What About Muslim Moderates?

[sirs]

<<So, you used my words and reinvented them to apply to your way of thinking.. . . >>

Yes, I did.

<<It couldn't possibly have been that I actually meant what I actually said.  >>

Anything's possible.  Usually, I think you mean whatever stupid thing you happen to be uttering at the time, till the total  absurdity of it is painfully exposed, at which point you start to back-track frantically, as you are doing here - - "I didn't say this, you didn't say that, I said X, you said Y" in some kind of pathetic kerfuffle, trying to becloud the issues and even the sequences of the thread itself, hoping desperately that nobody will take the trouble to trace back through the thread to see who actually said what.

This is the new art form of the left, when it comes to dialog and specifically accusations.  Granted it's been going on for decades now, but it wasn't until Bush II, that we got into full swing.  It "basically" entails making a completely bogus accusation (be it Bush claimed imminent threat, Bush claimed it would be a fast war, Bush's "Mission accomplished" meant the war in Iraq was over, sirs claims that all Muslims who don't support Bush or Blair are terrorists or radical muslims....yada, blah, etc.  Garbage like that), then attempt to post evidence/quotes supposedly disproving why those claims are invalid.......when all the while they were never accurate to begin with.  This most recent thread for all to see, just how desperate Tee gets.  It doesn't get much clearer than "any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. ".  Yet the supposed smoking gun response is akin to "well, you changed your mind when your position was show to be a sham", when all the while his basis for that position, is himself trying to read my mind to something he said.  Prince (no supporter of Bush's war in Iraq) also demonstrated how off the wall his claims about me were.

Now watch....

<< Next time, try to use a quote that can actually demonstrate what you say I say, like ......oh perhaps this quote "Actually, any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims.  A distinct difference, I'm afraid to say".  >>

Actually, I'll use the quote that best illustrates your narrow-minded either-or way of thinking, and that's the one I already used.  

....See?  Instead of using the CLEAR position I have in regards to what constitutes Islamic Terrorists & radical Muslims, Tee has to twist and distort another quote, to fit his made up mind of what I'm supposed to have been thinking & meaning.  It's also performed nearly everytime the topic of imminent threat comes up, as well as when the "mission accomplished" distortion rears its ugly head yet again.  It's also the foundation of why so many that don't agree with him are immediately labeled as some fascist.

But such perseverative distortion efforts rarely go unnoticed.  Thankfully, not only do we have a slew of rational minds here in the saloon, but I'm guessing a whole host of other rationally minded people who simply stop by the saloon to catch up on what's being bandied about.  Your efforts are appreciated Tee.

[Michael Tee]

<<This is the new art form of the left, when it comes to dialog and specifically accusations.>>

Yawwwwnn.

<<  Granted it's been going on for decades now, but it wasn't until Bush II, that we got into full swing. >>

Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnn.

<< It "basically" entails making a completely bogus accusation (be it Bush claimed imminent threat,>>

"We can't wait till the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud"

<< It "basically" entails making a completely bogus accusation (be it . . . Bush claimed it would be a fast war>>

"It could take six days or six weeks, it couldn't take six months"

<< It "basically" entails making a completely bogus accusation (be it . . .  Bush's "Mission accomplished" meant the war in Iraq was over>>

"Mission Accomplished"

<<sirs claims that all Muslims who don't support Bush or Blair are terrorists or radical muslims>>

Actually, that was more like "sirs claims that all Muslims who aren't "moderates" are terrorists or radicals."  Read the post again.  I know you have trouble with reading and comprehension, so I made the wording particularly simple.  Even you should be able to report accurately on what I posted.  Well, alright, maybe not.  Just read it again.

<<....yada, blah, etc.  Garbage like that)>>

LOL

<< then attempt to post evidence/quotes supposedly disproving why those claims are invalid>>

Actually I didn't post any evidence at all that your last claim was invalid, it was so stupid and absurd that its invalidity was self-evident.  The evidence that I posted consisted solely of verbatim quotes from our correspondence, since you were attempting to deny that you said what I said you said.

 <<.......when all the while they were never accurate to begin with.  >>

That's why I posted the EXACT words that you were responding to as well as the EXACT words of your response.

<<This most recent thread for all to see, just how desperate Tee gets. >>

Why that desperate sunuvabitch went to the lengths of actually reproducing the very words of my own post.

