The wrong reason being that GGT has been lying throughout this thread...
The wrong reason being that GGT has been lying throughout this thread...
Hope is the denial of reality
Then please say soOriginally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
I quoted you because you said it's hard to fund something at a net loss. I'm not sure why you say that, but I thought perhaps you'd be willing to accept an alternative label, eg. the ones I listed. Maybe if we all work together we can find a single word or straightforward description that we can all agree on.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Are you sure? Just a few posts back you were willing to consider the possibility that she simply couldn't read. What's changed? Are you withdrawing your previous implication in favour of this new one?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I'm sorry, I thought it would be appropriate for us to be in the same dazed and confused state of mind, so we could relate more efficiently.Then please say so
And being straightforward never has been one of my strong points. People should know that by now.
I'll agree to anything you prefer. Fund was simply the first that came to mind.I quoted you because you said it's hard to fund something at a net loss. I'm not sure why you say that, but I thought perhaps you'd be willing to accept an alternative label, eg. the ones I listed. Maybe if we all work together we can find a single word or straightforward description that we can all agree on.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
The fact that she kept on citing articles that in no way supported her argument, likely hoping that we're too stupid to actually read them instead of just looking at the headlines. And then changing her claim of billions to millions to one million. Do I really have to go on?
Don't you have a puppy to kick or something?
Hope is the denial of reality
Okay so how do we go about establishing malicious intent eg. deliberate lying? I mean, previously you've attributed it to stupidity, mental illness, drug use or failure to use drugs, etc. I note you've never acknowledged any possible role of stress/distress caused by eg. your hostility and mode of expression. Or anything of the sort. Would you be willing to consider that as a potential contributor to her alleged lying?
I recall you citing several articles that, under scrutiny, didn't support your claims in the good old healthcare debates, were you lying back then? You sonofabitch
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I have to say, you're make a good lawyer for rapists. It's always the victim's fault.
Hope is the denial of reality
And there you go again jumping to blame, when I was talking about explanations. I have to say, you make a good Lewkowski. Are you so insecure that you can't acknowledge the possibility that your behavior affects those you interact with? I also have to say you seem deluded--in what way are you a victim? You're in no way a victim in anything, you're very skilled at defending yourself with words just as you are skilled at--and prone to--attacking others with them. How on earth can anyone see you as a victim?
But if you must focus on blame and victimisation then allow me to present an alternative for the sake of sportsmanship: GGT is a victim and you're to blame.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Let me present another alternative: get off your high horse before you fall off. You're quickly losing any credibility you've had. Your opportunistic attacks against people you disagree with aren't fooling anyone. So go get your career change and defend criminals who have been provoked to commit their crimes.
Hope is the denial of reality
Considering the things he could have quoted from the Bible, it certainly could have been worse.I'm sorry you had to experience that
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Why are you so sensitive? Why is it so important to you to be able to consider GGT a rapist?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
That's simply not true. 'Being more careful' disrupts their operational structure. When the mid- and high-level guys are holed up in hideouts or constantly on the move with limited communication with their underlings, the operation acts less effectively (aside from the obvious short-term effects of eliminating an able operational commander).
There was an interesting study done on Hamas a few years ago after Israel had managed to kill most of their leadership in Gaza. The basic conclusion was that while the motivation to carry out attacks actually increased after an important leader was killed, the severity and effectiveness of the attacks decreased. So yes, the rank-and-file still wanted to do crazy shit (the only solutions to that being good defense coupled with progress on a political front), but without able and available leadership, they couldn't actually do the really bad stuff. So: shooting and mortar attacks instead of suicide bombs.
I don't think any of this solves terrorism, it just manages it to keep our population fairly safe while we pursue other options.
Sorry, but comparing Hamas to Al-Qaida does not quite cut it. AQ is not a military organization, after all, has independent cells and, to top it off, Bin Laden had already turned 'leadership' over to someone else...
And "keeping us safe"? Heh, right. Keep saying that, maybe eventually you'll actually believe it at some point.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Hmmm but clearly all of these cells aren't all that competent all on their own. Can't we entertain the notion that the loss of visionary and competent leaders may have an impact on those cells? People throwing down their bombs, "fuck it let's go bowling" type of thing?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
As I said before, I don't think the operational aspects of AQ are directly affected by OBL's demise (though maybe their recruiting), but from the fact that it continues to keep the other leadership in hiding and less effective.
I'm curious that you think Hamas doesn't have a cell structure and is a 'military' organization. Sure, they have some broader security organizations that keep order in Gaza and provide some support for attacks on Israel, but their main striking arm is most definitely strucured like a normal terrorist organization.
