to the Iraq War. I am very strongly opposed to things like murder and killing, you see. And, for me, the absolute worst thing possible is the taking of innocent life. How many innocents did we kill with "collateral damage" in Iraq? Mistakes?





Originally posted by Rockydonovang
This was not why we went to war:

The rest of your post is just you going in special ed circles...

yawn

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I don't get it, was the war on Iraq (getting rid of Saddam) a good thing ("stop the genocide" or a bad thing ("but they were not WMD's even tho technically they were?" now? To be honest war is rarely a good thing, but sometimes it's needed to protect the interests of the Euro-American Empire and its allies.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
To be honest war is rarely a good thing, but sometimes it's needed to protect the interests of the Euro-American Empire and its allies.

So it's a not a good thing per se but more of a necessary bad thing?

Originally posted by Putinbot1
To be honest war is rarely a good thing, but sometimes it's needed to protect the interests of the Euro-American Empire and its allies.

Iraq 2.0 was so war machine corporations could rake in billions at the expense of the US tax payer, millionaires/billionaires who held stock in said companies could get richer and to set up a US friendly regime in Iraq like we had in Iran prior to the Iranian Revolution.

Agenda #1 and #2 were achieved, eg Halliburton and its subsidiaries like KBR raked in high billion dollar contracts. The US ultimately failed in agenda #3, Iraq is a broken mess and I wouldn't be surprised if a civil war breaks out between the factions.

Originally posted by Robtard
Iraq 2.0 was so war machine corporations could rake in billions at the expense of the US tax payer, millionaires/billionaires who held stock in said companies could get richer and to set up a US friendly regime in Iraq like we had in Iran prior to the Iranian Revolution.

Agenda #1 and #2 were achieved, eg Halliburton and its subsidiaries like KBR raked in high billion dollar contracts. The US ultimately failed in agenda #3, Iraq is a broken mess and I wouldn't be surprised if a civil war breaks out between the factions.


I think you're right about everything except to the severity of #3. I don't think Iraq is as unstable as you're assessing. I'm open to changing my mind, however. Smack my face with some recent assessments.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think you're right about everything except to the severity of #3. I don't think Iraq is as unstable as you're assessing. I'm open to changing my mind, however. Smack my face with some recent assessments.

I've not keep track of Iraq in some time, so if it's moved forward and is stable or mores stable, fair enough.

Originally posted by Robtard
I've not keep track of Iraq in some time, so if it's moved forward and is stable or mores stable, fair enough.

I'm stale as well. I think I'm still sitting in 2013-14 on current state.

Originally posted by Robtard
Iraq 2.0 was so war machine corporations could rake in billions at the expense of the US tax payer, millionaires/billionaires who held stock in said companies could get richer and to set up a US friendly regime in Iraq like we had in Iran prior to the Iranian Revolution.

Agenda #1 and #2 were achieved, eg Halliburton and its subsidiaries like KBR raked in high billion dollar contracts. The US ultimately failed in agenda #3, Iraq is a broken mess and I wouldn't be surprised if a civil war breaks out between the factions. Iraq is a mess, like most of the middle east, held together by hated/loved generals (to use the roman model).

You have to understand through the friendly regime was needed Rob. I'm no war monger and I know a lot of people who served in it as do probably most people here. I think it was ill-judged in aftercare, you'd be terrified if you heard how fondly many non-Saudi Arabs talk of Sadaam. Especially, Egyptians and Syrians. It actually creeps me out how loved by a significant number he was.

^Not that uncommon I find. I know a guy whose father was one of Gaddafi's bodyguards a long time ago and he constantly sang his praises, know a few Russians who revere Putin too. Due to this I'm always wary of believing the western media's stance on non-western leaders, at least not at face value anyway.

TBF though in regards to Putin, he has lots and lots of fanbois. eg Just look at Trump, Trumpers and many in the current US Republican Party

Putin doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks of him? So, he's like Ric Flair or something?

Originally posted by samhain
Putin doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks of him? So, he's like Ric Flair or something?
He cares only insomuch if it actually leads to tangible actions against him or Russia.

Thinking about it, I'm struggling to come up with even one world leader who seems to give a shit about the court of public opinion.

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Another emotional meltdown from the rageaholic. Also didn't really refute what I said. Go figure. Agreed, funny stuff Rob.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Thanks!

