Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SwamP_ThinG
From the start:
"I don't think it's a trivial point. What would it take to justify an invasion? I know we've had this discussion before but now we have a valid, real-life example. Would the intelligence have to be 100%? The weapon verified visually by two, unrelated sources? Could it only be one source, albeit a trustworthy one? Under no circumstances would an invasion be called for?"
|
Do you see the part at the bottom that says, "Under no circumstances would an invasion be called for?" I made it bold for you when I posted it (again) but I'm sure it was easy to miss. Then, I have to assume that you read it too, since you posted it (again). Does this apparently contradictory statement somehow fall into the theory that I am "defending the invasion of any country harboring terrorists"?
And you didn't mention any of the other some 10 other options I posted. How come I don't support any of those?
Quote:
"Wich country?" i asked.
"Any country that is unwilling or unable to pursue these terrorists within their borders."
|
As is often the case with you, SwamP-ThinG, I have to take great pains to clarify the translucent and define the straightforward. Which I did here.
Quote:
"There are other ways of taking someone out. And if ALL the nations of the world were as committed to eradicating terrorism as they should be, invasions wouldn't be necessary."
In this above part, you are defending the invasion of any country harboring terrorists.
|
Nice spin. You forgot the part right before this where you assumed that I favored invasions. There's an allusion to it in this post, you know, the first part, where I wrote, "There are other ways of taking someone out."
Quote:
|
Now we go into the denial part:
|
It's pretty clear in my mind that I agree with the denial part. Which I made as painfully clear as I possibly could with this post:
Quote:
|
"I have clearly supported another plan; and have REPEATEDLY TOLD YOU THAT I DIDN'T FUCKING SAY THAT INVASION WAS A GOOD IDEA!"
|
I clearly supported another plan AFTER YOU STARTED YOUR ASSUMPTION RANT THAT I WANT TO INVADE EVERY COUNTRY. You're familiar with the concept of time passage, are you not? Go to "User CP" at the top, choose "Edit Options" from the left, go down to "Thread Display Options" and change the Thread Display Mode to "Linear - Oldest First". See, I actually posted this message AFTER the thread was started. It's confusing, I know. Just stick with it and you'll get it.
Quote:
|
I hope you enjoy your monitor sandwich. And since you pledged to post something on the NY Times, i expect you to be true to your word. You also said you would leave and never show your face again, wich although i´m inclined to agree you should, i won´t hold you to it.
|
As usual, you're wasting everyone's time with your inability to follow a conversation and your need to have everything explained to you twenty times. However, I'll make you a deal. I leave it up to the group. Whoever wants to sound off can: if more people agree with you then I'll go. If only one person replies that I should go (you can vote too) then you'll never read from me again (not that you ever did). Deal? Personally, I hope you win.