[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 19, 12:23 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
On Sep 19, 9:27 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
Yet you were against us pulling out of a lost cause in Vietnam.

A myopic point of view at best. Is an unwinnable situation
lost? Even with the benfit of hisorical hindsight you ignore
the cataclysm that resulted from the abrupt and illegal
abrogation of treaty. Why?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

I see. Relying on your knowledge of history requires
lengthy testimony.

I haven't seen a valid history that agrees with what you claim. Spell
it out, dum-dum.

What a ninny. LoL.

Silence equals assent. I'm glad we agree that you're a ninny.

You consistently reveal yourself to be a shallow uni-dimensional
thinker who has little but insults to offer.

LOL!

If you ever really comprehend my position, I shall be forced to
reconsider it on the basis of being too simplistic.

How could anybody truly comrehend that which you've admitted you do
not share?

Another example of your disingenuousness silly debating trade
style.

You said you never tell us. See George for the exact quote. LoL.

(Personally I think that's your cover for yor inability to
communicate.)

Silence equals assent. I'm glad we agree that you're can't
communicate.

and our presence has contributed to destabilizing Pakistan where a
flood
of US aid is siphoned off for nefarious activities.

So a destabilized Pakistan is a direct result of our activities in
Afghanistan?

Yes.

So IYO Pakistan was "stable" in 2000?

I disagree.

Stable is relative.

No, moron, stable is stable.

There are varying degrees of instability.

And there are varying degrees of stability.

No, there is "stable" If something isn't "stable" it can have varying
degrees of "instability".

Your argument here is that your turntable could have varying degrees
of "level". In reality it is either "level" or it can have varying
degrees of being "out of level".

What a ****ing moron.

Can you draw a line between stability and instability
in nations?

Yes, but that's bevcause I can understand things and you cannot. LoL.

Pelosi was claiming Obama is causing US
instability. How do you feel about that?

I haven't seen the quote and you did not provide it.

Who knew how stable Pakistan was before?

Bush f'd up by not engaging the Taliban to get Obama.

What? LOL! Poor deranged 2pid.

This is well documented but I'm sure it's way over your head
even though you whined endlessly about his cowboy attitude you
fail to recognize where it really failed us.

Yes, if bushie had engaged the Taliban and they had gotten Obama the
last election would've been much different.

LoL. National security was Obama's strongsuit in the election?
You are deluded.

Silent agreement noted.

Um, 2pid? According to you bushie's actions destabilized Pakistan. I
think bushie was a national security and foreign policy nightmare.

What a moron. LOL!

Obama is f'ing up by thinking we can change Afghanistan.

So you want terrorist training bases in Afghanistan?

No. But your implied consequence is flawed.
How long were the 9/11 conspirators
actually in Afghanistan being trained?

Since we set them up in the 1980s.

A trial of Osama, Obama style would be rather interesting.
I doubt they can actually prove his role as conspirator.

One small flaw with your intensely stupid position:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/..._10-29-04.html

"Although there was no way to authenticate the tape "

Would this tape be admissable? I'm not sure.

Too easy. I'm sorry that you're too lazy and stupid to do even the
simplest research on your own and need everything spoon fed to you.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has stated that evidence linking
Al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and
irrefutable.[82] The Government of the United Kingdom reached the
same
conclusion regarding Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's culpability for
the September 11, 2001, attacks.[83] Bin Laden initially denied
involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks. On 16 September 2001,
bin Laden read a statement later broadcast by Qatar's Al Jazeera
satellite channel denying responsibility for the attack.[84]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_b...11.2C_2001_att...

I like this:

Ron Suskind noted that the CIA analysis of the video led them to the
consensus view that the tape was designed strategically to help
President Bush win reelection in 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video

The sheeples followed a known terrorist. LOL!

sources within the United States intelligence community have
confirmed
that the speaker, who appears behind a lectern, is indeed bin Laden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video

Duh.

Unless you're going to admit evidence obtain via waterboarding.

Or videotapes that he made himself.

That can't be authenticated.

That already were, dum-dum.

See why 'discussions' with you are a waste of time? LoL.

What a ****ing imbecile.

You sure didn't
last November.

Which f' up is going to cost us more?

You've already hosed up the gene pool. It's too late for regrets! LoL.

Dodging the point I see. Typical.

I've said it before, 2pid. Not all of your 'nuggets of wisdom' warrant
a serious reply.

Obviously you can't refute the point.

Obviously and clearly that's what it means when people call you
"stupid".

We'll have to create the sshtard translation index.
"Stupid" means.. I can't refute the point.

No, as shown above (once...again) "stupid" means "stupid".

(snip of hollow declaration of usenet victory)
I find such declarations more often than not
show weakness in argument.

Too bad. You lose...again.