Yeah i literally said that with my first post in this discussion. Maybe reading what you reply to would be for your benefit:

This is a god awful reason to respect a leader. If you don't care, you shouldn't be leading now should you.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Yeah i literally said that with my first post in this discussion.

Looks like you quoted the wrong words because the item quoted doesn't say, even a tiny little bit what you're trying to claim.

https://i.imgur.com/RBtQdjA.gif

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Maybe reading what you reply to would be for your benefit:


The first I find you saying the thing is where you said you already admitted that we found WMDs in Iraq.

https://i.imgur.com/XHV8daD.gif

Originally posted by dadudemon
He's Madimir Mootin. haaaaaa!

👍

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
This is a god awful reason to respect a leader. If you don't care, you shouldn't be leading now should you.

Putin fanbois, bro.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Looks like you quoted the wrong words because the item quoted doesn't say, even a tiny little bit what you're trying to claim.

https://i.imgur.com/RBtQdjA.gif




The first I find you saying the thing is where you said you already admitted that we found WMDs in Iraq.

https://i.imgur.com/XHV8daD.gif

^^^ I said it, read before you reply.

So.... any updates on the situation? Admittedly I have not read through the thread carefully, but as far as I can tell this is not going to end up being WWIII.

Perhaps more like Cold War II... hopefully.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
^^^ I said it, read before you reply.


Thanks for proving my point.

Try not to lie next time. It's rather obvious how dishonest of a partisan piece you are.

Originally posted by Stigma
So.... any updates on the situation? Admittedly I have not read through the thread carefully, but as far as I can tell this is not going to end up being WWIII.

-Trump ordered some nigh useless missile strikes again after giving Russia/Syria several days warning to prep and move their expensive shit. (If you don't recall, during the election Trump was vocal about not warning our enemies before we attack, so more clownshow there)

-Russia is saying it's considering supplying Syria/al-Assad with an advanced missile system (this supposedly makes Israel very angry, they're threatened to destroy it)

-Syria is still a bloody hellhole, civilians being chewed up and spit out in the conflict

Originally posted by dadudemon
Thanks for proving my point.

Try not to lie next time. It's rather obvious how dishonest of a partisan piece you are.


It takes something special to lie about something that is explicity shown in the post you're replying to.

I acknowledged the existence of wmd's saying that narrative should be "reworded for technicality" since technically speaking, there were WMD's. This doesn't change the narrative however as those wmd's were not what Bush used to justify the war. We weren't looking for remnants of long abandoned programs, we were looking for an active arsenal with the potential to threaten us.

You see Bush wasn't LITERALLY a war criminal, but you see he got dem genes for being war criminals of the non-literal kind from his pappy. And then he empowered those war criminal genes via raising him to be a war criminal.

That Fresno professor's "mean words" about the Bush family are still triggering Surtur something fierce it seems. Snowflake wants her fired or at least put on leave. What a hypocrite.

Originally posted by Robtard
That Fresno professor's "mean words" about the Bush family are still triggering Surtur something fierce it seems. Snowflake wants her fired or at least put on leave. What a hypocrite.

^Dipshit needs to lie. Lets hope you don't get banned for it.

Um, you're the proven liar here on KMC, sport.

I like art. So here's another copy.


Maybe someone wants to address it rather than avoid shit that makes them uncomfortable

Originally posted by Robtard
Um, you're the proven liar here on KMC, sport.

You just said I want her fired or placed on leave.

Prove it. Remember: the unwritten rule is you prove statements you make.

And there will be no "you implied it!" here.

Show me saying she needs to be fired or put on leave. Or you just lied. And you know the penalty for lying...

Originally posted by Surtur
You just said I want her fired or placed on leave.

Prove it. Remember: the unwritten rule is you prove statements you make.

You never prove yours and claim you can't be bothered to search for quotes. So it's very poor form for you to insist others do what you yourself refuse to do.

Then again, you're the forum's most prolific hypocrite so this behavior is both expected from you and laughed at.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I like art. So here's another copy.


Maybe someone wants to address it rather than avoid shit that makes them uncomfortable

Surt will dodge this again.

Originally posted by Robtard
You never prove yours and claim you can't be bothered to search for quotes. So it's very poor form for you to insist others do what you yourself refuse to do.

Then again, you're the forums most prolific hypocrite so this behavior is both expected from you and laughed at.

You just said I want her fired or put on leave.

