XPost: rec.sport.tennis, soc.culture.china, soc.culture.usa
XPost: soc.culture.iraq, soc.culture.latin-america, soc.culture.african
XPost: soc.culture.iranian
From: acoustic@panix.com
In article <87lh9owhjc.fsf@wintersun.localdomain>,
jdeluise wrote:
>bmoore@nyx.net writes:
>>
>> I have no "neocon masters" nor do I defend GW Bush. That's just what
>> you accuse people of all the time. Whether people agree with your
>> positions or not, there's no denying that your style and (lack of)
>> substance are a problem with your posts, along with an unbelievable
>> bias in one direction. Whatever message you are trying to convey is
>> being lost due to your arrogance and illogic.
>>
>
>Not to mention he can't respond to a single question posed to him
>without posting one or even many unabridged articles in response.
>Appeal to authority is a weak argument indeed.
That's simply not true. Just look at the follow-up I posted to
bmoore's post, and you will be embarrassed to see how it contradicts
your statement.
I wrote in part:
Remember your bully tactics to silence messengers of message that is
not in sync with the mainstream:
On 24 March 2013, around the time of the ten (10) year anniversary
of George Bush' coldly calculated invasion of Iraq that caused
enormous destruction to the country and enduring suffering to its
people, there was a series of posts on the subject addressing
exactly the same issue that Dennis Kucinich has again brought out
this week. In this series, bmoore wrote:
">Given your defense of not only Saddam, but Kadaffy and the
>North Korean monsters, you deserve to have the shit beaten out
>of you."
And when I asked the question:
Why did so many Iraqis have to die because Saddam was "such a
monster". Indeed, "monster" to whom? Re: If Saddam was "such a
monster" and had caused so much "carnage" when Tony Blair decided
to go to war with G W Bush, then why did they have to resort to
the monster WMD lie?
Instead of providing an answer, notice bmoore's attempt to incite
physical violence on an indivudal:
"... you deserve to have the shit beaten out of you."
You can see in more details below how I wrote my response. I do quote
sometimes - whenever I believe supportive evidence is called for.
That's called scholarship. Also it is for persuasion - not
necessarily for bmoore, but for the general readership. But I never
reply merely because I want to argue with bmoore; I use my reply to
bring in more information so that some of my readership can benefit
from reading my post.
As for your pal bmoore, he incited violence against me for asking how
anyone can use "Saddam was a monster" as an excuse to kill hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi people, especially when Iraq wasn't attacking any
other country. There can be no weaker argument than one that incites
violence against a poster, don't you agree?
lo yeeOn
Subject: Re: "The Conflict" in the Middle East arises from the rubble
and ruin we left in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and elsewhere Re: The
Conflict in the Middle East
In article ,
wrote:
>On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 11:46:20 PM UTC-8, lo yeeOn wrote:
>> In article <00aff502-b3d1-4586-85ac-ded930799391@googlegroups.com>,
>> wrote:
>> >On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 11:43:37 PM UTC-8, jdeluise wrote:
>> >> bmoore@nyx.net writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 2:39:10 PM UTC-8, lo yeeOn wrote:
>> >> >> If some ISIS fighters harbor grandiose illusions about their future,
>> >> >> try to put yourself in their shoes and see if you can feel their
>> >> >> pain.
>> >> >
>> >> > Good one. You've succeeded in being arrogant, idiotic and offensive,
>> >> > all in one fell swoop.
>> >>
>> >> Notice deafening silence on his golden boy Putin bombing ISIS targets.
>> >>
>> >> I suspect soon we'll hear about all these "gentle souls" driven to bomb
>> >> and shoot innocents like he did with the Boston Marathon bombers.
>> >
>> >He's a *genius*. He understands everyone's motives and hidden agenda,
>> >even better than they do.
>>
>> Unfortunately for you, bmoore, who is lying in wait to shoot the
>> messenger whose messages on these newsgroups do not agree with what
>> your neocon masters want the people to hear, you haven't show a shred
>> of evidence of what you've been gossiping about. Show what you're
>> talking about by providing concrete evidence or citations to the
>> points you have specifically made, please.
>
>I have no "neocon masters" nor do I defend GW Bush. That's just what you
>accuse people of all the time. Whether people agree with your positions
>or not, there's no denying that your style and (lack of) substance are a
>problem with your posts, along with an unbelievable bias in one
>direction. Whatever message you are trying to convey is being lost due
>to your arrogance and illogic.
You don't need to pretend. Look at what you wrote...
"Saddam was a monster, no question"
">Given your defense of not only Saddam, but Kadaffy and the North
>Korean monsters, you deserve to have the shit beaten out of you."
They are nothing but Bushisms!
Your modus operandi has always been so apparent and your villains seem
to have always coincided with the neocons' monsters du jour.... (You
know G W Bush's by-now-infamous antics of "fixing the intelligence to
serve his neocon masters' policy"? You know that the neocons were
keeping quiet about Qaddafi and Assad until they were ready to take
them on?) Yet you only characterized your "opposition to the Iraq
war" as something that is not "worth it", as if there was any virtue
about dropping tons of bombs on Iraq and bringing it back to the stone
age (entirely aside from killing 4500 American soldiers and maiming tens
of thousands more, for life).
Paul O'Neill, G W Bush's own treasury secretary for his first term and
Richard Clarke, the White House anti-terrorism czar since Bill
Clinton's time both revealed that the Bush team was actively working
on the invasion of Iraq from the first days while ignoring the defense
of this country, despite repeated warnings from the intelli community.
The Bush White House's preoccupation with attacking a distant country
while neglecting the safeguarding of the country he was entrusted to
defend was a high crime. It cannot be simply dismissed as a venture
that wasn't worth taking. It was deliberate deception. People who
use the term "not worth it" to describe the Bush crime are
whitewashing his crime.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
