Fallujah - Page 4

I'm taking a look at NaplesX' second to last post.

First, he says "you libs". Then it's "you guys". Then "your side". Then "the left".

Who is he talking to, actually? Presumably some people on this thread, except no one here supports half of the things he's ranting against. Generic "liberals", then? Sounds like modern day's version of "witch" - you are a witch if accused, and you are evil if you are a witch. "Liberal" like NaplesX uses it for anyone disagreeing with him, is just as useful a label as "witch" in civilized discussion. "The left"? Yeah, that narrows it down real much, thank you.

So his rant is not really aimed at anyone in particular, but he leaves most readers with a slight possibility that he's actually talking to them, though he logically shouldn't be. (1)

"UN may be ultimately responsible for making this whole thing happen." It's usually the case that there may be this and may be that, yeah. "Ultimately", so even if "may be", it can't be known or debated at this point. It's not clear what "this whole thing" is, either. Could be anything from the War on Terrorism to the topic of the thread.

There isn't outright lying in the post, but all of it has been written in such a general, roundabout fashion the individual points are not easy to challenge in the first place and can be redefined to mean whatever he needs them to mean to win an argument if questioned on them. (2)

Throughout the post, the technique in (1) is also used to further the same goals than (2) because the imaginary addressees are also the actors in most of his "points". The action becomes obfuscated indeed when it's not clear who the actors are. (3)

Because of (2) and (3), the information content in the post is roughly zero. (4)

Besides facts or factual arguments, there isn't any positive opinion in there. The only content is negative opinion, ranting against things. (Nothing wrong about that, except the honest way to do it would be to say "I think ...".) (5)

The tone is condescending and derogatory. (6)

All of 1-6 do not get combined at random in a heated rant. It's purposeful trolling. Is that something that warrants moderator action in AppleInsider?

I honestly don't understand why anyone tries to take anything he says seriously. How many threads over how many months do you guys have to help him derail and kill by feeding him before you realize it's going absolutely nowhere?

The NeoCon stuff I can deal with. After all, we get more of the same from (relatively) more respected members like Scott, SDW, Trumpt etc. It's the homophobic bigotry that makes me want to rip his throat out.

All you liberals just hate Freedom. Get over it. We're bringing Freedom to Fallujah and all of Iraq whether you like it or not.

What pfflam did (display of anger and frustration) feeds the troll. What Harald did (reply on the same level of discussion) feeds the troll.

The only right thing to do is to point out the troll as a heads-up for others, and if the warning is already out, not to clutter the thread with another one. I did that, and more: dissected the post so it's easier to point at in the future, and the mods have an easier time taking action as well when the reasons are well established. Fact is, the only efficient way to get rid of the core problem are warning/temp ban/ban.

Then if the troll returns under a different alias, it's usually easy to tell because they 1) are still trolling, 2) fail to contribute to regular discussion, in this case Mac stuff, or 3) generally have enough in common with one of the known asshats.

Of course, they can just stop stirring up trouble. Most intelligent people do once the jig is up.

You have a lot of good points. And I can even see how you might read into it what you do.

However, the reason that I use generalities is so not to upset the thin-skinned among us. I have been called every name in the book and quickly grew tired of the "attack-counter-attack" games that most like to play. So, my attacks are on ideas rather than people. Granted things are more general as not to personally attack, rather I prefer to attack the liberal ideas I disagree with.

I know when those attacks hit their mark when the usuals start to call names. As I've said before it is really pretty predictable.

As a matter of fact, I just came up with a great idea for a thread:

"Names I have been called by a liberal in Political Outsider (formerly AO)'

It might be quite entertaining and enlightening, methinks.

EDIT: Troll is a little worn out, don't you think?

Why don't you start a 'Things I Have Got Completely Wrong' thread at the same time?

You are so full of it, i don't even know where to begin.
Because the 'libbies' pointed out that Iran and Korea were and are a much greater threat than Iraq, and because the 'libbies' pointed out that if Bush would be consequent he should attack them, too, and because 'libbies' conclude that this illustrates the madness of preemptive war, YOU conclude we suggested to attack Iran and Korea also. HA!
Because 'libbies' point out that Bush's irresponsible rush to an unnecessary war leaves the US vulnerable when another conflict should pop up, especially after bullying away you allies, YOU suggest it is US who propose a draft, while all we do is warning for one. Damn you must be stupid. Or malicious. Probably both.
Hey, and Saddam out of power is nice, but at what cost? (see the two previous points for illustration).
And the UN ultimately responsible? That's so laughable... Thanks to UN sanctions Saddam didn't have any WMD's *whatsoever*. UN sanctions worked astonishingly well, and the US should be glad they did, cause it's the only reason they had a swift and easy 'victory'. The UN already finished the job before your president rushed in. Think about it.
Btw, wanna compare numbers of illegal trade with Iraq? Oh, that's right, the US numbers are not available. So, a big fuck you to anybody who messed with the oil for food program, but you still look stupid discrediting a program that actually worked.
So it's your logic and worldview that is so twisted it doens't even come close to reality anymore. But hey, at least freedom is on the march in Iraq!

