Bomb scare in NYC.. sudden patriotism spike inc

[Plow]

Well, that's one way to utterly and completely dodge the point. Pretty pathetic, though.

[Rhinox]

is this you ing?

I give you permission to walk away now.

[Plow]

is this you ing?

I give you permission to walk away now.

lol what else am I going to do when you intentionally completely ignore the entire post that actually responded to you in favor of going OMG BUSH LUVR EVIL DICTATOR


p.s. google is hard and everyone that reads this sees right through your idiocy

[Rhinox]

What are you talking about? I explained how David Frum assessment and ringing endorsement of the Bush Doctrine is flawed. Terrorist aren't these Masterminds if given the chance you make them out to be. I've sighted examples to the contrary yet you want to glance over them.

If you want more examples just google botched terrorist plots.

Just walk away Plow No one is buying your retarded logic.

[Plow]

What are you talking about? I explained how David Frum assessment and ringing endorsement of the Bush Doctrine is flawed. Terrorist aren't these Masterminds if given the chance you make them out to be. I've sighted examples to the contrary yet you want to glance over them.

If you want more examples just google botched terrorist plots.

Just walk away Plow No one is buying your retarded logic.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and pretend you're not really this retarded:

That post was clarification on the previous post for Kuya. The one responding directly to you, which you have obviously chosen to intentionally ignore, but we'll pretend you just haven't noticed it.

In other words, look a whopping 2 posts above that.

I know it's hard to read 2 whole posts when you're fapping furiously at the possibility of responding to something a Bush supporter said (ok, not responding to it, but attacking where it came from with absolutely no argument on the validity whatsoever, but anyway), but you should really try.

[Rhinox]

I didn't respond because Kuya pretty much summed it up but If you want me to respond to each article sure.

Why do I always forget that I'm speaking to people entirely incapable of finding out information other than what's spoon fed to them by their favorite bloggers?


Just to show how retarded you're being here, I'm going to restrict myself rather harshly: first results from google searches only.

"faisal Pakistan air strike"

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archiv...s_pakistan.php


11 days old, direct references to the video of one of the "worst" Taliban figures applauding and saying "more attacks will come"... the real key being that it was made before the failure. Fairly extensive linking within.

Also talks about the direct link with one of the attacks in January.

All Speculation and it has not been confirmed hell even a Republican Sen Kit Bond said that the only arrest in Pakistan seem to be of those Faisal claimed to be his family that were in danger if he didn't go through with this plot.

Again Speculation which is why you nor I can go around saying what drove him to commit this act.

Again I'll repost the ABC news story. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/time...omber-10567090

This time try listening to more then 20 secs this time

"Faisal Taliban"

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,2936601.story




Pretty well speaks for itself, but...

From your very article you seemed not to have read. Do you even read or do you just skim the article titles from google for buzz words and say AH HA! You really aren't as bright as you portray yourself to be plow.

The findings are part of a growing body of evidence that the Pakistani Taliban, known as Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, was deeply involved in the attempted bombing, the officials said, though they acknowledged that key questions remain unanswered.

Investigators are still attempting to determine what role senior Pakistani Taliban leaders played in the operation.

The article went on to say that TTP depend on al Qaeda on Ideology but never went into specifics and that the TTP provides a safe haven for al Qaeda(sound familiar?)

"pakistan taliban al quaeda"


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SGE64906G.htm

There ya go.


What else do you need me to show you since you're incapable of 20 seconds of extremely simple research?


In before the retardation that led you to link articles discussing the Afghanistan Taliban's relationship with al Quaeda when we're discussing the relationship in Pakistan leads to more mindless blog reciting.

two things.

1. You can't separate the two one would not have been in power without the other. In fact the Taliban was willing to cooperate with the United states if they handed over proof Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 but instead we glassed their already poor infrastructure but I digress. Similarly to how we gave Iran the grand stage when we took out Saddam we gave the TTP who were in relative obscurity a grand stage to recruit using demagoguery by playing to peoples fear of an overreaching Imperialistic empire that the United states seems to be and received amongst those not living in the United States.


2. I cited one blog(politico) mainly because they are mainly non-partisan and two they were the first thing that popped up that has credibility.

