US Planning to Attack Syria, Russians Sell New Arms for Defense

How embarrassing for you ?


....
Guilty of calling the kettle black again !

 

Not embarrassing in the slightest given the infrequency of any such accolades in comparison to the routine follow up "one liners" that accompany PB's stock in trade dismissals. The sheer volume of posts from the head in sand crowd far exceeds that of those who show any capacity to investigate beyond the sanitised spin of headline news.

Certainly the two people you've cited in your lame attempt to avoid the points I raised in my response to you have shown themselves quite cognisant of the geo-political reality behind the simplistic PR you seem so willing to accept at face value.

 

...........

 

How many times do I have to hear this ? You all get upset when people accuse you of being blind or impartial, yet every thing I read from you is derogatory. " War drones, narrow minded , heads in the sand, sheep, geo-political, ect......"

Nothing you think you know is fact, it's just info you have interpreted, nothing more. you spend eight hours a day scanning the internet for " facts " the people writing these " facts " are nothing more than people like you, writing things that people like you want to hear... Every thing written about the war has a tilt to it, regardless if you believe it to be " fact " or not ... I find it hard to believe, that two seemingly intelligent people like you lick and you green thumb cant see that by constantly insisting that you are the only people privy to the "facts" and anyone not agreeing with you is a sheep, is endearing
your opinion to know one.(accept people of similar disposition.) If you wish people to see your point of view, you should first get off your high horse and accept that every one is entitled to their own opinion, and their info is just as valid as your, They are just choosing to interpret it with the opposite tilt ......

 

Ah, so by that logic, the "information" put out by Goebbels for German popular consumption or the Communist propaganda aparatus throughout the Soviet bloc was equally "factual" merely interpreted according to their particular ideological disposition? You cannot be so naive as to believe such a notion.

There are facts*, and there are lies and propaganda whether you wish to acknowledge it or simply buy into the status quo and the rhetorical doublespeak used to preserve and expand its hegemonic grasp. Especially in the context of US military pursuits, those lies fly thick and fast from the principal benefactors (the administration and the MIC). You however, read bogus PR from Leutenant Colonels, orchestrated by the OSP, and unquestioningly ignore the far more widespread destruction which we have wrought in total contravention to the Nuremburg Principles along with the mockery of "democracy" soon to be equally illegally installed.

At least you've clarified, albeit obtusely, that you do not believe in the consistent application of the "rule of law" nor the consistency of "principle".

* I challenge you to find any statement by either myself, green_thumb or Pressed Rat which claims unique apprehension of "the facts". A great many have written far more extensively and authoritatively on all manner of issues surrounding the ongoing neo-con agenda and the neo-colonialist nature of our two initial conquests in the fraudulent "war on terror". If you actually researched matters instead of opting to sit back and buy into the glossy packaging, perhaps you might obtain a greater appreciation for the true criminality of those you so readily excuse.

 

There is no real difference between

"claiming a unique apprehension of the facts"

and claiming anyone who dares disagree with you is

"incapable of contentualising facts according to verifiable geo-political reality"

So you are only re-confirming your hypocrisy.

"You cannot be so naive... you... simply buy into the status quo and the rhetorical doublespeak... You read bogus PR... and unquestioningly ignore [yada yada]. If you actually researched matters instead of opting to sit back and buy into the glossy packaging...".

Read this crap. Half of your post is taken up with insults and telling us how OTHER people think.

 

So once again you say your " facts " are the only "Facts". Read my words again.

I am starting to wonder if you,re actualy working for the government of the US and your job is to make people afraid of the crazies out to distroy their country , If that is your plan, it's working !!!

 

First of all, there's no need for the annoying font size.

I think you interpreted my question incorrectly, it was not a taunt. I was merely pointing out that your post added nothing to the discussion. It was irrelevant. I notice a common occurence when one's argument grows so weak is that people have to descend to making pointless and unrelated observances, just to say something. I myself have been guilty of this offence... I recall during the time before the U.S. elections that I resorted to this pitiful tactic against Pressed_Rat. I made a point about how he said he might vote for Nader, he said he wasn't, etc...I was right, but it was irrelevant. At that time I was a rabid Kerry bot. I had a one track mind, I wanted Kerry to win the election and I couldn't be reasoned with. I've come some way since then and have opened my eyes to the bigger picture.

No, there are indeed facts. I agree that you have to be careful who you get your facts from and that many sources are slanted.

I don't believe I've ever suggested I had a monopoly on the facts. Hell, I don't even have all of the facts. I object to being corralled into the same pen as Lick and Pressed_Rat and perhaps others. I'm nowhere near as informed as they are. I'm more proficient in science than matters of global politics. They have done much more research than I have.

Anyways, my main point was that you dodged Lick's well thought-out reply with a pointless response. I notice Point Break does this from time to time too. Instead of addressing what Lick is saying, he responds with a mockery of Lick's impressive writing style. When the crux of PB's rebuttal becomes "I wonder how many times Lick will say 'duly' in his next post?", I think it is a sign that he has nothing of substance to say in response.

 

As with everything else ! my font size is my choice ...Thankyou !