<< It doesn't get much clearer than "any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. ".>>

which of course was never an issue in this thread.

<<   Yet the supposed smoking gun response is akin to "well, you changed your mind when your position was show to be a sham", >>

Actually the smoking gun was where you - - in your own words - - equated all Muslims who weren't "moderates" with "terrorists" and "radicals."

<<when all the while his basis for that position, is himself trying to read my mind to something he said. >>

No, my basis for that position was the very words that you used and later denied.

<< Prince (no supporter of Bush's war in Iraq) also demonstrated how off the wall his claims about me were.>>

Prince - - in another thread - - demonstrated no such thing.  Read my response to him in that thread.  It blows you - - and him - - out of the water.  Again.

[sirs]

<<This is the new art form of the left, when it comes to dialog and specifically accusations... It "basically" entails making a completely bogus accusation (be it Bush claimed imminent threat,>>

"We can't wait till the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud"

TRUE, in that we couldn't wait for Saddam to become an imminent threat.  Next

<< It "basically" entails making a completely bogus accusation (be it . . . Bush claimed it would be a fast war>>

"It could take six days or six weeks, it couldn't take six months"[/color]

Which the toppling of Saddam did take.  Next

<< It "basically" entails making a completely bogus accusation (be it . . .  Bush's "Mission accomplished" meant the war in Iraq was over>>

"Mission Accomplished"

Which the toppling of Saddam was accomplished.  There's that nasty little timeline thing again.  Next

<<sirs claims that all Muslims who don't support Bush or Blair are terrorists or radical muslims>>

Actually, that was more like "sirs claims that all Muslims who aren't "moderates" are terrorists or radicals."  Read the post again.  

"any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. ".    Shooting fish in a barrel.  Next

<< It doesn't get much clearer than "any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. ".>>

which of course was never an issue in this thread.

LOL.....yes, my exact words and precise meaning is not the issue.  It's Tee's tee-leaf reinterpretation of what Sirs really means

<<when all the while his basis for that position, is himself trying to read my mind to something he said. >>

No, my basis for that position was the very words that you used and later denied.

Never denied any of my own words.  Simply denied your predisposed already made up mind interpretive twist on them, validated by your blatant ignoring the even clearer words I articulated.  Again, for ALL to see

<< Prince (no supporter of Bush's war in Iraq) also demonstrated how off the wall his claims about me were.>>

Prince - - in another thread - - demonstrated no such thing.  Read my response to him in that thread.  It blows you - - and him - - out of the water.  Again.

Riiiiiiiiight. You just go right on believing that.  That alternate reality must be so pristine, with everything occuring just as you decree       

[Michael Tee]

<<TRUE, [that "we can't wait for the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud] in that we couldn't wait for Saddam to become an imminent threat.  >>

Uhh, you're forgetting a little thing called CONTEXT, sirs.  (You're not really forgetting, I'm sure you know perfectly well what the context is, but like all "conservatives" you often find it very convenient to quote out of context and then assign totally different meanings to the words that were meant and received as something utterly different from what you now claim they mean.)

Let me help you out a little here, sirs.  Those words were not spoken in the context of some long-range planning seminar, "Whither the Middle East in the New Century?" or some aethereal debate about new directions.  They were given as reasons to ACT NOW in the  context of dealing with a real threat severe enough to justify invasion and rule out any and all alternative measures.  ("The alternative measures had all been tried?"  BULLSHIT.  Don't hand me that crap - - negotiations continued with North Korea even after they had defiantly test-fired weapons and missiles, so there was a lot of road to travel after Saddam's last "No," as any beginning negotiator would know.)  There were no qualifying words, nothing to indicate any reservation of the kind that bullshit artists like you are now, after the fact, trying to lay on them.