Either prove it or you just lied.

And I am insisting on it only because the mods do, remember?

Originally posted by Robtard
Surt will dodge this again.

Don't need to, nothing he said proved Bush was a war criminal. Do better.

Originally posted by Surtur
Don't need to, nothing he said proved Bush was a war criminal. Do better. Rocky literally says 'Bush isn't a war criminal' in that post, so you're being your dishonest self again, which you're known for.

Originally posted by Robtard
Rocky literally says 'Bush isn't a war criminal' in that post, so you're being your dishonest self again, which you're known for.

Actually he said Bush isn't a literal war criminal. Which implies he is in some way a war criminal.

Yet the reason Rocky gave didn't show that lol.

Now, show me your evidence I wanted the teacher fired.

And no kid, his "greed for oil" doesn't make him a war criminal. Don't embarrass yourself repeating the dumb shit Rocky says.

Originally posted by Surtur
Actually he said Bush isn't a literal war criminal. Which implies he is in some way a war criminal.
Wow, you're retarded and can't comprehend so well.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I like art. So here's another copy.

Maybe someone wants to address it rather than avoid shit that makes them uncomfortable

I sent you a few questions. Maybe you should reply?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
........

Meaningful? In what way and in what context? Pls elaborate.

And accurate? Pls provide proof of:

1) Bush being factually a war criminal.
2) Barbara Bush was an "amazing racist".

So are you now saying that it is now ok to attack parents for the sins of their children?

Edit. Oh, and I notice you sneakily edited out "accurate". Too bad I was able to quote you on it. Does this mean that you are taking back the "accuracy" of her statements?

Originally posted by Robtard
Wow, you're retarded and can't comprehend so well.

"Bush wasn't literally a war criminal but his greed for iraqi oil led to the death of 288,000 people. "

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I sent you a few questions. Maybe you should reply?

Lol Rocky The Weasel left himself an out. He said Bush isn't a LITERAL war criminal. So he's a figurative war criminal.

Originally posted by Surtur
"Bush wasn't literally a war criminal but his greed for iraqi oil led to the death of 288,000 people. "

Rocky: "Bush is not a war criminal"

Surtur: "So you're saying Bush is a war criminal!"

Yeah, your autism is acting up hard today and it's only Tuesday. Have a rough weekend again?

Originally posted by Robtard
Rocky: "Bush is not a war criminal"

Surtur: "So you're saying Bush is a war criminal!"

Yeah, your autism is acting up hard today and it's only Tuesday. Have a rough weekend again?

Lol...he says "he wasn't LITERALLY a war criminal".

How else should one interpret that sentence as saying he is some sort of "figurative" war criminal? Or that he is just as bad as a war criminal?

One more time: where is the evidence I wanted the professor fired?

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol...he says "he wasn't LITERALLY a war criminal".


Which should tell you that Rocky isn't saying Bush is a war criminal, you dummy. Keep doing flips, it's hilarious.

Did Rocky just go: "Maybe someone wants to address it rather than avoid shit that makes them uncomfortable" while completely glossing over my question which is directly below the very comment of his that he reposted?

Originally posted by Robtard
Which should tell you that Rocky isn't saying Bush is a war criminal, you dummy. Keep doing flips, it's hilarious.

Why not just say he isn't a war criminal? Why is the word "literally" needed? Makes no sense lol.

Are you going to try to say this wasn't meant to convey the message he is like a war criminal?

Because if he's not then..the professors tweets were not accurate lol. And yet the entire basis for his comment boiled down to "yeah, she got it right".

Yeah, your autism is is full swing today. Log off, pet your cat, maybe go for a long walk.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, your autism is is full swing today. Log off, pet your cat, maybe go for a long walk.

So, you can't explain it and are just trolling. Moving on.

Evidence that I wanted the professor fired or placed on leave?

You could use some help, Surtur. You suck at this, sometimes.

Originally posted by Surtur
Actually he said Bush isn't a literal war criminal. Which implies he is in some way a war criminal.






Correct, that would be a fair and logical interpretation of his words. This is called implicity.

This is when you state something and a very simple logical implication can be understood.

The implicit understanding from his words are something like:

"He's not literally a war criminal probably because he gets around the legalities of getting convicted of it. However, the things he did should be considered warcrimes because they were terrible."



And since we know Rocky quite well, he's all about those technicalities when it comes to WMDs. So, technically, Bush did not commit war crimes. Technically. But he's a war criminal.

