 |
| |
|
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
The situation in Afghanistan was far from anarchy. The Taliban were autocrats, not anarchists. |
I wasn't refering to the Taliban themselves, Berzerker, but the situation that existed prior to thier rise to power which most certainly was an anarchic situation. That is the reason they were initially welcomed with open arms.
quote:
And it was not their autocratic ideology that led to this situation, it was the terrorist attack carried out primarily by Saudis who may or may not have been living in Afghanistan at some point in the past. |
It was thier militant ideology that allowed a trans-national terrorist organization to have a base from which to plan attacks on the continental US.
quote:
Obviously some members of the Taliban are complicit in what happened since they harbored one of bin Laden's bases of operations, but the extent of that complicity is still unknown to most of us. |
IMO, The Taliban organization has also been co-opted by Al Qaeda to such an extent prior to 9-11 that I fail to see any meaningful distinction between the two within Afghanistan. If you wish I can give you the reasons for my opinion.
quote:
I know we currently have a volunteer force, but they took an oath to uphold the Constitution and that Constitution says the Congress has the power to declare war, not the President. |
I was under the impression that Congress had given the President thier consent to wage this conflict.
quote:
And these terrorist attacks did not happen because bin Laden hates "freedom" as has been claimed by Bush et al, |
You're arguing against a strawman now. I don't really care why OBL staged the attacks. He staged an attack on US soil and has proven himself to be a continuing and past threat to the US and he and his organization are therefore worthy of elimination.
FYI, After the Soviet Union was thrown out of Afghanistan there was wide spread pro-US sentiment in the country. It was only the US abandoment of the country that caused a reversal of thier feelings. In hindsight, that has proven itself to be a mistake on our part.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Ramo, I'm a Libertarian, but one who also believes in things such as national sovereignty. |
I don't see how giving states rights is consistent with the principle of non-initiation of force.
quote:
Additionally, I'm opposed to the part of Libertarianism that advocates totally open borders for anyone. |
Why?
quote:
It's wrong because you and I don't have the right to force other people to fight wars we might like. |
Huh? I'm not forcing anyone to fight in wars. I'm strongly against any draft.
quote:
You have the right to not fight my fights. |
Again, I don't support a draft.
quote:
The fight must precede or coincide with the food deliveries over there, and we wouldn't be having this discussion about starvation if not for the terrorist' attacks and "our" response. |
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. 
quote:
Huh? We've been bombing for less than a month and as we have bombed and the NA has taken ground, fewer Afghans are under the Taliban's rules. Hell, the Taliban is almost destroyed as far as their ability to repress anyone. |
Which wasn't the case during the initiation of hostilities!
quote:
Yes, they would. They started locking them up before 9-11. |
Source? Do you know if the frequencies of locking up aid workers has increased, decreased, or remained the same since 9/11 (barring the period after the aid workers got the hell out)?
quote:
Since when? The war was never about feeding the refugees and was always about revenge. |
Again, that's my reason for supporting the war, not Shrub's.
quote:
Food distribution didn't stop because of Taliban repression, but because the charity organizations were afraid of their convoys getting bombed. Have we forgotten so soon that the US bombed the Red Cross food warehouses in Kabul? The Taleban were stealing food from the warehouses, but not all of it. |
I hardly think the probability of being bombed is comparable to the probability of getting being imprisoned.
quote:
Actually, the northern alliance is and always has been the government of Afghanistan that was officially recognised by the United Nations. The USA was not making a unilateral decision in supporting them; we were acting in accordance to official UN policy. |
If Shrub et al. support the NA simply because the UN recognizes it as the legitimate government, they're even more foolish then I previously thought. 
They support the NA because it's a viable ally, not because the UN "officially" recognizes them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
"Oil, oil, oil..."
So the fact that Bin Laden is in Afghanistan and the Taliban are giving him cover have nothing to do with it?
Ron Paul is obviously an idiot. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan being Bin Laden sympathizers? Is this guy aware that the Islamic Fundamentlaists want to overthrow these regimes?
"But I didn't even know of the plan to hand over Kurdish lands in Iraq to the Turks."