<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 06:54:07 AM
(sirs)                 < It "basically" entails making a completely bogus accusation (be it . . . Bush claimed it would be a fast war>

(MT)                  <"It could take six days or six weeks, it couldn't take six months"[/color]>

<<Which the toppling of Saddam did take.  Next>>

Not so fast, sirs.  Tripped up again by CONTEXT.  Context's a bitch, huh?  You want us to believe that the "It" in the sentence referred to the "toppling" of Saddam Hussein?  BULLSHIT.  The context was whether the U.S. should go to war by invading Iraq, not whether or not Saddam should be "toppled."  Very few people if any were interested in what would happen if Saddam were "toppled."  Quite a few people were interested in what would happen to young Americans in uniform if Iraq were invaded.  Those words were addressed to the many who worried about the consequences in American lives if Bush went ahead with his criminal and demented scheme to invade, not to the few who were concerned about what would happen if Saddam were "toppled."  The issue was war or peace, the words were meant to allay the fears and reservations of those who worried about the consequences of entering into a war, not a handful of foreign-policy wonks who were wondering about the consequences of "toppling" Hussein.
=====================================================

Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 06:54:07 AM
<< It "basically" entails making a completely bogus accusation (be it . . .  Bush's "Mission accomplished" meant the war in Iraq was over>>

"Mission Accomplished"

Which the toppling of Saddam was accomplished.  There's that nasty little timeline thing again.  Next
===============================================================
Looking at the above, I can only marvel at your ingenuity.  Whoever saw that "Mission Accomplished" sign had to figure, the Iraq mission was over.  There was nothing left to do but wrap up and come home.  Had Bush said in fact:  "Our mission to "topple" Saddam Hussein has been accomplished but now we have to subdue the whole fucking country and nobody knows how long that will take" it would have been a whole different message.  If you want to tell me that is what YOU thought when you saw Bush landing triumphantly on the carrier deck and speaking under that banner, I might believe you.  You're truly one in a million.  But please don't expect me to believe that's what most other people would have taken from the sign and the event.  Don't even ask me to believe that that is what Bush meant, because he could certainly have made his meaning clear by the addition of a few simple words.  It was not beyond his capabilities (or rather it was not beyond his speechwriters' capabilities.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Shooting Fish In a Barrel" - sirs style
Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 06:54:07 AM
<<sirs claims that all Muslims who don't support Bush or Blair are terrorists or radical muslims>> (that's sirs, misquoting me again, as usual)

<<Actually, that was more like "sirs claims that all Muslims who aren't "moderates" are terrorists or radicals."  Read the post again. >>  (that's me, correcting sirs' misquotation of my words, once again.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW here's sirs' response to my correction:

"any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. "  (That's sirs, quoting himself on a completely different subject - - what is a terrorist?   what is a radical?  - - having nothing whatsoever to do with either my original criticism of the absurdity of sirs' statement regarding Muslims who are not "moderates" and nothing whatsoever to do with his misquoting my criticism and basically adding absolutely nothing to the thread but an interesting definition of a "terrorist" and a radical.  Completely misinformed and actually (with regard to the radical) totally erroneous, as sirs' statements usually are, but obviously a whole other discussion and related to nothing whatsoever in this thread.

However, coming up with this completely irrelevant quotation of his, relating in no way to anything previously in dispute, sirs then awards himself the traditional victory accolade:

<<Shooting fish in a barrel.  Next>>

Hilarious.  Declare victory, hit ENTER.

I really have to laugh at your definition of shooting fish in a barrel.  Let's see how you do it.  I quote a ridiculously stupid remark of yours (basically stating that you are not concerned if "terrorists" and radical Muslims are offended by Brown's actions, when I was speaking of a much broader category than "terrorists" and radicals) and relate it back to the subject that you were commenting on (that any Muslims who are not already moderates would be pissed off by Brown's actions) and then I point to the obvious conclusion:  that sirs must believe that any Muslim who is not a "moderate" must be a "terrorist" or a radical.  sirs' response to all this is to reach for a remark he made in which he defines "terrorism" and "radical" (wrongly of course, but that's a subject for another debate) and then claims that his definition somehow is relevant to our argument.   THAT is how sirs "shoots fish in a barrel."  I'd sure hate to be standing anywhere within a hundred meters of the barrel when he tries it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 06:54:07 AM
<< It doesn't get much clearer than "any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. ".>>

which of course was never an issue in this thread.

LOL.....yes, my exact words and precise meaning is not the issue.  It's Tee's tee-leaf reinterpretation of what Sirs really means
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure about the context in which the above was said.   So I'm going to break off here and review that and come back.