Kind of like this:

"Technically, we found WMDs in Iraq, Technically. But we didn't really find WMDs in Iraq."

See how implicity works? Now, don't let linguistic sophistry muddy up the water. This is simple stuff now matter how fancy they try to spin things.


Rocky thinks Bush is a war-criminal but gets away with being convicted on legal technicalities.

Sorry, broself stalin, but according to Surt's special forum rules implying something does not count. You either outright say it, or you don't.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, your autism is is full swing today. Log off, pet your cat, maybe go for a long walk. I thought Surt was on disability due to his bowels, is he autistic as well?

Correct, but I wasn't literally calling him a retard, just that he was behaving like one

Originally posted by Robtard
Correct, but I wasn't literally calling him a retard, just that he was behaving like one So Surt isn't literally a retard, he just acts like one. Agreed, I blame his Autism and bowel problem. It can't be easy!

Originally posted by Robtard
Sorry, broself stalin,

This is clever because of the implicit understanding of "comrades" and "e-bros."

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Did Rocky just go: "Maybe someone wants to address it rather than avoid shit that makes them uncomfortable" while completely glossing over my question which is directly below the very comment of his that he reposted?

I didn't see your post. My bad. I shouldn't have accused all the posters in thread.


It's meaningful in the context of how we remember history. I edited my comment to potentially meaningfulbecause I realized I don't have the info to judge the accuracy of the claim that Bush was racist.




Read again:

Technically speaking, Bush did not commit war crimes, but beyond technicality he instigated a war on lacking evidence that led to the death of thousands of people. The professor used "war criminal" to make a point, one which I find to be accurate.

I edited my post because I remembered the other accusation the teacher made:



They don't burden all of the responsibility, but they do bear some of it. It's a parent's duty to raise a child well and how a parent raises a child helps determine how the child ends up. Parents also supply children with their own genetics which again, helps determine how a child ends up.

A parent bears part of the responsibility for their child. That's the price of giving birth.

Furthermore, there's a misconception that giving birth is an act of selflessness. It is not. When you have a child, you have it for your own fulfillment. If you want the perks of parenthood, you have to face the responsibility that comes along with it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You could use some help, Surtur. You suck at this, sometimes.








Correct, that would be a fair and logical interpretation of his words. This is called implicity.

This is when you state something and a very simple logical implication can be understood.

The implicit understanding from his words are something like:

"He's not literally a war criminal probably because he gets around the legalities of getting convicted of it. However, the things he did should be considered warcrimes because they were terrible."



And since we know Rocky quite well, he's all about those technicalities when it comes to WMDs. So, technically, Bush did not commit war crimes. Technically. But he's a war criminal.

Kind of like this:

"Technically, we found WMDs in Iraq, Technically. But we didn't really find WMDs in Iraq."

See how implicity works? Now, don't let linguistic sophistry muddy up the water. This is simple stuff now matter how fancy they try to spin things.


Rocky thinks Bush is a war-criminal but gets away with being convicted on legal technicalities.

Get your logic out of here!

Sorry fam, but the literal war criminal was part of the original comment which means you implying i said he was "factually a war criminal" qualifies as strawmanning me. The only reason I edited out accurate was because of the accusation of "racism" which I don't know enough to assess. Coincidentally I haven't told you to "read again" on parts of your response which addressed things I said pre edit.




I already told you:

And while it's certainly not fair for me to criticize you for using my original comment as a basis in your original reply, now that you've been informed i revised my comment, to not acknowledge the edits I've made is also just straw-manning.


And I'm sure you can prove to me the existence of free will as you've defined it. If you can't, then I'm not going to be taking it into account. As to our knowledge, free will as you're defining it, decisions being made outside of what are genetics and upbringing have made us, doesn't exist.

If you can give me proof of people making decisions independent of genetics, upbringing, and environment, I'll happily reconsider.

But as you claim "free will" exists, the burden of proof is on you to prove it does.

Brutal, but she clearly has her reasons, and you've yet to contest those reasons.

double post. Ipad fail.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
1) Sorry fam, but the literal war criminal was part of the original comment which means you implying i said he was "factually a war criminal" qualifies as strawmanning me.

2) The only reason I edited out accurate was because of the accusation of "racism" which I don't know enough to assess. Coincidentally I haven't told you to "read again" on parts of your response which addressed things I said pre edit.