But since you like to pick on blogs I'll link you some better articles of what I was talking about warren.

Here you go and this one and this one and this oh lets not forget this one Can this be another one why yes it is!

[Plow]

I didn't respond because Kuya pretty much summed it up but If you want me to respond to each article sure.



All Speculation and it has not been confirmed hell even a Republican Sen Kit Bond said that the only arrest in Pakistan seem to be of those Faisal claimed to be his family that were in danger if he didn't go through with this plot.

Again Speculation which is why you nor I can go around saying what drove him to commit this act.

So what you're saying is that since we don't know for sure, we should lean towards the decision that supports your ideology rather than what the facts point to? mmmk...

Again I'll repost the ABC news story. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/time...omber-10567090

This time try listening to more then 20 secs this time

What the fuck? I just rewatched the whole thing. The only things it says about his reasoning is what I already quoted. The rest is about what an idiot he is.

From your very article you seemed not to have read. Do you even read or do you just skim the article titles from google for buzz words and say AH HA! You really aren't as bright as you portray yourself to be plow.



The article went on to say that TTP depend on al Qaeda on Ideology but never went into specifics and that the TTP provides a safe haven for al Qaeda(sound familiar?)

That's pretty epic... on top of what I quoted there specifically refuting your claims that their relationship has weakened, the entire next link is dedicated specifically to it.

You might want to finish posts before you start replying to them. You make yourself look really stupid when you don't.

two things.

1. You can't separate the two one would not have been in power without the other. In fact the Taliban was willing to cooperate with the United states if they handed over proof Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 but instead we glassed their already poor infrastructure but I digress. Similarly to how we gave Iran the grand stage when we took out Saddam we gave the TTP who were in relative obscurity a grand stage to recruit using demagoguery by playing to peoples fear of an overreaching Imperialistic empire that the United states seems to be and received amongst those not living in the United States.

Prove the 2nd statement (you're so full of shit lol), the rest is shit I've already addressed.

2. I cited one blog(politico) mainly because they are mainly non-partisan and two they were the first thing that popped up that has credibility.

But since you like to pick on blogs I'll link you some better articles of what I was talking about warren.

Here you go and this one and this one and this oh lets not forget this one Can this be another one why yes it is!

First off, my point about your blog shit is not your quoting blogs as fact. That's retarded enough to speak for itself. My point, which I think I proved rather thoroughly by showing you *ONLY* the first results for simple searches on google, is that you're not even researching remotely legitimately. Everything you believe and regurgitate is shit you read from heavily opinionated blogs.

Secondly:

In before the retardation that led you to link articles discussing the Afghanistan Taliban's relationship with al Quaeda when we're discussing the relationship in Pakistan leads to more mindless blog reciting.

mmmhhmmmm

Keep on ranting about Afghanistan.

You said this:

In fact the the Taliban are only working with al Qaeda so they can get back in power. Not because of some religious zealotry.

Which is just beyond silly, and exposes that you don't even understand the groups you're talking about. Which leads to you turning a bad thing into the worst you can possibly make it out to be, and projecting disconnects between 2 very inter-operative groups based on the fact that *both* are largely gone from 1 area... and the best part is, there's no logical reason, or point to be supported, you're simply arguing it for the sake of arguing.

[Rhinox]

lol k.

If you think the Taliban main goal is trying to spread its sectarian views on the world we really have nothing more to discuss because its obvious you have no Idea what your talking about.

So I added the quotes later on omg Score one for plow! who is keeping score?

[Plow]

lol k.

If you think the Taliban main goal is trying to spread its sectarian views on the world we really have nothing more to discuss because its obvious you have no Idea what your talking about.

You're right, they forcefully took over a country, instilled an extremely harsh fundamentalist regime, engaged in ethnic cleansing, and developed an extensive network funding and protecting terrorism, because...

We're such assholes for supporting them at the start.

Makes perfect sense.

So I added the quotes later on omg Score one for plow! who is keeping score?

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Rhinox]

You're right, they forcefully took over a country, instilled an extremely harsh fundamentalist regime, engaged in ethnic cleansing, and developed an extensive network funding and protecting terrorism, because...