[sirs]

Apparently it goes like this

Sirs;  "The sky is a pale blue"

Tee;  "Sirs seems to think the sky is a putrid brown"

Sirs;  "The sky is BLUE"

Tee;  Sirs now has changed his mind because I showed how flawed his original position on the sky was


That's pretty much it in a nut shell, with "nut" the optimal word with who's on the other end of this thread.  If he wishes to rant and squirm all the more, so be it.  Everyone with reading comprehension skills and and IQ above that of a turnip will grasp what I think constitutes & comprises Islamic terrorists and radical muslims.  Hint for knute, since he doesn't fall into the above categories, it's the quote that provides precisely what I think constitutes & comprises what an Islamic terrorist and radical muslim are. 

I'm done with this thread

[Plane]

"...there was a lot of road to travel after Saddam's last "No," ..."

Why travel that road again to get to the same no?

Twelve years of stonewalling demonstrated amply that Saddam was stuck on his position.

Twelve years of repeated second chances amply demonstrate Allied willingness to negotiate.

If you get on the same train again you can expect it to make the same stops as before.

At some point there would have to be a decision to release Saddam from the oblibgations of the treaty or attack him , what makes the moment chosen inferior to any other?

[Michael Tee]

Picking up right where I left off.

A little thread history:

1.  I had commented that Gordon Brown's endorsement of "moderate" Muslim groups would likely be the "kiss of death" in the eyes of many Muslims who weren't already moderates themselves.  Simple logic and common sense would seem to indicate to most sane and normal people that "Muslims who are not moderates" is a pretty large group of people, encompassing not only radicals and "terrorists" but a great many people who are neither moderates nor radicals nor "terrorists."  sirs' response to this was basically that he didn't care if "terrorists" and radicals were offended.  What sirs had done, of course, was to lump ALL Muslims who were not "moderates" together into the "terrorists" and radical class.  Which I then pointed out to him.  sirs denied that he lumped all non-moderate Muslims as I had alleged. 

The debate continued:

2.  << It doesn't get much clearer than "any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. ".>>

That's sirs, quoting a previous remark of hisin answer to my criticism that he appears to think that any Muslim who is not a "moderate" must be a "terrorist" or a radical.  Notice that the remark he chooses to counter my allegations has absolutely nothing to do with the remark that I had directed my criticism towards, in fact he is simply defining those whom he considers to be "terrorists" and radicals.

3.  << It doesn't get much clearer than "any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims. ".>>

That's me, quoting sirs, and adding my comment on his words:

<<which of course was never an issue in this thread.>>

Basically indicating by my added comment that the quotation that sirs was using to disprove my allegation was completely irrelevant to the specific criticism I had made.



How sirs deals with the foregoing exchange

<<LOL.....yes, my exact words and precise meaning is not the issue.  It's Tee's tee-leaf reinterpretation of what Sirs really means>>

My post was clear: the issue was not how sirs had defined terrorism.  The issue was what sirs thought of all Muslims who were not "moderates."  That definition (sirs' definition) was thrown by sirs into a discussion of whether or not sirs had lumped all Muslims who were not "moderates" into the class of "terrorists" and radicals.  How sirs defined "terrorists" and radicals could have had no relevance to that issue unless his definition of them was so broad that it would take in any Muslim who was not a "moderate."  (Although, knowing sirs, such a definition would probably have some appeal for him.)    So when I point out that the particular comment that sirs was using in support of his position "was never an issue in this thread" sirs immediately complains that "my exact words and precise meaning" was not, in my eyes, the issue.  Of course, when sirs' "exact words and precise meaning" are taken from a different issue not related to the one under discussion at the present time, they are not relevant.  Why should that aggrieve him?  If I take my own comments on the life of Winston Churchill and apply them to a discussion on  the life of Josef Stalin, should I also not be told, in that context, that my "exact words and precise meaning" is not the issue?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 06:54:07 AM
<when all the while his basis for that position, is himself trying to read my mind to something he said. > (that's sirs quoting me quoting   him)

<No, my basis for that position was the very words that you used and later denied.> (that's sirs quoting me answering what I had just quoted from him.)

<<Never denied any of my own words.  Simply denied your predisposed already made up mind interpretive twist on them, validated by your blatant ignoring the even clearer words I articulated.  Again, for ALL to see>>

Sure you denied your own words.  You ran from them.  When they were criticized, you never referred to them.  You referred instead to something else you said, your definition of a "terrorist" and a radical, in defence of a remark that you made which lumped all non-moderate Muslims together as "terrorists" and radicals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
sirs' Parting Shot

<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 06:54:07 AM
< Prince (no supporter of Bush's war in Iraq) also demonstrated how off the wall his claims about me were.> (That's sirs quoting me quoting him)

<Prince - - in another thread - - demonstrated no such thing.  Read my response to him in that thread.  It blows you - - and him - - out of the water.  Again.>  (That's sirs quoting me answering him.)