I think a lot of the domestic measures taken since 9/11 have been spurious from a security perspective, but US intelligence, law enforcement, and the military have also managed to rack up a fairly impressive list of successes. We can debate on this all day, though, since clearly you disagree rather strongly.And "keeping us safe"? Heh, right. Keep saying that, maybe eventually you'll actually believe it at some point.
True!
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Why are you assuming I'm assuming those things? Without knowledge of what was actually said by me and my colleague, what purpose does this post serve other than derail Minx's thread into another US-al Qaida slog fest? I only mentioned the conversation because the temporal nearness amused me, my rejection of your vengeance-based justice is well known either way.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
I.E. It's immoral to celebrate the capture of a mass murderer? We should be what? Indifferent? Sad?
Hope is the denial of reality
Please quote the specific statement I've made where you got this impression, I'm sure I can bend over backwards to explain how it was due to my deficient grasp of the English language rather than you propping up ridiculous straw-men to support whichever bug you've up your ass this particular day.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Dubious in the sense that it's not good, but at least better than the alternative. Trying to spread democracy and freedom, but still supporting autocrats. I know it's usually better to keep relations and trade, but it still goes against your own ideals at times. I'm not saying there should be no relations, no trade, or even no aid to such nations, but that doesn't mean I always feel comfortable with it. But I guess that's the reality of it
By the way, I was more referring to regimes that actually received money and/or weapons, military aid, etc. (think Yemen, for example). Or supporting terrorist groups groups as long as they fight against your enemies (not sure if that still happens but it happened in the past). Though I'd say the US is supporting the Netherlands, not so much by having relations and trading but because I'd think you guys would probably take our side in an international conflict, and (help) defend us.
I think you are confusing 'reason' with 'excuse'. There is no excuse for it, but that does not mean it had no reason. Qadaffi had a reason why he wanted to hurt the US, he did not do it because he randomly likes to kill civilians, it was specifically a US bound flight, and not, say, a Russian flight.Nothing can "reason" Lockerbie.
Enoch linked to something saying they received ~5 million for counterterrorism and dismantling their WMD program (e.g. destroying poison gas), and some to education and HIV patients. Like you said, the total is less than he paid per victim so I'd call it more of a normalization of relations than support.You still haven't shown the US giving foreign aid to Libya.It doesn't cancel our support for Martians either.
Nice attempt to derail the discussion yet again in the previous post by the way.
Well, it's not like the US never at least tried, or was actively involved in assassinating heads of state before, without declarations of war, and I doubt they were the only country.
Last edited by Flixy; 05-05-2011 at 09:42 AM.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I was wrong! I'm sorry that led to such a derailment. Moving right along.....I asked because my memory isn't very reliable lately.
(Not that it matters, but I was either recalling $30 billion in assets frozen by the US, or the Libyan Investment Authority with $30 billion invested in US banks.)
Which of our values says we should only deal with countries that look, talk, and act like us? As long as we don't actively approve of their autocratic policies, I fail to see what the contradiction is. Was America approving of the Soviet system by selling the latter wheat?Dubious in the sense that it's not good, but at least better than the alternative. Trying to spread democracy and freedom, but still supporting autocrats. I know it's usually better to keep relations and trade, but it still goes against your own ideals at times. I'm not saying there should be no relations, no trade, or even no aid to such nations, but that doesn't mean I always feel comfortable with it. But I guess that's the reality of it
By the way, I was more referring to regimes that actually received money and/or weapons, military aid, etc. (think Yemen, for example). Or supporting terrorist groups groups as long as they fight against your enemies (not sure if that still happens but it happened in the past). Though I'd say the US is supporting the Netherlands, not so much by having relations and trading but because I'd think you guys would probably take our side in an international conflict, and (help) defend us.
A lot of the "aid" we give to autocracies actually goes to opposition and civil society groups to foster democratization. Even the military aid tends to be against threats most people would agree countries should fight against (i.e. human trafficking, drug smuggling, terrorists). Should we really allow these things to take place due to a lack of resources in the relevant country just because it happens to be ruled by an autocrat?
Hope is the denial of reality
But do we really need their oil or are we just buying it and propping up their autocrats because we can t be bothered to change the way we do things? after all it s only just ragheads being oppressed
Congratulations America
Are you propping America up by buying products made in the US?
Hope is the denial of reality
What is your point? Does the US government produce/sell anything that brings enough money to pretty much cover the entire budget?
Congratulations America
Did you prop up the government of Cote D'Ivoire by buying coffee?
Hope is the denial of reality
Is that government monopolizing the coffee trade?
Congratulations America
It sold something like 40% of the world's cocoa.
Hope is the denial of reality
The cocoa then. Does the country sell that or a government controled entity? Also is cocoa a strategic commodity?
Congratulations America
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote