Bush turned down the offer of Osama bin-Laden being handed over to a neutral country. A neutral country. The man that has been wanted by the US for decades would be handed over, not to the US, but to a "neutral" country, that would not be pressured by the US. This is after Al-Qaeda's attack on the Twin Towers, mind you. One man is not enough, especially since he would not even be given to the States, since Al-Qaeda is made of much more than one man, and since they are funded and sheltered by the "government" known as the Taliban. If anyone's actions were stupid, it was the Taliban's.

Bush turned down the offer of Osama bin-Laden being handed over to a neutral country. A neutral country. The man that has been wanted by the US for decades would be handed over, not to the US, but to a "neutral" country, that would not be pressured by the US. This is after Al-Qaeda's attack on the Twin Towers, mind you. One man is not enough, especially since he would not even be given to the States, since Al-Qaeda is made of much more than one man, and since they are funded and sheltered by the "government" known as the Taliban. If anyone's actions were stupid, it was the Taliban's.

Throw away your nationalism - the American government refused to hear him out and wanted to get bombing.

And of course they're not going to give him to America - you know what America did once they did get him? America is far from a neutral country.

It's very likely that America did/facilitated the September 11 attacks on itself.

Edited 9/30/2015 03:37:31

Many of them are the same though. Case in point, Angry Koala spent a good deal of time criticizing U.S involvement in the Middle East and how terrible America was for doing all of that. Then he turns right around and calls the U.S cowardly for not using military intervention on ISIS.

Panda is mad, Panda does not know how to argue politely (and refuses to read up on how to do so).

It's very likely that America did/facilitated the September 11 attacks on itself.

No.

Throw away your nationalism - the American government refused to hear him out and wanted to get bombing.

Or, The US was fed up with the Taliban's sh*t and saw no reason for them not to give Osama up. If I were the head of the Taliban, and I had to choose between handing one man over and possibly deal with his subordinates, or piss off a world superpower, I'd go with the former. And if you are talking about post-9/11, then there is no reason to hear anybody out at that time.

Also, you may be thinking otherwise, since I am a heretic and am actually defending the USA, but nationalism is not my forte.

Жұқтыру:
Panda is mad, Panda does not know how to argue politely (and refuses to read up on how to do so).

Unlike you Juq I read everything and try to answer every comments and sentences, you however have most of the time no solid arguments and answers, btw polite? do you know the definition of this word? You are the worst here about how "arguying politely" since most of the time you will argue for one hour about things that dont matter at all, and nobody shall contradict you because "you have to be right" everytime even if what you are saying is uttterly wrong, your demagogy is beyond limit.
The thing is most of the time you try to get people mad and prove to everybody your opinion is the true one, that does not work, find a new hobby man, seriously, instead of having pointless debate about whether how Baas is correctly spelled or whether -8 is the best temperature, could we have some interesting and good dialogues like you used to do before? Stop being angry and yeah lets "discuss politely" together.


Eklipse,
I forgot to answer your last thread (i will do it later as I usually do answering each of your sentences)
Something first, we were talking about Russia right? and I pointed out that war wasnt the good answer, and gave one example about the war in Iraq, then you came around and you were justifying the US intervention or why they did not reacted while they were still intervening in Iraq. Eklipse, f I disagree that does not mean I am against the US, I like constructive debates, you yourself said I am ignoring parts of your comments, so do you. Last but not least, at the beginning you would see that I was talking about "westerners" generally speaking, not only the US. As you said earlier you are yourself , chosing your own passages, that's ok, but do not say I am criticizing the US for fun, this is not my objective here.

One of the biggest misconceptions about radical Islamists/jihadist extremists is that they are uneducated Arabs/Afghans running around on camels shooting wildly whilst yelling "Allaahu akbar" loudly. In fact, they are educated Arabs/Afghans running around in pick-up trucks shooting wildly whilst yelling "Allaahu akbar".
They aren't dumb people who have just read the Quran and made their own unterpretation. Actually, if you read the Quran and the books of Islamic tradition, you'd find no talk of establishing a massive "Islamic State" or "Caliphate". In fact, since the time of Umar Ibn Abdulaziz of the Umayyads, the Muslims have never been united under a single country or ruler. There have always been different Muslim states with different names and rulers and objectives since that time. Muhammad never told his believers that they have to have a Caliphate. God didn't speak of a Caliphate in the Quran. These people must have got the idea from somewhere else.
Over the past thousand years there have always been people within the Muslim lands that have tried to usurp the incumbent rulers. They think they could do better. They want the fame and fortune. Some have suceeded such as Gaddafi and Saddam (though we all know how they ended. What goes around comes around, eh?). Others fail miserably and are usually put to death. Most Muslims agree that God forbade opposing the ruler publicly.
Over the years, trying to grab power from the incumbent ruler has become harder and harder. People have resorted to more extreme measures. Hence al Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIL and al Shabab. They seek to justify their actions to themselves via religious means. This helps them recruit people they can control.
The people they usually recruit are the kinds of people who come from what the British government calls "non-violent extremists". They are the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood and it's minion groups and parties across the globe. They pretend to be democratic and moderate and tolerant, when in fact they are intolerant, undemocratic and quite extremist. Democracy, to be quite frank, means nothing to me. I am a monarchist same as Charles I, Franco and the other loonies you read about in the history books. However, I understand that democracy means a lot to many people. It's the feeling of empowerment that they like. It appeals to the many. Especially when whoever you voted for wins. These extremists know this. In this regards they are quite like the communists of the mid-to-late 20th century. Democracy is a means to an end, not an end itself. A means to seize power and impose the "Islamic extremist utopia" (not unlike the Socialist utopia) they have always dreamed of in which everyone becomes the "dream Muslim" and erases all traces of heritage, culture and identity he/her inherited and everyone who doesn't agree with them has their head removed.
There are many tragic aspects of this. The first is that few countries have realised this. Britain is only just realising, but is in danger of engulfing moderate Muslims under the same banner as the radicals. The non-violent extremist know that your average moderate Muslim knows and respects certain scholars who lived in previous centuries such as the co-founder of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Muhammad Bin Abdulwahab and others and give them a bad rep even though they have nothing to do with extremism.
Saudi Arabia itself along with the UAE only declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation last year after they bombed Cairo following the arrest of the scheming Mr Morsi.
My point is that only by getting underneath the skin of these people can we begin to define them, and only when we define them can we begin to fight them. The quicker we do that, the quicker we can prevent anymore Sotlov or Jordanian pilot episodes.
Good day.

It's very likely that America did/facilitated the September 11 attacks on itself.

No.

Yes, let's face it, it'd have to be a major f-up for them to not be able to stop this, from not letting them take knives on the aeroplane, to not shooting down or disabling the aeroplanes. America already had domestic major attacks like these - the 1993 Oklahoma bombing and the 1995 bombing - in the same place where the September 11 attacks hit, no less, and there was a plot to assassinate the pope in the Philippines that almost could have been done. There's also that there are many who talk of a "second explosion" after the airplanes had crashed in, along with over evidences at the scene that conspiracy theorists galore over, and that America had plans to commit terrorist attacks on itself before to go to war. Oh, and also that, for Americans, it is taboo to suggest that it could have been done/eased by America, which you are following, most likely (while the less smart will say worse than you are - idiot, crazy, crackpot, conspiracy theorist).

Or, The US was fed up with the Taliban's sh*t and saw no reason for them not to give Osama up. If I were the head of the Taliban, and I had to choose between handing one man over and possibly deal with his subordinates, or piss off a world superpower, I'd go with the former. And if you are talking about post-9/11, then there is no reason to hear anybody out at that time.

Well, they didn't say they would give Osama up - they said that he could come to a neutral country. Your second sentence - even more evidence that Americans wanted to get bombing. And there's no grounds to hear anybody out at that time - like for example, the attack on Gleinwitz, Poland was invading a sovereign country and the Germans needed to retaliate. Or that Libyan shot up an American ship in a no-trespassing zone, past what was officially called the Deathline. Of course, no negotiations here - shoot some Libyans, we are too angry to negotiate.

Also, you may be thinking otherwise, since I am a heretic and am actually defending the USA, but nationalism is not my forte.

Why is it then, that your politic posts are defending the American government in international relations, and about events that include America(ns)?

Unlike you Juq I read everything and try to answer every comments and sentences, you however have most of the time no solid arguments and answers, btw polite? do you know the definition of this word? You are the worst here about how "arguying politely" since most of the time you will argue for one hour about things that dont matter at all, and nobody shall contradict you because "you have to be right" everytime even if what you are saying is uttterly wrong, your demagogy is beyond limit.
The thing is most of the time you try to get people mad and prove to everybody your opinion is the true one, that does not work, find a new hobby man, seriously, instead of having pointless debate about whether how Baas is correctly spelled or whether -8 is the best temperature, could we have some interesting and good dialogues like you used to do before? Stop being angry and yeah lets "discuss politely" together.

I'm not even in your argument between Eklipse and you, but I can tell that it's just a typic case of you being a hypocrite and non polite arguer, by skimming through it. And this is your standard, logic fallacy argument that you fall back on - "No solid argument, no answers, no polite, you are worst, you argue about things that don't matter (by the way, who else was insisting on "Baas"? I dropped it, it was pointless, but you went on "Baas-baas-baas". And who was arguing about temperatures? Not just me to myself, and you were certainly not excluded.), folk can't argue with you because you always think you are right (Does anyone argue for a point when they think they are wrong?), you are utterly wrong, you are demagog, you just try to madden and confuse folk, you try to convince folk that your opinion is the true one (this is the point of a formal argument?), why so angry (look at yourself). I said I would be kinder to you if you read the logic fallacies, but you're refusing to read them, so the only arguments I can have with you are, as you said, pointless ones. Go read about the characteristics of 15-metre dragons in Ethiopia (he only wants to read classic antique works).

It's very likely that America did/facilitated the September 11 attacks on itself.

Oh God no. Don't tell me you seriously subscribe to this. The 9/11 inside job conspiracy theory is one of the most cynical,paranoid, pieces of nonsense in the world of conspiracy theories.

Throw away your nationalism

Why is it then, that your politic posts are defending the American government in international relations, and about events that include America(ns)?

You need to learn the difference between Nationalism, and Patriotism. There's nothing wrong with having a little pride in you country or being willing to defend it as long as you don't go overboard and start thinking your nation superior to the world.

In addition, it's a bit absurd to imply that defending the U.S automatically makes someone a nationalist.

(warning people reading it part of it comes from a chat)

Am I an hypocrite Juq? then you are my master.

The Baas thing was kinda funny since you kept arguing for pointless spelling (I really dont care actually how Baas is spelt, but I wanted to let it flow while I was telling you my story of Syria, and read your mere attempt to convince me that Baas is actually spelt Ba'ath, do you think common people care that much of it really?).

Same thing goes for the whole temperature debate, while you say -8 is the best temperature, and I replied that temperatures below 0 were not suitable for humans, but well because your opinion only counts (logic fallacies as you say), you couuld not admit you were wrong even if you are denying basic logics and works that were made about it.
Oh and just for you, I suggest you to take a look on it:




And I dont really care that you would be kinder if I read what is written in your website, I already told you that if you want to learn how to express yourself and argue correctly, read the works of rhetorical masters of Ancient Greece, these are trustwhorthy works, not a random website with questionnable sources.


Oh and please next time use layout and spacing that separate sections (that also applies to Colonel). It is quite boring to read your paragraphs.

like for example, the attack on Gleinwitz, Poland was invading a sovereign country and the Germans needed to retaliate. Or that Libyan shot up an American ship in a no-trespassing zone, past what was officially called the Deathline. Of course, no negotiations here - shoot some Libyans, we are too angry to negotiate.

"You purposefully waged combat against our troops."

"Take it easy, let's talk about this."

Wat. If you punch me and/or take my belongings, you are getting punched and I am taking my belongings back, friend. Nobody did any talking or gave any ground pre-conflict. Why, then, should the afflicted be forced to negotiate?

I'm not a Nationalist, nor am I patriotic, but that doesn't mean I am against everything the US got involved in. That is not to say I like everything the country does.

Iraq - Dumbest move the country made while I am living.

Libya - Civil war. Why get involved there? Well, oil is the answer, I know that, but really...

Syria - Uses chemical weapons on civilians. The US and the UN does practically nothing.

Iran - State funder of terrorism, openly stated that there will be no Israel in 25 years, has helped in killing US troops. Let's give them access to nuclear usage, and let's let them "check on themselves." Let's give them a 24 day notice as to when we go over to check things, and let's grant them private sectors that we are not allowed to look in.
10/10 best deal ever - IGN

Manifest Destiny Expansionism - Why? Native (North) Americans are cool.

Syria - Uses chemical weapons on civilians. The US and the UN does practically nothing.

President Obama would of had a very difficult time getting Congress to work with him regarding intervention in Syria. Add on the fact that Russia is heavily backing the Syrian government and you have a paralyzed United States who is not likely to do anything.

