The Hunting of the (terrorist) Snark

[Universe Prince]

Does the criticism not start with "So you are in favor of invading Pakistan?"

No That was a question seeking clarification.

Criticism would look something like this:

You resort to sarcasm when you run out of arguments.


See the difference?

Again: we do eventually get to, "I think it is more complicated than that as it could completely destabilize an unstable country and the reward is not worth the risk." Is that not the point of questioning me about Pakistan?

Yes, in and of itself, "So you are in favor of invading Pakistan?" is a question for clarification. But I was fairly certain when you started there that eventually we would get to the "I think it is more complicated than that as it could completely destabilize an unstable country and the reward is not worth the risk" point. You might want to note that I did not complain about this until you decided to be uppity about my sarcasm.

And no, I resort to sarcasm to make points and to keep the conversation interesting. Some people are eloquent. Some people use humor. Some people employ poetic alliteration. Me, I use sarcasm.

And, quite honestly, "when you run out of arguments" isn't something I think you have any room to criticize someone else about.

[BT]

Again: we do eventually get to, "I think it is more complicated than that as it could completely destabilize an unstable country and the reward is not worth the risk." Is that not the point of questioning me about Pakistan?

Yes, in and of itself, "So you are in favor of invading Pakistan?" is a question for clarification. But I was fairly certain when you started there that eventually we would get to the "I think it is more complicated than that as it could completely destabilize an unstable country and the reward is not worth the risk" point.

Once a point is clarified it is not criticism to offer my own thoughts about that point. Whether you see it coming or not.

[Universe Prince]

Once a point is clarified it is not criticism to offer my own thoughts about that point. Whether you see it coming or not.

Heh. Whatever.

[BT]

Heh. Whatever.

So you concede that point?

[Plane]

Rather than rounding up everyone who might be a problem, a practice that if used by police would be roundly and properly condemned, I suggest that we establish investigations and evidence to determine who the proper suspects are before we arrest them. I'm not saying it would be 100% foolproof. Obviously it would not be. But it would be better.[/color]

George Bush has over seen the shooting dead of about half of the Al Queda membership , I have to suppose that a lot of desertion is going on , I still think that your assertion is made first and is unsupported , especially by facts.

I have no idea what assertion that is. But again, you made the assertion that he has done it, so supporting that assertion is up to you.

I can imagine the scene if a team of investigators went to Tora Bora and started investigateing , without any military involvement. You are being very unspecific so do not complain that I am finning in the blanks.
 As I see it yuou are gripeing that it was not done in a way that would have been stupid or impossible to do.

Did I really make the assertion that Bush has done well ,and very nearly what you want ,before you asserted that he had done poorly and that your idea was better? I don't see your ideas being specific enough for you to complain about my assumptions, not diffrent enough from the Bush plan to justify gripeing and where ever there is a real diffrence it involves impossibility enough to inspire levity.

Your assertion that Bush did not do well needs some better support .

Your idea that only the truely guilty shoud be arrested is extremely impossible , even in a peacefull American city , let alone in highly unfrendly territiory occupied by an unfreindly army.

Your idea of going against the familys of the guilty is interesting , but jibes poorly with your support of Habies Corpus rights. Comitted Martyers might not worry about Grandma going to heaven early , what would we be doing with Grandma to make her give junior up any way?

Freezeing the assets and tracking the assets we know is happening because the NYTimes told us all about the secret program to follow the money , halting it in mid stroke , do you suppose you could get press co-operation for your program better?


Any how to summerise  I consider your assertion that it is poorly donme to be previous and completely unsupported , I consider your suggestions redundant to programs already underway with the exception of a couple of impossibilitys.

Also I am haveing fun, you are good at this and I don't know if I will ever pin you down to specifics.

[Universe Prince]

So you concede that point?

Not sure I believe it, but for the sake of moving on, I'll concede the point.

[Universe Prince]

I can imagine the scene if a team of investigators went to Tora Bora and started investigateing , without any military involvement. You are being very unspecific so do not complain that I am finning in the blanks.

You keep saying I'm unspecific, and now you seem to have claimed that as an excuse to make up things and ascribe them to me. Which is, quite honestly, just plain adult male bovine excrement. I'm not sure how specific you expect me to be, but rather than making up things and assuming that must be what I mean, why don't you try asking me about it?

As I see it yuou are gripeing that it was not done in a way that would have been stupid or impossible to do.

Yes, I am sure you see it that way, since you seem to have decided to attach all manner of your own stupid assumptions to whatever I say.

Did I really make the assertion that Bush has done well ,and very nearly what you want ,before you asserted that he had done poorly and that your idea was better?