... is not a question ! You are though perpetuating the very thing you accuse myself and PB of ? Did your thread add any thing to this discussion ? except to try and imply that your research is in some way more factual than mine ?

Who informed them ? Why do you revere them ? That's exactly how every person in history gained power ! convince weaker minded people that they know what's best for them !
You haven't opened your eyes to a big picture .. you have simply soaked up the line that lick is spinning ...

Read licks threads again ... He uses what I call political speak ! Basically using big words to fool people with a inferior grasp of the English language, into the belief he knows what he's talking about ... He has gone to great length to point out the short comings of the present regimes in the west, without offering any viable alternatives what so ever ..
I will freely admit he has a few valid points, and nobody can be in any doubt that he write very eloquently .. but there is no justification for poo pooing somebody else's comments because he feels he's seen the light, where they have yet to do so ....

If you live in a glass house don't throw stones !!!!

 

Of course. It's just in the interest of being courteous...you've no obligation to be courteous though, you're right!

The "discussion" deviated (and is further deviating), so, no, my post added nothing to the original discussion, but was only to urge you to get back to the discussion at hand and address the post LickHerish prompted you with, instead of making a silly point.

Because I've acknowledged that they may know more than I do about global politics I now revere them? No, they have no "power" over my thoughts, but I respect their opinions and I recognise that they've done their homework. I've been reading their posts for several months now.

I'm sure he is just trying to stir people to see outside the narrow vision they are accustomed to. Yes he speaks eloquently, but what he says is far more important than how he says it.

 

Here we go again !!!! Because people don't see things your way, they have narrow vision ???????, how narrow can you get !!!!!

( I shall make an effort to control my font sizing problem, )

 

Here we go again indeed. Can we agree that most people see the government (U.S.) as benign? Well, to think outside that perspective requires a broader outlook, correct? This is all I'm saying. For example, there are a significant number of people who believe 9/11 was a hoax and that number is growing, but many people believe the media-promoted idea that our gov. is innocent. Lick, Pressed_Rat and others are countering that idea. We are in the minority for now. So, because the of the media's dismal coverage and questioning of 9/11, it requires a less narrow train of thought to consider the guilt of our government. I don't know how else to explain my perspective. It's very easy to be narrow-minded, it is more of a challenge to think with an open mind. Maybe it would help for you to know a bit of my history politically- I was raised, if you will, a Republican. I began to think for myself a few years back and though I don't adhere to any particular political party, my views have changed much. I'm a pacifist, green, libertarian if such a combination exists.

 

I mock Lickboy because he is begging for it. His pompous language is nothing more than intellectual bullying, and desperately needs to be parodied, duly.

Seriously, accusing someone of being "incapable of contextualising facts according to verifiable geo-political reality". What does that mean exactly? Incapable of putting things in context, in plain english? Not just political reality, not just geo-political reality, but verifiable geo-political reality? If he threw half a dozen other words in there would that make this statement even better? Are you so easily impressed?

Let's look at an example of a post, lets ask how I or anyone could have "something of substance" to say to in response:

OK, how to respond with substance to this personal attack?

Another personal attack. What substantive reply would you suggest?

This is a conclusion presented as fact. Typical. Maybe because you like the sound of the conclusion you're not bothered by the fact that there is nothing behind it.

Another conclusion presented as fact. Impressive use of keywords, but where is the substance?

And we conclude with another insult. Wow, what an impressive post. How can I hope to live up to such a high standard set by the esteemed Licktastic?

 

Conclusion presented upon the "fact" of the equilateral application of the "rule of law" spouted ad naseum by the leaders you unquestioningly defend at every turn.

Note how PB leaves out the crucial fact that my comments centered consistently upon drawing out some acknowledgement from soliloquy (although PB seems to think his own denial-ridden input worthy of interjection even when not being addressed) on the Nuremberg Principles. According to those very principles, established predominantly by Washington itself, our own nation stands every bit as guilty as those we imposed judgement upon only a few generations ago.

But of course, PB is too busy wasting board space to acknowledge any such continuity of principle. Or else, perhaps he truly believes (as does this present administration) that the US is above the "rule of law" to which it demands other nations be held to account.

 

Denial-ridden? I didn't deny a single thing. As a courtesy to the forum, could you try to ensure that your insults are at least in some way relevant to the post you are replying to?

Keep this up and I'm taking you off my buddy list.

 

Hey so uhhhhhh..... US attacking syria?????
NM im gonna stay off topic too.
I LIKE CHEEZE!

 

Sol giggles and pictures lick in his minds eye, fuming with indignation ...... There aren't many people that can joust with lick and emerge unscathed , but PB can ........ lol.....

 

LOL. Fume with indignation? Waste of energy. More a case of "*yawn*, yet another piece of off-topic blather from the king of drivel himself". One expects nothing more from PB after being here for some time. His addiction to following my every post actually makes him appear all the more lamentable.

Now, would YOU care to respond to the matter of the consistent application of the "rule of law" and the Nuremberg Principles originally put to you before the discussion was once again hijacked?

 

Shouldn't Green Thumb be held accountable too? She is derailing the thread just as much as they are. Personal attacks seem to be her forte'.

I will give it to lick thogh. He does put up a good argument without straying from the subject.