Patriotism Test

[bigburpco]

Double Post: Deleted

 

[bigburpco]

words

DISCLAIMER: Tis all IMO

You suck. Try harder.

You use negative words to force your opinion onto others, when, clearly they have different views. You suck. Try harder.

You then assume you have superior authority over whom you are arguing with. Have you seen the other's evidence? Do you not trust Wikipedia when people given complete freedom to edit information, and yet, so much of it is accurate (saw in a report. don't whine)? Do you have a brain? If your answer is all no, you suck. Try harder.

You assume that CptStern assumes too much. I assume you're a corporeal bastard. You suck. Try harder.

You argue, assuming that whom you are arguing with is a retard. You suck. Try harder.

You argue. But you miss the point. You suck. Try harder.

You are talking balls. You suck. Try harder.

You really suck. Try harder.

DISCLAIMER: I am using your style of arguing to insult you. Forgive me.

 

[DancingSoda]

You suck. Try harder.

Oh my!!! My ego, my argument, killed with 4 words, a single thrust... the horror... the horror...

You use negative words to force your opinion onto others, when, clearly they have different views.

...Well, well, well. I didn't think I'd be able to use TWO Apocalypse Now references in this post. You made DancingSoda's day!

"What do you call assassins who accuse assassins?"

You then assume you have superior authority over whom you are arguing with. Have you seen the other's evidence? Do you not trust Wikipedia when people given complete freedom to edit information

I can edit Jesus' wikipage and say he was a homosexual deviant that embraced Nazism. Granted, it won't be up long, but it'll still happen.

Wiki is good for getting a general grasp on a subject, but it's by no means an actual encyclopedia.

You assume that CptStern assumes too much. I assume you're a corporeal bastard.

You really should look at the definition of corporeal. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

That said, yes, I am a living entity and self-aware bastard. I am of flesh, yes.

You argue, assuming that whom you are arguing with is a retard.

Not a retard, a fool. Please make sure you're statements are correct. A retard is incapable of putting forth a structured perspective. A fool can, but it's either incorrect or ignorant.

You argue. But you miss the point.

Yes... many points coming from the same person (CptStern) that claimed that Fox News wasn't a real journalistic network. Perhaps he doesn't agree with what and how they report, but it is far from a fake and/or imaginary news network.

You are talking balls.

Heh?

DISCLAIMER: I am using your style of arguing to insult you. Forgive me.

If you are going to emulate me, please do so in an exact manner. You did not interject any wit, sarcasm, or other tidbits to suppliment your posting (also, take note that people that claim that sarcasm is an indication of a losing argument, use this phrase to escape having to retort said sarcastic statement. A very poor and weak counter. Even a sarcastic retort is one that needs be rebuttaled.).

 

[Reaktor4]

What do you call assassins who accuse assassins?

america?

 

[CptStern]

I'm sorry that you have no idea how to use a dictionary. Once again, learn the definition of the damn words before you try debating me. The President of the United States is NOT the voice of America, and does NOT speak for the people.

he is the head of state therefore he is the symbol of the people

Yes, never mind the fact that electoral voters HAVE voted for other candidates before.

yet have never changed the outcome of an election nor have they even remotely come close to it

Hell, you've demonstrated a complete and utter lack of understanding on the electoral college voting system.

You're an accusation throwing monkey without a damn bit of evidence. Please eat your keyboard and throw your computer out the window.

? what the hell does that mean? you've so clouded the issue with your sidestepping of direct questions that there's no frame of reference to attack your illogical ramblings ..it's purposeful dodging in a vain attempt at silencing any sort of criticism ..your entire argument hinges on that ..as we'll see through out your rambling incoherent post:

...What the hell are you talking about?

back at ya

You know, and I know this sounds CRAZY to someone as illogical as you, YOU CAN ACTUALLY LIKE YOUR COUNTRY IF YOU DISAGREE WITH SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE BY THE POLITICANS. I know, it's crazy, ain't it?

aaaaaand you've come full circle to what I've been saying all along with the caveat that your country bears the responsibility for their actions so the only logic conclusion is you either support those actions or you dont, but thanks for agreeing

Uh-huh. Even though I've said multiple times in this thread that I don't agree with politicans.

Bullshit on your accusation. Try harder.

blahblahblah:

"you've so clouded the issue with your sidestepping of direct questions that there's no frame of reference to attack your illogical ramblings ..it's purposeful dodging in a vain attempt at silencing any sort of criticism ..your entire argument hinges on that "

answer the question

1.) A country CAN'T do wrong. A country is an inanimate thing. I'd don't recall the ACTUAL LANDMASS of Germany bitchslapping Britain during the second World War.

now you're bordering on the idiotic ..stop splitting hairs and answer the damn question

2.) As I have said before: I do not agree with all politicans. You are a liar.

liar? what's next? are you going to accuse me of having my pants on fire?