Keep in mind that Mosul is a part of the Turkey proper that they were forces to give up in WWI.
"Among other reasons, our bombs are what have caused the Taliban to repress civil liberties so much these past months, exacerberating the problem by quite a bit."
The Taliban was still abominable before that.
"Incorrect. There is such a thing as national sovereignty. That is, the United States has no business to go into another nation to right the wrongs it decides are being committed."
A group of people do not have the right to do whatever they want because they get guns and call themselves a "government"
"Bush's foreign policy? I wasn't aware that Bush had a foreign policy - other than intimidation."
He got a strong international coalition to oppose Afghanistan, he has a good foreign policy.
"
It's wrong because you and I don't have the right to force other people to fight wars we might like."
We're not doing a draft, and the people who joined the military voluntarily could expect to be sent off like this.
"You may rest assured that we support the NA because it is expedient for us and for no other reason."
So, what's wrong with that? This is war, you do what it takes to win it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
David -  Better to direct them to Rex and Wraith (maybe even Scipio) than me, I don't know how much of a libertarian I am even though that ideology is closer to mine than any other from what I can tell. As Uncle Funk would say, I'm an extremist.
DinoDoc - quote:
I wasn't refering to the Taliban themselves, Berzerker, but the situation that existed prior to thier rise to power which most certainly was an anarchic situation. That is the reason they were initially welcomed with open arms. |
Okay, but let's not forget they had a war against the Russians followed by a hostile takeover by the Taliban so a period of chaos (I know, you call it anarchy ) is not surprising and bin Laden's gang only became the force it has become under the Taliban's governing. You can blame that on the chaos that led to the Taliban but the Taliban was the result of autocratic neighbors - Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - being unhappy with a less than pliable Afghan government(s). If we are to blame the Taliban for bin Laden, then we should be blaming the Pakistanis and Saudis as well. The irony is that the Iranians were backing the NA all along...
quote:
It was thier militant ideology that allowed a trans-national terrorist organization to have a base from which to plan attacks on the continental US. |
True, but they could have planned this from any country. I don't agree that we have to stabilize Afghanistan, two good things to come out of this tragedy is that the Taliban will be removed from power and the message has been sent - mess with us and pay the price. I doubt we will be seeing any governments come close to sponsoring terrorism against the US, but our policies will ensure future terrorism nonetheless.
quote:
IMO, The Taliban organization has also been co-opted by Al Qaeda to such an extent prior to 9-11 that I fail to see any meaningful distinction between the two within Afghanistan. If you wish I can give you the reasons for my opinion. |
I understand, but I still don't know the level of complicity of all Taliban members.
I don't even know how the Taliban sets policy, much less if they send out fliers to it's members explaining how bin Laden is about to launch a massive terrorist attack on the USA (if you get my drift). But if you have info, feel free to offer it up if it's not too much of a hassle. I'm a sponge for knowledge
quote:
I was under the impression that Congress had given the President thier consent to wage this conflict |
They passed a "resolution", resolutions are not in the Constitution. I don't know why the Democrats and Republicans invented this loophole in the Constitution, but the Congress has not actually declared war since WWII thereby making every war since illegal. I happen to think they did this so the President would get most of the blame if a war went badly although I have seen arguments that the reason was to avoid giving the President the powers that come with a formal declaration.
quote:
You're arguing against a strawman now. |
Not really, you blamed the anarchy in Afghanistan. I point to our policies overseas.
quote:
I don't really care why OBL staged the attacks. He staged an attack on US soil and has proven himself to be a continuing and past threat to the US and he and his organization are therefore worthy of elimination. |
I do care, I want to avoid future acts of terrorism, so knowing why this happened will help us avoid future attacks. And I have no problem with eliminating bin Laden and his organization, but I oppose forcing others to pay for my desires much less forcing others to risk their lives achieving that goal. But if we were minding our own business all along, we wouldn't have needed to go to Afghanistan because we wouldn't have been targeted in the first place.
quote:
FYI, After the Soviet Union was thrown out of Afghanistan there was wide spread pro-US sentiment in the country. It was only the US abandoment of the country that caused a reversal of thier feelings. In hindsight, that has proven itself to be a mistake on our part. |
But it wasn't those with pro-US sentiments who were responsible for the attacks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
Ramo - quote:
Huh? I'm not forcing anyone to fight in wars. I'm strongly against any draft. |
quote:
Again, that's my reason for supporting the war, not Shrub's |
You support the war, the people fighting the war are forced to fight it. Yes, they volunteered, but they volunteered to defend this country in accordance with the Constitution. Congress did not declare war...
quote:
Which wasn't the case during the initiation of hostilities! |
So? Taliban repression has only decreased, not increased.
quote:
I hardly think the probability of being bombed is comparable to the probability of getting being imprisoned. |
The Taliban were imprisoning people for bringing food?
quote:
Delegating powers is inconsistent with non-initiation of force. Removing powers, on the other hand, is consistent. |
Not true, prosecuting murderers is a delegated power, but not one that requires the initiation of force.
Shi Huangdi - quote:
Ron Paul is obviously an idiot. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan being Bin Laden sympathizers? Is this guy aware that the Islamic Fundamentlaists want to overthrow these regimes? |
Paul didn't say they were sympathetic to bin Laden, he said Pakistan and Saudi Arabia sponsored the creation of the Taliban.
quote:
Keep in mind that Mosul is a part of the Turkey proper that they were forces to give up in WWI. |
That's the price an imperialistic nation pays when they choose the losing side in a world war.
quote:
A group of people do not have the right to do whatever they want because they get guns and call themselves a "government" |
So very true!!!
quote:
We're not doing a draft, and the people who joined the military voluntarily could expect to be sent off like this. |
They took an oath to defend this country in accordance with the Constitution - the Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war, it hasn't since WWII.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hans2
If you cannot openly discuss your political opinions among your friends and family without fear of alienating them perhaps you should re-examine your beliefs. |
Said the sheep.
Jon Miller
- Individual
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DinoDoc
|
|
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
You can blame that on the chaos that led to the Taliban but the Taliban was the result of autocratic neighbors - Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - being unhappy with a less than pliable Afghan government(s). |
What did the Saudis have to do with creating the Taliban?
quote:
If we are to blame the Taliban for bin Laden, |
I don't understand what you mean here.
quote:
I don't agree that we have to stabilize Afghanistan, |
I think that we will have to stablize it enogh to prevent a repeat of this happening somewhere down the road but I do hope that we don't get bogged down in the country to such an extent that it distracts from our aims elsewhere.
quote:
two good things to come out of this tragedy is that the Taliban will be removed from power and the message has been sent - mess with us and pay the price. |
I don't think that any such message has been sent and I don't think that it will be until a government that doesn't have as rickety a hold on to power as the Taliban did is either made to stop supporting terror against the US or is overthrown.
quote:
I doubt we will be seeing any governments come close to sponsoring terrorism against the US, but our policies will ensure future terrorism nonetheless. |
You really shouldn't be too afraid of international terrorism, Berz. The domestic variety is and always has been a bigger threat to US citizens.
quote:
But if you have info, feel free to offer it up if it's not too much of a hassle. I'm a sponge for knowledge |
I'm happy to oblige  :
1) According to intelligence sources, Al-Qaeda operatives are a part of the Taliban's top ministries.
2) According to Russia's Foreign Ministry, OBL is serving as the Taliban's unofficial Defense Minister.
3) The Taliban has recieved aprox. $100 million making it for all intents and purposes a wholly owned subsidiary of Al-Qaeda.
4) Al Qaeda troops apparently fight side by side with Taliban.
5) Al Qaeda apparently was responsible for the murder of United Front leader Massoud.
