Stupid war babble (was Re: cctalk digest, Vol 1 #473 - 49 msgs)

From: Doc Shipley <doc_at_docsbox.net>
Date: Sun Feb 23 13:14:38 2003

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Vintage Computer Festival wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Al Hartman wrote:
>
> > > Based on the off-list exchanges we had, your "proof"
> > > was most likely merely jingoistic non-sequiturs
> > > that Sridhar would have probably found as stupid as
> > > I did.
> >
> > Being that you haven't read said reply, you can't possibly make a
> > comment on them. I notice, as usual you stoop to personal attacks rather
> > than discuss the issue.
>
> How can I not call you an idiot? Look, I believe firmly that everyone has

        NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI

        HITLER HITLER HITLER HITLER


                GODWIN'S FSCKING LAW!


        Doc


> a right to believe what they want. But when what you believe puts others'
> (in this case tens, probably even hundreds of thousands of others') lives
> in jeopardy, I am going to call it like it is. You think a few thousand
> dead Iraqi's is fine as long as it, in your twisted logic, somehow saves
> American lives. Not only are you wrong, your premise is wrong, the
> so-called "facts" that you are basing your opinions on are wrong, the
> people you are putting your trust into are wrong, and they are lying to
> you, and you are completely, totally, unequivocally blind to this. I call
> that idiocy.
>
> > > Look, every time you open your mouth you contradict
> > > yourself. When will you realize that everything
> > > you ascribe as the reasons for which we want
> > > to go to Iraq, the US has committed the same? Are
> > > you seriously this dense?
> >
> > And what contradiction.
> >
> > When has the U.S. attacked it's neighbor?
>
> Do you know how to read?? Open up a fucking history book for once! I'm
> not your god damn history teacher, and anything I tell you you're going to
> deny anyway, so what's the fucking point!? WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT!!?
>
> > Last I heard Canada and Mexico are unmolested. And before you bring up
> > stuff that's 100's of years old, you can't address stuff that old with
> > todays mores.
>
> Panama, 1989
> Grenada, 1983
>
> Need any more examples?
>
> How about just about every central American country mired in deadly
> conflict throughout the 1960-1980 timeframe, with collectively millions of
> civilians totured or killed through puppet regimes of the US or third
> party elements acting on behalf of the US.
>
> Will you wave this off also? I can't wait for your reply!
>
> > Iraq attacked it's neighbors in modern times, with modern weapons.
>
> Blahdaddyfuckingblah! WHO CARES!? We didn't even give a shit about the
> Kuwaiti's until they begged us to come save their stupid asses! And we
> certainly didn't and still do not give a shit about the Iranians, and our
> wonderful ally Turkey doesn't give a shit about the Kurds, and so you can
> bet the US doesn't either!! Israel attacked Iraq. Israel also attacks
> what was supposed to be sovereign Palestinian territory on a daily, almost
> HOURLY basis. Israel is one of, if not THE, most blatant and unrepentive
> human rights violators on the planet Earth! Yet the US (i.e. your tax
> dollars, i.e. YOU) supports them through it all!
>
> WHAT IS THIS IMMORAL HYPOCRISY!? What is your answer to that!???
>
> > When Iraq AGREED to disarm, to not own or develop weapons of mass
> > destruction, and then broke those agreements. That's where the problem
> > lies.
>
> Control freak.
>
> WHO CARES!? It's a UNITED NATIONS problem! NOT a UNITED STATES problem!
>
> > It's not about "control" or being a "control freak".
>
> Yes, it is!
>
> > Adults make agreements and keep them.
>
> Maybe in your elemntary school yard world, but last I checked, the United
> States has broken NUMEROUS agreements, including international treaties
> on the environment and certain weapons bans. What have you got to say
> about that!? ANSWER THE QUESTION!
>
> > That's the only way world affairs can work. Treaties and agreements have
> > to be kept, and there must be trust that they will be.
>
> HYPOCRITE!! STUPID FUCKING UNRELENTINGLY MORONIC HYPOCRITE!!!
>
> > When they are broken, they must be enforced. Otherwise the entire house
> > of cards based on agreements and "word" collapses.
>
> HYPOCRITE!!!
>
> > That leads to chaos.
>
> My head is going to explode.
>
> > > > Nobody wants war, but in case such as this... This
> > > > war will prevent the deaths of millions. Not only
> > > > by Iraq and Hussein, but by others in the future
> > > > who will take this example to embolden themselves
> > > > to do evil without fear of retribution.
> > >
> > > Contradiction.
> >
> > None that I can see.
>
> Of course not, because you're an idiot. This is not a personal attack.
> This is my sincere, educated assessment of your level of critical thinking
> ability. I honestly classify you as an idiot.
>
> > It's a common tactic of people who are unable to have intelligent
> > discussions of issues.
>
> That's funny. That's really funny. You know, there was a study about a
> year ago that found that incompetent people are not capable of realizing
> their own incompetence. In their minds, they perceive themselves to be
> more competent than they actually are.
>
> > Instead of discussing the issue or facts, and keeping the discussion on
> > that level. You attack the person directly.
>
> YOU GIVE ME NOTHING ELSE TO ATTACK! Everything you say I heard on
> yesterday's news, and even then it was bullshit! Give me an original
> argument that actually makes sense and I might just respond cordially!
>
> > I could be the world's worst idiot.
>
> OH, DO YA THINK!? DO YA THINK MAYBE, HUH!?
>
> > But, if I was speaking a truth... What difference does that make?
> >
> > I could be a drooling idiot and point up and burble
> > "Sky.. Blue..."
> >
> > The fact that I could be an idiot, doesn't change the
> > fact that sky is indeed blue.
>
> Oh...my...god. Oh...my...fucking...god.
>
> > So keep the discussion on the facts, rather than making personal
> > attacks. When you do this, you rob yourself of any power, and ability to
> > have your opinions considered and respected, and convince people that
> > they must be indeed, invalid since you needed to make a personal attack.
>
> Ok, you're right. Throughout the past 10 or so grueling messages I have
> written to you, I have not once provided any facts whatsoever. I have,
> unlike you, just been spewing babble and recycled rhetoric that I borrowed
> straight from the lips of some talking head on TV. I'm sorry.
>
> I'm going to go shoot myself now.
Received on Sun Feb 23 2003 - 13:14:38 GMT