User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 36

  1. #21
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,037

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Simply because an attack is on a legitimate enemy doesn't relieve suspicion that the attack was politically motivated given the timing and the lack of success of the mission.
    If it's a legitimate enemy, then why does any of that even matter? Doesn't this mean we have other motivations for those military actions? Also, how does the failure "prove" it was politically motivated? Since when does failure indicate having no motivation to do something? If I tryout for the NBA, and I fail, does that mean I didn't really want to join the NBA?

    Hint: Use the lack of the success of the mission as a talking point, not the "political motivation" angle. One has actual meat behind it, the other is a ridiculous double standard.

    And don't bring up "but Democrats use double standards all the time." This is a conversation between individuals, not collectivist hive minds, so we can only use statements we know the others have made.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  2. #22
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    If it's a legitimate enemy, then why does any of that even matter? Doesn't this mean we have other motivations for those military actions? Also, how does the failure "prove" it was politically motivated? Since when does failure indicate having no motivation to do something? If I tryout for the NBA, and I fail, does that mean I didn't really want to join the NBA?
    The lack of success indicates that this was a failure of strategy. When you combine the fact that the military did not take the most strategic action possible with the timing of doing it 3 days after Clinton's grand jury testimony. This wasn't like the bin laden raid in pakistan where they had been doing training on the operation for months. They had been following intelligence on the issue for a while and took a sledgehammer to a problem that required a scalpel. It was also poor strategy given the reality that such a robust attack would lead to both immediate (aug. 25th south Africa attacks) and long term (9/11) blowback.

    Anyway, I never said this "proved" anything. I said it was suspicious. Political motivations are ways complicated and can rarely be proven. But, saying it definately wasn't politically motivated because it was a legit enemy makes no sense at all. This is America we could bomb hundreds of places at any time and offer a similar justification.

    Hint: Use the lack of the success of the mission as a talking point, not the "political motivation" angle. One has actual meat behind it, the other is a ridiculous double standard.
    Lol. Are you trying to teach me a lesson?

    And don't bring up "but Democrats use double standards all the time." This is a conversation between individuals, not collectivist hive minds, so we can only use statements we know the others have made.
    Hint: Take your own advice and stop making annoying preemptive arguments and deal with what I actually argue.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  3. #23
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    No, but the commies who voted him in are.

  4. #24
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,037

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    The lack of success indicates that this was a failure of strategy. When you combine the fact that the military did not take the most strategic action possible with the timing of doing it 3 days after Clinton's grand jury testimony. This wasn't like the bin laden raid in pakistan where they had been doing training on the operation for months. They had been following intelligence on the issue for a while and took a sledgehammer to a problem that required a scalpel. It was also poor strategy given the reality that such a robust attack would lead to both immediate (aug. 25th south Africa attacks) and long term (9/11) blowback.

    Anyway, I never said this "proved" anything. I said it was suspicious. Political motivations are ways complicated and can rarely be proven. But, saying it definately wasn't politically motivated because it was a legit enemy makes no sense at all. This is America we could bomb hundreds of places at any time and offer a similar justification.
    I just don't see how failure of strategy even implies a political motivation. It appears to be quite a leap to associate those two things, just as people are making quite a leap when they assert Bush "allowed" 9/11 to happen. Mistakes do not equal conspiracy. If it was intended to be a distraction, I don't see how failure accomplishes that better than a success. Failure is also politically more risky.

    But, I'll admit that you are being rather vague as to what exactly you think was going on here. Are you arguing that they intended for it to be unsuccessful, or that it was unsuccessful because they didn't care?
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  5. #25
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    I just don't see how failure of strategy even implies a political motivation. It appears to be quite a leap to associate those two things, just as people are making quite a leap when they assert Bush "allowed" 9/11 to happen. Mistakes do not equal conspiracy. If it was intended to be a distraction, I don't see how failure accomplishes that better than a success. Failure is also politically more risky.

    But, I'll admit that you are being rather vague as to what exactly you think was going on here. Are you arguing that they intended for it to be unsuccessful, or that it was unsuccessful because they didn't care?
    No, my point is that the lack of success goes to show it was a result of poor strategy, which was likely a result of a hasty decision and political motivations would only be possible if this was a hasty decision.

    There is zero similarity between this and ridiculously complex 9/11 conspiracies. I don't know why you keep bringing it up. All conspiracies are not created equal.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  6. #26
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,037

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    No, my point is that the lack of success goes to show it was a result of poor strategy, which was likely a result of a hasty decision and political motivations would only be possible if this was a hasty decision.
    That's a fair enough point of view to hold, although I disagree.