Edit: Gon, i'm sorry i didn't see your post first, next time i'll try to refrain from feeding the troll

Whatsoever is mighty strong when many people in the know think that those weapons are in Syria right bow, possibly even in Sudan - all with a little help from Russia right before the war.

There are also indicators that some WMD or WMD components went to N. Korea.

We know right now. that 11 BILLION went directly to SH as a result of UNOFF. They are still discovering where that money went to. It's no big surprise to me that France and Russia are right there in the mix.

And you say that UNOFF worked? Really, people in Iraq say they were jipped. Broken machinery was delivered, spoiled medication, rotten food. SH built himself how many dozen palaces during that time? That is what you call a 'working' program.

As I predicted before the UNOFF was the fuel for the fire. SH was helped not hindered by the very people that objected to the war in Iraq. They even told SH that he needn't worry because they would obstruct the UNSC and prevent the US from stepping in! Every day new details about the UNOFF program are trickled out, of course making your type look even more foolish and short-sighted.

Meanwhile Kofi Anon hides under his desk with his son and many other UN officials as their facade of decency and benevolence crumbles around them, along with the credibility of anyone that put faith in that corrupt and greedy band of thieves.

I believe the numbers you mention ARE public and they are dwarfed by the amount of moneys funneled through... wait for it... France, Germany, Russia among other sad excuses for governments.

But who am i to say you're wrong? I'm just a lying, racist, neocon, bigoted, sociopath troll.

sorry, i don't get it:

are you saying now that the corruption in the UN is the reason why the US invaded iraq?

You see, that first statement is a perfect summary of the current liberal mindset.

I'll expand for those with brian.fury syndrome:

1.) Liberals/Democrats/Globalists have been putting their faith and trust in the UN to solve world issues. SH saw that and exploited it with the help of prominent nation-states. I really don't think I need to name them anymore.

These nations and the UN erred in favor of money over global stability or what was right. They obstructed and even helped SH (self proclaimed enemy of the US and it's allies) grow more powerful, all while extending the hand of friendship to US. In actuality it was the finger.

2.) The US was trying to work within global law set forth by an entity that neither enforces or obeys its own mandates and laws, essentially making it a corrupt judge or peacemaker.

3.) Our Liberal/Globalist lawmakers insisted that this president work through the UN. This president complied, for whatever reason, thus being forced, for a while to comply to it's rules, that we now know are/were worthless.

Am I saying the UN caused this war? No. Am I saying that if they would have applied there vert own credo, they could have sopped this war? Perhaps. Am I saying that there is blood on their hands? Unquestionably, YES.

As a matter of fact, if there was an award for contributing to an environment where war was the only choice, they would win. Hands down.

wow, that was a good one!


national problems need to be dealt with on a national level, international problems need to be dealt with on an international level. that shouldn't be too hard to comprehend. i am aware that people like you believe that the US has some kind of moral high ground by virtue of it's military strength, but that is nothing more than your ordinary neighborhood big bully attitude. maybe if you had the ability to imagine yourself in the place of a non-american person you might understand why so many people around the world resent the position of the US trying to dictate the terms for the rest of the world on their own. then again, that might be asking for too much.


i guess we must be talking about 2 completely different wars here ... he certainly didn't seem very powerful when the US invaded iraq.

is there corruption in the UN? of course there is! what kind of delusional world do you live in? any organisation of that size is going to have it's share of corruption. take a look at your government: do you honestly believe it is free from wide-scale corruption? are you really that naive?

by your reasoning we would have to get rid of all governments because of the wide-spread corruption inherent in such organizations. might as well ditch the whole legal system, after all everyday guilty people are set free while some innocent ones are put in prison (some even to death).


come on, even you should start to feel akward by now. first, saddam is responsible for 9/11. then, its the WOMD he possesses that are the reason for going to war. and now it's the UN that forced bush to go to war?

I never thought I'd see the day when Naples became even MORE STUPID!!

