I think the term grammar nazi has a certain resonance here. More than usual. Emphasis on the nazi part...
US/Israel considering joint surgical strike on Iran
- Thread starter Fred Zed
- Start date
You might wanna try the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PinocchioThis is awkward....add spelling, Captain Pinnochio
'I see nothing, i hear nothing', comes to mind really quickly.I think the term grammar nazi has a certain resonance here. More than usual. Emphasis on the nazi part...
It certainly does when you read the contributions of the poster you chose to quote for that remark.'I see nothing', comes to mind really quickly.
You are again in the minority, but we're used to that. You complain about someone's grammar, trying to make points, which is found to be correct by most and you can't even spell simple english words. How does that commercial go? Priceless!It certainly does when you read the contributions of the poster you chose to quote for that remark.
Nowhere did I do that, liar. I asked you for the ruling and pointed out that we needed to hear both sides of the story. A judge heard both sides of the story and decided your version of it was nonsense. I'd like to see that ruling, and without it, you really have no place to make any claims.How about the one where you rationalized an Israeli officer walking up to 13 year old Palestinians girl that he had just shot and blowing her head off?
So do you have a copy of the ruling or not?
Bingo!! Now apply that to al-awlakiNowhere did I do that, liar. I asked you for the ruling and pointed out that we needed to hear both sides of the story. A judge heard both sides of the story and decided your version of it was nonsense. I'd like to see that ruling, and without it, you really have no place to make any claims.
So do you have a copy of the ruling or not?
I think the way the US is conducting itself there is troubling, but it's a long way off being terrorism, as you claimed. There's no doubt that they are going after people they consider to be terrorists, and not the general population. Terrorism, to me, is when you start killing ordinary, uninvolved, innocent civilians--people just trying to go about their lives who are not otherwise involved in the conflict. You and Groggy have attempted to apply it to efforts to take down enemy fighters, terrorists, people working on weapons, and so on. You can't honestly say it's the same thing.Bingo!! Now apply that to al-awlaki
Now I think there should be more open processes around going after the bad guys, I think the evidence against al-Awlaki should be made public, and I think they should have used a judicial process against him because he's an American citizen. But I have no doubt that they went after him because they have reason to believe he was one of the bad guys, involved in terrorism, and not just some random civilian. The danger, of course, is that without making the process more transparent there is risk that it will be abused--start out going after bad guys like bin Laden and al-Awlaki, and sooner or later some general is going to decide to go after a straight political figure who isn't involved in violence. I don't think that's happened, and I don't think if it did happen it would be US policy--but it's better to remove the opportunity, and eliminate the temptation, by being more open about what's going on, why, on what basis, etc.
You've resorted to all kinds of crazy hyperbole to try and create some kind of false equality between Iran's attacks on regular civilians, and the US's sometimes dubious conduct in going after the bad guys. The US gets itself into some gray areas, and deserves to be held to a higher standard because it is a democracy--but Iran isn't engaged in any gray areas. Iran is a thorough-going sponsor of terror, and its proxies openly target civilians.
Yes, that makes total sense.Nowhere did I do that, liar. I asked you for the ruling and pointed out that we needed to hear both sides of the story.
So do you have a copy of the ruling or not?
Until we hear the side of the executed girl and her personal telling of the story then we'll have to assume the officer is innocent.
That's what you meant, isn't it?
Lol.Yes, that makes total sense.
Until we hear the side of the executed girl and her personal telling of the story then we'll have to assume the officer is innocent.
That's what you meant, isn't it?
In point of fact this particular case went to court, a judge heard both(!) sides of the story, and decided that the version you have presented was bunk. We don't have the ruling, so we don't know why he decided that--don't you think it would be interesting to find out? And the fact that a judge decided your version of the story was bunk tends to make me think it was bunk.
If it comes down to believing a judge who looked into it in detail, or a hate monger who spews propaganda after having read a very vague account presented by one side...
If it comes down to believing a judge who looked into it in detail, or a hate monger who spews propaganda after having read a very vague account presented by one side...
Just like these military judges. Deny deny deny to any acusationsIn point of fact this particular case went to court, a judge heard both(!) sides of the story, and decided that the version you have presented was bunk. We don't have the ruling, so we don't know why he decided that--don't you think it would be interesting to find out? And the fact that a judge decided your version of the story was bunk tends to make me think it was bunk.
If it comes down to believing a judge who looked into it in detail, or a hate monger who spews propaganda after having read a very vague account presented by one side...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishaqi_incident#section_3
I see you are determined to believe any random bit of anti-Israeli propaganda that you are fed, without bothering to get ahold of the facts.
You plainly don't have the full story, you don't know why the court reached its decision, you only have this very vague report that omits a ton of details, and you are ready, on that basis, to leap to all sorts of conclusions, just so long as you can get your hate on.
How about this: Since we CLEARLY do not have the full story, since there CLEARLY is another side to the story (i.e., the one that caused a court to decide your story is bunk), why not agree to withhold judgement one way or another, until we have all the facts?
You plainly don't have the full story, you don't know why the court reached its decision, you only have this very vague report that omits a ton of details, and you are ready, on that basis, to leap to all sorts of conclusions, just so long as you can get your hate on.
How about this: Since we CLEARLY do not have the full story, since there CLEARLY is another side to the story (i.e., the one that caused a court to decide your story is bunk), why not agree to withhold judgement one way or another, until we have all the facts?
Did you even see my link?I see you are determined to believe any random bit of anti-Israeli propaganda that you are fed, without bothering to get ahold of the facts.
You plainly don't have the full story, you don't know why the court reached its decision, you only have this very vague report that omits a ton of details, and you are ready, on that basis, to leap to all sorts of conclusions, just so long as you can get your hate on.
How about this: Since we CLEARLY do not have the full story, since there CLEARLY is another side to the story (i.e., the one that caused a court to decide your story is bunk), why not agree to withhold judgement one way or another, until we have all the facts?
I guess innocent until proven guilty is not big where you come from.Yes, that makes total sense.
Until we hear the side of the executed girl and her personal telling of the story then we'll have to assume the officer is innocent.
That's what you meant, isn't it?
Have you heard of the presumption of innocence?
Does al-awalaki have the same presumption??!I guess innocent until proven guilty is not big where you come from.
Have you heard of the presumption of innocence?
We'll get to that in just a second, so hold on tight. But I guess you know where this is going....Your link seemed to be completely off topic and irrelevant? Something to do with Iraq...
Agree or disagree: what those marines did to Iraqi civilians are just as bad if not wrost as the terroist group Hezbollah?
Absolutely, if he had turned himself and subjected himself to a court process. He was in fact tried in absentia by a Yemeni court.Does al-awalaki have the same presumption??!
Do you think he was not tied to terrorist activities? Do you think he was not a leader in al Queda?
So your question assumes that we believe the negative version of the story about the marines? Do you have some reason that we should accept that version?We'll get to that in just a second, so hold on tight. But I guess you know where this is going....
Agree or disagree: what those marines did to Iraqi civilians are just as bad if not wrost as the terroist group Hezbollah?