3) I already told you:

And while it's certainly not fair for me to criticize you for using my original comment as a basis in your original reply, now that you've been informed i revised my comment, to not acknowledge the edits I've made is also just straw-manning.

4) And I'm sure you can prove to me the existence of free will as you've defined it. If you can't, then I'm not going to be taking it into account. As to our knowledge, free will as you're defining it, decisions being made outside of what are genetics and upbringing have made us, doesn't exist.

If you can give me proof of people making decisions independent of genetics, upbringing, and environment, I'll happily reconsider.

But as you claim "free will" exists, the burden of proof is on you to prove it does.

Brutal, but she clearly has her reasons, and you've yet to contest those reasons.

1) Seriously, man. All due respect, don't be stupid. You mentioned the historical relevance of her comment due to its accuracy (pre-edit). Ergo, her comment of "war crime" being accurate. And she only made 2 provable claims in her statement (one being racism and the other, war crimes). Doesn't matter if you contradicted yourself later via "well not literally". I mean what does that even mean!? A statement can't both be "accurate" and "not literal" (unless of course the statement has "not literally" on it as well) at the same time.

Here. Let me break it down. Where x = bush, y = racist and z = she raised bush jr who is a war criminal, her statement was: x = y+z. NOT x = y+ not literally z. And you claimed her statement is accurate (pre-edit). Ergo you claimed it accurate at: x = y + z.

Thus your statement of accuracy was wrong. And simply ran contradictory to your "not literally" statement.

Read your OWN comments brah, your logic is all over the place.

2) So you claimed the historical "accuracy" (pre-edit) of something even though you didn't check the validity of one claim and while knowing that the other is actually inaccurate?

I see.

3) Sorry, but you need to learn how logic works. You cannot claim an unproven statement and an inaccurate statement (while trying to excuse it as "not literal" then claim "accuracy" (or "meaningful" for that matter).

And no, I do not need to acknowledge your edits at this point of my replies because our current point of contention is your comment of "pls reread". Whereas my reply where that contention arose was founded on your statements pre-edit. Again. Think.

I will, however, address your post-edit statements starting here:

4) I noticed you seemed to have glossed over me asking you to explaining your "meaningful"-ness argument. Underlined for emphasis as I can't find anything in your argument that addresses it.

5) So, now you INSIST that a parent should be blamed for the sins of her children (via determinism) while shifting the burden of proof onto me even tho 1) you were the one originally pushing the validity (or "meaningful"-ness, so you say) of her argument (Pft. Asking me to disprove philosophical theory, nice try. Not really.), 2) Our society judges the individual via our laws, not their parents. Ergo I don't have to prove anything, as it (free will and individual responsibility, with some caveats of course) already objectively exists as a standard in our society for assigning responsibility. It doesn't matter what you want to think. 3) Even if we USE your determinism argument, it still ISNT HER FAULT. Because no free will = no fault. As how can she be responsible for anything she has no control over?

Again your logic = contradictory to each other.

6) Wait, am I supposed to contest her "reasons" for publicly attacking a dead old lady/wife/mother while laughing at the grief of her son and wishing death on her grieving family? Really?

Are are you taking crazy pills or something?

Sure, she has her reasons: she is a hateful little troll. And no, I don't have to "contest" whatever else "reasons" you think she has. As 1) You can't even claim "meaning" as her statements are objectively unproven or flat out wrong or simply subjective. She needs to prove her statement is valid FIRST before we can even go to whether her reasons are even justifiable, and 2) I can simply judge her via her actions. Which are deplorable.

She's about the same level of vile as the Westboro baptist church lunatics picketing dead soldiers as their families grieve during their funerals, calling them murderers, because, well, if you think about it, it IS accurate to call a soldier who fought in a war a "murderer" (well, not literally. See what i did there?). <-- I'm sure they have their "reasons", too. And we need to make sure we are historically "truth"-full, amirite?

The only difference between them and her is that she's most likely too tech savvy, fat and lazy to do that so instead she uses twitter.

DDM is right, you are a partisan piece.

Huh. Westborocky leftist church. Must be a new one.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
1) Seriously, man. All due respect, don't be stupid. You mentioned the historical relevance of her comment due to its accuracy (pre-edit). Ergo, her comment of "war crime" being accurate. And she only made 2 provable claims in her statement (one being racism and the other, war crimes). Doesn't matter if you contradicted yourself later via "well not literally". I mean what does that even mean!? A statement can't both be "accurate" and "not literal" (unless of course the statement has "not literally" on it as well) at the same time.