We're such assholes for supporting them at the start.

Makes perfect sense.

lol

[Rhinox]

On a somewhat similar subject plow do you think us going into Iraq was ok because Saddam was a horrible man who gassed his own people?

[Plow]

On a somewhat similar subject plow do you think us going into Iraq was ok because Saddam was a horrible man who gassed his own people?

Who said anything about being "ok" with any of it?


Oh, that's right, if I'm capable of understanding the valid points in arguments other than yours, I'm obviously the exact opposite of your point of view on every possible area.


Hint: I'm only in this thread pointing out that you're an uninformed retarded Glenn Beck wannabe, and the fact that you've gone so far past the point of absurdity that you consider being reasonable a bad thing.


I've said nothing in support of American action in any way, shape, or form. You've literally just put that into your own head to drive the fury of your fap.

[Rhinox]

Hint: I'm only in this thread pointing out that you're an uninformed retarded Glenn Beck wannabe, and the fact that you've gone so far past the point of absurdity that you consider being reasonable a bad thing.


I've said nothing in support of American action in any way, shape, or form. You've literally just put that into your own head to drive the fury of your fap.

The fact that you called me a "Glenn Beck wannabe" proves to me you obviously know nothing about me or what I believe in. And btw since when is speaking out against our country killing Civilians unreasonable? You realize thats what your calling absurd right? Also I've provided facts and links (not all from blogs) and you've provided nothing but Speculation.

Tell me Something Plow.

Is there anything Obama and by extension Bill Clinton has done that you strongly disagree with? I mean anything really.

We all love to say how much of a horrible President Bush was and I've gone on record a number of times on what I've hated about the two Democratic Centrist before and after Bush. I just want to hear something you disagree with them. Prove you're not a Partisan hack

You guys realize the dude was pissed about the drone strikes...

Not for hitting civilians... but because they killed a bunch of his "higher ups" while he was there...

Still waiting on your source for this little turd nugget.

[Rhinox]

Who said anything about being "ok" with any of it?


Oh, that's right, if I'm capable of understanding the valid points in arguments other than yours, I'm obviously the exact opposite of your point of view on every possible area.

incoming ad Hominem

Almost forgot this is rich coming from you. The same guy who defended a cop in Texas even after the Police force and the cop himself admitted what he did was wrong.

Edit: http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/showt...las+Cop&page=4

The lulz starts on page 7

Edit:2

I'll give you this Plow. It takes Balls to argue something then when called out on it you restate your position and claim "thats what I've been saying all along!"

Anyways I'm gone for a few hours ttyl

[Plow]

The fact that you called me a "Glenn Beck wannabe" proves to me you obviously know nothing about me or what I believe in.

Bravo. Holy fuck, though, really.

And btw since when is speaking out against our country killing Civilians unreasonable? You realize thats what your calling absurd right?

What's unreasonable is your attempts to portray the "other side" as good guys that are exclusively lashing out due to direct action by us against them.

Nobody's denying that it plays a part... you're going out of your way to try to show that it's the only reason, and that's just stupid and dishonest. You're taking what you want to portray the situation as, and then trying to change the facts around until it fits. A whole lot like a certain Fox News pundit (or 3) we all know of.

Also I've provided facts and links (not all from blogs) and you've provided nothing but Speculation.

First off:

I literally did supply you both links with direct neutral analysis on the state of affairs, as well as "speculation" (except the reality is what you've said is pure speculation, what I've stated and shown is based on the reality of the events that directly led to the bombing) that's actually the logical conclusions based on the extensive evidence linked within.

Secondly:

I did it the way I did for a reason. I used *only* the first result for some very simple google searches. The point of that post was way beyond "you're wrong and I'm right." The point is if you actually did *ANY* legitimate research whatsoever, I wouldn't need to link you the shit because it's common fucking knowledge to anyone that's actually informed on the subject.

Lastly, you posted the same link to a video twice, saying simply "OMG WATCH IT," when it provides absolutely 0 relevant information on the subject whatsoever. Then you did the same thing over and over again with a bunch of other randomass shit you stumbled across on your favorite blogs that really doesn't pertain to the situation. We get it, there's not much al Quaeda activity in Afghanistan. You're simply taking the facts that nobody's arguing and turning them into claims that are ridiculous.

