Can your intellect not handle the pressure? Don’t know when a question is a question? If you’ve read “Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man”, the poorest rebuttal in history, then you need to question your own intellect first, not others.
A good look in the mirror. It’s always necessary, never easy.
“is that there a lot of”? As I said, for someone who likes to make fun of spelling/grammatical errors, you really should refrain from the practice yourself.
people here who are bing purposefully facetious and do not want to answer questions or engage in serious debate.
Actually, there’s just a few of those, whom you are one of.
Can your intellect not handle the pressure? Don’t know when a question is a question? If you’ve read “Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man”, the poorest rebuttal in history, then you need to question your own intellect first, not others.
A good look in the mirror. It’s always necessary, never easy.
Hey, you’re the one who decided to edit his post after I started responding.
In order:
1. They aren’t. Go play on the roundabout.
2. No, and you’re a moron. See the bit about ‘sweeping generalizations’ that I posted earlier.
3. Asked and answered. I support them doing their job for their country. These soldiers weren’t. They can rot in prison.
From what I’ve learned so far here at Moorewatch.com, “Watching Michael Moore’s every move....” is that there a lot of people here who are bing purposefully facetious and do not want to answer questions or engage in serious debate.
Yeah – I noticed how you didn’t comment at all to my having taken the time to answer your questions – when you’re ready for serious debate, let us know.
Michael Douglas - 03 March 2006 04:34 PM
Question 1: Can you answer the question from the cover of this newspaper The Daily Mail? It’s referring to the 2004 election.
He doesn’t have to – I already did.
Question 2: Do you now think ALL the Brits are scum? Sure, ALL the Brits want to go to war. Just like ALL Americans wanted to go too. And ALL French people didn’t.
Nah, just Deus. ;)
Questions 3: If you are in support of all of our troops can you please tell me if you support these troops (click on link below).
1) The terrorists in those pictures aren’t troops – they’re terrorists
2) They aren’t ours
Michael Douglas - 03 March 2006 04:46 PM
Can your intellect not handle the pressure?
I’d like to ask you the same – I answered your question on the third post of this thread and you’re still screaming and demanding an answer.
So answer me this question – are you stupid or just trolling?
Don’t know when a question is a question?
Don’t you know when a question has been answered?
Do you know when a door is not a door?
If you’ve read “Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man”, the poorest rebuttal in history, then you need to question your own intellect first, not others.
I think the folks who need their intellect questioned are those that think Moore’s works are real documentaries and not simply poorly done editorial/opinion pieces.
A good look in the mirror. It’s always necessary, never easy.
Remember that when you point your finger at someone in accusation, you are pointing four back at yourself. ;)
Can your intellect not handle the pressure? Don’t know when a question is a question? If you’ve read “Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man”, the poorest rebuttal in history, then you need to question your own intellect first, not others.
A good look in the mirror. It’s always necessary, never easy.
Hey, you’re the one who decided to edit his post after I started responding.
In order:
1. They aren’t. Go play on the roundabout.
2. No, and you’re a moron. See the bit about ‘sweeping generalizations’ that I posted earlier.
3. Asked and answered. I support them doing their job for their country. These soldiers weren’t. They can rot in prison.
Are soldiers who torture innocent people serving you? In what way?
You have reading comprehension problems, don’t you? He answered the question by stating he did not support those who were committing those acts, hence his comment that they can rot in Leavenworth.
By the way, FYI, your original post only contained one question. The first was rhetorical, therefore not requiring an answer. The question on the mag cover was also rhetorical
rhe•tor•i•cal
Function: adjective
employed for rhetorical effect; especially : asked merely for effect with no answer expected
Just incase the concept is beyond your comprehension
You have reading comprehension problems, don’t you? He answered the question by stating he did not support those who were committing those acts, hence his comment that they can rot in Leavenworth.
By the way, FYI, your original post only contained one question. The first was rhetorical, therefore not requiring an answer. The question on the mag cover was also rhetorical
rhe•tor•i•cal
Function: adjective
employed for rhetorical effect; especially : asked merely for effect with no answer expected
Just incase the concept is beyond your comprehension
Eh...no sorry...you’re wrong, he said he didn’t support the soldiers who were committing those acts of torture that have been exposed to the world. What about the soldiers who carpet bomb and entire city? Is that not needlessly torturing innocent people? Is that not terrorism? I mean, just look at the picture of this liberated Iraqi. Do you think this child cares whether he’s being tortured by Saddam Hussein or George Bush/Tony Blair?
Are soldiers who torture innocent people serving you? In what way?
please define “innocent”.
Dictionary
innocent |ˈinəsənt| adjective 1 not guilty of a crime or offense : the arbitrary execution of an innocent man | he was innocent of any fraud. • [ predic. ] ( innocent of) without; lacking : a street quite innocent of bookstores. • [ predic. ] ( innocent of) without experience or knowledge of : a man innocent of war’s cruelties. 2 [ attrib. ] not responsible for or directly involved in an event yet suffering its consequences : an innocent bystander. 3 free from moral wrong; not corrupted : an innocent child. • simple; naive : she is a poor, innocent young creature. 4 not intended to cause harm or offense; harmless : an innocent mistake. noun an innocent person, in particular • a pure, guileless, or naive person : she was an innocent compared with this man. • a person involved by chance in a situation, esp. a victim of crime or war : they are prepared to kill or maim innocents in pursuit of a cause. • ( the Innocents) the young children killed by Herod after the birth of Jesus (Matt. 2:16). DERIVATIVES innocently adverb ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French, or from Latin innocent- ‘not harming,’ from in- ‘not’ + nocere ‘to hurt.’ USAGE Innocent properly means ‘harmless,’ but it has long been extended in general language to mean ‘not guilty.’ The jury (or judge) in a criminal trial does not, strictly speaking, find a defendant ‘innocent.’ Rather, a defendant may be: guilty or | not guilty of the charges brought. In common use, however, owing perhaps to the concept of the | presumption of innocence, which instructs a jury to consider a defendant free of wrongdoing until proven guilty on the basis of evidence, ‘not guilty’ and ‘innocent’ have come to be thought of as synonymous. See also usage at plead .
Thesaurus
innocent adjective 1 he was entirely innocent guiltless, blameless, in the clear, unimpeachable, irreproachable, above suspicion, faultless; honorable, honest, upright, law-abiding; informal squeaky clean. antonym guilty. 2 innocent fun harmless, benign, innocuous, safe, inoffensive. antonym harmful. 3 Alcott’s depiction of innocent girls virtuous, pure, moral, decent, righteous, upright, wholesome; demure, modest, chaste, virginal; impeccable, spotless, sinless, unsullied, incorrupt, undefiled; informal squeaky clean, lily-white, pure as the driven snow. antonym sinful. 4 she is innocent of guile free from, without, lacking (in), clear of, ignorant of, unaware of, untouched by. 5 at the innocent age of twelve naive, ingenuous, trusting, credulous, unsuspicious, unwary, unguarded; impressionable, gullible, easily led; inexperienced, unworldly, unsophisticated, green; simple, artless, guileless, wide-eyed; informal wet behind the ears, born yesterday. antonym worldly, seasoned. noun an innocent in a strange land ingénue, unworldly person; child, baby, babe; novice; informal greenhorn; literary babe in arms.USAGE NOTEinnocent Innocent properly means ‘harmless,’ but it has long been extended in general language to mean ‘not guilty.’ The jury (or judge) in a criminal trial does not, strictly speaking, find a defendant ‘innocent.’ Rather, a defendant may be: guilty or | not guilty of the charges brought. In common use, however, owing perhaps to the concept of the | presumption of innocence, which instructs a jury to consider a defendant free of wrongdoing until proven guilty on the basis of evidence, not guilty and innocent have come to be thought of as synonymous.
Innocent just like this victim of US-led terrorism.
Can your intellect not handle the pressure? Don’t know when a question is a question? If you’ve read “Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man”, the poorest rebuttal in history, then you need to question your own intellect first, not others.
A good look in the mirror. It’s always necessary, never easy.
I’ve noticed that people with no real ability to debate speak in a way as to attempt to undermine the other party’s intelligance. If they can’t argue they generally go about being nitpicky about grammer when the point isn’t the grammer its the argument and try to use ,"Big" words like “Intellect.” If you want a serious discussion be polite, ask questions that are relevent instead of “OMG half off teh countyr iss stupids can u tell meh y?” Also if you wish to insult another’s intellegence make sure you have some yourself.
Also, I don’t believe we “Carpet bombed” an entire city. To do so would imply the leveling of the entire city. The difference between carpet bombing and what we did (its called a surgical strike) is that carpet bombs are multiple “Dumb” bombs that are dropped in a general area to create as much collateral damage as possible. A surgical strike impliments “smart” bombs with various methods of guidence that find their way into specific targets with the intention of only destroying the key target and nothing else. Surgical strikes on Baghdad were made on targets that were prelocated and suspected of holding enemy soldiers and possibly even saddam as well and were probably also carried out on anti-aircraft sites. Collateral damage was not the objective and if non-combatants were injured it was in a very small minority, if any, because I believe the majority of non-combatants had migrated out of the city.
No, we did not carpet bomb an entire city, but Saadam virtually did. Ever hear about the attempted Kurd genocide in which Saadam killed over 50,000 Kurds in one city alone using nurve gas? See the difference in our tactics?
Finally, regarding your picture that you so often re-use. The infant in question was probably cought in crossfire between marines who were attacked by enemy combatants, which is more often the case since a United States Marine would not intentionally kill a child, especially one who is unarmed, on purpose, which is what you are implying. Furthermore, many tactics among different insurgent groups (You do know that the majority, in fact the VAST majority, of insurgents are not even Iraqi but are slipping through the border to fight Americans right?) involve using children as suicide bombers or soldiers.
If you want I can tell you gruesome story’s of Saadams baby killings. Ask me if those were innocent. I seem to recall Saadam’s men feeding a newborn baby to dogs, one story of a baby being shot in front of its parents, another story of a baby being picked up by its head and thrown against the wall crushing its skull while the mother was being raped in front of the father. So you tell me, while you have one child who was accidently cought in cross fire (if it was even killed by Americans) and killed un-intentionally because of an insurgent who started a fire fight their are confirmed reports of child deaths in Saadams dungeons as well as thousands of Women and children being gassed to death. Who is the bigger terrorist? Saadam, who killed babies in front of their mothers and threatened those who opposed him politically with gas as well as tortured people TO DEATH by mutilation of body parts, acid, electroshock, and various other fatal tortures or us who’s extent of “Torture” involves humiliating CRIMINALS and sensory deprivation not as a means to cause fear and end political campaigners lives but to get valuable information that could save the lives of American men and women on the front line as well as innocent Iraqi non-combatants?
Eh...no sorry...you’re wrong, he said he didn’t support the soldiers who were committing those acts of torture that have been exposed to the world.
Actually, I am right. Unlike you I have basic reading comprehension skills.
Lusepher stated
“Sure I do. I also support their dumbasses getting court-martialed, and transferred to Leavenworth.”
And,
“Asked and answered. I support them doing their job for their country. These soldiers weren’t. They can rot in prison.”
By the way, basically paraphrasing my statement right after you say I am wrong pretty much makes you look like an ignorant fool, to whit
I stated “He answered the question by stating he did not support those who were committing those acts, hence his comment that they can rot in Leavenworth.”
You came back with the brainiac answer of “he said he didn’t support the soldiers who were committing those acts of torture that have been exposed to the world. “
If you want to dissect that’s fine. You basically stated the same thing that I did with the proviso of “that have been exposed to the world.”
Are you really that stupid?
Answer please.
What about the soldiers who carpet bomb and entire city?
carpet bombing
Function: noun
: the dropping of large numbers of bombs so as to cause uniform devastation over a given area
We didn’t carpet bomb anything. You are truly ignorant of military actions, aren’t you.
Just so we can be on the same page, which city did we carpet bomb?
Answer please.
Is that not needlessly torturing innocent people?
Torture
the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
Carpet bombing does not fit the definition of torture. Get a dictionary Einstein. So, outside of the Abu Garb, who did we torture?
Answer please.
Is that not terrorism?
Terrorism
The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
And before you jump on the unlawful thing, the war was not unlawful. I don’t and haven’t heard the terrorism moniker being applied to any other country for “illegal” wars so don’t even start.
And our soldiers were not committing terrorism. Where have you heard they were?
Answer please.
I mean, just look at the picture of this liberated Iraqi. Do you think this child cares whether he’s being tortured by Saddam Hussein or George Bush/Tony Blair?
Answer please.
I don’t know where the picture was taken or what the events were that lead to that childs death. So, why don’t you give me some context to work with.
Answer please. (in case you cant figure it out, I am mocking you. You dim-witted moron.
Possibly the “carpet bombing” reference might be about Fallajah. Just a guess.
If so, perhaps “extensive bombing” would be more accurate (although as reporters were prohibited for several months it’s a little difficult to be sure either way - there were reports that 65 percent of buildings were leveled to the ground, reports of extensive use of cluster bombs etc).
Some people have said that the attack on Bahgdad was precise and effective, whereas the attack on Falluja seemed more like a “carpet bombing”. Not sure it that is evidence to prove that it was on the Kissinger “back into the Stone Age” scale though.
Can your intellect not handle the pressure? Don’t know when a question is a question? If you’ve read “Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man”, the poorest rebuttal in history, then you need to question your own intellect first, not others.
A good look in the mirror. It’s always necessary, never easy.
I’ve noticed that people with no real ability to debate speak in a way as to attempt to undermine the other party’s intelligance. If they can’t argue they generally go about being nitpicky about grammer when the point isn’t the grammer its the argument and try to use ,"Big" words like “Intellect.” If you want a serious discussion be polite, ask questions that are relevent instead of “OMG half off teh countyr iss stupids can u tell meh y?” Also if you wish to insult another’s intellegence make sure you have some yourself.
Now hold on a second here. You know bloody well that I’ve tried to get answers to questions here and they have not been answered. You also must know that it’s other people on this site who resort to picking out your spelling or grammar errors.
“OMG half off teh countyr iss stupids can u tell meh y?” - I’ve never said this.
About insulting intelligence: eh, I’m the one who was attacked first by the way. Certain people here, instead of looking at the issue at hand, started to say “you’re stupid”
And when did I ever call anyone stupid?
But are you going to reply to their post and moan at them? Of course not! That would be fair!