Here. Let me break it down. Where x = bush, y = racist and z = she raised bush jr who is a war criminal, her statement was: x = y+z. NOT x = y+ not literally z. And you claimed her statement is accurate (pre-edit). Ergo you claimed it accurate at: x = y + z.

Thus your statement of accuracy was wrong. And simply ran contradictory to your "not literally" statement.

Read your OWN comments brah, your logic is all over the place.

2) So you claimed the historical "accuracy" (pre-edit) of something even though you didn't check the validity of one claim and while knowing that the other is actually inaccurate?

I see.

3) Sorry, but you need to learn how logic works. You cannot claim an unproven statement and an inaccurate statement (while trying to excuse it as "not literal" then claim "accuracy" (or "meaningful" for that matter).

And no, I do not need to acknowledge your edits at this point of my replies because our current point of contention is your comment of "pls reread". Whereas my reply where that contention arose was founded on your statements pre-edit. Again. Think.

I will, however, address your post-edit statements starting here:

4) I noticed you seemed to have glossed over me asking you to explaining your "meaningful"-ness argument. Underlined for emphasis as I can't find anything in your argument that addresses it.

5) So, now you INSIST that a parent should be blamed for the sins of her children (via determinism) while shifting the burden of proof onto me even tho 1) you were the one originally pushing the validity (or "meaningful"-ness, so you say) of her argument (Pft. Asking me to disprove philosophical theory, nice try. Not really.), 2) Our society judges the individual via our laws, not their parents. Ergo I don't have to prove anything, as it (free will and individual responsibility, with some caveats of course) already objectively exists as a standard in our society for assigning responsibility. It doesn't matter what you want to think. 3) Even if we USE your determinism argument, it still ISNT HER FAULT. Because no free will = no fault. As how can she be responsible for anything she has no control over?

Again your logic = contradictory to each other.

6) Wait, am I supposed to contest her "reasons" for publicly attacking a dead old lady/wife/mother while laughing at the grief of her son and wishing death on her grieving family? Really?

Are are you taking crazy pills or something?

Sure, she has her reasons: she is a hateful little troll. And no, I don't have to "contest" whatever else "reasons" you think she has. As 1) You can't even claim "meaning" as her statements are objectively unproven or flat out wrong or simply subjective. She needs to prove her statement is valid FIRST before we can even go to whether her reasons are even justifiable, and 2) I can simply judge her via her actions. Which are deplorable.

She's about the same level of vile as the Westboro baptist church lunatics picketing dead soldiers as their families grieve during their funerals, calling them murderers, because, well, if you think about it, it IS accurate to call a soldier who fought in a war a "murderer" (well, not literally. See what i did there?). <-- I'm sure they have their "reasons", too. And we need to make sure we are historically "truth"-full, amirite?

The only difference between them and her is that she's most likely too tech savvy, fat and lazy to do that so instead she uses twitter.

DDM is right, you are a partisan piece.

Huh. Westborocky leftist church. Must be a new one.

LOL remember: Bush isn't a war criminal, but calling him a war criminal is totally accurate. Logic!

I find the whole war criminal thing a bit ridiculous half of the time. It sometimes seems like being charged for losing a war.

Ad hominem. Stick to my arguments please. I'm not in the mood for your tantrums.


I'm not sure if you're missing this or just intentionally trying to avoid the point. Let me make this simpler for you.

Calling Bush a war criminal is an example of
https://literarydevices.net/figurative-language/

This use of language can . Bush may not, technically be a war criminal. But instigating a conflict that kills thousands of people is worthy of being considered a war crime. It dangerous to use literal definitions as strictly as you are because these technicalities are used by powerful people to prevent themselves from being held accountable. Has the UN went along with Obama killing people with drones? Yes. Does that mean someone who calls Obama a war criminal after his death is a idiot? The reason why Bush isn't technically is a war criminal is because he's protected by the office of the United States of America. That doens't remotely render this woman's point inaccurate.

And if you aren't willing to address this point, then you're in no position to take a stand on this woman's tweet.


