Talk About Planted Questions!!

Update: How fitting. CNN pulls out someone not to simply ask a question about Iran, but with absolute moral authority given her son's service. And just as we learn that the IAEA has confirmed Iran's having installed 3,000 centrifuges. CNN works to undermine our ability to respond just as it may become critical. Great, just great! Thanks, CNN.

CNN rolled out a Catherine Jackson to ask a question about Iran given that her son served three tours in Iraq.

Now when have I heard that before? How about in May. Thank you Harry Reid.

"My son was in Iraq three times," said Catherine Jackson of Las Vegas. "I thank God he's home now. Enough is enough. We need to bring our troops home." Reid spokesman Jon Summers said Move America Forward was mischaracterizing Reid's position. "It's their right to make their feelings known, but most Nevadans agree with Senator Reid that it's time to change course in Iraq," he said.

Comments

[rwilymz]

"My critics have turned out to be just a couple of internet tough guys and cannot back up their inaccurate assertion that my commentary is contradictory."

Climb down off your cross, dipshit. You ain't no martyr.

If you can read more words in one sitting than are contained in a common bumper sticker, than all you need to do is go back and reread everything I've written to you. And then respond to it.

I noticed how deftly you ignored substantive comment. My only question *now* is if this constitutes your own arrogance, which you are attempting to pawn off onto others, or if you are simply as retarded as you appear to be.

[Samir]

Again, I see no validation of the claim that I have made contradictory statements in my analysis. You are free to point out where I have contradicted myself, by all means.

That you have yet to do so proves that it would be inaccurate to call my commentary contradictory.

[Samir]

USA is its own worst enemy because Americans cannot see past their own foolish arrogance or admit mistakes in judgment, as exhibited by rwilymz. :) :)

[rwilymz]

Nice try, dingleberry.

Look, squirt, if you can't answer the questions, then simply say you can't answer the questions. I won't think less of you than I do now.

Honestly, I don't know how I could.

[dumbblonde]

Samir reminds me of a young Jordanian I know. From all outward appearances, he seemed to be quite "Americanized" - enjoying school, listening to rap, making friends, going to parties, dating girls, etc.

One night he'd been smoking a little weed (drinking gets you beheaded, but I guess weed is OK?) and let down his guard. He went on and on about how stupid Americans are, all the ways in which America is evil, and how the arrogant America empire (sound familiar, Samir?) would someday get what was coming to it, Allah willing (because of course anything that ever happens, happens because Allah wills it). American women were especially stupid, he told me, not to mention easy. And it was OK to just f*** them and throw them away, because they asked for it, and they weren't any good for marrying anyway.

I just played along and let the little jihadi go on. The idiot had no idea that this supposedly stupid, fluffy American woman had been watching him since before he even met me. And he certainly has no idea that I continue to watch him to this very day.

He's out of the U.S. right now. He claims to be in a certain European country (which I will not name) visiting family (who, by the way, do not live in that country anyway). He thinks he's coming back next fall on a student visa to study in one of our top universities (which I will not name). Attending University is a cover, of course. He thinks he's really pulling a fast one on the stupid, arrogant Americans. He even has a few American girls anxiously waiting for their beloved to return to them (they all think they're the only one, of course). Unfortunately for him, I(and others, now) know where he really is and what he is doing. I know everything about him. And he will NOT be coming back to the U.S. this fall - at least not the easy way :)

And that's all I'm going to say about that, except:

For the most part, the jihadis are morons. It doesn't mean they aren't also dangerous, but they really are morons.

[Samir]

Still no proof -- or even an attempt to prove -- that I have made contradictory statements.

This is because my commentary is based on facts instead of personal attacks, which the Americans are fond of engaging in.

[dumbblonde]

Oh, brother. Let's review, shall we? I'll make it simple for you. Your positions were contradictory.

You trotted out the overused leftist talking point: "support our troops - bring them home." By using the term "our", you were falsely presenting yourself as one of "us", i.e. an American. By using the term "support", you were falsely indicating concern about American troops.

In subsequent posts you reverse course, and dissassociate yourself from Americans. The troops are no longer "our" troops, but "yours" and "theirs". Americans become "the Americans" and "you" and "they". In these subsequent posts, you have contradicted your initial (false) position, which was that you are one of "us" and that you are concerned about the safety of "our" troops.

In your argument against the US taking action against Iran, you stated that you support the Iranians and Russians, who you claimed are smarter than the Americans. You said America takes action against big bad Iran at its own risk. Later, you changed your mind and said that Iranians and Russians are "two-bit" and aren't actually a threat to America anyway. This is a contradiction.

Then, after stating that Iran and Russia aren't a threat to the U.S., you apparently lose track of just what it is that you are arguing. At this point, you state that you are "just rooting for the winning team" i.e. Iran/Russia.

From this group of posts, I gather the following:
1.) America takes action against big bad Iran at its own risk.
2.) Iran/Russia are "two-bit" and aren't a risk to America.
3.) Iran/Russia are the winning team.
Again - this entire sequence of arguments is contradictory.

