Disclaimers from other websites extend to this blog

By reading this blog, you bind yourself to the disclaimers of the websites that this blog addresses. You also bind yourself to Blogger's and Google's disclaimers. I have copyright to my comments.
Showing posts with label Robertson89. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robertson89. Show all posts

Friday, September 30, 2011

September post summary...

Here's a summary of September 2011's postings.

This month's earliest posts are based on a thread I started. A provider and I had a verbal exchange. She replied to me, then locked her PM receiving capabilities. I responded by replying in the flame forum. This forum allows you to light someone's ass on fire, provided that you didn't give out personal information.

A whole bunch of morons jumped on the thread, not knowing what they were talking about. They flamed me, and I fired back. They were more interested in playing "white knight" than to be fair and impartial. Oh well, their mistake. Not only did I destroy their argument, I destroyed their credibility.

If people would've stopped frothing at the mouth, they would've realized that I continued an argument. Since they're "adults," they should've realized that nobody forced them to read that thread.

Sigh, some people's kids.

I included comments from other threads. They had one thing in common... they're replies that balance out replies to my earlier comments.

Right above them are the replies I gave to Robertson89... or would've given him. That dummy is a glutton for punishment. His arrogance constantly blinded him to the fact that he lost the fight... just like he did our other fights. These are replies I would've made had I not been banned... something I was willing to let happen to me.

This leads me to the next group of replies. I fought the board administration for an injustice against my 2006/2007 ATF. I got banned. These replies, "Avenue X throws providers under the bus," are the replies that got me banned. Red deleted every one of them on that thread, so I re-posted them here, to establish balance.

The more recent group of posts represents posts I would've made on a thread that I debated on... as another username. The administrators banned me again, before I could finish the fight. So I've posted my replies here. Both Robertson89 and Jenna Banks were notified, and given opportunity to read these posts.  




Friday, September 2, 2011

Avenue-X-Debate with Robertson89--Vox Ultima

I debated this one turd three times while on Avenue-X. I debated with him again on the BJ forums.

The "guy" was like me when it came to back to back replies. He went further than me though. He'd create post series without addressing the opposition's replies.

I destroyed him in all four debates. He got banned from Avenue-X months after I got banned from there. It didn't take him long to get banned from the BJ forums.

He currently posts on Hampton Road's Rants and Raves Forum. The craigslist community calls him, "Mr. ololol," or "the cut and paste lo guy." This turd overwhelmingly graces Rants and Raves with his stupidity, just like he did on Avenue-X and on the BJ forums.

Did he learn his lesson from getting banned on those message boards? Nope. The folks at Rants and Raves are constantly flagging his posts.

He was relatively reasonable during our first debate. He psychologically deteriorated during our second debate. He lost it during our third debate. Lucky for him, I had bigger fish to fry.

I had a bone to pick with Avenue-X' administrators for wronging a couple women I knew. I took my fight to them, knowing that they'd ban me before I'd get back to Robertson89. The following posts are posts I would've made if I didn't get banned.

I sent Robertson89 well on his way to becoming a troll before I got banned. My posting allies finished the job. He's now one of Hampton Road's Rants and Raves trolls.

He complains about that, but doesn't realize that he's got himself to blame for his condition. He's also got himself to blame for his posts getting constantly flagged.

I combat deployed for the initial phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom back in 2003. After coming back, I had access to information sources about that country. This was information from service members serving in Iraq. I had these as my backgrounds for this 2007 fight.

I went through these posts a year later to update them.

This year, I added input based on my second Iraq deployment. That happened a little over two years after the debate.

Some of the links are dead. I left them in place as they were applicable to the 2007 debate.

Avenue-X Robertson89 Cherry Picks Data About the Iraq War

[quote]Evidence of brilliant success of "surge tactics"/Now even U.S. troops are getting captured and death tolls reaches new high

Pics and whole NPR story at

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7147286

BAGHDAD May 13, 2007, 6:32 p.m. ET * An al-Qaida front group announced Sunday it had captured American soldiers in a deadly attack the day before, as thousands of U.S. troops searched insurgent areas south of Baghdad for their three missing comrades.

The statement came on one of the deadliest days in the country in recent weeks, with at least 124 people killed or found dead. A suicide truck bomb tore through the offices of a Kurdish political party in northern Iraq, killing 50 people, and a car bombing in a crowded Baghdad market killed another 17. [/quote]

Where have you been? U.S. troops got captured during the beginning of the war. Or have you forgotten Jessica?