Tell me Something Plow.

Is there anything Obama and by extension Bill Clinton has done that you strongly disagree with? I mean anything really.

We all love to say how much of a horrible President Bush was and I've gone on record a number of times on what I've hated about the two Democratic Centrist before and after Bush. I just want to hear something you disagree with them. Prove you're not a Partisan hack

Obama is taxing less and spending more than Clinton, when we're in a bigger debt with a worse deficit. He's pretty much doing everything wrong when it comes to the economy, which is a direct result of trying to force through health care ASAP without addressing the underlying problems that maintain the poverty state. If you've paid attention for the last 20 years, you really should have known the limits of what he'd pull off in terms of insurance, and he should have been building around that rather than simply play it off as "well we tried!" when, as I've shown recently in other threads, even if supporters tried to tell themselves otherwise, he clearly knew all along exactly how it would end up.

This, of course, was led to by the fact that Clinton didn't do then what Obama did do now-- admit that health care cannot just instantly be "fixed." Had he made the kind of strides then that Obama has now, Obama would have had an actual reasonable chance at getting it truly universal.

Still waiting on your source for this little turd nugget.

I refuse to do this one for you. You can feel free to say that means I'm bullshitting, and I'm sure in your head you'll believe that. However, anyone that's actually researched this event rather than just read hyperliberal blogs will know not just who was actually hit by the attack he's referred to, but who we thought was hit but may actually still be alive.

[Plow]

incoming ad Hominem

Almost forgot this is rich coming from you. The same guy who defended a cop in Texas even after the Police force and the cop himself admitted what he did was wrong.

Edit: http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/showt...las+Cop&page=4

The lulz starts on page 7

Edit:2

I'll give you this Plow. It takes Balls to argue something then when called out on it you restate your position and claim "thats what I've been saying all along!"

Anyways I'm gone for a few hours ttyl

I haven't altered my position. (which is what I assume you meant when you said restate, because honestly if you really meant restate, what the fuck)

My position is that you're a clueless idiot spewing bullshit you don't understand that's all just echoing your favorite bloggers. Please, display where I've changed that.

I'm simply being nice enough to explain how exactly you manage to make yourself look *so* fucking stupid.

Spoiler: show

hey look I can do passive-aggressive too

[Plow]

incoming ad Hominem

Almost forgot this is rich coming from you. The same guy who defended a cop in Texas even after the Police force and the cop himself admitted what he did was wrong.

Edit: http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/showt...las+Cop&page=4

The lulz starts on page 7

Edit:2

I'll give you this Plow. It takes Balls to argue something then when called out on it you restate your position and claim "thats what I've been saying all along!"

Anyways I'm gone for a few hours ttyl

Oh, and, it's pretty epic that in this thread you can argue how we should understand when people target and kill civilians directly with no military purpose whatsoever...

And then bring up a thread where you can't understand why a cop is a dick to a bigass dude driving an escalade running multiple red lights while a cop is trying to pull him over, and 3 people jump out running towards the cop car, frantic.


Nope, you don't twist reality to try to make your outlook seem valid at all.

[Rhinox]

Bravo. Holy fuck, though, really.



What's unreasonable is your attempts to portray the "other side" as good guys that are exclusively lashing out due to direct action by us against them.

Nobody's denying that it plays a part... you're going out of your way to try to show that it's the only reason, and that's just stupid and dishonest. You're taking what you want to portray the situation as, and then trying to change the facts around until it fits. A whole lot like a certain Fox News pundit (or 3) we all know of.

uhmm

Oh yeah, this had absolutely nothing to do with religion.

Im sure the fact that they were trying to hit the Viacom headquarters within days of a controversy involving them making fun of Islam was purely coincidental.

Never once in any of the links you or I provided was South Park cited for a source of the anger. You logically drew that conclusion yourself without anything to back it up

First off:

I literally did supply you both links with direct neutral analysis on the state of affairs, as well as "speculation" (except the reality is what you've said is pure speculation, what I've stated and shown is based on the reality of the events that directly led to the bombing) that's actually the logical conclusions based on the extensive evidence linked within.