<<Riiiiiiiiight. You just go right on believing that.  That alternate reality must be so pristine, with everything occuring just as you decree >>

The exchange is there in black and white.  It says what it says.  I'm satisfied with it.  You seem to think I shouldn't be.  But I am.  Until I see a more reasoned rebuttal than "Riiiiiight" and the rest of your usual juvenile crap that you pull out whenever you run out of answers, I will continue to be satisfied with it.

[Michael Tee]

<<Why travel that road again to get to the same no?>>

Because experience teaches - - as in North Korea, as in salesmanship - - that there can be a yes after the 100th no. 

Because the alternative was the loss of over 100,000 Iraqi lives, 3500 U.S. lives, 25,000 U.S. wounded, an unknown number of Iraqi wounded.

Because a situation allowed to drag on as you claim for 12 years can hardly be considered one of great urgency.

[Plane]

<<Why travel that road again to get to the same no?>>

Because experience teaches - - as in North Korea, as in salesmanship - - that there can be a yes after the 100th no. 

Because the alternative was the loss of over 100,000 Iraqi lives, 3500 U.S. lives, 25,000 U.S. wounded, an unknown number of Iraqi wounded.

Because a situation allowed to drag on as you claim for 12 years can hardly be considered one of great urgency.

It is also impossible to describe it as" reasons to ACT NOW in the  context of dealing with a real threat severe enough to justify invasion and rule out any and all alternative measures.  "

All alternatives had been tried at least once Saddam chose to roll the dice again, confident that when we threatern we threaten with no intention of carrying through. Saddam chose to defy and it was a good option to depose him , a bad option to begin again with no reson to hope for better. The embargo was painfull and expensive it could not be held up forever waiting for Saddam to grow a brain cell.

[Michael Tee]

<<It is also impossible to describe it as" reasons to ACT NOW in the  context of dealing with a real threat severe enough to justify invasion and rule out any and all alternative measures.  ">>

You lost me there, plane. I don't know what you mean.

<<All alternatives had been tried at least once >>

So what?  Try them twice. Hundreds of thousands of human lives were in the balance.  You're telling me that little ass-hole Bush chose to sacrifice them because he was losing patience? That's the worst justification I've ever heard.

<<Saddam chose to roll the dice again, confident that when we threatern we threaten with no intention of carrying through. >>

So what?  That might make him an irritating ass-hole, it doesn't make a case for the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of human lives.

<<Saddam chose to defy and it was a good option to depose him , a bad option to begin again with no reson to hope for better. The embargo was painfull and expensive it could not be held up forever waiting for Saddam to grow a brain cell.>>

That's ridiculous, the embargo was already being loosened.  New incentives had to be found.  The absence of any real emergency in a situation that had already drifted for 12 years meant that new incentives had to be found.  The "benefits" reaped at a cost of 100,000 human lives and God alone knows how many maimed and wrecked for life are truly insignificant.  Shame on the whole God-damn bunch of you.

[Plane]

<<It is also impossible to describe it as" reasons to ACT NOW in the  context of dealing with a real threat severe enough to justify invasion and rule out any and all alternative measures.  ">>

You lost me there, plane. I don't know what you mean.

I mean you were wrong to say "<<" reasons to ACT NOW in the  context of dealing with a real threat severe enough to justify invasion and rule out any and all alternative measures.  ">>

All alternatives had been tried and rejected by Saddam.

It was not possible to maintain the Embargo much longer and it was being cheated on to make it ineffective. Letting Saddam aloose might very well have killed millions in the future just as he had killed millions in the past , to invade was the best alternative existant.

[Michael Tee]

<<It was not possible to maintain the Embargo much longer and it was being cheated on to make it ineffective. Letting Saddam aloose might very well have killed millions in the future just as he had killed millions in the past , to invade was the best alternative existant.>>

That's ridiculous.  You don't invade another country because of what they might do at some point in the future.  What kind of international security does that provide?  You've stepped backwards about 75 years.