Do you not know what you asserted? Go back and read the thread yourself. I'm not your nanny.

I don't see your ideas being specific enough for you to complain about my assumptions, not diffrent enough from the Bush plan to justify gripeing and where ever there is a real diffrence it involves impossibility enough to inspire levity.

And you actually made a substantive case for none of that.

Your assertion that Bush did not do well needs some better support .

If that was my assertion, there is plenty in the news, but you're trying to shift responsibility. You said Bush had mostly done what I suggested be done, and so far you have not provided much if any evidence that he has. You have, however, hidden behind claims that I'm not specific, that somehow asking you for evidence is unfair, that providing evidence is not possible because you can't handle saying something was "accomplished", and so on.

Your idea that only the truely guilty shoud be arrested is extremely impossible , even in a peacefull American city , let alone in highly unfrendly territiory occupied by an unfreindly army.

That is not my idea. I never said it was my idea. I never even implied it was my idea. In point of fact, I not only said investigations and acquiring evidence would not be 100% foolproof, I said it obviously would not be. So again, I am left to conclude that you're responding more to your own assumptions than to what I say.

Your idea of going against the familys of the guilty is interesting , but jibes poorly with your support of Habies Corpus rights. Comitted Martyers might not worry about Grandma going to heaven early , what would we be doing with Grandma to make her give junior up any way?

And see, now you're just making up nonsense.

Freezeing the assets and tracking the assets we know is happening because the NYTimes told us all about the secret program to follow the money , halting it in mid stroke , do you suppose you could get press co-operation for your program better?

By my plan, there would be no need whatever to stop freezing assets if doing so was published in the New York Times, The Times or any other newspaper. In fact, having it in the press would probably be a good thing.

Any how to summerise  I consider your assertion that it is poorly donme to be previous and completely unsupported

That what was poorly done? What did I say was poorly done? Find the quote and maybe we'll talk about it.

I consider your suggestions redundant to programs already underway with the exception of a couple of impossibilitys.

Yes, I know you seem unable to tell the difference between invading Iraq and hunting down terrorists who attacked us.

Also I am haveing fun, you are good at this and I don't know if I will ever pin you down to specifics.

You might, but you'd have to start asking reasonable questions rather than assuming everything. So far, you haven't shown any inclination to do so.

[Plane]

Could you tell me what I have misconstrued and assumed?

What are you really advocateing minus my mistakes?

[Universe Prince]

Could you tell me what I have misconstrued and assumed?

I could. And I have. If you're not going to pay attention, repeating myself would be pointless.

What are you really advocateing minus my mistakes?

I have no intention of repeating everything we've just been over. Start at reply #28, then go ahead and ask some questions based on what I said and not on your assumptions.

[Plane]

Ooook

"I recommended that we basically hunt down the people who have actually done something to us,"

President Bush has done this in spades. In hindsight it might be pointed out one or another thing that could have been done better choices made diffrently , but hindsight is an unfair advantage. Attacking Al Queda in Iraq was going after the People that attacked us .

Allowing for the advantage of hindsight what could you have done better?

Don't say not invadeing Iraq , because you also said "leave them no ground to hide in," which I assume means leave them no ground to hide in, don't say No I don't mean invadeing Packistan , Phillipines , Saudi Arabia etc. because you have also said " leave no hideing places" which I assume means "leave them no ground to hide in,".


In reply 15 you said "You're assuming all detainees are captured on the battlefield. That is an incorrect assumption."

This is an incorrect assumption on your part, I already knew that many of those picked up were picked up from police work , I already knew that most of the battlefeild captures were left in local prisons .

But while you advocate makeing all captures from police work only --- wait is that an assumption?
Since you advocate useing Armed forces in co-ordination with police work -- I gotta assume it is one or the other.
Either you advocate doing something innefective or you advocate doing the Bush program.
Depending on which you mean .

[hnumpah]

Attacking Al Queda in Iraq was going after the People that attacked us .

Is that why we invaded Iraq?

I thought it was WMD, mushroom clouds, mobile chemical weapons labs, etc, etc, etc...

Or in later versions, to bring democracy to the Iraqi people...

[sirs]

Yes
Yes
No

[Plane]

Attacking Al Queda in Iraq was going after the People that attacked us .

Is that why we invaded Iraq?

I thought it was WMD, mushroom clouds, mobile chemical weapons labs, etc, etc, etc...

Or in later versions, to bring democracy to the Iraqi people...

If you have twenty reasons is only one of them the truth?

[hnumpah]

If you have twenty reasons is only one of them the truth?

The question should be, are any of them the truth?

[sirs]

When not profoundly distorted &/or misrepresented, yes