6) The fact that the Taliban allowed Al Qaeda to run their terrorist operations out of Afghanistan unmolested.
quote:
They passed a "resolution", resolutions are not in the Constitution. I don't know why the Democrats and Republicans invented this loophole in the Constitution, but the Congress has not actually declared war since WWII thereby making every war since illegal. |
Allow me to quote Lefty in this instance:
A war powers delclaration is just that, an act of congress stating that hostilities exist and that WAR POWERS (under the constitution) now exist. There is no prescribed form or style for a declaration of war in the constituion, it is what the congress says it is. - Lefty Scaevola
quote:
I do care, I want to avoid future acts of terrorism, so knowing why this happened will help us avoid future attacks. |
Every murderer has a motive, Berz. Anyway, his reasons are irrelevent (He began planning for this attack in the midst of a peace intiative between the Isrealis and PA 2 years ago.) and are already being addressed in one form or another.
Personally, I'd like to see us increase domestic oil production, seek alternate foreign sources, and increase alternative energy sources. I'm tired of being dragged into ME conflicts.
quote:
But it wasn't those with pro-US sentiments who were responsible for the attacks. |
I didn't say they they were. It was a useless factoid. Take it for whatever you think it's worth.
This took me along time to write so I hope it is worth the read. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Scipio Centaurus
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
So the fact that Bin Laden is in Afghanistan... |
I'm normally pretty lenient, but I'm afraid I'll have to insist on proof of this assertion? "Uncle Sam tells me so" will not be considered adequate proof, since the US government appears to have a 'conflict of interest' in this matter.
quote:
...and the Taliban are giving him cover have nothing to do with it? |
Civilized nations do not eliminate sovereign governments in order to apprehend individuals. Uncle Sam is betwixt a rock and a hard place. If we're at war, then we cannot be targeting specific individuals. If we're not at war, then we cannot be targeting sovereign governments.
What's it to be, Uncle?
Remember that the Taliban regime has been on the US suspected terrorist state list for some time. The governments on this list are essentially living on borrowed time, and they all know it.
quote:
Ron Paul is obviously an idiot. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan being Bin Laden sympathizers? Is this guy aware that the Islamic Fundamentlaists want to overthrow these regimes? |
So the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi is unconvincing to you?
quote:
"But I didn't even know of the plan to hand over Kurdish lands in Iraq to the Turks."
Keep in mind that Mosul is a part of the Turkey proper that they were forces to give up in WWI. |
And the entire North American continent was occupied before the Europeans came along. Shall we give that back? Maybe we should conduct a massive investigation into the history of all peoples and lands throughout history and offer every group that has ever been displaced their very own 'West Bank Accord'?
quote:
"Incorrect. There is such a thing as national sovereignty. That is, the United States has no business to go into another nation to right the wrongs it decides are being committed."
A group of people do not have the right to do whatever they want because they get guns and call themselves a "government" |
If they got the guns and you don't, how you plannin' to stop 'em?
The very reason, BTW, that the framers of the US Constitution tucked in a little clause the specifically says that the citizens would keep their weapons. Specifically to overthrow the US government if it became too oppresive in its own right.
quote:
"Bush's foreign policy? I wasn't aware that Bush had a foreign policy - other than intimidation."
He got a strong international coalition to oppose Afghanistan, he has a good foreign policy. |
There is no strong International coalition. Britain is the only hunting partner that brought any guns. Looks like the Bush clan has just about used up all the favors the UK ever owed the US. Saudi Arabia refuses to provide any assistance in shutting down Al-Queida's fininacing, and you can be certain SA is the single biggest source of manpower and funds. Many nations have stated that they will not support continued US adventurism in Iraq or other non-specific terrorist supporting nations.
We're we gonna go?
- Scipio
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
|
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
"Paul didn't say they were sympathetic to bin Laden, he said Pakistan and Saudi Arabia sponsored the creation of the Taliban"
From the Transcript
quote:
The Taliban is obviously a strong sympathizer with bin Laden and his henchmen, but how much more so than the government of Saudi Arabia or even Pakistan? Probably not much. |
"That's the price an imperialistic nation pays when they choose the losing side in a world war."
The Ottomans had little choice excpet their course of action. Russia was pressign against their borders, and Germany was one of the key nations that wouldn't tolerate a Russian-held Dardanelles. Had Russia went ahead and beat Germany, they would likely have next gone for Constantinople. Their move was a defensive action. But in any case, Mosul is Turkish land, so it is more legitmate returning it to them if we had to take over Iraq.
"They took an oath to defend this country in accordance with the Constitution - the Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war, it hasn't since WWII."
The Congress declared war on terrorism.
And in any case, it's well known now that the US doesn't always use Declerations of War, so you'd have to be pretty stupid to join the military and not expect you could be sent into action without a DOW issued.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Keep in mind that Mosul is a part of the Turkey proper that they were forces to give up in WWI. |
I missed this. Do you realize what has been done to the Kurds? Does perhaps the worst genocide in the past decade mean anything to you?
So Turkey deserves a shot at wiping out more Kurds because it formerly was able to steal from their ancestors?
quote:
You support the war, the people fighting the war are forced to fight it. Yes, they volunteered, but they volunteered to defend this country in accordance with the Constitution. Congress did not declare war... |
Well, I supported a declaration of war, rather than a War Powers Resolution... And the scope of this particular war I advocate isn't outside the intended bounds by Congress.
quote:
So? Taliban repression has only decreased, not increased. |
No, the area in which the Taliban has authority has decreased. For the people under Taliban control, repression has increased.
quote:
The Taliban were imprisoning people for bringing food? |
Yep.
quote:
Not true, prosecuting murderers is a delegated power, but not one that requires the initiation of force. |
I take issue with the delegation of authoritarian powers to the states.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
DinoDoc - quote:
What did the Saudis have to do with creating the Taliban? |
It's my understanding that the Iranians were backing the NA and their predecessors while the Pakistanis and Saudis wanted an Afghan government more suitable to their needs - hence the insertion and takeover by the Taliban. The Saudis and Pakistanis are not too friendly with the Iranians and did not want a pro-Iran government in Afghanistan.
quote:
I don't understand what you mean here |
We are blaming the Taliban for bin Laden and his network, but Pakistan and Saudi Arabia set up the Taliban so shouldn't those governments share the blame?
quote:
A war powers delclaration is just that, an act of congress stating that hostilities exist and that WAR POWERS (under the constitution) now exist. There is no prescribed form or style for a declaration of war in the constituion, it is what the congress says it is. - Lefty Scaevola |
There is no "war powers" provision in the Constitution, only the congressional power to declare war with the President serving as the officer in charge once war has been declared. Lefty is quoting from the War Powers Act of 1933?, not the Constitution.
quote:
Every murderer has a motive, Berz |
This all happened because we are screwing with people in other countries. If we keep screwing with them, they will screw with us. I consider that "motive" very important if we are to prevent future attacks. If "we" dont and want to continue screwing with people in other countries, more Americans will be murdered. If we stop screwing with people in other countries, we greatly reduce the motive of people in those countries to screw with us. You may not think that is important, but I do. I just wish the Democans would acknowledge that they have decided to sacrifice the lives of some Americans to pursue their foreign policies.
If I shoot at you and hit your child, are you now justified in shooting my child? No, but if you do, I can hardly blame you without acknowledging that my actions led to the tragedy.
nc - quote:
With the execption of ANWAR that would have been a minor improvement. I still would have remarked on conservation |
And I still think it is petty of you to complain about Paul not including your agenda in his speech. If you had given his speech and included your comments, there would be conservatives complaining about how you were using the war to push your political agenda and that would have detracted from the rest of the speech.
quote:
Where? Not in the context of the Afganistan discussion |
Geez, don't you read my posts? I'm not going to keep repeating what I've already said.
quote:
Yeah boy it was a harsh one |
"Harsh" or not, don't expect to get away with insulting people.
quote:
Given your extreme sensitivity to my comments (not shared by others here) I'm not surprised you took it that way |
So when you pop into a thread to insult people, they are too sensitive for responding, but when you respond to retaliatory insults, you aren't? You're a hypocrite! As for me being the only one, here is what others have said in response to your insults:
quote:
Scipio - You just accused me of not being able to think. Was there some other point? Or were you just trying to convince everyone that you're emotionally retarded. It's working, BTW. |
quote:
Scipio - Oh I see. Anyone who doesn't think the way you think and emote the way you emote, is a flawed human being? Sorry, I'm not buying it. |
quote:
Scipio - You really must develop a thicker skin if your going to participate in open debate. I suggest you pretend you're a Democrat and listen to Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. That'll toughen you up in no time! |
I guess he thinks you were a bit "sensitive".
quote:
Scipio Centaurus- You have no idea who the fvck I am or what I think |
Gee, I guess so.
quote:
Richard - what happened to the intelligent and mature debator that used to be on Apolyton? First you call the speaker a narrow-minded fool for not adding irrelevent material in his speech, and then you toss insults about at random. I miss the person who was so coherent and articulate in threads like the affirmative action debate. |
quote:
Generally, "fool" is a synonym for a narrow-minded dogmatic person who is incapable of making logical connections. You sort of implied that all libertarians are narrow-minded dogmatic people who are incapable of making logical connections, i.e. fools. |
quote:
Imran - SC: For some reason, n.c. seems to have a BIG chip on his shoulder about Libertarians. He seems to think that most of them are narrow-minded and dogmatic (from what I can see from his posts).
As you can see, other have condemned his throwing around of insults, so best to ignore him. |
That's 4 people who took your comments as insulting, not me alone.
And not a rebuttal either.
quote:
I didn't realize it was necessary |
Or maybe because you didn't want to admit you agreed with alot of what he said while accusing him of being narrow-minded and dogmatic?
quote:
No, just back up your characterizations of what I've said. I'm not holding my breath. |
I have.
Shi Huangdi - quote:
From the Transcript |
Oops, my mistake. But in all fairness to Mr Paul, where is your proof that the Taliban and/or bin Laden were trying to overthrow
the Pakistani and Saudi governments? After deciding to "help" us, the Pakistani dictator purged his government and military of pro-Taliban people, but not before it became clear to him his future was in jeopardy if he didn't play ball with us. And where are the assassinations of Saudi royal family members and officials? Where are the bombings of Saudi government/royalty buildings? If bin Laden was really trying to overthrow the Saudi royal family, I haven't seen the proof. Much of his money comes from rich Saudis...
quote:
But in any case, Mosul is Turkish land, so it is more legitmate returning it to them if we had to take over Iraq. |
Not more legitimate than returning the land to the people who actually live there.
quote:
The Congress declared war on terrorism |
No, they passed a "resolution".
quote:
And in any case, it's well known now that the US doesn't always use Declerations of War, so you'd have to be pretty stupid to join the military and not expect you could be sent into action without a DOW issued. |
True, and irrelevant. They took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not violate it by fighting illegal wars.
Ramo - quote:
Well, I supported a declaration of war, rather than a War Powers Resolution... And the scope of this particular war I advocate isn't outside the intended bounds by Congress. |
But the Congress did not declare war so supporting the war means forcing those in the military to fight it even if they volunteered. And I don't know what particular war you "advocate".
quote:
No, the area in which the Taliban has authority has decreased. For the people under Taliban control, repression has increased. |
Overall, Taliban repression has decreased significantly. But I'll accept without proof that repression has increased in those areas they do have some control.
Any proof?
quote:
I take issue with the delegation of authoritarian powers to the states |
Do you take issue with defending yourself from a would-be murderer? The state (in a libertarian system) is nothing more than the individual's proxy. The state can try to help you defend yourself from the murderer and to punish the murderer if he succeeds and you are no longer capable of punishing him yourself. Is that an improper delegation of power? If so, why?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
nc - quote:
-"there would be conservatives complaining"
Probably. |
Which is a good reason to avoid adding peripheral political agendas here at home to a speech about the war and it's impact on our freedoms.
quote:
I read a reference to "some enemies are worth having," which are my words but I am almost certain from a different context. (Which, btw, I have said on this thread already.) |
The context was exactly the same. We were (and are) debating the validity of creating enemies and forcing others to go and fight them while other people are targeted by terrorists. Given the fact you already denied having the debate (you left in August ), declaring the context to be different is problematic given your memory.
