The Victory Thread

[Stone]

Originally posted by spacecowboy
Almaci can be a little over the top sometimes, but I'd get a little tired of everyone saying that what I post is propagand too. Wait, I do. Anyways, if Stone sees both sides then Almaci sure as hell does. Of course he leans toward anti-war, just as much as Stone leans toward pro-war. We have plenty of people telling us how good this war will be. Almaci represents the person willing to see the bad stuff so as to remind us that this isn't going to be squeaky clean.

Look, in both of the instances below, Almaci and I are assuming things:

I said something like "We've found chemical weapons, yay!" (in more colorful language) based on the fact that I assume that a dictator like Saddam would have chemical weapons, and based on the comments of soldiers who had purportedly discovered the chemicals. An assumption, yes, that was later proven wrong. I apologized.

Almaci said "Meanwhile coalition forces attacked positions of Al Jazeera, Abu Dhabi TV and Reuters." i.e. that our Government was attempting to murder journalists in order to cover up the 'truth' about the war. Almaci makes this assumption based on the commentary of a few journalists who were in the hotel itself, and one of the articles he used was written by a News Service who counted one of the casualties amongst its members. He also makes this assumption because it makes sense to him that the US Government would do something like that - that our Government would willfully attempt to kill journalists, blow up a plane full of Iranian civilians, so on. Will Almaci's assumption ever actually be proven wrong? No, you can't - what will we ever know about the hearts of the guys who were in those tanks/bombers?

So what side does that put us on? I assume the best about the US Government and its actions...because I'm a patriot and because I love the country. Almaci assumes the worst about the US Government and its actions...because, well, why?

I think I've been fairly open to what you've presented, Spacecowboy, as well as what Sleeveboy's said - propriety as far as Almaci goes was flung out a long time ago, but I think that runs both ways.

Read the Guardian's editorials. (oh, shit, I said "pro-war". I meant "anti-war"). The Guardian, the BBC, Reuters, have strongly anti-war editorial boards, just like the NY Times and the LA Times.

[Almaci]

And again you assume to know what I feel and think.
And again you dont addres any of the points I made.
Then this:Almaci assumes the worst about the US Government and its actions...because, well, why?
Urm I dont assume the worst and for those things where I do assume wrongdoing by the US I do so backed with history and previous US actions as well as build upon my arguments by using current links to trusted news sources.
Meanwhile what do you do?
Again you dance around valid points I brought forward and build youre oppinion of me around assumptions wich have no base whatsoever.

[Clash!]

You guys do relise that none of you are going to win anything by bantering on and on correct? There is no prize. Just so you know.

[Stone]

You haven't heard about the Golden Elephant?!

[Clash!]

:: smacks forehead :: Ohhhhhh yeah, the golden elephant!

[Jimmy Carter]

The Golden Elephant is Life.

[Scourge]

Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
The Golden Elephant is Life.

I really don't think we need to debate abortion in this thread too. Jeesh.

--Scourge .

[Clash!]

The golden elephant makes me dream, and want to live longer!

[Almaci]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/39...8_omaar_vi.ram

Videofeed about the events.

Right acros the bridge are the offices of Abu Dhabi, they recorded the moment when quite unexplicably the tank turned at them and fired.

Mweh, im used to it, Stone is a master of diverting attention away or ignoring when he is owned.
Only once did he straight out admit he was wrong.

[Clash!]

You are getting off topic Almaci. Anyways, do you think there are other Golden creatures? Like say a Golden Tiger, or Golden Gorilla?