User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast
Results 57 to 64 of 72

Thread: Non-Compliance

  1. #57
    Nepenthes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA USA
    Posts
    642
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I wanted to just let this thread die, but there was one part that was bugging me and that I felt needed clarification, if for no other reason than to clarify my outlook on a specific issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nepenthes View Post
    BTW here is a definition of brainwashing: "any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, esp. one based on repetition or confusion". How many times have you heard the word terrorist? How do you think so many people were enthusiastically ushered into a war, for which almost none have approval for now? Because we are fighting terrorists right? Terrorists. Terror. Terrorism. Oh yeah and a little bit of oil and defense contracts. Terror.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyro View Post
    With respect, this conversation is not about "the war" or terrorists. But since you bring it up and in such a derisive manner I would like to point it out to you that some 4000 people lost their lives and two major building were annihilated in an act of terrorism. While the word "terrorist" may be bandied about in excess it does not change the fact that terrorists do exist and are out there and that they dealt us one of the most devastating attacks this country has ever seen on our own soil.
    First of all, some 3,000 people lost their lives during 9/11, and 3 major buildings were annihilated (not including the Pentagon). That of course is no less tragic than had 4,000 people died, and 2 buildings came down, but at any rate that was erroneous. Anyway, that was not my major concern with what was said here. What was getting to me was how I brought the issue up in such a "derisive manner". I never argued that terrorists exist, and that they are out there. My statement was in reponse to brainwashing, and its proliferation in this government (like the pledge). You cannot fight a "war" against terrorists, in the same way you cannot fight a "war on drugs". It just doesn't make any sense. Al-Qaeda does not have a country (you must declare a war on a country). That was when Bush had to go on record saying "This country will make no distinction between terrorists and the countries that harbor them." Hence, the people got ushered into a war when they were fed false information that Iraq was harboring these terrorists. (Even though it has been proven the hijackers were not from Iraq, and Saddam did not have WMD's)

    Back to those 3000 people that died on 9/11. It was no doubt a tragic day for the U.S., and we were attacked by terrorists... But you can also call the U.S. government terrorists. What of the nearly 200,000 children whom died of starvation, disease, and sickness when we placed a blockade on Iraq during the Clinton Presidency? What about the countless bombs we dropped? (Not to mention the bombings during previous presidential terms) What about when we bombed the chemical factory producing medicine for over half the Iraqi population, because we "suspected" them of producing chemical weapons? The nerve gas Saddam used on the Kurds was created with the help of the Pfaulder corporation in Rochester, New York. Anyway, I digress. I simply wanted to point out why I used the word "terrorist" so "derisively". It was used to illustrate the brainwashing tactics we are subjected to, to bend the will of the people unto government, and corporate agendas.

    Please do not take my corrections as disrespect to you, or to this country pyro. I simply wanted to elucidate the issue some. I do not treat the losses of 9/11 mockingly (derisively), but I do treat the government's response to it in such a manner. Yes terrorists DO exist, and they have bad intentions. But a more important question is why they exist, and, what has been done to them. We cannot kill hundreds of thousands, (millions worldwide), and not expect for "terrorists" to lash out at us. Of course I use the term "us" very loosely here, because neither you nor I are guilty, but I think you know what I mean.
    - Daniel

  2. #58
    herenorthere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    almost Hartford
    Posts
    3,785
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The thread was more than non compliance, yes, but it also had to do about how it affected my home life. My mom practically hates me, and didn't come to the veterans day thing cause she didn't want to see her son not stand for the pledge.
    You have to choose your battles. The pledge of allegiance was written by a Christian socialist who actually believed in "liberty and justice for all" and saw no need for "under God" to be included. If nothing else, stand and enjoy the spectacle of a roomful of people saying they believe in "liberty and justice for all." It seems to me that some of the most strident pledgers don't actually hear what they're saying. It's kind of like going to a ballgame and seeing a crowd of red-blooded Americans cavorting along to the gay anthem "YMCA". It's words purged of their original meaning.
    Bruce in CT

    Madness is something rare in individuals but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule. Friedrich Nietzsche

  3. #59
    scottychaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Western New York, USA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Nepenthes View Post


    First of all, some 3,000 people lost their lives during 9/11, and 3 major buildings were annihilated (not including the Pentagon). That of course is no less tragic than had 4,000 people died, and 2 buildings came down, but at any rate that was erroneous.

    *snip*

    (Even though it has been proven the hijackers were not from Iraq, and Saddam did not have WMD's)
    Since we are pointing out things that are erroneous, you made an erroneous statement yourself:

    "Even though it has been proven" "Saddam did not have WMD's"

    thats a myth that Saddam didnt have WMD's..and it has not "been proven" that he didnt...Actually it has been proven that he did, and he used them..thats a known fact.
    yes maybe he didnt have them anymore by the time we invaded, but we didnt know that, but we gave him months of warning so he could get rid of them!