You're cherry picking a few instances in the war. Then, you're turning around and using that to "prove" that the surge "isn't" working. That's like saying that we're not making progress here in the United States because of some kidnappings here.

Advance time to the following year.

Thanks to the surge, Iraq security improved by leaps and bounds. The Iraqi military is further ahead in its ultimate goals of taking over for that country's security. The rest of the country is experiencing large scale improvements compared to before.

What's one good indicator that things have tremendously gotten better in Iraq since you said this?

Iraq is hardly getting media attention compared to before.

Updated to add:

I've recently combat deployed to Iraq. I know this from first hand experience, we won with a straight cut victory. Al Qaida, and the Anti Iraqi Forces (AIF), REFUSE to fight us face to face. Their usual tactic, when they find out that the military is moving against them, is to run like COWARDS.

They only attack us when they think we're not paying attention. They ended up on the bad end of the stick.

[quote]Those who have been supporting the use of torture against enemy combattants and even "suspected" enemies should pray now that the other side does not "emulate" that and takes their inspiration from them.

They might also see a bit more clearly now how the practice of torture makes it so much more likely the same will be done to our own guys once they get taken prisoners.[/quote]

Al Qaeda and the AIF, are brutal to their prisoners. What we do, or won't do, doesn't matter to them. This is a no brainer. If the insurgency captures you, you won't be alive for long. Your death will be horrible. This is why the vast majority of the troops fight to the death with these guys. The alternative isn't acceptable.

Also, there's a big difference between how the U.S. military, and how the radical Islamic forces, treat their prisoners.

In fact, take the Abu Ghraib (sp) stunts and ask yourself this question. How many dominas here in North America, as well in Europe, are making allot of money by forcing their subs to do one of these:

* Dog/pony training

* Electrocution

* Humiliation

* Forced panties over the sub's head (usually one with the domina's stench)

* Brown showers

* Whipping

* Spanking

* Pain infliction

* Human furniture

That's just naming a few.

Now, think of the number of subs that ask their mistresses to do the above. How may subs ask their mistresses to saw their heads off? Compare the two and what do you get?

Zero for the second scenario, but you get the picture.

Again, not condoning what they did at Abu Ghraib. Those soldiers faced justice for doing something that America, and the US military, doesn't condone.

We treat our prisoners allot better than they do theirs. The enemies we're fighting won't care if we treat their comrades like kings. They wouldn't care if carry them around, feed them grapes, or whatever. They'll torture our guys no matter how kind we are to their people.

Here's the point that your article misses.

They want to kill us because we're not Muslim... we haven't submitted to God by their standards. In their eyes, conversion to Islam is what'll save us.

Avenue-X--Roberston89 tells an Iraq War Veteran That His Take on Iraq is Delusional Bullshit

[quote]Northern Kurdistan a "haven of peace"?

By the way what was it that thing you said once about Northern Kurdistan being so different, a "haven of peace" bla bla bla?

Check that story above. How many attacks has there been there too, at this point? [/quote]

Again, you're overlooking the forest because of a few trees.

Those attacks don't change my statement's validity. Northern Iraq is farther ahead in progress and development, and in the peace process, than the rest of Iraq. Your argument is like saying that we're not enjoying peace here in our own country... because our cops sometimes get involved with shoot outs.

You're pulling straws. It speaks volumes when people in Northern Iraq can go about and party at times when the rest of Iraq would have to stay indoors.

You can't even do that in some parts of many U.S. cities.

Here's another flaw in your argument. These attacks took place in Kurdish areas shared with other sects.

Updated to add:

Iraq of today is progressing exponentially... the Iraqis can now go out and about at night to have a good time.

[quote]Might be time to revise your bullshit self-delusional wishful-thinking kinds of claims. One of the consequences of the surge has been to extend the violence to areas that were previously relatively untouched like Northern Kurdistan.

You see? That, too, is what is called a "blowback" (see previous post). Blowbacks occur and keep occurring when the "policy", "tactics", or "strategy" is rotten and misguided at its core. Stay the course, buddy, stay the course.

But what do you actually know and understand about all this, besides your pathetic quotes from Fox News...and face-sitting web sites [/quote]

What do I know? You still don't realize who you're talking to, don't you?

My take on a war that I participated in, one that you didn't participate in, isn't "delusional bullshit." I don't recall you even serving a day in uniform. This plays a large role in what I know as compared to what you don't know.

So, you need to compensate, for not being a veteran, by accepting what I say about the Iraq War. Your only recourse, in this fight, is to thank me for giving you a clue.

This is war.

You attack the enemy, they fight back. As usual, they get the short end of the stick and fall back/retreat elsewhere. In Al Qaeda and AIF's case, they retreated to other locations. The coalition cracked down in the Baghdad area, and caused these rats to go outside the Baghdad area.

But guess what happened after the military took the city under control? They started working their way outward. They attacked Al Qaeda and AIF where they ran to. This caused the Iraqi leader to declare that many of these murderers didn't let international borders stop their retreat.

Where are these attacks now? If anything, they're few and sporadic. They don't come anywhere near the strength and persistence they were at when you quoted the above article.

Simply put, we're making progress. Thanks to the surge, larger amounts of the country are under control.

You need to realize something.

My assessments are based on professional experience, research, facts and logic. This is one of the reasons to why my projections have held, and yours are consistently proven wrong.

I know allot more about the topic of this argument than you'll ever know.

Instead of ranting about what you think you know, or what you think is reality, you should thank me. I'm giving you an accurate perspective... one that your cherry picked information won't give you. I'm giving you the reality and facts behind the Iraq War.

I doubt that you're a Ph.D. holder. Your conduct here smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

Updated to add:

I've recently combat deployed to Iraq. My experiences confirmed the fact that I was right. It also confirmed the fact that your assessments were wrong. I didn't need to revise my assessment back then, my projections were spot on. Most my projections happened like I said they'd happen.

The radical Islamic resistance is a joke, those cowards run away when they hear that we're coming in. They attack when they think we're not paying attention... like in the middle of the night when we're pulling force protection on an outpost we're shutting down.

Again, what do I know about this topic? I've combat deployed to Iraq twice. You've never served a day in military uniform.

I've been all over the AO that our battalion assigned to us... I didn't see the Iraq that you talked about.

That Iraq only existed in your head.

Do realize that your persistence in this fight makes you come across as a fool. You're the armchair general to my boots on the ground experience.

[quote]"Injured Iraqis lay on hospital beds in Irbil, a city in the Kurdish controlled north 350 kilometers (217 miles) north of Baghdad, Iraq, Sunday, May 13, 2007. A suicide truck bomber crashed into the offices of a Kurdish political party, killing at least 30 people and wounding scores, including a mayor, officials said. It was the second suicide attack in Kurdish areas of the north in four days. Associated Press © 2007"[/quote]

A jihadist can go anywhere and take himself, as well as a few of his targets, out. They don't even need to go to that extreme. They could remotely activate something whether it's in Iraq, or in another country.

Look at Spain. It's not a war torn country. YET, they had major terrorist attacks on their soil.

Using your argument, peace doesn't exist inside Spain because of those terror attacks.

Here's another point to demonstrate that you shot yourself in the foot. Remember the terror attacks in London? Using your own logic, the UK "isn't" making any progress because of that attack.

Avenue-X--Robertson89 Repeats His Disproven Arguments and Complains About Repeat Rebuttals

[quote] Pothos' really solid data, studies, surveys, etc. (don't laugh)

So, let's scan this...30 pages at least, possibly 40, 50, etc. and to give us what?

Most is the EXACT same stuff you just cut-and-paste, the rest is endless unsusbtantiated rant, your personal opinions, bla bla bla bla bla bla. Oh, and I see that old Major Benn Connable USA-Today article again!!!! How many times have you posted this one for lack of anything better? 10? 15? How long have you been using it? 2 years? 3? More?

What else have we got? That usual Salman Pak pic. From the Rush Limbaugh web page! What a joke you are.

Also, you are quoting again that face-sitting "Mistress Destiny" web site! Several times!

Man, how many times have I told you hat quoting a face-sitting web site in a foreign policy argument is NOT the best strategy for making you look well-read and credible about this! You are NOT listening!

That's it, isn't it? It is really all you got to show for yourself. Old op-ed from some military guy from years ago, a Rush Limbaugh pic (oh yeah, the man is trustworthy), and a face-sitting web site. And the endless rant.

Very weak. I am afraid you really are no match for the stuff I am putting out there, new stuff included (YOU only cut and past from your old files) from the Chalmer Johnson's American Empire trilogy (read it, it's good, even better than Mistress Destiny.com!) to countless surveys, reports, foreign policy journals and more. [/quote]

Feel like I'm repeating the same thing in this argument?

