Re: Breaking news (ot)

Dennis Peterson wrote:
JMark wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:


Now you're being obtuse. The 'we' is a population whose mood as a whole can be measured. This in no way implies the entire population is of a like mind. The entire 'we' is the OBL audience and in fact includes non-Americans, some of whom take it seriously and some who do not. Polls show that a majority of the American 'we' are not supportive of our part in the war. So by majority opinion we do not take this war seriously enough to wage our side of it (my opinion). As our election results are a reflection of majority thinking and voting, it is quite likely the pro-war elected officials will be replaced with anti-war elected officials. A growing number of the 'we' would like us to just go home now, possibly thinking that would be an end to the war. And yes, you are part of the 'we' but what your specific views are are known only to you.

It was you who is being obtuse with the statement I originally challenged. I actually typed obtuse in my last reply and though better of it - but now I'll revert back.

Lemme quickly explain that your question to me about who the 'we' is was misdirected. I did not introduce it - I subsumed (got to use that word twice in one thread :) it from the OP. I answered your question out of courtesy. I've no idea who the OP's 'we' is. I answered you as best I could. Nothing obtuse about that.


I think you finally stepped out from behind your purposeful ambiguity with , "Polls show that a majority of the American 'we' are not supportive of our part in the war. So by majority opinion we do not take this war seriously enough to wage our side of it (my opinion)." Now, whether or not it is your opinion - the logic is erroneous for more than one reason.

This makes no sense. What I wrote about the polls is the truth. What I derived as my opinion is just that - an opinion. It cannot be truthful or a lie as those are not components of an opinion. It can be shown by analysis to be wrong or right, and it can be supported or not by the larger audience. There is no ambiguity anywhere. The logic stands on it's own. And for you to make *** up by suggesting it is purposeful is unsupportable and unbecoming of you.

If you took the time to notice, I left the "opinion" part in my quote. However, opinions can indeed be illogical.

Your one line reply that you'd like to wiggle out from underneath was a reply that addressed the "war on terror". Your "Polls show that a majority of the American 'we' are not supportive of our part in the war." deals primarily, if not entirely, about support for the prosecution of the war in Iraq and an increased lack of confidence in the fine folks in charge. The polls don't indicate Americans are not supportive of the "war on terror".

Then your conclusion, opinion of not, "So by majority opinion we do not take this war seriously enough to wage our side of it" is unfounded. You cannot show that anyone does not take the "war" seriously and cannot show that this has any bearing on American desire to "wage" a war on terror.

Add to that the myopic view that the war on terror appears in your mind to be OBL and his assorted cave dwelling mudhens.

This is another leap. I did not in my few paragraphs describe my entire view of the war on terror. Again you are making *** up and again it is unflattering. You can do better.

What is unflattering is your condescension in the wake of your poorly applied logic utilized in formulating your opinion.

Take a look at the State Department list of FTO's and you'll find that there are many listings that are not in collusion with OBL or his now populist seeking ideological shifts - in addition to others who have no relation at all.

Of course there are - This goes back to my comment regarding what is significant and what is not (nationality is completely unimportant, for example) in defining the bad guys.

I didn't choose to read your "blowing on and on" prior to the statement I questioned.


As a minor example, OBL killed the leader of the northern alliance in Afghanistan a couple of days before 9/11. The northern alliance and the leader killed was soon to gain unequivocal support of the US and had been supported by Iran as well. It had to do with vast ideological differences amid regional groups and alliances of groups based upon religion and tribal histories. The recent proxie battle in the land of the most holy was supported by states that have little to nothing to do with OBL or myriad other FTO's.

OBL is one cog in the wheel. The wheel itself is the belief he and others follow that drives them to commit heinous acts. There are lots of cogs.

Funny, that's what I said. You, on the other hand only provided the quote from OBL that is not what drives your other "cogs".



So, while I agree with your original obtuse statement in principle, I think elaboration is needed other than spouting your context-less propaganda from the lips of only one FTO leader.


Oh *** - Mr. Mark, this is already a very boring thread and certainly is drawing disdain from the multitudes.

Well, if we want to conjecture on what certainly is drawing disdain - think of those who draw disdain from your opinions.

There is no frikking way I'm going to blow on and on and on about every facet of this. For expediancy I have touch on an example that is readily recognized.

Readily recognized and used as propaganda for a larger cause.


How about the average "we" cannot take anything seriously because we are too fucking lazy to look beyond the utter bull*** being floated beneath their noses by "expert analysts" provided by whatever side of the fence one has chosen his herdsman from. Then add that the prosecution of the Iraq debacle, modeled after the over a decade old DPG, was a huge mistake that exacerbated the overall "terror" as the collective of groups now sees that conventional military might is ineffective and that with each additional civilian casualty their power increases. The Iranians and Syrians are impressed it seems, no?

I don't accept your premise and your conclusion is nonsense. I would quote OBL's comments regarding our abysmal performance in Somalia and how that failure bolstered their bravado, but you're sensitive to my leaving out every other goatherd in the middle east.

My "sensitivity" is your imagination. You give your opinions in a public forum and I counter them. It has always been this way. Maybe you are the one who is sensitive - and I base this on your response here.

Once everyone begins to take the root cause of terrorism seriously by informing themselves and by understanding the history of that region in relation to our foreign policy and how that relates to the "economic and strategic interests" of the US and the UK - then a consensus can be achieved amongst the "we". It has to be based on truthfully airing the grievances of non-Americans who are increasingly choosing to oppose the US due to the current policy and that of the past.

This information is widely available but as you can probably surmise, the average we is preoccupied with the antics of Tom Cruise and Paris Hilton.

Yes, this is also what I said when I said Americans were too lazy and you replied that it was nonsense. So, which is it?

It's pretty clear that responding to terrorist violence with state violence ends up killing many times more innocent people. But, once properly informed and once "we" know the truth - it will appear to most thinking individuals that gunboat diplomacy in unilateral defiance and support of oppressive regimes for economic and strategic interests needs some serious reconsideration.

It's already been suggested we can buy them off. But if you think we can come to an agreement with them whereby they will forget that we are infidels and non-believers then you don't have a goddamn clue what we're up against.

You're hooked into the fear BS line and linking all Muslims to the extremist view. "It's already been suggested we can buy them off"??? Who are "them"? Are you speaking of Muslims, (Shia, Sunni or both), the Kurds, the Palestinians? Are you speaking of the extremists who are the terrorists, moderates, fence sitters? Is buying them off a policy that works? Do we further "aid" those we "buy off", since you promote yourself as Mr. Clue, by helping them establish a government like the wonderful democracy in Egypt and sell them arms to "keep the peace"?

It may well be you that is "goddamn" clueless (your words). Clean the spittle from your chin and look down your nose in the mirror when you speak to someone else "doing better".

The hard-core among them will never relent on that point.

What point? The "kill the infidels" crowd?

That is why their historic expansion has been powered by their swords and not their ideas. The only good person who wants us dead is a dead person who wants us dead.

Their historic expansion has been powered by how our present government has "waged" this "war" on terrorism. It garners more support for the "hard core among them" - which in simple terms makes our enemy much larger and more capable.

The hard core ideology and you concluding sentence above are different in what way?

--
JMark
.