Also, does anyone honestly expect the UN to do something useful? Doing practically nothing might as well be added to their charter at this point.

Iran - State funder of terrorism, openly stated that there will be no Israel in 25 years, has helped in killing US troops. Let's give them access to nuclear usage, and let's let them "check on themselves." Let's give them a 24 day notice as to when we go over to check things, and let's grant them private sectors that we are not allowed to look in.

Only a dirty,conservative, Republican would talk bad about the Iran deal.

Only a dirty,conservative, Republican would talk bad about the Iran deal.

I really hope that's sarcasm.

On another note:

"You have called the UN. To leave a message, press 1. To have something be done, call the US."

France has stepped up recently, though. As has Australia, so that jokes is getting a little outdated.

Edited 9/30/2015 19:46:04

I really hope that's sarcasm.

It was sarcasm. I don't make a habit of insulting myself. (Not really a Republican, but I am conservative on 50-60% of issues.)

Although expressing ANY conservative views on the internet often gets you a response similar to what I posted.

Ah, thank God.

The Baas thing was kinda funny since you kept arguing for pointless spelling (I really dont care actually how Baas is spelt, but I wanted to let it flow while I was telling you my story of Syria, and read your mere attempt to convince me that Baas is actually spelt Ba'ath, do you think common people care that much of it really?).

Well, I don't think common folk would be so stubborn and refusing of truths, you insist on being below average, though.

Same thing goes for the whole temperature debate, while you say -8 is the best temperature, and I replied that temperatures below 0 were not suitable for humans, but well because your opinion only counts (logic fallacies as you say), you couuld not admit you were wrong even if you are denying basic logics and works that were made about it.
Oh and just for you, I suggest you to take a look on it:

Well, it's about time, of course I'm not going to believe what you say when you say "it's been proven that below 0 temperatures are bad" and I ask "Show me" and you don't show a thing until now, and it shows a mediocre graph using Fahrenheit and feet? Here is better.




As shown, -15 is not dangerous unless it's really windy (45 kph, that means you're going to have a tough time holding your umbrella). I might have said -25 to 15, was the optimal range (I think it was -15, though), folk who live in the consistently -25 to -20 places know, though: don't expose your skin.

Sevilla: Average summer high (cold is not the problem) of 35 with average 40% humidity (Great discomfort, avert exertion)
Anadyr: Average spring low (hot is not the problem) of -25 with average 25 kph windspeed (frostbite in exposed areas in 30 minutes)
Minsk: Average spring low (hot is not the problem) of -5 with average 10 kph windspeed.

And the thing is, you can keep putting on clothes, but you have a maximum amount of clothes that you can take off. And Minsk is not a cold borough. And what every person likes varies from person to person.

Happy winter (October 1 soon :))

Edited 9/30/2015 22:44:39

Juq, you are as similar as Callicles, the one that want to be right even if the logic is against him: you show your arrogance, and has no moderation in your comments (and you were telling me about how to be polite ah).

And right now in the chat, you are again trying to argue about how Galicia (the Spanish Province) is spelled, you are again asserting according to yourself (nobody else and no solid arguments) that it is Galiza, whereas Spanish people in this chat are telling you you are wrong, even if you check by yourself you would see that we called that province GALICIA in English not GALIZA, here is a reliable source (something that you are sadly not able to provide each time):

Galicia

Pronunciation: /ɡəˈlɪsɪə/
/ɡəˈlɪʃə/ /ɡaˈlisja/
Pronunciation: /ɡaˈliθja/

1 An autonomous region and former kingdom of NW Spain; capital, Santiago de Compostela.
2 A region of east central Europe, north of the Carpathian Mountains. A former province of Austria, it now forms part of SE Poland and western Ukraine.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Galicia


And again about temperatures, stop being stubborn, we were discussing about which temperature is suitable for humans, and which would be the best for living, -15 is not suitable, any below 0, because the human body is consuming more energy to regulate its internal temperature. And if you want to ignore my sources and posts, then I will ignore yours. I just posted for you a table very clear showing you (in fahrenheit sadly) which temperatures are suitable or not. What you posted is a Canadian indicator of EXTREME temperature, you would notice that the warm extreme and cold extreme tables do not show temperatures between 5 and 22, why? because this is just an indicative table of what extreme weather the human body can endure.

Did you finally get the point? Here again my dear Callicles, you are wrong.

(this whole silly off topic debate is over here)

Edited 9/30/2015 23:14:43