If so, it's because you're repeating the same thing you've said. You're recycling your same arguments over and over again. Since you failed to get this, I'll say it again. If you say the same thing to me, I'm going to give you the same rebuttal.

This isn't rocket science. If you don't want me to repeat my counter rebuttals, don't repeat your rebuttals. Your smart course of action would be to drop those specific arguments and move on.

Drop those points, don't repeat them, and you won't see me repeating my counter points.

I used the Major's piece to counter your nonsense that we're "losing" the Iraq War. We've constantly been winning in that country on the military, political and economic fronts. I used the Salman Pak photos to prove your assumptions, that pre war Iraq had "nothing" to do with terrorists, wrong.

You even tried to "prove" that Salman Pak was a "hoax." You presented links from a documentary dedicated to "proving" that to be a "hoax." I enjoyed proving that attempt wrong.

One would have to be stupid and gullible, to fall for that documentary's ploy. They took that site, as it looked as of the time of filming. Never mind that the Marines entered the site in 2003. That was years before the documentary.

That's key.

That area didn't receive maintenance since 2003. Mother Nature took over between that time, and your documentary's filming.

The Mistress Destiny Link proves you wrong.

You consistently try to doubt my statements of being in the military. Slapping you with that link is the best response to your doubts. The poster saw evidence that I'm in the military.

You tend to have issues with me slapping you around with my military background. That really beats your ego up. You can't stand the handicap that you're in with this Argument. We're debating about Iraq. You've never deployed there, I have.

That puts our disagreement, about our progress there, into perspective. It's one that forces you to be intellectually dishonest to remain in this fight.

By logical extension, my disagreement with you is based on first hand experience.

To sate your ego, you stumble over yourself trying to dismiss my experiences. You try to cast doubt on me.

Your antiques left me with no other choice. I have to keep reminding you that what I say about myself is true. By logical extension, that's proof that I have more authority and credibility than you do on this subject.

Go ahead, keep doubting that I served. I'll keep smacking you with links to posts proving that I'm in the military.

You complain that I'm not listening to you. How many times do I have to tell you that I don't accommodate people that I'm debating with? How many times do I have to tell you people that you don't control what I do? You guys only control what you guys do.

You constantly repeat your same drivel. I slap you with the same rebuttals. You respond by complaining about me hitting you with the same things. This reminds me of the kid that keeps complaining every time the red stove burner burns him.

You lost this argument a long time ago. You'd rather be intellectually dishonest by remaining in this fight. That's better in your eyes than doing the honorable thing and bowing out of this fight.

Your "new" sources don't support your argument.

They're very biased, not grounded on logical thought, or defendable with a reasonable argument. If you go back through this thread, you'd see me successfully present a logical argument against your sources... Or prove that your sources have nothing to do with the argument.

My sources? The best that you could do is attack them without proving the facts that they contain "wrong." You're full of it if you think that the information that you brought up comes anywhere near to matching what I've brought up. They don't.

The trilogy that you mentioned? You mentioned it elsewhere, and I rebutted them.

Yes, I looked at those books. What you portray them to be is different from what those books actually are. That difference is like night and day. Those books don't bolster your arguments about Iraq. You're taking a theme of those books, "the blow back," then erroneously applying it to Iraq.

Avenue-X--Robertson89 Fails to Give Concrete Data to Support His Claims

[quote]Pothos showing he doesn't even know the sources he nonetheless claims to "rebut"!

robertson89 speaking for the insurgency: ...Lesson for today: "How Big is The Insurgency?"

Pothos (head buried deep in his ass and shouting "Can't see no civil war going on there!"): "Until I see raw data surveys and polls done to show exactly how many insurgents we are fighting in Iraq, I'm not going to take your word."

"So where is the raw data that these studies used? What were the various insurgencies studied?"

First, you have not read that study I sent you because they MENTION black on white the "various insurgencies" they have used! Or you are like President Dumbo and you can't read English? The French in Algeria, Vietnam, etc. The historical cases are mentioned there so just read and learn instead of using a face-sittting web site to back up a foreign policy "view".

Second, I really don't see how giving some figures from serious studies from foreign policy journals amounts to "speaking for the insurgency". But oh, well, at that level, whatever, why not.

In any case, I GAVE you in that one post 2 studies with a whole bunch of data to make you happy.

