I was depressed much of the weekend. The anniversary of 9/11, in conjunction with the ongoing tragedy along the Gulf Coast, just gets to you. That charity game at TC in Houston was like a life raft... it was great to see so many of the guys that, ultimately, led so many to this site, the players of the NBA, come out and make a difference. That lifted my spirits. Keep D&D Civil!!
If I believed it to be a true fight against terrorism, I'd support it. Since I don't, I'll just stick with saying I support the troops.
glynch and vlaurelio were merely responding to texxx's little game. the first time i read the opening post, the intent was pretty clear just based on the second line. you need to take a reading comprehension course if you can't see that. i chose not to reply due to fear of accusations of being labeled disrespectful - exactly what happened to glynch. i find it shameful that some people continue to exploit the tragedy of 9/11 to fulfill their own political agenda. I support our troops worldwide, I support our troops in the fight against terror, but it's pretty obvious our first objective worldwide hasn't been stopping terror. Texxx could have just left it at "Never forget." and posted the picture and we could have had a nice memorial thread. Instead, he once again shamelessly exploited 9/11. Pretty sad.
You mean they were anticipating where he was going? Nothing in his post says you have to support administration policies. Not sure why you're attacking me. I believe I can read just fine thank you. 9/11 happened. We should remember it and support the troops that are fighting terrorists. That's what he wrote. Whatever else you're reading into it is purely speculative. If one of us needs a comprehension course then I don't think its me. Maybe because a response like glynch's IS disrespectful? You DID NOT post like glynch because you feared being falsely labeled? Are you that weak and insecure or were you just not willing to be the first to post to advance your own political agenda - knowing it was too big a leap from what was posted? Then I guess you're also calling out glynch (assuming bigtexx is also guilty of this)? Or does your critical wit only cut one direction? How is proposing that we support our troops shamelessly exploiting 9/11? How is it exploiting 9/11 to say we should support our troops fighting terrorists (who as you may recall blew up the WTC)? I think maybe glynch jumped the gun (no pun intended) and you fell right in line. Maybe bigtexx just gave you enough rope to hang yourself, but I'm not sure if he's that smart.
Don't you honestly think his whole opening post basically asks for support for an administration policy? He only put September 11 on the thread title and when people open it they get welcomed by an adminstration policy.. Nothing is his post talks about the tragedy and support for the victims..
That's not what he wrote. What you infer from it is your business, but from what he wrote - no. You assume too much. Maybe you 'know' what he means - or think you do, but that isn't fact. It certainly isn't a reason to DO exactly what is being lambasted, which is to use 9/11 as a platform to advance your own agenda. Glynch CLEARLY does this and bigtexx does not. Which policy are you talking about? I don't see a policy mentioned? Please point it out? Never forget. Support our troops that are battling terrorists. None of that says support the administration or its policies. Saying you infer something MORE than what he wrote, and then accusing me of 'just not seeing it' is silly. I don't see it because it ISN'T THERE. Our troops ARE, in fact, fighting terrorists around the world. Support them. They blew up the WTC. How is that not a reasonable statement when talking about 9/11? Uh, 'NEVER FORGET' with a picture of firefighters and the destroyed towers? I don't know about you but I'm pretty sure that fits the bill.
Lol. How can you eliminate terror? Support the troops. Yes. Never forget. Yes. But eliminating terror? That's Bush rhetoric.
so you basically admitted it.. "Support our troops around the world in their efforts to eliminate terror." has nothing to do with the tragedy and victims.. he only put two words and an image..
I think Hayes is right that texxx doesn't explicitly politicize 9/11 in this thread. I think Hayes is wrong to ignore the context of bigtexxx being one of three guys here who most regularly DO politicize 9/11. This thread wasn't started by lurker_99. It was started by a guy that regularly posits liberals want American troops to die. I don't think the post itself merited political responses, but given the thread starter I'm not especially surprised by them.
Strange, that's not how Richard Clarke tells it: "I was told ... that was overly ambitious and that we should take the word 'eliminate' out and say `significantly erode,"' he recalled. Later, after the terrorists struck, he said, "we were able to go back to my language of eliminate, rather than significantly erode."
You are confused, my friend. Terrorists blew up the WTC. Catching them, fighting them, killing them if need be - is certainly relevant to 9/11. I agree with you 100%, Batman. But it doesn't matter what bigtexx normally does. In this thread he posted about 9/11 and supporting the troops fighting terrorists. It was the 'opposition' (to bigtexx anyway) that crossed the line into advancing agendas.
Considering that our foremost objective abroad right now is Iraq and that this administration has operated it within the guise of "fighting terror" I think it's pretty easy to understand. I don't want to be told to remember 9/11 and then disrespectfully be told in the same breath to support this administration's policies, even if it was done in a clever, deceitful manner like texx's post. That's a slap in the face to me and I find it offensive. You're basically saying I've forgotten about 9/11 because I don't support the war in Iraq. I find that insulting. I can morn the victims of 9/11 and still disagree with this government's policies at the same time. I will give texxx credit though in that he worded it in a way in which he or anyone can easily come to his defense by claiming one is inferring too much. Given this poster's history, it's pretty easy to see what the intent was. Sorry, I retract that, I was pretty disrespectful. No, I just didn't want to stoop to texxx's level and dignify his lame attempt at exploiting 9/11. I was replying to your post lambasting glynch. glynch wasn't the one starting a thread exploiting 9/11. Like I said earlier, considering that our main foreign agenda right now is the war in Iraq, and it is being carried out in the name of "fighting terror" it is easy to see how saying "support our troops in their effort to eliminate terror" is exploiting 9/11, especially when 9/11 was due to terrorists. Look, why was that last line even necessary? I'm any less of an American because I don't support this government's foreign policies? That means I've forgotten about 9/11? I find that very insulting.