I'm sorry. Are you calling my statements regarding the role of parental influence on the development of their children, philosophy? I hate to break it to you, but that's scientific fact:
https://my.vanderbilt.edu/developmentalpsychologyblog/2014/04/recognizing-the-importance-of-parental-influence-in-social-and-behavioral-development/

"Free will"? Unsubstantiated, unsupported belief. The issue is you're trying to define free will as something independent of the scientifically proven factors that determine who we are. Our choices are based on who we are, and who are are is largely based on how our parents raise us. Asserting that parents have nothing to do with how their children turn up is nonsense. If you aren't willing to take responsibility for your children, don't have them.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
1) Ad hominem. Stick to my arguments please. I'm not in the mood for your tantrums.

2) I'm not sure if you're missing this or just intentionally trying to avoid the point. Let me make this simpler for you.

Calling Bush a war criminal is an example of
https://literarydevices.net/figurative-language/

3) This use of language can . Bush may not, technically be a war criminal. But instigating a conflict that kills thousands of people is worthy of being considered a war crime. It dangerous to use literal definitions as strictly as you are because these technicalities are used by powerful people to prevent themselves from being held accountable. Has the UN went along with Obama killing people with drones? Yes. Does that mean someone who calls Obama a war criminal after his death is a idiot? The reason why Bush isn't technically is a war criminal is because he's protected by the office of the United States of America. That doens't remotely render this woman's point inaccurate.

And if you aren't willing to address this point, then you're in no position to take a stand on this woman's tweet.

4) I'm sorry. Are you calling my statements regarding the role of parental influence on the development of their children, philosophy? I hate to break it to you, but that's scientific fact:
https://my.vanderbilt.edu/developmentalpsychologyblog/2014/04/recognizing-the-importance-of-parental-influence-in-social-and-behavioral-development/

5) "Free will"? Unsubstantiated, unsupported belief. The issue is you're trying to define free will as something independent of the scientifically proven factors that determine who we are. Our choices are based on who we are, and who are are is largely based on how our parents raise us. Asserting that parents have nothing to do with how their children turn up is nonsense. If you aren't willing to take responsibility for your children, don't have them.

1) It's the truth. You're just a pretty horrible person supporting the actions of an even more horrible person (westboro-level horrible). You can go ahead and call it a "tantrum" if you want, but I'm just calling it what it is.

2) Let me get this straight, you "justify" her words due to its "historical truth" even tho it is simply a figure of speech (citation needed where you found out that she meant it in a figurative way)? Lol.

Ladies and gentlemen. Rocky says Bush JR is figuratively a war criminal, thus an attack on his dead mother and their grieving family is justifiable for "historical truth (but not literally)". Historical truth based on figurative crimes! Yay! Logic!

You know that when a crime is used as historical fact, it needs to be based on literal truth, correct?

3) So, most every single US president is a "war criminal" now? Every soldier who kills for his country a "murderer"? Every single parent who sends their kids to their room are "like the worst parents ever". And that should be somehow historically relevant?

And we should now "respect" (in your own words) the actions of people who use exaggerated subjective opinion (because that's what it is, an opinion) to justify these horrible actions due to.... um... some sort of "truth"?

Are you just so desperate to justify the actions of a hateful troll that you simply go on to probably do the longest logic reach in the history of these forums?

4) Nice attempt at moving the goal posts. We are not talking about parental influence. We are talking about parental ACCOUNTABILITY.

You know like when you say, that it is ok to attack an old lady because her kids are assholes due to the fact that they are basically partly responsible for everything their kids do even tho their kids are like 50 or something?

Nice try, tho. Not really.

5) You do not have to believe in the concept of free will. But you do have to live with it. Because personal responsibility is the standard for which our society judges accountability, via our laws. Regardless of what you want to happen.

Again, moving the goal posts. Never said the parents have nothing to do with it (because basically everything we interact with in this world can influence us in some way or another duh), they are, however, based on society via the law, not accountable for the independent actions of their fully grown adult children. How are you not getting this?

So, go ahead and be a snowflake. But I'd love to see you blame your mommy the next time you get a speeding/parking ticket. Let her pay part of the fine. See what the judge thinks.

So breaking down your logic:

Mrs Bush is sufficiently guilty for her (and her entire grieving family) to be viciously attacked during her funeral due to her son's figurative crimes because y'know parents somehow need to be held accountable for all their fully adult kid's figurative crimes because this lends some sort of figurative "historical truth".

This is your logic, take it in.