You, by contrast, you will notice, give shit. Only the usual rant and bla bla bla bla bla bla.[/quote]

Response revised in 2008:

You presented information sources that didn't support what you were arguing.

You definitely didn't show any polling information that indicated that Iraq's insurgency grew. You presented a study, from a left leaning center that gives estimates and opinions. They didn't give anything concrete in terms of scientific poling data.

The study you referenced wasn't specific. It painted a broad picture on terrorist activity. It doesn't zero in, or specialize, in what's going on in Iraq.

You liked your study, because it painted a grim picture of what's going on. It turned an anthill into a mountain. You made the Iraqi insurgency something bigger than what it really is.

That's what caused me to reference you as the mouthpiece for the insurgency.

Still think that you presented strong evidence? You wouldn't think the same way if you pulled your head out of your ass.

Speaking of the insurgency...

Look at the casualty numbers. Look at the substantial progress we've made over the past year. The insurgency isn't letting the border stop their retreat.

Also, Iraq never plunged into a civil war.

Updated to add:

I've recently combat deployed to Iraq. Robertson89's studies don't describe what I saw while in Iraq... not by a long-shot.

Avenue-X--Robertson89 Flip Flops on Needed Troops for Iraq

[quote]Pothos either too stupid or pretending he doesn't get it.

Pothos: "Your hatred for the president causes you to criticise him for "not" sending in enough troops, then for sending in extra troops. The fact that you can't settle one or the other proves that you simply hate the President, and that you hate the conservatives."

You are that stupid and dishonest or you are just pretending?

Anyway to waste more time responding to this one: They should have sent more troops FOR THE INVASION AND INITIAL STAGES OF THE OCCUPATION, in order to PREVENT that insurgency--or at least contain it as much as possible, and in order to prevent all those evil little genies to get out of their Pandora's box. Now it is TOO LATE. It was BEFORE that it needed to be done and that at least 400,000 troops should have been sent there as President Dumb Shit Know-Nothing was advised to do by X number of U.S. and foreign military experts and officers.

NOW it won't do any good because they have let the bad guys out on the loose already. The best you can hope for is that it will possibly reduce the violence a little bit, in Baghdad, for a while. And even that best-case scenario will just amount to treating the symptoms not the disease, not the root causes of terrorism.

Not to mention that the more you send the more anti-American sentiments you generate, which in turn fuels terrorism--logics you are utterly incapable of understanding since you truly know shit about the middle east and how they react to U.S. military presence there. [/quote]

Response updated in 2008:

This argument makes you look like a dog chasing its own tail.

Whether we're talking about the invasion stage, or the 2007 troop surge, we have the same problem. You have an X number of enemies and violence to contain. You're illogically trying to argue that more troops would work in the beginning, but not later when a similar problem is presented.

Again, time proved you wrong. We didn't have that many troops in place during the surge over the number of troops that we used to invade the country.

The 400,000 number is based on Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Guess what? The way we did things changed since then. Technology and doctrine has changed. We could do allot more with allot less soldiers now than we could during those times.

It wouldn't have mattered if we had those 400,000 troops in Iraq or not. We still would've faced the insurgency. The surge proved that we didn't need those 400,000 troops after all. We made similar mistakes in Vietnam. We captured territory, then moved on before we could permanently secure that territory.

During the surge, we secured territory before we moved on.

President Bush received numerous recommendations. They touched on how many troops would be needed for the invasion. Do understand that the majority of the people that gave him advice advanced the number that we actually used.

This is coming from the Pentagon. It had an Iraq Invasion plan on the shelf long before we invaded Iraq. That plan constantly got updated. What originally called for the number of troops that we had during Desert Storm ended up decreasing to what we eventually sent in.

The Military cooked these plans up, not the President. These numbers changed to the current numbers long before we invaded Iraq.

Now, here's another area where time proved you wrong.

We sent more troops in, which puts us at approximately the same levels we had invading the country. Result? We're substantially ahead, progress wise, in securing that country. Also, anti U.S. sentiments have remained the same as they were when we went in. No real change in that area.

You shoot yourself in the foot with your last paragraph. You say that we need more troops, but then backtrack and talk about how more troops was a bad idea later on.

Hello? McFly? Anybody home McFly?

Didn't you think that your arguments against the surge would've applied had we sent your numbers in during the invasion?

You criticized President Bush for not sending enough troops. You criticized him for sending more troops. That's you showing your hatred against President Bush.

You show a drastic misunderstanding of how things work in the Middle East. You show a drastic misunderstanding of what "causes" terrorism.

Based on what you post, I'd say that your lack of military experience painfully shows.

Go back and read about the Barbary Wars. You'll notice that we got attacked when we didn't do any of the things that we do today. This isn't about them resenting our military action in Iraq, then resorting to terrorism. They've conducted terrorism against us since we were a new country.

Read and listen to what the terrorist say. If Bin Laden indicates that one of the things that we have to do prevent terror attacks against us is to convert to Islam, then that should give you a clue as to one of the sources of terrorism. 

Updated to add:

I've recently combat deployed to Iraq. The vast majority of the Iraqis showed us their gratitude when I was there. Do you still think that I wouldn't know their reactions? Well, I saw it first hand.

The only thing that you're proving in this debate is that you're a fool.

Avenue-X--Pothos Busted Robertson89 For Plagiarism

[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?

Avenue-X--The Middle East Revolutions Proved Pothos Right and Robertson89 Wrong

[quote]REPEAT POINT

Proof the Pothos cheerleader is STILL buying and eating the neo-con' shit about those Democratic Dominoes

Anybody reading this, check how the mental retard and self-delusional dimwit is, to this day, still believing in that sorry and by now totally discredited "Democratic Dominoes Theory" (even when the Bushites who invented it are themselves no longer believing in it and many of its proponents have now recognized publicly it was "a mistake"!)

The boy still believes the entire middle eastern Arab Muslim world from Saudi Arabia to Iraq and beyond is going to "totally westernize" itself! Just because we have 200,000 guys in Iraq (a country of 27 million) and Bush would like them to be pro-U.S.!

How sad is that???[/quote]

Response updated in 2008:

Do understand that if I'm still arguing a point it's because of two things. One, there's sufficient fact, both current events and historic, to prove my point correct. Two, that the other side of the argument failed to prove my stance wrong.

One year after you said this, the Iraqi government actually went on the initiative in taking on an insurgent group in an Iraqi City. Maliki went on the offensive on the political front, putting Sadr in a defensive position.

What was his motivation? The Iraqis were considering an amendment to the Iraqi constitution. It'd prohibit political parties, with street armies, from providing candidates for an upcoming election.

THAT'S democracy at work.

Afghanistan is further ahead toward democratic development. Then we have Turkey, Jordan, and Israel.

Take a look at the map and you'll see that we have a checker board pattern set up in the Middle East. Countries in various states of democracy surround hard line countries.

That trend was progressing when you made that statement, and it's progressing rapidly now.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan have a more liberal economic policy than many of their surrounding countries. This policy is similar to the free market economy type. It's the kind of economy that's responsible for the how well the richest countries in the world are doing.

A few years down the road, the other countries are going to take notice. They'll experience pressure, from within, to follow in the same footsteps.

My projections throughout years of arguing against your side of the argument still hold.

Our troops in Iraq are serving as part of a catalyst for change.

What I said was dead accurate. Right now, the Iraqis, as they march further into democratic development... as their economy continues to develop... will continue to change Iraq into a modern, industrialized, nation.

Want to see how that'll affect the surrounding Middle East countries? Look at large sections of Mexico bordering the U.S. South West. Economically speaking, they're starting to become more and more like the U.S.

Mexico is rapidly progressing to become a first world country. We're going to see that with the rest of the Middle East once Iraq and Afghanistan progress further. We're going to see that with the Arab countries sharing bilateral free trade agreements with us.

These countries will rapidly progress to becoming first world nations.

Also, you're dead wrong about the people in the Bush Administration, and how they see the ripple affect taking place.

They never intended for this to happen overnight, or within their lifetimes. This was intended to take place over the long run.

Updated to Add:

Pro democracy demonstrations in 4 Middle East countries toppled 4 Middle East rulers. That's part of the democratic domino effect happening. As of this writing, the Syrian demonstrations are still going.

I consistently told you that the domino affect would take years. That's precisely what's happening.

All we needed was for the Iraqis and Afghanis to talk about their lives... through social networking.

Like I projected, the rest of the Middle East wants what Iraq and Afghanistan have.

And get this. When I was in Iraq, I noticed a strong effort, from the Iraqis, to westernize. They want to be like us. Heck, I saw nothing but Caucasian mannequins in Iraqi stores. The Iraqis want to talk like us, and wear sunglasses that resemble our ballistic eyewear.