I was asking for Links to your claims about Viacom HQ being a target and that the man was upset because his terrorist bosses were being targeted. You still haven't provided either thus nothing but speculation and stupidity.

Secondly:

I did it the way I did for a reason. I used *only* the first result for some very simple google searches. The point of that post was way beyond "you're wrong and I'm right." The point is if you actually did *ANY* legitimate research whatsoever, I wouldn't need to link you the shit because it's common fucking knowledge to anyone that's actually informed on the subject.

Thanks, at least you admitted you didn't vet the articles you posted aside from skimming headlines. Whats funny is that most of the articles you posted contradicted your narrative. But go ahead and continue to alter your position when you get called out on bullshit by claiming your trying to argue a bigger point no one is buying that horsehit.

Lastly, you posted the same link to a video twice, saying simply "OMG WATCH IT," when it provides absolutely 0 relevant information on the subject whatsoever. Then you did the same thing over and over again with a bunch of other randomass shit you stumbled across on your favorite blogs that really doesn't pertain to the situation. We get it, there's not much al Quaeda activity in Afghanistan. You're simply taking the facts that nobody's arguing and turning them into claims that are ridiculous.

And I'll post it again.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/time...omber-10567090

So yeah According to Plow an ABC news story with the headline Times Square Bomber: Why Did He Do It? has nothing to do with the subject. Especially if it goes against your narrative. Jfc you really believe that don't you?

Obama is taxing less and spending more than Clinton, when we're in a bigger debt with a worse deficit. He's pretty much doing everything wrong when it comes to the economy, which is a direct result of trying to force through health care ASAP without addressing the underlying problems that maintain the poverty state. If you've paid attention for the last 20 years, you really should have known the limits of what he'd pull off in terms of insurance, and he should have been building around that rather than simply play it off as "well we tried!" when, as I've shown recently in other threads, even if supporters tried to tell themselves otherwise, he clearly knew all along exactly how it would end up.

This, of course, was led to by the fact that Clinton didn't do then what Obama did do now-- admit that health care cannot just instantly be "fixed." Had he made the kind of strides then that Obama has now, Obama would have had an actual reasonable chance at getting it truly universal.

Nice going well until you started qualifying it and pretty much gave him a pass at the end there. Thanks for proving you're a partisan hack.

I refuse to do this one for you. You can feel free to say that means I'm bullshitting, and I'm sure in your head you'll believe that. However, anyone that's actually researched this event rather than just read hyperliberal blogs will know not just who was actually hit by the attack he's referred to, but who we thought was hit but may actually still be alive.

If its so simple why not post the article? Is it because I caught you in a goddamn lie that you can't prove it? On top of that you try to disarm my argument by "Feel free to say that means I'm bullshitting" in a lame attempt to and shield yourself from the blowback. Sorry didn't work and so..Plow you're bullshitting.

Oh, and, it's pretty epic that in this thread you can argue how we should understand when people target and kill civilians directly with no military purpose whatsoever...

And then bring up a thread where you can't understand why a cop is a dick to a bigass dude driving an escalade running multiple red lights while a cop is trying to pull him over, and 3 people jump out running towards the cop car, frantic.


Nope, you don't twist reality to try to make your outlook seem valid at all.

Well I did say beforehand it was an ad hominem. It was mainly for my amusement since you were calling me out that I was.. Whats the quote again?

Oh, that's right, if I'm capable of understanding the valid points in arguments other than yours, I'm obviously the exact opposite of your point of view on every possible area.

Yeah, Even when faced with the facts in the Texas cop story and how he fucked up you kept on defending him even after said cop admitted he fucked up lol. talk about Pigheaded.

I know how you 'win' internet arguments Plow I'm not stupid. You essentially go back and forth altering your position to gain ground and pretty much bore the other poster(s) into essentially giving up(hi2u religion debates with Neo). Its not happening here with me though.

So lets continue annoying everyone else by our constant back and forth until a Mod decides to spare the forums shall we?

[Kuya]

The Taliban does not share Al Qaida's internationalist views or intents.

[BadKarma]

Doesnt change the fact that half of BG are a bunch of hippie rejects.


Jus' Sayin