...So you live in the United States, then?

I don't think so. I think you're confused. "Support YOUR country."

Do you live in the United States? No. So then you don't have to support it. Congradulations at failing cognitive thought, however.

what on god's green earth are you talking about? it's now just verbal diarrhea that's makes no sense ..I'd say it's a stream of conciousness but that would be giving you too much credit :E

...Well, you obviously don't support democracy, so why should you want it?

what a stupid statement ..that's like jumping from point "A" to point "Q" when a rational and sane person would logically conclude that point "B" is the answer

...A country is incapable of doing an action. Only the politicans do action. Countries are nations, land, a flag. Not politicans.

yes back to my original statement about bits of cloth ..now stop splitting hairs and answer the question, or are you incapable out of a sense of shame?

...Then again, it doesn't suprise me that you don't understand that... I mean, Socialists would really distinguish individualism.

spoken like a true protest"warrior" ...so which right wing member of our little group recruited you this time? or are you an army brat like all the others incested that one of your comrades was given the boot for being an idiot?

...Sheeple are blind, Mr. Uninformed. They are the "Useful Idiots" of this generation.

funny how it has seems to describe war supporters with their overzealous need to conform and live a lie

...Slaughter? There has been no slaughter. Try again. And, also, I think we acknowledged the real fool here is you.

over 100,000 innocent people killed because of lies, I call that slaughter

......You don't even understand the Executive and Legislative branches, do you? Sad.

just answer the question you half-wit

...Don't blame me, Mr. AngryMan, for using your own logic against you. Those words are yours, taken from you mouth and given back to you.

holy shit will you shut up? nothing but verbal diarrhea masquerading as "intelligent" banter ..answer the damn question and stop sidestepping every issue

...Blah, blah, blah. You just aren't happy because you just got discredited. Deal with it.

by you? when? where? you've about as much chance of winning this debate as the US does at winning the war on terror: nil idiot

...There is no "because." It simply is. You're recanting what your media source wishes you to (and it's probably a liberal source, like I guessed). You are a propaganda machine. You are a part of the sheeple. Is this new info to you? If so, that's quite sad.

:O you're actually admiting that this is your raison d'être?:

"it must be a lie cuz it sounds like "leftist propaganda" ...you're a bigger idiot than I thought

...By who? Baghdad Bob?

scientific studies sherlock ...now where's your casualty figures? surely the US government MUST have kept a tab on all the civilians getting killed because of the occupation ...I'm waiting

...1.) So intelligence failure is lying? Yeah... ok... that's bullshit.
2.) There aren't hundreds of thousands dead. Also bullshit.

bullshit revisionist crap, the bush admin knew saddam didnt have wmd

Considering I wasn't lied to,

yes you were

this + this = LIES

I didn't decide to invade,

you supported it and when every last justification turned out to be lies you STILL support, you are doing your country a diservice by supporting a war that killed 2100 of your fellow americans based on nothing more than a handful of lies

I didn't give a shit about the WMD

you're so full of shit, are you telling me that in march of 2003 you were saying that Saddam had to go not because he was a threat to the US but because he was a danger to his people? you're a hypocrite because even though every last justification turned out to be a lie you STILL support the occupation, you no more care for the people of iraq than does Bush

(just the crazy ****er in charge of the nation, I support going to Iraq just because of getting rid of Saddam, the WMD are of no consequence to me)

yes yet when saddam committed his worst crimes against humanity he was an ally and "friend" ..you didnt seem to care about him back then

why should I do anything about it? Because a tiny Eurosocialist-friendly angryman says I should?

out of a sense of duty to your country? out of "patriotism" ..you are no more a patriot then john walker lind is ..you're an apologist and a traitor to your country

Pardon me whilst I laugh at your expense.

do that if you must but I wont have to sit in fear wondering if that 747 is flying a little too close to that building or if that person carrying a packback is acting a little too suspicious. I wont have to look in the mirror every day wondering how I could have supported a madman who threw the US into war based on nothing more than lies ..it is I who will have the last laugh

 

[Sulkdodds]

Please

Please what? Now you're just being incoherent.

stop

Yeah right. I'm quaking in my boots. Make me.

splitting

...yeah, but...

eachother's

stfu

posts

...bullshit.

into

...okay...

tiny, tiny bits

YOU TALKING ABOUT YOUR PEN0R AHAHAHA

It's hard to read and annoying as hell.

Or maybe you're just stupid. GG. GO back to school retard.

I'm going to get accused of not adding anything constructive to the argument but believe me, I would - if I could actually find the damn argument somewhere around here.

You are blind. Get better glasses, moron.

 

[CptStern]

hehe ..the beauty of debating yourself is that there's always a clear winner

 

[DancingSoda]

over 100,000 innocent people killed because of lies, I call that slaughter

O RLY?

See Reaktor4's website.

america?

"24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years."

"Who did the killing?

US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period. "

Hmm. U.S. forces are supposedly responsible for 37% of deaths, meanwhile, 63% of deaths are caused by criminals, terrorists, and unknown peoples.

Hmmm.... Let me figure out which percentage is higher here.

And, oh yeah, as I said before: 100,000 didn't die. You lied. You are, subsequently, George W. Bush (according to your own logic). Lied to the public, you did.

 

[Reaktor4]

More people are dead than are listed on that site though. Their faq says:

Why is your web counter not increasing?

We put accuracy above speed and do not update the data base until we have located and cross-checked two or more independent approved news sources for the same incident (for more details see our Methodology). If you want to submit news stories that could help us confirm an incident involving civilian deaths please email news item weblinks to [email protected] (the more specific and detailed, the better).

Still, your "maximum" count seems very low to me. Surely there must be many, many more civilian deaths than you've published.

We are not a news organization ourselves and like everyone else can only base our information on what has been reported so far. What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war.

 

[bigburpco]

O RLY?

See Reaktor4's website.



"24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years."

"Who did the killing?

US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period. "

Hmm. U.S. forces are supposedly responsible for 37% of deaths, meanwhile, 63% of deaths are caused by criminals, terrorists, and unknown peoples.

Hmmm.... Let me figure out which percentage is higher here.

And, oh yeah, as I said before: 100,000 didn't die. You lied. You are, subsequently, George W. Bush (according to your own logic). Lied to the public, you did.

You are still avoiding the topic at hand.

 

[baxter]

Hmm. U.S. forces are supposedly responsible for 37% of deaths, meanwhile, 63% of deaths are caused by criminals, terrorists, and unknown peoples.

Maybe you should maybe read what is in the link you have posted

This is a human security project to establish an independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq resulting directly from military action by the USA and its allies.

By your own figures if this is 37% of the deaths then would it not be plausible that the other 63% would take it up to the figure of 100,000? Caused by, how you put it criminals, terrorists and persons unknown.

 

[CptStern]

O RLY?

See Reaktor4's website.

that's it? you address one point out of dozens? either you cant answer or wont, which one is it?

24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years."

"Who did the killing?

US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period. "

Hmm. U.S. forces are supposedly responsible for 37% of deaths, meanwhile, 63% of deaths are caused by criminals, terrorists, and unknown peoples.

Hmmm.... Let me figure out which percentage is higher here.

And, oh yeah, as I said before: 100,000 didn't die. You lied. You are, subsequently, George W. Bush (according to your own logic). Lied to the public, you did.

lied? you sound like a school boy accusing me of "fibbing" :upstare: ..let's try to keep this an adult conversation shall we?

"Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children."

"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq,"

http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf


now would be the time to post US casualty rates for Iraqi civilians ..but I have a feeling you wont find any:

“Change the channel”
- Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops.

 

[DancingSoda]

Maybe you should maybe read what is in the link you have posted

I have.

By your own figures if this is 37% of the deaths then would it not be plausible that the other 63% would take it up to the figure of 100,000? Caused by, how you put it criminals, terrorists and persons unknown.

Considering there's no evidence showing such, no.

Also, in the first two years of the war, 24,000+ died. You mean to tell me almost 80,000 died in another year and half?

I find that, along with all of Cptstern's BS, a tad difficult to believe.

 

[CptStern]

you're not listening ..ffs, why is this so hard for you to understand? 24,000 is from one source (CONFIRMED DEATHS), the 100,000 is from another source (scientific ground study based of 33 sample areas)

oh and you started this discussion with me. dont start arguments with other people when you havent/wont address my points

 

[Glirk Dient]

you're not listening ..ffs, why is this so hard for you to understand? 24,000 is from one source (CONFIRMED DEATHS), the 100,000 is from another source (scientific ground study based of 33 sample areas)

oh and you started this discussion with me. dont start arguments with other people when you havent/wont address my points

Using the lancet report as a source is like using hte inquirer. That or watching comedy central for your news.

Fact is...lancet took 33 samples...33 biased samples that is.

 

[CptStern]

holy **** glirk stfu you have no idea what you're talking about ..read the entire report and then get back to me

 

[baxter]

Also, in the first two years of the war, 24,000+ died. You mean to tell me almost 80,000 died in another year and half?

I find that, along with all of Cptstern's BS, a tad difficult to believe.

I said nothing of the sort and simply trying to belittle me or anybody else whose opinion differs from yours is futile and silly.

I asked you whether it was plausible, quite civilly, quite politely; if you can't answer in the same manner, simply don't answer at all.