Olbermann Rips Bush a new arsehole

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

The Administration claims there is no difference between the insurgents and the terrorists, and for these purposes, they are correct.

No, they aren't.

As for the other argument, if you accept attacks on American forces, then you need to take the Khobar Towers and Cole bombings out of your list of attacks.

Terrorist attacks on US soldiers in their housing complex in a friendly nation or on a US Navy ship in port is very different from attacks on US soldiers actively searching for and trying to kill terrorists in a war zone. The former are attacks on passive US targets who aren't doing anything to take the fight to the terrorists in return. The latter are the unfortunate cost of actively hunting down and engaging terrorist fighters.

So what about attacks against US troops hunting insurgents, which according to you, are not terrorist?

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh please... that sort of stuff has been on TV before. Hell, Limbaugh had his own TV show for a number of years.

You equated Olbermann with Rush Limbaugh. That means impressionable kids not participating in the debat (like Kuci) think this is true and both's words should always be ignored because they're similar partisan hacks, meaning Drake already won the goal of his troll.

[Elok]

Originally posted by VJ
That means impressionable kids not participating in the debat (like Kuci)

Whereas I have had a decent amount of gin;
Whereas I like teh Kuci;
Whereas I do not like sidesniping;
I hereby defy your contempt on his behalf and cordially invite you to lick my testes if you do not like it. Huzzah!

[RGBVideo]

Whereas I do not like sidesniping;

Drake has been spinning everything and anything in this forum to a partisan political battle for four years now. Having recognized his tactic, I'm long past the point of getting tired of it. I wish the rest of you would recognize that he's only trolling to get threadjacks done. I'm not trying to diss Kuci or anything, I just noticed few weeks ago that he's affected by these spinmeißter-threadjacks, so people like him are probably the reason why this crap goes on.

But whatever. If you think I'm an ass, do so.

[Drake Tungsten]

So what about attacks against US troops hunting insurgents, which according to you, are not terrorist?

That's the consequence of fighting an insurgency. What the hell else would it be?

That means impressionable kids not participating in the debat (like Kuci) think this is true

I think Kuci can make up his own mind. He's a hell of a lot smarter than you are...

I'm long past the point of getting tired of it.

Boo ****ing hoo.

[RGBVideo]

I refuse to feed trolls. Buzz off.

[Elok]

Oh, it read like you were insulting Kuci. Good to see you weren't.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Eroberer
I saw this rant. It was a pretty good one.

O'Reilly has his "talking points" every show (I think, sometimes I don't catch the beginnings). They're never even close to being as well-written as a KO rant. He's also more apt to label something as a huge liberal conspiracy, I think. That's his whole motivation afterall, that there are big liberal conspiracies out there.

Are any of your OT posts not about O'Reilly?

[Ramo]

Terrorist attacks on US soldiers in their housing complex in a friendly nation or on a US Navy ship in port is very different from attacks on US soldiers actively searching for and trying to kill terrorists in a war zone. The former are attacks on passive US targets who aren't doing anything to take the fight to the terrorists in return. The latter are the unfortunate cost of actively hunting down and engaging terrorist fighters.

So if we turn a place into a full-blown war zone, attacks on the US or her allies don't actually count. That's a neat trick, I didn't realize that. Thus, we can eliminate terrorism world-wide if we go ahead and invade every country on the face of the earth.

[Drake Tungsten]

You usually manage better than that, Ramo...

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ramo
So if we turn a place into a full-blown war zone, attacks on the US or her allies don't actually count. That's a neat trick, I didn't realize that. Thus, we can eliminate terrorism world-wide if we go ahead and invade every country on the face of the earth.

So, you're saying that 3000 civilians dead in WTC is no different from thousands of our soldiers dead and wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Way to obfuscate!!!

[Ramo]

No, I didn't. The context was regarding attacks on the Khobar towers and the Cole.

Helpful trick in reading: when someone quotes another post, usually the stuff directly below has to do with that particular quote rather than some strawman you had in mind.

[Straybow]

Oh, I see. You are saying attacks on soldiers and sailors in peace are no different from attacks on soldiers and sailors in war.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

More than 2500 Americans have died in terrorist attacks since 9/11 . . . in Iraq.

Not all the deaths in Iraq are at the hands of terrorist organizations (far from it, actually).

Given the administration's tendency to decry all insurgent actions and paint them with the same bruch (they're too PC to just say "all them ragheads are the same"), it's consistent to label them all terrorist acts. Unless you want to posit that there is a native resistance to hostile foreign occupation? Maybe you should talk to your fearless leaders about that theory, since it's all just terrists and foreign radicals who hate freedom, etc.

And wouldn't you rather have our military bearing the brunt of Al Qaeda's efforts rather than the civilians who died in the World Trade Center and the African embassies?

A very nice non-sequitur. Having our military capacity slowly bled out to serve as targets, training exercises, and recuiting tools really isn't relevant to dealing with al Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups.

Isn't that the whole point of Bush's oft-quoted aim to fight them over there so they can't hurt us here?

Fighting al Qaeda where they aren't, while letting two equally or more dangerous enemies go nuke, is really effective at preventing attacks in the US. I'm going to go across San Diego and spray somebodies house for cockroaches. When I come back, and I don't notice any cockroaches in my house, that will prove my theory that spraying for cockroaces across town prevented them from infesting my house.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Straybow
Oh, I see. You are saying attacks on soldiers and sailors in peace are no different from attacks on soldiers and sailors in war.

so pearl harbor wasnt actually a declaration or act of war, it was an act of terrorism?