quote:
That was my guess as to the reason for the nature of the responses. I now think it was the result of a miscommunication. However, I realize that in your world that doesn't happen: it's always me being nefarious. |
You opened with a post insulting libertarians based on one man's speech. How did you mis-communicate your intent? Were those of us you were insulting being nefarious for responding?
quote:
I don't think we know what he thinks, other than the remark about how nothing I said was a personal insult. Other than that he has had little to say. |
So when Scipio advised you to develop a thicker skin, he wasn't suggesting you were thin-skinned, i.e., overly sensitive? And if he said nothing from you was a personal insult, then he can explain why he said this:
quote:
Scipio - You just accused me of not being able to think. Was there some other point? Or were you just trying to convince everyone that you're emotionally retarded. It's working, BTW. |
quote:
-"That's 4 people"
[edit for my difficulties with counting ] Given Richard's other remarks about me (and possibly you) I'm surprised to see him quoted at all. Of course Imran jumped in: he hates me almost as much as you do. And we have Scipio: |
Why are you surprised? You claimed I was the only one who viewed your comments as insults. I proved you wrong by quoting 3 other people. Rationalizing why they also viewed your comments as insults is irrelevant to your claim and my rebuttal. As for "hating" you, that word is far too strong. I hate murderers and the like while disliking some of your debating tactics.
quote:
Your remark was such a gross distortion of my statement what I didn't know where to begin. I also realize there is no point in trying. |
Here is what you said to DF and anyone who agrees with him:
quote:
There is a reason why it is the business for those of us who are human. Think about it. |
I said you accused others of being inhuman and you did, no "gross distortion" of your words.
quote:
-"you didn't want to admit you agreed with alot of what he said"
Hmmm, perhaps someone else was using my login when I clearly stated that I agree with alot of what he said? Or maybe it would be easier for some here if I didn't? |
Your failure to quote my entire sentence has distorted my point, here is what I said:
quote:
Or maybe because you didn't want to admit you agreed with alot of what he said while accusing him of being narrow-minded and dogmatic? |
You didn't offer your support for any of his speech until long after your opening post -an opening post in which you accused the man (and libertarians) of being narrow-minded and dogmatic. If you had admitted your approval of much of what he said, it would have detracted from your intent of insulting him and left others wondering why you agreed so much with a narrow-minded, dogmatic libertarian.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Scipio Centaurus
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scipio Centaurus
You stated "Only a libertarian can point out how ...blah...blah...blah. I suppose strictly narrow-minded dogma has always been a barrier to logical connections"
I'm a Libertarian... You just accused me of not being able to think... |
I characterize this as an indirect insult [see the 'Favorite Libertarian Poster' thread. It should be clear from the full context of my reply, that I am using an editorial 'me' in the last sentence.
- Scipio
PS. Still waiting for n.c. to comment on the actual content of the speech... >twiddles thumbs<
|
|
| |
|
|
|
n.c.
|
 |
North Carolina, best state in the union
Jul 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
B- "Which is a good reason"
Perhaps. I doubt it was his reason.
-"you already denied having the debate (you left in August"
Well, I don't know how I engaged in a debate while absent. (Again, to the best of my recollection I was not here during the bombing.) edit This makes it hard to see where I called for a war to feed starving Afgans.
Furthermore, the "enemies worth having" statement doesn't address humanitarian needs. In the past your memory has often been better than mine, but I think it failed you here. Finally, I think it would be a very rare case, if ever, where we should go to war only to stop starvation; I don't know if Afganistan would've qualified. end edit
-"How did you mis-communicate your intent?"
I said there was a misunderstanding, which I would be glad to explain if I thought you actually cared.
-"he wasn't suggesting you were thin-skinned"
He certainly was. However, we were discussing his thoughts on an entirely different matter (the nature of my comments).
-"Why are you surprised?"
I guess you didn't get what he said.
-"You claimed I was the only one who viewed your comments as insults. I proved you wrong"
I believe I said that your sensitivty to my comments is not shared by others. There are important differences that you would not chose to see.
