herfacechair
Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
|
Lilmissbossy: Too funny. How can I take you seriously.
Considering that I am rebutting your points, I would not expect the ego to stand by and let you take me seriously.
Lilmissbossy: More importantly, how can anyone from the Lebanon take you seriously.
First, the war in that area is not against the Lebanese people, it is against Hezbolla and Hamas.
Second, Hezbolla has the power to drop deaths resulting from collateral damage. All they have to do is redeploy their forces out in the field, away from heavily populated areas. But they are not doing that. They are positioning themselves within heavily populated areas hoping to cause allot of collateral damage to happen. This is a tactic that was employed by the Taliban/Al-Qaeda and by the Iraqis under Saddam.
These guys know that if the media sees allot of dead bystanders, they could sway public opinion on their side against the Israelis. This was the same hope in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Third, the Israelis are not deliberately attacking the Lebanese civilians. They are going out of their way to take Hezbolla out. If anything, the Lebanese government would benefit from Israel’s breaking Hezbolla’s back.
Lilmissbossy: My point about you "spamming the boards" isn't that you aren't simply replying to other posters, it's that you post 500 words when 5 will do.
Go ahead, choose one of my 500 word posts and condense that same post to five words.
Then I will show you WHY it can’t be condensed down to five words.
Lilmissbossy: Again, I can already anticipate your "I am giving informed and researched answers" but that simply isn't the case.
ROTFLMFAO! Take a look at this opinion piece that you just stated. This is one of the reasons to why I can’t get anywhere near to taking you seriously. But again, I would not expect a person’s ego to see that I am giving informed and researched answers.
Lilmissbossy: You respond to the simplest question with mind-bogglingly unnecessary text.
Because your question ignores the fact that Iraq was a part of the enemy that we are engaging.
If you ask me a question that reflects my the reality of what constitutes our threat, you will get a simple response.
Until then, you will get a response that will direct you to the composition of our threat.
Lilmissbossy: Example. You asserted that we attacked Iraq but not China because China didn't fly a plane into a building.
Where, in my posts, did I say that we did not attack China because they did not fly a plane into a building?
Trust me, I know what my cognitive process is, and nowhere was I asserting that we would not, or did not, attack China because they did not fly an airplane into one of our buildings.
Lilmissbossy: I pointed out (informed you, apparently) that Iraq did not either. And if you believe they did, I gave you this option.
Negative, you MISUNDERSTOOD what I was getting across, and tailored your response to address what you misunderstood.
For example:
You: If it's the latter, I wonder why we chose Iraq and not China.
Me: Name me five Chinese terrorist groups that are committing murder throughout the world though the use of terrorism. Name me a Chinese terror group that has successfully commandeered an aircraft and slammed it into a tall building - knocking it down and killing thousands. If you can answer this question, then you will have a point.
Me prior to making that comment in the same post: That was only one of the reasons for our going in. If you remember the post 9/11 speech that George Bush gave (which, by the way, is a simple outline of an ASYMMETRICAL war), you will see that one of the themes was to change the environment that breeds terrorist activities like what was being practiced by Al-Qaeda. Turning that region into a democratic zone would go along way to eliminating the terrorist fascist threat that we face.
quote:
ORIGINAL: herfacechair
Two Chinese Colonels wrote a book titled, “Unrestricted Warfare”, which is basically asymmetrical warfare. They explained how a weaker organization could defeat a powerful nation using methods outside of what others think are normal methods - or manners - of war.
“Whether it be the intrusions of hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, or a bombing attack nby Bin Laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency bandwidths understood by the American military…. This is because they have never taken into consideration and have even refused to consider means that are contrary to tradition and to select measures of operations other than military means.. (Col. Qiao Liang and Col. Wang Xiangsui, 1999).
“Means contrary to tradition”
Tradition: Threatening nation deploys military to threatened nation. (Iraq was “not” threatening because their military is not capable, etc)
Tradition: Threatening nation is directly responsible for visible attacks on threatened nation. (Iraq did not fly planes into the World Trade Center, therefore, attacking Iraq was “wrong”.)