Wish I could agree 100% back, but I can't. I do agree with you that the 'opposition' crossed the line here, but I think it does matter what texxx normally does and I think that's why they crossed it. 364 days a year texxx trolls here. One day a year he tries to claim the moral high ground by posting a support the troops on 9/11 thread. Of course that matters. Of course that was part of the thinking in responding (inappropriately I agree, but totally understandably IMO). Of course it matters. I didn't respond to the first post because I've finally, mostly stopped taking the bait from our local trolls, but to say glynch and the rest didn't know what was in texxx's mind is kind of silly.
yes and the country even the whole world supported going to Afghanistan and getting OBL. But before they can finish him or his aides, this administration hastily went to war with Iraq on the premise of destroying its WMD's. So what does Iraq have to do with 911? Maybe its the administration who has forgotten. OBL masterminded 911 and his roaming freely between Afghanistan and Pakistan right now while troops are dying in Iraq. I can't believe that US military can overthrow Saddam, defeat, and occupy a country which is a threat to the safety of the US but cannot capture OBL. So with majority of Americans not agreeing to having troops fighting in Iraq right now does that mean they have forgotten 911?
If the standard is what they know to be in his mind, then glynch can post his dribble in ANY thread bigtexx starts and claim it was justified. Isn't it possible that bigtexx purposely didn't cross the line? So that this thread WOULDN'T turn into every other thread? You can say its unlikely, but the fact remains he didn't cross the line. To assume that he meant it and then derail the thread because you 'know what he meant to say but didn't say' is neither fair nor appropriate, IMO. After all, I don't think ANYONE will say bigtexx doesn't care about 9/11, or the victims, or the troops. They may think he's wrong but I don't think that (he doesn't care) would be a reasonable interpretation either. Maybe you missed this but BigTexx never mentioned Iraq. Never said anything about the administration. Never said anything about anything except never forgetting 9/11 and supporting the troops. Until you deal with that you've got a whole lotta agenda propagating from everyone BUT BigTexx. That is SO WEAK. BigTexx was OBVIOUSLY advancing the administrations agenda because he used rhetoric similar to Bush. Uh, except is wasn't Bush's rhetoric but Clarke's. But....it kinda SOUNDED like something Bush would say. That's the lamest explanation yet.
Answer to your first question: I think it's not only possible but very, very likely. Second question: Not only unlikely but very, very unlikely. texxx's agenda on this board is crystal clear. In this case it worked. He made war opponents and Bush opponents look crass. I agree with you there. I strongly disagree that he started the thread for any other reason but to do exactly that. You're right though. In this one (out of a thousand) case, texxx didn't politicize 9/11 and others did. I just don't think it's a very big deal considering texxx, his brother and basso do it on a regular basis and Bush and co. do too. The worst thing glynch and vlaurieo are guilty of here is poor taste and we can agree to disagree on this bit, but I think they were baited.
I agree you can disagree with the administration and still be a patriot, and still support the troops. I guess we can just agree to disagree whether or not you can determine what he meant beyond the scope of what he wrote. I don't think you can read minds and while you can point to his historical positions - considering the topic I think his restraint, if that's what it was - was in better taste than glynch's response. No problem. I retract my response. No, but you'll admit that he was at least the first to explicitly advance his own politics in this thread about remembering 9/11, right? Even if you are right, and bigtexx did intend what you say - that still doesn't justify someone else exploiting 9/11 for their agenda, does it? And our troops are also operating in Afghanistan and a bunch of other places. He doesn't say support policies, Iraq, administration or anything else. He says support the troops. You do. What's the problem? His last line you mean? Because there are still troops out there fighting those who committed 9/11? And while we remember those who died on 9/11 we should support those out in the world fighting terrorists? You just are either anticipating so much more than he wrote or just transplanting arguments you've had in other threads. Nothing he wrote justifies it and in fact, it is in poor taste to advance a political agenda (we all seem to agree) in a thread about remembering 9/11. If Bigtexx is so clever and devious that he set you up then the problem is not with him. If he worded it knowing that glynch et al would jump in with their same agendas, knowing that it would make them look bad for doing so in a 9/11 thread - then I say good for him. I thought you guys were smarter than that. You're acting like the police in that tom cruise movie that arrested people before they committed a crime. You're eagerness to denounce him has lead you to derail a threat that shouldn't be about politics but about....never forgetting 9/11 and supporting the troops fighting terrorists.
Fair enough. I'm not saying I know what BigTexx's intent was either - we don't have to disagree because again I don't know either. I just think its wrong to lambast him for what we don't know, and let glynch et al skate from what is in front of us. If we want reasoned debate, as suggested in the other thread, then immediately dropping a thread bomb on what you 'know the guy meant but didn't say' is not the first step, IMO. Let him say it and then you got a free pass.