    Its like if the police intend to raid the local drug house..they put a big advertisement in the newspaper"
    "ATTENTION! The Police will raid the drug house at 123 main street on January 15th at 8am, 3 months from now!"
    then its on the news every night for weeks "Big drug house raid only a week away now"
    then the big day comes..the police raid..to the shock of everyone, there are NO drugs in the house! amazing! Then people say "SEE! those nasty police are so mean! that was never a drug house..the fact that the police found no drugs PROVES there were NEVER any drugs there!"

    its twisted logic..
    but its the same logic the people who believe that "Saddam didnt have WMD's" are using.

    how did we get on this topic anyway??
    I thought this was about the pledge?
    oh well...just helping to point out erroneous statements..since we like to do that here!

    Scot

  4. #60
    Nepenthes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA USA
    Posts
    642
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Nepenthes View Post
    What about when we bombed the chemical factory producing medicine for over half the Iraqi population, because we "suspected" them of producing chemical weapons? The nerve gas Saddam used on the Kurds was created with the help of the Pfaulder corporation in Rochester, New York.
    Those "WMD's" which you are referring to are the gas nerve agents which were created with the help of a U.S. corporation (who also help him set up factories to produce the chemical). I even mentioned them as you can see in my above quote. I did not regard them as WMDs, however, because we all knew he had used that nerve agent prior to 9/11. When it was said he had WMDs, they were referring to other forms of WMDs, not the ones we had supplied to him, and of which there was no doubt of his posession.

    Yes it made no sense for us to give him so much time to clear out any other weapons he might have had... the same way it makes no sense that we have color-coded terror alerts. Who wakes up everyday and checks the alert status? Terrorists. Anyway I digress. I was not using "twisted logic" in saying that he did not have WMDs. This has been admitted to in a CIA report authored by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group. They did conclude that he intended on obtaining WMDs in the future, but this hardly makes my statement false.

    I suppose we do like to point out erroneous statements here after all. Next time check your facts. Again, I mean you no disrespect either, but your facetious nature has caused me to point this out to you.

    Anyway, this was about the pledge, but I was responding to Pyro's statement about my "derisive manner". My correcting him, was not done in malice, but as a matter of clarification. I do not regard our troops or our country with contempt. However, I do regard the Plutocracy of a handful of people as such.
    - Daniel

  5. #61
    scottychaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Western New York, USA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ah! ok..so if the defination is inconvenient, (WMD's) just change it to suit your beliefs.

    so when you said "and Saddam did not have WMD's"..period.. you get to change the defination of WMD until your defination makes your statement correct.

    gotcha..
    that explains a lot!

    thanks,
    Scot

  6. #62
    Nepenthes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA USA
    Posts
    642
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Nepenthes View Post
    I was not using "twisted logic" in saying that he did not have WMDs. This has been admitted to in a CIA report authored by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group..
    How much of my response did you actually read? It was never MY definition. Glad we could clear that up.

    Edit: He didn't have any more of that nerve agent left anyway... that's retroactive punishment, when in fact we said he still had them. So, he had WMDs at one point, sure... But he didn't have them during 9/11. I said he didn't have WMD's. I didn't mean he didn't have WMDs 10+ years ago. That's just retarded. Why would I argue that? Talk about twisted logic.
    - Daniel

  7. #63
    nepenthes_ak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Spring Feild Ohio
    Posts
    3,116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nepenthes and scottychaos,

    Either way both sides of the argument are going to biased in some way from something some ones read, heard or watched. Its hard convincing some one who's headstrong about what they beleive in as right.

    Which is why I have ended up just not trying to explain to kids who SEEM interested in the way I think things happened cause it always ends up in a stressed out debate. They have the support of more people so they are right, making me the bad guy.

  8. #64
    Nepenthes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA USA
    Posts
    642
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You're right Nep AK. This will be my last post in this thread. We can sit here and argue semantics all day long but this is the facts of what I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nepenthes View Post
    (Even though it has been proven the hijackers were not from Iraq, and Saddam did not have WMD's).
    Quote Originally Posted by Nepenthes View Post
    Those "WMD's" which you are referring to are the gas nerve agents which were created with the help of a U.S. corporation (who also help him set up factories to produce the chemical). I even mentioned them as you can see in my above quote. I did not regard them as WMDs, however, because we all knew he had used that nerve agent prior to 9/11. When it was said he had WMDs, they were referring to other forms of WMDs, not the ones we had supplied to him, and of which there was no doubt of his posession.
    Although this posession was over 10 years ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nepenthes View Post
    I was not using "twisted logic" in saying that he did not have WMDs. This has been admitted to in a CIA report authored by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.
    U.S. invasions were not based as retroactive punishment, but as a response to his current posession of WMDs, WHICH WAS FALSE. Twist whatever I say how you want, but the facts are all there.
    - Daniel

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •