Uh, nice try, but this phrase is not exclusive to the world of sports, as you so foolishly imply. You have no business arguing with me. Ever.
If, ( and I agree) the myriad of occurences which lead up to something like 9-11 are impossible to blame on any one in particular, then how on earth can you make a distinction about this action being a result of the 'War on Terror' as opposed to regular security work? It said in the article that the failed attempt in Kenya was the wake-up call, not some directive from on high. Again; good job by those involved, but I say it's pretty clear we should leave it at that rather than praising Ashcroft et al, just like I left 9-11's blame unassigned.
I think we commend the FBI and CIA and Ruskies on this one. They set up the trap and it worked. It's obvious these agencies have had very notable lapses in the not so distant past. I'm sure they want to do better, and if this example is indicitive of their work they are improving. That's great. John Ashcroft and Tom Ridge don't enter to it in this particular matter one way or the other.
1) T_J, you are so far into your own world that you fail to see how important the issues surrounding this administration are to those who recognize them. Batman is not dealing with hate, but with legitimate fear and frustration; unless you feel that he is as automatically partisan as you are, which would be saying something, then why does he have this personal hatred for Bush? Did Bush steal his girl? Unlikely? Di Bush steal his coke? Possibly, but also unlikely? So unless Batman is the son of the guy who went to Vietnam so Bush could take a vacation, I don't see why you are so sure that this boils down to an emotional argument for everyone but yourself, especially when you throw out invective at least as much, of not more, than anyone. 2) Answered with post to texx. 3) No one is advancing that particular theory, no. Most psychologists agree that there are three progressive levels of comprehension, the first is literal, and we usually get past that one around 8 or 9 years of age...most of us... The point was, T_J, that we have made connections and justified actions at least as ridiculous before. And you want to know something? I did...back in the days immediatley after 9-11, I stated on this very site that I was afraid that the administration would use the hatred and anger over 9-11 to attack nations not connected, and the example I used was Iraq...ask Manny if you don't believe me...and I was laughed at and told I was an alarmist, not sure if Chicken Little was used then, but the sentiment was the same... A couple of years later many of the same people who laughed at my prediction about 9-11 being used to attack Iraq now say it's a logical and justifiable rationale. So, yeah, T_J, you're right...no one I have yet heard of is saying "British citizen of Indian descent!?!? Godammit, let's invade Syria!!!!", and I doubt anyone will...but does " Saudi and Yemenese?!?!!? Godammit, let's go invade Iraq!!!!" make any more sense? That was my point.
MacBeth, I have no idea where you are going with this 'argument'. You are the king of assembing the most disjointed set of logic ever conceived. You very rarely stay on topic, instead choosing to divert attention to some unrelated tangent or slip in partisan jabs at the Bush Administration. That is why your posts ramble on so long, you have no ability to focus on the topic at hand. If the point you are trying to get across is that we are being hypocritical for applauding the Administration for this success, while not simultaneously chiding them for the failure of pre-911 intelligence, then you are again misdirected. Who among us has said that intelligence was good pre-911? No one. Are you trying to lay blame on the Bush Administration for having an inadequate security network before 911? This is very much a stretch. As stated earlier, how can you possibly expect to completely revamp an organization that size in only 8 months? Absurd. Your point on the hijackers being mainly Saudi/Yemenese and then the US attacking Iraq is *completely* ridiculous. The attack on Iraq was justified for a variety of legitimate reasons, for you to imply, as you most certainly did, that the attack on Iraq was retribution for 9-11 is again, absurd. Wake up MacBeth.
Seriously, do you have any idea how ridiculous statements like this make you look? Even if I agreed with you, even if you actually argued with any intelligence rather than assumptions, insults, and self-agreement, even if I had ever seen you win a debate, this kind of internet trash talk would make me think you were an ass.
Uh, as a Spanish-speaker, I can most certainly say that your attempt at translation was horrible. You can't lift words directly out of a spanish-english dictionary and hope to construct logical sentences in Spanish. There are a ton of idioms, figures of speech, grammatical patters, etc that are missed when one attempts to do that. You are truly out of your league on this one. Again.
1) When I want a critique on the use of logic, T_J, I will ask someone who understands the concept. 2) Case in point..." You very rarely stay on topic, instead choosing to divert attention to some unrelated tangent or slip in partisan jabs at the Bush Administration." Partisan...logically would imply that I have a partisan affiliation with the Democrats, or at the very least against the Republicans....logically the fact that I have repeatedly stated that I have no such affiliation, that I supported Bush in the last election, that I supported his father in the first war, that I supported Reagan, that I argued that Clinton should have been kicked out of office would make anyone with half a brain stop accusing me of partisan motivations regarding my objections to the war and the present administration. I guess for those who base everything on that kind of reasoning, the assumption that, contrary to all available information, everyone else must make their decisions not on merit but on party comes naturally. Keep up the good work of revealing yourself to us, T_J, it's something to see. 3) "Are you trying to lay blame on the Bush Administration for having an inadequate security network before 911? This is very much a stretch" Jesus. Do you even read? Can someone point out to Mr. logical here the three or four times in this thread alone that I have said the opposite of what he is accusing me of and criticizing me for here? Someone...anyone...maybe he'll get it. 4) " Your point on the hijackers being mainly Saudi/Yemenese and then the US attacking Iraq is *completely* ridiculous. The attack on Iraq was justified for a variety of legitimate reasons, for you to imply, as you most certainly did, that the attack on Iraq was retribution for 9-11 is again, absurd. " Before I go back and site the several examples wherein pro-war people used 9-11 as a justification for the war with Iraq, including the administration, are you really sure you want to stand by that, and yet again be shown for what you are? I never said retribution, I said justification, and it isn't debatable that that connection has been made...ad nauseum...
You are absolutely hilarious. Keep up the good work. Judging from your BBS persona, I'm confident that the only Spanish you know is "uno mas cerveza por favor", Mr. Wonder Bread. And it's a damn lucky thing for you that the waitresses at Treasures understand Spanglish. If they didn't, your throat might get dry!
So, if there is another attack on American soil (God forbid), will it be OK to blame Ashcroft, Ridge, et al.? I couldn't care less about who we blame or praise in this, I'm just happy that another terrorist plot was thwarted. Just be consistent.
Just to be fair there was never any terrorist plot. The guys who were selling were doing it for money. They believed they were selling to terrorists, but it wasn't out of any loyalty to a terrorist cause. There were no real terrorists ever involved in the whole operation.
Pal, I have lived and worked in Mexico. I have a degree in Spanish language and linguistics. I speak spanish fluently. Not even your correction to T_J about asking for another beer was proper. Please. I have a clue. Macbeth- This country has spent much time and effort into building a more seamless connection between law enforcement and the various protection agencies in the US and abroad. This missile interception is a direct result of these efforts, and should be commended. Trying to spin this into calling others hypocrtics by simply applauding this is out of line and over-analyzing the issue.
Hey good work by the government authorities. I'm sure we all want them to catch this type of thing. Too bad they have misdirected so much dollars and military and law enforcement resources to the boondoggle of occupying Iraq for big oil, crazed theories of world domination, the rightwing of Israel or Bush/Cheny and friends enrichment or whatever.. This action doesn't have anything to do with their pattern of deceit regarding Iraq. Although it is always possible as the CIA theorized that our Iraqi War encouraged these folks to try to import this weapon.
Sounds like entrapment. The guy says he can buy you weapons. The US authorities approach him and ask him to buy them a missile launcher. He goes to look for it. The Russians step in and offer him a missile launcher. He buys it, transports it to the US and sells it to the US authorities and gets busted. Now, they said he's a professional arms dealer, so it is a good thing for him to be put away (assuming that part is true), and I'm happy about that and all. But, with Feds covering both sides of it, it really seems like entrapment. He certainly conspired to smuggle arms. Could he have committed the actual crime without the help of the feds in the US and Russia? Btw, why does everything have to be politcal with ya'll. Bigtexxx sounds like he's on the payroll, starting the thread the way he did. Though the behavior isn't confined to him.
It was his first sentence that got my goat. Of course I'm glad they caught the guy, but that 'another big win for the war on terror' or whatever was annoying. I don't assign any blame over 9/11. I do think our dealings with Saudi Arabia are shady and troubling and hypocritical, but I don't blame Bush or Clinton for the planes flying into the buildings. I also don't give them (or the Dept. of Homeland Security or the Patriot Acts) credit for the FBI doing their job.
The war on terror has yielded many successes. We have captured many Al Qaeda members and have not had any attacks on US soil since 9/11. Let's give credit where credit is due. This was an important victory for the FBI and our protection agencies. I'm sorry if success in keeping our country safe "annoys" you. It really just baffles me how some do not want our country to succeed in matters such as this. Wow.
I cannot fathom how incredibly ignorant this statement is. WHERE in any of Batman Jones' posts does it say that he is annoyed by "success in keeping our country safe"??? Either you cannot read or you cannot comprehend what you read.
He apparently doesn't read what he quotes, RMTex. Trader_Texxx and other lunatic right wing warhawks have had a problem with this throughout the entire war (of which I was a proponent) and its aftermath.