The Iraqis have done what I said they'll do... they're not doing what you claim they're doing.

[quote]robertson89, making another rational and informed argument--he is the only one here: Those who are taking decisions have to this day totally misread and understimated how deep and many the roots of the insurgency are--they are historical, ethnic, religious, cultural, and so on. They are rooted in many, many causes, whether it's fear of western powers, resentment against the west, distrust between communities, and so on.

Pothos, showing once again he knows and understands shit about the mid east: "Wrong. It's precisely the above reasons to why we have to change the geopolitical face of the Middle East. And that's precisely why we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan what we're currently doing right now. To set off a chain reaction that's going to lead to massive reforms across the Middle East. Change that will come about as a result of the effects of a free market economy and a democratic government."

AND THE POTHOS AWARD FOR MOST SELF-DELUSIONAL CLAIM IS:

"Once they completely "westernize" and become competitive with the west, the fear and resentment factor would go down." [/quote]

Your lack of history knowledge, as well as Middle East knowledge, painfully shows with your comments in that quote.

I'm looking back at what your debate opponents told you after you said the above. Based on what they said, I'm not the only one that sees your failure to present a rational, informed argument.

In fact, what you list as the "source" of terrorist problems don't match what the terrorists are actually saying. Your source and the terrorists give conflicting information about the terrorists' intent.

The insurgency roots predate the Iraq War.

The insurgency in Iraq -- now less of a factor than it was when you made that statement -- is a part of a larger struggle. The AIF call it the fight between the (sp)Uhmah (Islamic Nation) and the (sp)Kuffa (Non Muslims, infidels, enemies of Allah, etc).

The AIF call Iraq, "The Islamic Emirate of Iraq."

Go to Chetznya (sp), to Southern Thailand, to the Southern Philippines, and to the occupied territories. You'll see the same themes in their arguments their counterparts make in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They see themselves as the Army of Islam. They see their mission as fighting to free the Muslim lands. They see that as the first step needed to re establish the Moorish Caliphates and Emirates.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about.

The source of the insurgency, this guy explains their mindset:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4&feature=related

They have their own rallying song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Dzygb6vf_6w

Note: What's translated as "Earth is Volcanoes are boiling" should read "Arabs are like boiling volcanoes. "Land of the frees" should read "Land of the Arabs."

In the terrorist's case, "severed lands" describes what we see as the occupied territories. "Land to humiliate us with" represents all of Israel.

On the surface, this explains why Hamas won't accept anything short of all of Israel as their country.

But, on a deeper level, this is about removing the "kuffa" from the "Uhma."

This is also demonstrated with this video, Chechnya rebels singing the same thing as the previous video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct5mlPJfsfk&feature=related

What the AIF does in Iraq, the Chechnya rebels do in Chechnya, in Russia:

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=162323

The Russians face the same thing that we faced in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Since you imply that you've made an "informed" argument, certainly you had access to those videos.

Do realize that the policy makers that you criticized have access to information you'll never have access to.

Your comments prove that you're not presenting an informed argument. Those videos show that you don't understand the insurgency. You don't understand their underlying causes. You don't understand their motivation.

Since you showcase yourself as the "intellectual" type, you'll be interested in the next links. You'll see one of the deep rooted causes of an increasingly marginalized insurgency:

Warning, these are graphic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fGg6KrC4lM (FITNA Part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhGlw30nPfo&feature=related (FITNA Part 2)

(00:52 to 00:55) "The Day will come when we will rule America, the day will come when we rule Britain and the entire world!"

What I said still stands.

We give them a thriving democracy. They have more economic opportunities now thanks to a free market society. That sucks the wind out of the insurgency. Give that to the entire region, and we suck the wind out of their movement.

This is the movement that believes in flying planes into buildings or blowing innocent people up.

Case in point, we've yet to suffer from Kamikazi Japanese attacks since we westernized Japann.

[quote]BWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

"Once they completely westernize themselves"!!! And the bloke is talking about countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, the oil emirates, etc. Arab Muslim cultures that are as old as the west and have never known democracy in the western sense of the term!

Talk about being more royalist than the King himself! I mean, even the neo-cons' would ptobably laugh at the guy now!

BWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

The loony boy is STILL believing in Bush's "Democratic Dominoes Theory" and that the U.S., thanks to Iraq (!), is going to "westernize" the entire middle east! [/quote]

Response updated in 2008:

Your latest series of replies failed to advance any real counter argument. You've failed to prove what I say, "wrong." Saying anything to disagree with me doesn't constitute real refutation.

You're replying with leftist talking points, ad homonyms and hot air rhetoric.

Let's address your historic misunderstanding of what you just talked about.

The Japanese didn't understand true democracy before we invaded and occupied it. They experienced a different type of culture, and governing mindset, than what we practiced. People claimed that we couldn't expect them to embrace our system. They practiced something totally different for centuries.

But we did.

Some of our service members committed crimes in Japan. It speaks volumes when the US military turns them over to the Japanese legal system. Their legal system gives our troops similar rights and justice they'd find in the United States.

It wasn't like that before World War II.

Now, let's go back to the Middle East's history.

Islamic civilization isn't as old as Western Civilization. The Romans never conquered all of the Arabian Peninsula. Back then, they were mostly roaming nomads.

Advance the centuries. Europeans screwed up when they divided the Arab Region among themselves. They carved countries based on their politics instead of that region's history. The Ottomans also played a role.

Look at Kurdistan. That culture overlaps multiple countries, mainly Turkey, Iraq and Iran. It would've made more sense to administer that area as one unit. It also would've made more sense to turn most that area into a country when the colonial period ended.

Europe divided that region based on their criteria vice that culture's area.

This is one of the reasons to why we have people itching to fight each other. Look at the northern African countries. They seem to be getting along better, not much international conflict within Africa. Many of the Middle East countries seem to not have that much conflict with each other.

Many of those countries were part of the British Empire, and had a taste of Democracy before.

The Turks proved that they could start and run a democracy. Turkey fits some of the criteria that you talk about.

Here's another key historic fact you miss. Our concept of representative assemblies originated in the Middle East. Rule of law also originated in the Middle East.

That region saw one form of representative democracy after another. They say that as far back as the ancient Greek invasions.

Simply put, your assumptions are wrong. Your theory, about them never experiencing what we're giving them, goes out the door. 

They've been through something like that before. Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Afghanistan prove that you could have democracies in the region.

We're creating a permanent democratic arrangement for their future.

You don't think that Saudi Arabia will change over. But wait ten to twenty years when its neighbor's economies outshine theirs.

Democracy facilitates a free market economy. A free market economy facilitates economic and political development. It's a pre requisite for a country to becoming an industrialized, fully stable, first world democracy.

Iraq and Afghanistan will reach that status. When that happens, they'll be the Middle East's centers of power. They'll be the new center of gravity of that region. Iran's return to westernization would only seal the deal.

It'll happen, just like my other predictions happened. In fact, a year has gone by since you made that statement. My argument continues to hold validity.

[quote](Ok now, stop laughing, first because this is really sad and also because the factually-and-cognitively-challenged boy needs to cling to his delusional fantasies. It gives him hope.)

No need for further comment on that one.[/quote]

Again, you have to actually prove, that the facts that I present, are "wrong." You've failed to do that, so you can't dismiss me as factually challenged. When it comes to the facts, I'm the only one that's delivering the goods.

The only thing that you've delivered is emotion based rhetoric.

Also, when I mention cognitive process, I'm talking about thought process. As long as someone has a thought, and can organize them to put into writing, that someone isn't cognitively challenged.

Updated to add:

Spring and summer of 2011 saw Arab upraising across the Middle East. What's the common theme for these upraising? Arabs want democracy. Each year, Iraq and Afghanistan make more progress with democracy and economic development. They talk on social networking sites, on blogs and during pilgrimages. Arabs see what they have compared to what the Iraqis and Afghanis have.

Result?

What I constantly argued... that the Arabs will want what the Iraqis and Afghanis have.

Time proved my predictions right. Robertson89 was wrong when he made the above comments. Time continued to prove him wrong.

Avenue-X--Robertson89 Forgets That I Argue Until the Opposition Gives Up

[quote]Last one for tonight

And DON'T get banned cos' this conversation is not over yet![/quote]

I agree, remember what I said? Here, let me refresh your memory.

I may not get back with you tonight, but I will get back with you. Even if I don't get back with you till tomorrow, the next week, the next month, the next year, the next decade, the next century, or the next life time, I WILL get back with you.

Since you haven't figured this out, I'll spell this out to you. This conversation isn't over until you give up the fight and my posts aren't rebutted.