-"anyone who agrees with him"
Really? I don't recall saying that.
-"you accused others of being inhuman"
Since his being human is a given (some people here got that part), I merely said that is a reason he should care. edit In other words, I called on his humanity in an attempt to persuade.
But here is the most important fact: I was directly resonding to him. Not surprisingly, given the benefit of our long standing context, he understood exactly what I was saying. Therefore I shouldn't have to explain anything about our exchange to you or anyone else.
You, on the other hand, jumped in and made it about Berzerker. Not surprisingly, given a very different context (and that I was responding to someone else), you didn't understood what I was saying. But that wasn't all- you went on to twist my words into their worst possible meaning. end edit
-"it would have detracted from your intent of insulting him"
Really? I think it would have helped my case.
quote:
Originally posted by Scipio Centaurus
Still waiting for n.c. to comment on the actual content of the speech... |
You are waiting on me to comment on something? Perhaps if I waded back to page 1, past many unanswered questions/comments from me, I could find exactly what you mean.  
Last edited by n.c. on 03-12-2001 at 11:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
nc - quote:
Perhaps. I doubt it was his reason. |
Maybe, maybe not, but any good speaker will make a conscious effort to limit his comments to the issue at hand and not peripherals that can only serve as distractions.
quote:
Well, I don't know how I engaged in a debate while absent. (Again, to the best of my recollection I was not here during the bombing.) |
It's possible we were debating the Taliban before the attacks, but given their impact, it's much more likely the debate occured after the Taliban became so newsworthy.
quote:
I said there was a misunderstanding, which I would be glad to explain if I thought you actually cared. |
And this means you did not intend to insult libertarians based on your "critique" of what Mr Paul failed to mention in his speech? You didn't say Mr Paul was narrow-minded and dogmatic for omitting your domestic agenda, you said only a libertarian would be so narrow-minded and dogmatic. I'd love to hear you explain this "misunderstanding".
quote:
He certainly was. However, we were discussing his thoughts on an entirely different matter |
So what? Thin-skinned is thin-skinned.
quote:
I guess you didn't get what he said. |
I quoted a rather lengthy criticism of how you had dis-appointed him. I did so to show I was not the only one who viewed your comments as insulting. Was I to quote other parts of his post that had nothing to do with my rebuttal of your claim? Given the length of his criticism of you in proportion to his posts, I wonder why you aren't calling him too sensitive. Yeah, I wonder...
quote:
I believe I said that your sensitivty to my comments is not shared by others. There are important differences that you would not chose to see. |
This is what you said in response to my claim that your insult was a "blanket condemnation" of libertarians:
quote:
Given your extreme sensitivity to my comments (not shared by others here) I'm not surprised you took it that way |
Imran, Scipio and I all took your insult as a blanket condemnation of libertarians. Only you are the one who seems to think otherwise, go figure...
And here is what one of your fans had to say about your behavior:
quote:
Richard - what happened to the intelligent and mature debator that used to be on Apolyton? First you call the speaker a narrow-minded fool for not adding irrelevent material in his speech, and then you toss insults about at random. I miss the person who was so coherent and articulate in threads like the affirmative action debate. |
Is he overly sensitive or do you apply that insult only to me because I'm the one still here holding your feet to the fire? I see right through your BS.
quote:
Really? I don't recall saying that. |
If you say a person is inhuman for believing A = A, then it doesn't take a genius to figure out that your comment applies to all people who believe A = A.
quote:
Since his being human is a given (some people here got that part), I merely said that is a reason he should care. |
Duh! We all know you meant this as an insult and not scientific fact. And some of us could also figure out you were insulting him and anyone who agrees with him (the part you cannot figure out).
quote:
Really? I think it would have helped my case. |
"This guy is narrow-minded and dogmatic. Oh, btw, I agree with him". Yeah, that's what you meant to say.
Last edited by Berzerker on 03-12-2001 at 13:32
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-12-2001 08:12
] Given Richard's other remarks about me (and possibly you) I'm surprised to see him quoted at all. Of course Imran jumped in: he hates me almost as much as you do. And we have Scipio:
|