Unrestricted warfare destroys common norms in favor of tactics outside the imagination of those that refuse to see beyond current war traditions.
(1) These were all stated BEFORE I asked you to name me Chinese terror groups that slammed aircraft into buildings.
(2) Your concept of the war on terrorism is limited to Al-Qaeda and their major bombing campaigns. Anything outside of that has “nothing” to do with the war on terrorism.
(3) My concept on the war on terrorism accurately points out that the war on terrorism was NOT limited to just Al-Qaeda and 9/11, but to a fluid enemy that also included a WMD Iraq and a terror organization willing to deliver WMD to our soil.
On your question asking why Iraq and not China pit two entities (A) and (B) against each other.
(A) China
(B) Fluid asymmetrical threat against the US that included visibile and invisible threats, obvious and non obvious threats, visible and invisible players, direct and indirect players. This asymmetrical entity included a WMD Iraq and an Al-Qaeda willing to deliver WMD to our soil.
Now, when I asked you this question:
“Name me five Chinese terrorist groups that are committing murder throughout the world though the use of terrorism. Name me a Chinese terror group that has successfully commandeered an aircraft and slammed it into a tall building - knocking it down and killing thousands. If you can answer this question, then you will have a point.” - herfacechair
I was pitting (A) and (B) above as options. THAT was what was going on in my mind.
Lilmissbossy: This, herfacechair, is what the political world calls "waffle".
Negative, it is an attempt on your part to ask a loaded question based in misinterpreting what I was getting across to you.
Lilmissbossy: Careful avoidance of a direct answer by typing something unrelated in the hope it will deflect
I know what my thought processes were when I was typing up my replies to you, I know for a FACT that what you say here was NOT what I was thinking or doing.
I was pointing out the flaw of your questioning and the flaw of your reasoning.
Lilmissbossy: away from the fact you were wrong.
(1) In order for me to be wrong, then the possibility that Saddam would sell WMD to Al-Qaeda for delivery to the U.S. would have to be non existent.
(2) In order for me to be wrong, the current war that we are engaging in WOULD NOT be an asymmetrical war.
(3) In order for me to be wrong, the threat that we are dealing with would be symmetrical - clearly defined, clearly visible, clearly identfyable, clearly tracked, etc.
But the fact of the matter is that Saddam had intentions of completing his WMD programs and Bin Laden was looking for WMD’s. This way is asymmetrical in nature and the enemy that we are dealing with has elements that are not visible.
So I am not wrong. You are wrong for refusing to see what I was actually getting across to you, and asking a loaded question based on what you misunderstood.
Lilmissbossy: I'm not expecting you to type "ok I was wrong" But you were.
Because the idea that I am “wrong” in this argument makes as much sense as believing that we all on Mars right now.
Lilmissbossy: (And by the way, if you asked my 8 year old brother if he's in the real army or just pretending, he has the maturity to say "I'm just pretending".)
Again...
OK, I am willing to prove to someone that I am who I say I am. If you are willing to accept this, I will pick a poster, show them some documentation, then have them come here and verify that I am who I say I am.
Just let me know and I will contact a poster that I trust.
That is not the only question that I had for you that you failed to even acknowledge.
Here are a couple more questions that you are avoiding:
Lilmissbossy: Going to jail = everyone in Guantanamo Bay?
Question: The detainees in Guantanamo Bay are there because..
(A) They were captured on the battle field as they were trying to fight against our troops, were involved with terrorism one way or another and were captured overseas, etc…
(B) They were American citizens who disagreed with the Bush Administration while exercising their freedom of speech and expression on U.S. soil…
Here is a review for the above pop quiz:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4715916
Lilmissbossy: Dying = you shouldn't need to ask.
Let me simplify this. How many American citizens are dying in concentration camps on US soil - or elsewhere - as a result of their badmouthing the Administration on U.S. soil?
What is a political term for someone that avoids answering simple straightforward - non shotgun - questions like these?
|
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 
Profile
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 
They'll sing but they won't shut up. That seems downright American. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread