Uh oh....NOT good. Bhutto Assasinated

[sirs]

Sorry, but I did try to make sense out of your remarks, and the interpretation I came up with, illogical as it seemed, was the only one I could find.  

No, what you did, is what you frequently do, completely distort someone's remarks, to fit your own predisposed mindset of what someone really meant to say. 

Want to try again to make your point?

It was already made crystal clear for those with an ounce of ojective reasoning skills.  The fact you're not even in the same ballpark, pretty much demonstrates precisely my above point

[Lanya]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article3291600.ece

Excerpt:
[....]
 So let's run through this logic in the way that Inspector Ian Blair might have done in his policeman's notebook before he became the top cop in London.

Question: Who forced Benazir Bhutto to stay in London and tried to prevent her return to Pakistan? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who ordered the arrest of thousands of Benazir's supporters this month? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who placed Benazir under temporary house arrest this month? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who declared martial law this month? Answer General Musharraf.

Question: who killed Benazir Bhutto?

Er. Yes. Well quite.
[....]
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article3291600.ece

[BT]

Where was the pressure on General Musharraf coming from?

Who pardoned Bhutto, allowing her back into the country.

How does Musharraf gain by Bhutto's death?

[hnumpah]

Still doesn't change why we went in

And despite your strenuous objections, they still do not change the fact that I am not saying this is why we went in.

You keep trying to make it about something I have not said.

Having trouble with your reading comprehension?

I said these were stories the administration gave that have changed. Not stories they gave to justify the invasion.

[Michael Tee]

<<[My point] was already made crystal clear for those with an ounce of ojective reasoning skills.  The fact you're not even in the same ballpark, pretty much demonstrates precisely my above point>>

Uh, actually, sirs, all that you've demonstrated precisely at this point is that either (1) I have accurately taken your asinine and ridiculous point the first time or (2) you are incapable of framing your point in coherent English or (3) you had no point to make.

I kind of suspect it was #1 and you are now trying to walk away from the egg that you laid because it's starting to smell bad.

[Henny]

How does Musharraf gain by Bhutto's death?

I seriously don't think he gains at all by her death. Although we may never know the entire truth of what happened, everything indicates that this will hurt him terribly.

[sirs]

Still doesn't change why we went in

And despite your strenuous objections, they still do not change the fact that I am not saying this is why we went in.

"WMD", "ties to AlQeada", etc., sure the hell appear to be about "... stories they gave to justify the invasion".  And you keep referring to excuses........beg's the question excuses for what, if not to go into war??  There's no story changing here, which was your original bogus charge.  Now you seem to be backtracking and trying to find areas that have been problematic post-Saddam.  Show me a war that didn't have problems, that didn't require changes of strategy, tactics....rhetoric.

Having trouble with your reading comprehension?

No comprehension issues, just gathering your apparent new technique of trying to change the subject, when your original premise has been shot down.

I said these were stories the administration gave that have changed. 

As I said, show me a war that didn't have changing tactics, strategy, and rationales for those changes

[sirs]

<<[My point] was already made crystal clear for those with an ounce of ojective reasoning skills.  The fact you're not even in the same ballpark, pretty much demonstrates precisely my above point>>

Uh, actually, sirs, all that you've demonstrated precisely at this point is that either (1) I have accurately taken your asinine and ridiculous point the first time or (2) you are incapable of framing your point in coherent English or (3) you had no point to make.

or the actual answer 4) Tee has absolutely absolutely no intention to grasp the point made, and instead wants to repaint it in such a way that it's frellin ridicuolus.  Yep. let's go with what's behind door #4

[Cynthia]

How does Musharraf gain by Bhutto's death?

I seriously don't think he gains at all by her death. Although we may never know the entire truth of what happened, everything indicates that this will hurt him terribly.

He might just be next!

[Michael Tee]

<<or the actual answer 4) Tee has absolutely absolutely no intention to grasp the point made, and instead wants to repaint it in such a way that it's frellin ridicuolus.  Yep. let's go with what's behind door #4>>

It's pretty clear by now that if you had a point to make, you would have already made it.   Why don't you just stop embarrassing yourself further and move on?

[sirs]

<<or the actual answer 4) Tee has absolutely absolutely no intention to grasp the point made, and instead wants to repaint it in such a way that it's frellin ridicuolus.  Yep. let's go with what's behind door #4>>

It's pretty clear by now that if you had a point to make, you would have already made it. 

LOL....yea, that you have no intention of recognizing it, while everyone with a rational reasoning skill can.  You noticed YOU'RE the only one looking for some point that's already been made, and hint it's not the ridiculous one you tried to plant.  Go ahead, ask Plane, one of our staunchest rationally minded folks.  I thank you for reinfocring my other point however, though       

[Michael Tee]

OK, sirs, it's clear to ME at least that you had no point to express except possibly what I was able to make out of your post, and I am moving on even if you are not. 

Any time you want to try to explain yourself again, please feel free to make the attempt, but in the meantime, don't bullshit me further with your "It's all perfectly clear to everyone so I don't have to re-phrase it for anyone" routine, which is the clear and obvious mark of the bullshitter.  You're not fooling me, so you might as well give it up.

[sirs]

OK, sirs, it's clear to ME ....

Thank you.  I rest my case

[hnumpah]

Duck.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Duck as in DUCK!, Duck as in Daffy is here, or Duck as in Duck duck goose goose?