[quote]Pothos, more gratuitous accusations. Let's challenge that little snake to prove his accusation.
When left with nothing, no substantiating evidence, no data, no study, etc. Pothos the bogus guy just accuses you of whatever--plagiarism, being a spokesperson of the terrorist, a traitor. Whatever. [/quote]
What you dismiss as "rants" is me presenting you with substantiating evidence. It's also me presenting you with a reasoned argument proving you wrong. Now, when I called you out as using plagiarism, it's because the section that I quoted didn't represent your writing.
It was more academic, and bookish, than your usual post writings. I couldn't find it on a website, so it had to be something that you copied from a book.
[quote]Example:
Rob89, giving the only rational and informed argument of this post: In the 1950s, the U.S. and Britain toppled the democratically elected Iranian leader Mossadegh--through a CIA-British secret services engineered coup--and they replaced him with one of the most brutal dictators the mid east ever knew--the Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, an archaïc and brutal monarch who reigned and ruled through fear, violence, repression, and tyranny for decades, with the benediction and support of various U.S. administrations. Sounded like a good idea, the guy was a docile lapdog, he repressed his opposition really well through his secret police, he kept order in his country, helped stabilize, bla bla bla.
The "blowback" to that misguided policy came when the Iranians, especially the Islamist students--radicalized by decades of repression--had their big breakthrough and managed to topple the Shah's regime through their islamic revolution of 1978. Since the U.S. had initially put in power then helped and supported the reviled Shah, the Iranian Revolution produced regimes that were fiercely anti-U.S. To this day, we are inheriting the consequences, or "blowbacks", of that policy from the 50s.
Pothos, not addressing the argument but instead issuing a gratuitous accusation he will remain forever unable to prove: "This DOESN'T look like your writing, or your work. HENCE, with the exception of the part with "bla bla bla", I don't see this as your work. Is that a section of the book? The website? Whatever that is, that doesn't look like your work. That, fullofshit89, doesn't constitute academic honesty. You plagiarized that and are making it look like that's all your work. I'd say that you copied that from the book. If that's the case, you should properly credit that. Or at least give the title of the book the chapter, and the page that passage came from. " [/quote]
The only thing that you provided was red herrings that didn't support your argument. You're trying to describe Iraq as a "disaster" that'll bite us in the butt in the future. You used an "apples to oranges" comparison between what the U.S. and U.K. did to one country and what we're doing in Iraq.
Your argument misses the target. It's the fact that what we're doing to Iraq is going to have a tremendously positive affect for us in the future.
What I said in that quote stands. You used something that isn't your writing. It looks too academic, with the exception of what you DID add, "bla, bla, bla."
You failed to give me the source for that information, no link, no nothing. That would've allowed me to give you a more scathing response for your critical thinking failure. Chances are that I could've used your source against you. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the real reason for your failure to give me a source, or a link.
[quote]TO WHICH ROB89 RESPONDS:
Well, you have the books now. So, I am calling you out to place here the passage I supposedly copied or plagiarized.
Do it man, or people who read this will see you are just a little snakes who launches accusations and when challenged to prove them, is unable to do it.
(PS: FYI, all that above is really standard historical knowledge, you know Stuff like that and more I can write at will and even while sleeping [/quote]
So you got that from a book.
You do realize that this constitutes plagiarism, do you? Again, it's what Entastella accused you of doing.
That example is a very poor one to use to describe Iraq.
It doesn't do anything to advance your argument. Yes, there's a consequence to many of the things that we do. Run a red light? You risk getting pulled over. Fail to discipline a kid when he's growing up? You risk having someone that constantly gets into trouble with the law.
Your scenario gives a negative blow back example. It doesn't describe our situation in Iraq. That's an area where our accomplishing our objectives there would advance us in the fight against terrorism.
I also disagree with the Author's conclusions about the Shah of Iran. I was stationed with someone who lived in Iran when the Shah was still in power. This Iranian American told me that had the Shaw stayed in power, Iran would've had an economy that would've given any of the European country's economies a run for their money.
The reality is that Carter sat on his duff instead of doing what a Republican would've done... keep a pro western government in power. The current Iranian Regime represents the negative blow back of Carter's inaction.
Or is this a case where "blow back" only matters when we're dealing with Republicans?
No comments:
Post a Comment