He must have stumbled on to some extreme-right site for the logically impaired . . . . I mean, I have not heard such utter crap in my life . . . the guy has finally gone from his usual completely UNlovable sociopathic to patheticoPathic -

its a new syndrome: I'll call it - "FreeperBlog-Spew"!

feed feed feed


Now watch this:

"oh you librals just call names, typical . . . well, I'm made of rubber blah blah. . . "

The amazing irony, of course, being that he's constantly throwing out names like "Mr. Poopy-head", "know-it-all liberal leprechaun", "hind hovel," "maroon" and "4H" (or whatever the newest idiotic name was) among many, many others.

You can keep talking trash about weapons going to Syria, Russia, Korea, Pakisthan, etc. The fact is that the weapons are not in the country you attacked and pillaged like a flood of locusts. People like NaplesX would be happy under GWB's(Hitler's) rule even if he starts genocide against the muslims (Jews) claiming Christian (Aryan) superiority.

Russia has started an arm's race. Now both USA and Russia are pursuing nuclear weapons. So much so for global disarmament.

It would be better to send children into battle as infantry. They don't have a future to look forward to anyway. We might as well put them out of their misery.

We went to war because Iraq was going to switch to the Euro and set the stage for the rest of OPEC to do this as well. This single move would have sent (will send) the US economy under. Period.

Laugh all you want. But please spend a little time researching what will happen should OPEC switch to the Euro and how Sadaam was trying to make the switch.

We didn't go in there for WMD's, AQ, or to free anyone. We went there to secure the oil fields.

No, Saddam HAD switched to the euro. He HAD switched to requiring payment for Iraqi oil in euros.

American hegemony over the world is assured by its military and the paper dollar.

If oil is traded in euros, it becomes the global reserve currency, because every country will need euros or the lights will go out.

There would be massive currency movements, and the dollar would collapse: the twin American megadefecits are only supportable by continued inward investment into dollars.

Saddam has switched, and the first executive order issued by the invading Americans was to switch it back to the dollar.

What's so funny? Finding there's an American who knows about this is one of the biggest thrills I've had around here in a long time. Given that, I can happily ignore the inaccuracies. See Harald's post for clarification. It was November 2000.

Timing is everything.

Guess which other country has talked about converting its oil sales to euros? I'll give you a hint. It has four letters, starts with "I" and ends with "N".

Follow the money.

yet another lib comparing GWB to hitler.

That tack will win you hordes of fellow supporters for your viewpoint.

Stay on that one and your side will never gain a majority again.

way to go NaplesX!
focus on the one silly reply to your post and ignore all the others with substance.
maybe the theory that you are merely a troll has some merit after all?

I didn't know that Sadaam had completely switched to the Euro. I thought it was only partly complete. Be that as it may, this is the reason for the war. And IMO, Iran's so called "nuke enrichment" will just pave the wave for another invasion.

All mighty Dollar anyone?\

No, sir. It was a direct comparison to hitler. I even went back for the 3rd time to see if maybe I read it wrong, and no, my first reaction was correct.

There are two very distinct points of view in this country right now, on most issues - 'sides' if you will. Conservatives on one and liberals on the other. I am sorry that you don't see that. But that is reality.

And to make that divide even further, people like yourself demonize everything that the other does - just read your last post. Dems/Libs fight everything and everyone on the other side, at every opportunity. Sad, but it is fact.

What is doubly amazing and ironic is that you feel like you can even comment on the whole 'name calling' subject.

I'm sorry but I must point out that many have been at the short end of your insult stick, including myself. So please don't act as if you are all emotionally beside yourself over the "names" you quoted. I don't even think that they reach the depths that you lowered yourself to, many times.

I expect no sympathy from the likes of you and I certainly hope that you don't expect any for your 'poor little southern bell me' act. This coming from the guy that looks upon himself as so much smarter than, well... anyone. At least as your posting in these forums would indicate.

So let's not pretend. That could be a place to start.

Wrong.

Care to expand.

What about that statement do you not agree with?

it's just wrong, plain and simple.

It's a myth constantly perpetuated by people who for some reason or another feel compelled to divide and separate things into A/B dichotomies, rather than spend their time to find common ground. For starters, there is no one who is 100% conservative or liberal, everyone is a mixed bag on some level(well, we'll leave out talk show personalities, because they are paid to be the exception) So right off the bat, saying that there is a split like that is fallacious. But additionally on top of that, the whole concept of liberal vs. conservative is just a hollow catch phrase used to divide people and create a fissure that is otherwise not there.

what IS there however, is a divide that's not a simple left vs right black and white thing(nothing is), the true divide is more akin to, people who support bush and people who don't. But this is far more general and less easy to place into zingers, so we stick with the old conservative vs liberal nonsense.

Take me for instance, I'm conservative in many ways, I don't believe in spending freely, I don't think we should start wars or try to impose doctrine on others, I believe in upholding the constitution and individual rights, I also think that a small government that stays out of the way of the people for the most part is ideal. Of course I also believe in global cooperation, building bridges, some level of government programs and aide, and I'm completely irreligious.

so why is it that I disagree with practically everything this administration has done?

What you would be so quick to label 'the liberals' or 'the left' or whatever buzz word, is actually closer to center/moderate than you want to believe, though the reason it seems 'liberal' to you(At least, what I can surmise from your posts) is because the bush administration is so extreme. Or else you've just been told by radio, or TV, or blogs, or your friends, that 'everyone else' are 'teh liberals' and liberal this liberal that.

regardless of all this, which I'm sure you will no doubt find some way to argue or disagree with, ask yourself, "why do I want to disagree with this?" By arguing against this you are arguing FOR separation, you're arguing FOR a divide, which is well...why would you want that?

Instead of perpetuating a division, why not use that effort to build some bridges? unity has to start somewhere, and you aren't going to get anywhere being a 2 year old about it.

Your arrogance has reached level that I thought that only our beloved Giant could hit. Maybe I am wrong, so let me explain:

There is a divide. I will give you an example. The guys I work with are all smart college educated, well read guys. They all believe that GWB is the worst thing that has happened to this country. They were so distraught over his election win, they threatened to move to another country. In many a discussion I have never heard one good word come out of their mouth about Bush, not one. Yet they will praise everything that clinton did and make every excuse for his bad behavior. Last election they were registered as Independent, and this year they are registered Democrat. If you were to measure the comments about Bush that I utter, they would be 10% good 15% bad and 75% neutral. If you were to measure theirs. it is 100% bad. This is pretty true of many people that I talk to - If a person leans democrat they are 100% against bush. This has been my experience. It is a bandwagon that has been set up by the national democrat leadership.

The left wing has created the ABB movement and sucked many of the left leaners down with them into hating/blaming Bush for any old thing and opposing anything and everything that he does. The democratic party has embraced this thinking and many, many weak minded lemmings have also. And when I say weak minded I don't mean dumb, I mean people that easily go along with whatever tickles their ears.

I try to steer away from calling people stupid, their ideas maybe, but not them. And this is where I think you go wrong in your debating - to suggest that I am too stupid to form my own opinions about life, love and politics, or whatever, is extremely arrogant, IMO.

I agree with you that we should try to find some middle ground. And IMHO that is exactly what is missing in politics today. However, it is very hard to find ANY middle ground with a person that has bought into the left wing "Bush lied, Bush misled, ABB" rigid mantra. Both or should I say all parties need to be willing to give, if a middle ground is o found. The left wants their opponents to extend the hand of friendship while they continually bite it.

The left in this country have turned into the argue for argument's sake, speak out against something simply because the constitution give us the right, fight for a minority class simply because they are a minority - not because their position is right, if you don't agree with all of our positions we will call you names and destroy you, party. It is very difficult to keep up with let alone find a middle ground with a party that changes positions and focus so much.

I loved this...

Reverse psychology won't work on me, my friend.

Any way, building bridges, as you put it, works both ways.

More proof of this contained in the interaction above.

Indeed, ah well.\

latest numbers (from NYT):

"The American death toll from the Falluja operation, which began Nov. 7, now stands at 51, with 425 wounded, General Sattler said, although an unspecified number of the wounded have returned to duty. Eight Iraqi soldiers have died and 43 were wounded, he added."

Someone pointed out to me yesterday that the "iraqi" forces used in falluja were Kurds and Shiites, which says a lot. The report goes on:

"From 25 to 30 Iraqi civilians were treated for wounds, but there have been no reported Iraqi civilian deaths yet, the general said."

Wow! What happend to "we don't do bodycounts"? Can't wait to see the more independent reports...

So much for bridge building, eh?

So, is Mission Accomplished yet JesusBoys, or do we need to wait for the CartoonFace-In-Chief to bring up a banner and tell us it is, even though, our soldiers are dying more in 'peace' than 'war'?

Update on Fallujah on Nov 26.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4044235.stm


That statement in bold is SOOOOOOOO NOT FUNNY for a number of reasons and the instructions on making anthrax? There hasn't been a single biological attack in this whole fiasco, so please...