You say "The era of American imperialism will come to an end, God willing." This is the one and only statement you managed to make which clearly stated your position, which is that you desire the downfall of America. By using the phrase "God willing", you confirmed for me that you are an Islamist. Cripes, if I had a nickel for every time I've heard that phrase. The majority of the illiterate, toothless, stuck-in-the-middle-ages dumbass jihadis spouting that line couldn't even find the United States on a map - and they obviously don't have the slightest clue what "imperialism" is.

Samir, you are clearly on the side of those who wish to see the destruction of me, my country, and the people I love. Therefore, you are my enemy. But there are many out there just like you, so that certainly doesn't make you special in any way. Much of America is still in denial about it. Americans like to believe in the good in people, but they'll come around. Meanwhile, people like me (and there are LOTS of us) know you're out there. We're watching and sharing information, and we're ready. Some of us have even made it our life's work (not me, though - I just do it for fun!). So don't get too cocky.

BTW, don't be surprised if someone just like me is keeping an eye on you :)

[Samir]

All of your "proof" employs false dichotomies and foregone conclusions. Not very surprising, given that the Americans' so-called war on "terror" is based on the false dilemma "you are with us or you are against us."

People who are continually informed by an inaccurate narrative such as the one above will continue to make mistakes in judgment as well as make wildly inaccurate judgments about others' commentary.

USA's imperialist reign of terror will be over soon, inshallah.

[Samir]

Also, the only "contradiction" you claim to prove is one where I stated that USA would be unwise to attack Iran, and then stated that Iran is a two-bit dictatorship that poses no threat to USA.

This is not a contradiction; in fact, I warned my hawkish American colleagues that Iraq's two-bit dictator posed no threat to the Americans but that USA would become its own worst enemy by draining its own blood and treasure. If she is not careful, USA is on course to repeat the mistake by invading Iran.

Yes I root for the winning team, and I root for the rebel. Such is human nature.

[dumbblonde]

blah blah blah. Done.

[Samir]

Your reply -- which speaks volumes in its brevity and frustration -- indicates to me that you have been intellectually defeated by my deconstruction of your criticisms -- most of which were based on ad hominems and false dilemmas.

[dumbblonde]

Oh, Samir. You just don't get it, do you? I'm not debating you, you silly little man. I'm goading you.

It's just too easy. It always is with you guys. Like picking low-hanging fruit.

[Samir]

You refuse to debate because you know you have been intellectually defeated, because you started out with incorrect premises.

[rwilymz]

It's the post-modern academic style -- very similar in nature to pre-renaissance rationalism -- which issues denial after denial after denial, even in the face of reality.

A guy I once knew in the USAF [apparently a serial adulterer] advised that if I was ever caught in bed with another woman by my wife, simply deny that I was there even as I was, deny that the woman getting up and dressed existed, deny that I was naked, deny that the bed was unmade, deny [if necessary] that it was Tuesday at ten o'clock if the wife insisted on it. Deny everything.

That, buckwheat, is you, here.

I ran through a [long] list of your intellectual shortcomings already, you denied I did so and maintain the farce that no one said anything to you; 'blonde' did ditto much more succinctly than I -- which you denied -- and she did so again.

...which you again are denying.

Everyone else has made fairly detailed descriptions of their case[s], and you claim they "refuse to debate" in one of your repeated one-sentence bumper-sticker responses.

Now, I could continue endlessly [as is my wont] on your juvenile manner of public discourse, but I will respond instead substantively to your assertions:

1: "you started out with incorrect premises"
and
2: "Iraq's two-bit dictator posed no threat to the Americans"

This is pretty much the epitome of irony. Or else grand ignorance.

Iraq attacked the US multiple times between 1991 and 2002 while the US was posing in its UN-mandated role as containment overseer pursuant to the 1991 Gulf War Cease Fire.

If Iraq "posed no threat" then they would not have attacked us; if Iraq attacked us repeatedly then they were a threat to us.

You can quibble about the **scale** of threat posed, but you cannot deny it existed. You are denying it existed.

You are wrong. You probably hear that a lot. Get used to it.

[Samir]

But you claimed I made contradictory statements when I stated my opinion that 1) Iraq and Iran are not threats to USA and 2) USA is its own worst enemy.

Now you are trying to dodge your own assertions, because you know them to be false. Even more pathetically, you try to modify the facts by claiming incredibly that Iraq did pose a threat to USA and in fact attacked USA.

I read the BBC daily and that would indeed be news to me.

[rwilymz]

"you try to modify the facts by claiming incredibly that Iraq did pose a threat to USA and in fact attacked USA"

Iraq attacked the US on an average of 4x/yr between 1991 and 2002.

Every time Iraq aimed at US aircraft patrolling the No-Flys constituted an attack under International Law. Every time Iraq threw a missile at US aircraft patrolling the No-Flies constituted an attack under International Law... A nation that attacks you is a nation which is a threat.

By definition.

It doesn't matter whether you read the BBC or any other newspaper. You have to understand what you're reading. You clearly don't.

Once again: you are wrong.

Get used to it.