Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   US war crime as free speech issue (help holmes sort this out)
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 76 of 80 (254933)
10-26-2005 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by tsig
10-26-2005 5:45 PM


Re: disagreement vs non-comprehension
I don't play the "agree to disagree" game. If you really believed that you shouldn't have started posting to me.
What's worse, being a moron or arguing with one.
I don't confuse quality of people with the quality of one of their statements.
This "no particular entity" is killing a lot of people. We better find it fast.
For the reading impaired, what I was saying is that there is no SINGULAR entity. We are fighting all sorts of groups with no common theme.
We seem to be in a war of insurgency.
Yes that is correct. But realize that is a second war. We did not go to Iraq to overthrow and insurgency. It was to overthrow a gov't. Now we are fighting a new war against multiple forces which are wholly different than the gov't we overthrew.
Save me a seat on the last helicopter leaving the embassy.
Is that supposed to mean something?
Nice that you haven't mentioned anything about the legal obligation thing.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by tsig, posted 10-26-2005 5:45 PM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by tsig, posted 10-26-2005 7:36 PM Silent H has replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 77 of 80 (254938)
10-26-2005 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Silent H
10-26-2005 6:46 PM


Re: disagreement vs non-comprehension
I don't play the "agree to disagree" game. If you really believed that you shouldn't have started posting to me.
We play by "Percy" rules here, not "Holmes" rules. Insisting that I must agree with you is really fanatical.
Nice that you haven't mentioned anything about the legal obligation thing.
What's the point? You claimed th U. S. had some sort of legal ogligation to provide security, well by your own source we are failing because as the Occupying Powers we can't even get electricity to most of the residents.
Now, show me the treaty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Silent H, posted 10-26-2005 6:46 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Silent H, posted 10-27-2005 7:03 AM tsig has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 78 of 80 (255026)
10-27-2005 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by tsig
10-26-2005 7:36 PM


Re: disagreement vs non-comprehension
Insisting that I must agree with you is really fanatical.
That's not what I meant. Let me clarify.
Another poster has been pretty big on playing the "agree to disagree" game. How that goes is that the poster acts as if they have a credible position and challenges my post and then when things go badly for them, they claim "agree to disagree".
That is nothing more can be said because we simply have differing view points and nothing will change them, as if all we are discussing is mere opinion.
I have already refuted that tactic. We can agree to disagree on mere opinion, that is true. But first we must agree on the facts and logic, and that they can lead to either conclusion.
Personally I find it a very cheap dodge and rather inconsistent given that you started posting in reply to me. If you believed you had the right position, then you could not have believed both were mere opinion.
What's the point? You claimed th U. S. had some sort of legal ogligation to provide security
I didn't just claim, I have now supported that claim.
well by your own source we are failing because as the Occupying Powers we can't even get electricity to most of the residents.
I agree that we certainly aren't doing the full job we should be doing. It would realistically take more manpower. That is why calls for removing troops is backward and harmful.
Now, show me the treaty.
This is getting laughable. I have already indicated one you could go to, as well as providing a link to discussions about that treaty with regard to part of the issue at hand.
But I am not about to scrounge through documents and UN resolutions to find exact language. I know they are there because I have seen them before. I know they are there because you can find legal scholars and humanitarian orgs and even the administration admitting that we have that obligation.
What exactly is your doubt based on at this point? That the source I linked to was lying? Why? If I post more then they are liars too?
I don't get it. Why I don't post actual texts of those obligations is that it is time consuming to find them. Don't you get that?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by tsig, posted 10-26-2005 7:36 PM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by tsig, posted 10-27-2005 6:35 PM Silent H has replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 79 of 80 (255197)
10-27-2005 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Silent H
10-27-2005 7:03 AM


Goodbye
Personally I find it a very cheap dodge and rather inconsistent given that you started posting in reply to me. If you believed you had the right position, then you could not have believed both were mere opinion.
I don't believe both are mere opinion. I think I'm right and you are wrong.
Holmes,cheap dodge or not I can recognize an impasse when I see one,I will reply no more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Silent H, posted 10-27-2005 7:03 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Silent H, posted 10-28-2005 3:45 AM tsig has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 80 of 80 (255265)
10-28-2005 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by tsig
10-27-2005 6:35 PM


Re: Goodbye
I can recognize an impasse when I see one
There may be an impasse of opinion, but not of logic and evidence. That may happen, but not here as you yourself seem to agree.
Thus there is something to discuss. If you believe logic and facts are on your side then provide them. I have supported my position and you have done nothing but make assertions or use emotional appeals.
You can reply no more and that's fine. In fact that may be better for your position.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by tsig, posted 10-27-2005 6:35 PM tsig has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024