Bob, you seriously need to shut the fuck up.

Rick Reuben wrote:

NerblyBear wrote:Bob, you seriously need to shut the fuck up.

Good job following through on your big 9/11 coming out party, Nerbly- has Chomsky turned you back into an official story supporter again, with his brilliant 'paper trail' argument?

No, you're just annoying the hell out of me with your argumentative bullshit, you whiny bitch.

Shut the fuck up.

Rick Reuben wrote:
You're a puss. You're not ready to stand behind 9/11 truth. Go edit the title of this thread, change it to something like "I Know That The Official History Of 9/11 Is A Lie". Get my username out of the title, you twitchy little spazz.

Clocker Bob, I will create three new threads with your name in the title if you don't shut the fuck up.

Stop posting, Clocker Bob.

I changed the title of the thread, Clocker Bob, you thundering backside.

Different perpectives result from the various experiences each person undergoes in life. These experiences shape the emotional tendencies of the individual who goes through them. The more intense the experiences, the more intense the emotions. If the individual is fortunate enough to have a stable fix on their initial emotional imprintings and able to translate their strong feelings through to speech and actions, then they experience a positive and righteous feedback loop that doesn't leave much room for self-doubt.

Now, each individual, with its particular life perspective, with its particular resultant emotional tendency, at some point finds itself in conflict with some other individual whose particular emotional tendencies (resulting from their particular life experiences) happen to be pointing them in a completely opposite direction. These conflicting individuals' arguments have an emotional basis that unfortunately too often undercuts the need to convince those not so dependent on the outcome of the argument (those who aren't as emotionally involved in the argument perhaps would like to see more factual evidence instead of an appeal to emotional rightousness).

This thread could be entertaining if the insults were a bit cleverer but (for myself of course) they seem to be devolving into a wallowy mire of mutually self-righteous inconclusiveness.

Why not spend some time avoiding the emotions and insults and instead concentrate on trying to make your points solely on a factual basis. Unless the arguers are so in love with their conflict they could care less how it appears to an outside observer. For another page or more, why not try to prove your arguments on a factual basis instead of bellowing at each other like maimed warthogs. And keep in mind that you are not actually conversing with each other. You are pecking on little buttons with letters on them with your fucking fingers.

Salut Frelnamp! Meta-post.

galanter wrote:If the question is "Did George Bush make the right decision regarding Iraq" I would have to consider his intentions.

If the question is "Was invading Iraq the right thing to do?" then I would have to consider whether there was any way such an action could be justified by anyone.

Bush haters want to focus on the first, and I understand that.

No, people concerned about the situation who want to look at the actions of its principle players focus on the first. That doesn't mean they all have a knee jerk everything-Bush-does-is evil standpoint which is what I think you are implying with that.

galanter wrote:I'm talking about the second question, and I wish that was better understood.

The second question is inseparable from the first. If you re worded it to 'could an invasion of Iraq ever have been justified by anyone?' then yuo might be getting somewhere. But the question is 'was invading Iraq the right thing to do?' You are taking about the invasion of Iraq that did take place - not one that might have.

Pre-war people would use the 'but getting rid of Saddam is a good thing' argument and I would agree. But then I would point out who was leading the battle cry on his removal (by which I mean America - not Bush alone) and so all I could see was bad things happening.

Therefore it was not a good idea to support the Americans war. Certainly given that we were the fucking British supporting the Americans. You could not pick two worse countries to undertake an invasion of that country except, maybe, Israel and Iran.

galanter wrote:In terms of an ethical analysis, or simply learning a lesson that goes beyond the critique of a single (admittedly powerful) man, the second is more important.

Yes, if what you mean is as a discussion of moral dilemmas the second is more interesting, I agree.
In a discussion about what actually happened and is happening though the second is inseparable from the first.
I thought we were talking about what actually happened and is happening. You really are dancing around this.

If you are saying this then we agree:

There may have been circumstances in which someone could have violently removed Saddam from his position of power in Iraq which would not have led to the total break down of an entire country and the deaths and displacement of millions.

I could accept that statement. But your statement sounds to me like:

There may have been circumstances in which someone could have violently removed Saddam from his position of power in Iraq which would not have led to the total break down of an entire country and the deaths and displacement of millions. Therefore our invasion was still the right thing to do.

It doesn't work because we weren't in those hypothetical circumstances and we weren't those right countries/people.

galanter wrote:If the Iraqi people had to have a brutal civil war before they could pass into a brighter future, better to get it over with sooner than later.

This justification is just disturbed Galanter.

Is this not similar to saying 'well, everyone's gonna die someday do what difference does it make if we do the killing?'

And it should be pointed out that the last i heard there is still more violence aimed at the occupiers than they aim at each other - though you wouldn't believe it from the mainstream press.

And Bear, what's the score? Have you really changed your opinion cause Rick is annoying you or did you just read some other book or something? Or have you not changed your opinion?

There's a space next to me on the generally undecided fence if you want to come and sit on it.

frelnamp wrote:You are pecking on little buttons with letters on them with your fucking fingers.

Sig-worthy. Double-Salut! from me.

Also, Galanter - you would be a very cool person to sit down with and have a beer and talk about this stuff. You write much like I imagine you chatting it up in real life. You have a nuance and patience that has been sorely missed from these discussions. Glad to see you're back!

Changing the world from the Electrical Audio messageboard.

Sound like anyone we know?

fit this criminal profile in which someone sees himself as a victim of the injustice of others. Others are always responsible for any misfortune the person encounters.

"It is always someone else's fault, and the world is out to get them,"

PS Please don't shoot us.
pps Seriously, please don't shoot us.