    There is zero similarity between this and ridiculously complex 9/11 conspiracies. I don't know why you keep bringing it up. All conspiracies are not created equal.
    This is clear to me now, and I agree.

    Some people find believe that people in power can't possibly be so human as to fuck up, so anything bad that happens must be part of some plan on their part. One interpretation of your reply read like that to me, so that's where I get the 9/1 thing from. I'm glad to find that I'm mistaken about that.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  7. #27
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpankyMcFly View Post
    Is it right? No. Is it "treasonous" No. I think treason is when you not only do something against your country but it also aids another country. If doing something in your self interest without regards to ethics/morals/values became the definition of treason, dare I say, most politicians, would be guilty of this. This seems pretty obvious to me.
    For a private citizen, I would agree, but government officials should be held to a higher standard.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  8. #28
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    Tea partiers are insane, hateful, anti-democratic right-wing extremists (even by Western political standards), and I'm glad Obama tried to watch them. He's only doing his normal job: protecting the vast majority of citizen of his country.
    Exactly like, in Morocco, I think it's the duty of the government to keep an eye on what Salafis are doing and planning.

    The price of freedom is eternel vigilance.
    I don't know what Tea Partiers have to do with this. This thread is not about the IRS (non) scandal and I couldn't care less about Benghazi. This is about Obama's use of the 1917 Espionage Act to silence whistleblowers. It's also about the DOJ's seizure of Associated Press email messages. I think Obama's administration is trying to make sure there are no more events like what happened with Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, so they're willing to trash the Constitution to accomplish it.

    The media should be championing Assange because he's on the front line in this war on the first amendment waged by the Obama administration.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  9. #29

    Default

    The polarisation in US opinion is pretty major, at this juncture, infact since the eighties I would say, most of the right wing would consider anything dissenting from their opinions as treasonous.

    The criticism of taxation and public spending in the US is like nowhere else in its sophistication but equally its incredibly irrational, while it relies on complex texts which are respected in academia like Mise, Hayek etc. its all basic the thinking of "Whiskey Rebels", ie the first people to attack the newly constituted national authority after the colonial authorities had been deposed and who basically wanted no authorities, none they'd had to pay for or owe any obligation to, and considered those in existence unlawful.

    With that sort of extremism its hard to find any sort of common ground, or not even common ground, some way of practically working. Now instead of seeing that as a problem even the rhetoric and propaganda of the right wing for some time has commended that and ramped "monkey wrenching" and "revolutionary" activism instead.

    Its a mirror of the left wing at a particular time and stage in history, when they positively believed they had a complete alternative system of political and economic structures, although the right wing mainstream is more like the most out of touch elements the left ever had, like Pol Pot saying the only thing wrong with the horror he unleashed in Cambodia was that it never "went far enough".

    I really and truly wish that the right wing would get past this in the same way that the left wing would re-evaluate how it feels about the rule of minorities and "under doggery", at that point some kind of meaningful and rational politics could begin but until then the right will fight dirty and accuse everyone of treason and the left might attempt to copy it because its more of an imitator than an innovator, ironically, and we'll all wait.

  10. #30
    Senior Member GinKuusouka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    2w3 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Honestly, if he's stopping whistle blowers, then I would say that it would be an act of treason. I say this because journalists are supposed to be conveying the news to use so we can make up our own minds about what to believe. However, I do know that newspapers, journalists, and others have their own agendas. There is bias. However, as a friend has told me before, if you look at the different sides and look at the middle, you're more likely to find the truth. However, if journalists aren't allowed to relate to us from their own perspective, how can we hope to glean the truth? If everything is one-sided then how do people find that middle ground? What about the freedom of speech, of the press? The taking away of constitutional rights, to me, seems very much like treason.
    I have no idea who I am. All I can say is let's rock hard.

Similar Threads

  1. Bradley Manning found guilty of espionage, but not of treason
    By Lateralus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 09-04-2013, 09:17 PM
  2. Is Obama jealous of Michael Jackson? ROTFL!
    By Sniffles in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-01-2009, 02:20 AM
  3. What is the purpose of Science Fiction?
    By The Ü™ in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 06:53 PM
  4. What is this indicative of?
    By Ezra in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-05-2008, 11:11 AM
  5. What is the point of the MBTI?
    By Dufresne in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 04:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO