Saudi invades Bahrain, unveils itself

reply to post by nenothtu

Try hard cold reality.

Really?

YOU cite fort me the applicable International Law, and I'll read it. Until you can do that, you've not "smacked" me over anything at all, and really bring into question the issue of where any "ignorance" may lie.

Until you get the point, there is no sense in doing this back and forth when it's based on semantics.

If you're having difficulty in comprehending the English language, I'd be happy to help. Which part of "SHOULD not" is causing you to stumble? I'd be quite content to pull everything American out of the Middle East and let them eat each other until only one is left standing.

Cold hard reality...Yeah...

Interesting. You seem to know what race I am, if you claim I have some sort of racial dog in this fight. Tell me, what race am I? After you can tell me that, THEN you can try to gloat over your alleged intellectual superiority. Not until.

You are of the human race. Whatever other complexes you have are of yours.

I'm going by user names. You are quite right, perhaps the kids or family pets have hacked their accounts and are posting contradictorily on their behalf. I stand corrected.

It's about the select few posters whom you have memorized posts of, I see. Here's a piece of cold hard reality for you: people change their minds.
The Afghanistan issue was Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, the Iraq issue was WMD's, the Libya issue is protectic civilians. This is how it is presented at first to the majority of people. Still lost?

I'll let you figure out how you used a straw man there by disregarding the information the people were fed, thus not acknowledging the propaganda that has been spread.

Iraq, no. I've always said the Iraq war was a boneheaded move brought on bu Bush Junior's wounded pride.

Sure, the reason for that war was PRIDE. Nothing to do with oil or contracts, it was pride! This is what I call psychosis as you apparently live inside your own little world where wars start because of one mans pride and not because of "colonialist" multinationals. Don't you think part of Bush Jr's appointment was so that even LESS attention would be drawn to the real reasons behind the war, namely multinational contractors? You may play the semantics card now if you please.

I have a very intricate understanding of Wahabbism, Sufism, and a lot of the islamic "isms" and "ites". Have you considered that you may be arguing with a muslim, or a former muslim? I bet you haven't...

Of course you do. Of course you do. And I'm not arguing with a muslim or former muslim, I'm arguing with a human.

WHY do you appeal to International Law, then? Yet you have the temerity to accuse ME of having some sort of "psychosis"...

Because THE PEOPLE have been told fairy tales about International Laws. There is no international law...there is just the will of colonialist companies...can you not see past the semantics and see the point?

You seem to be overestimating the American people. Like the Egyptians, they won't riot until it becomes an issue of being priced out of existence.

And you seem to be ignorant of the bigger picture. Of course most won't protest until it hits our stomachs...that's simply our animal nature. Our human nature however, can see the steps that lead up to "no food" and can, RIGHTFULLY, protest before this happens. And it hasn't a thing to do with RIOTING, although I appreciate your deflection attempts, it has everything to do with PROTESTING. Government much?

Again, if the action of bringing in foreign troops is done at the request of the US government, it would be entirely "legal".

Sigh. You're not winning any argument here...Your definition of legal is the one in books and papers that you've been told are valuable. While in reality they are not because seemingly not everyone is upheld to the same laws to the same extent. So the laws are useless. Of course the crushing of the poor civilian is going to be legal, but that's because the RICH MAN writes the laws. But that is not what laws are supposed to be about! Get the point yet? Or do you want to play sollicitor some more?

Switzerland. Want another one?

Really? What do you call attracting wealthy people because they can evade taxes in your country? REALLY? OF ALL THE NATIONS YOU BRING UP SWITZERLAND

In closing:

"Its better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6."
- Old American proverb probably thought up by an Old American

Yes, old AMERICAN proverb...PROBABLY thought up by an OLD AMERICAN. Sadly, the 12 who are judging you are bought and paid for by others, while the 6 that are carrying you, either don't do it for the money or you were the one that paid for them!

Anyone with a brain should be capable of smelling yer complex from miles away.

Originally posted by Zamini
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Try hard cold reality.

Really?

Yep, REALLY.

YOU cite fort me the applicable International Law, and I'll read it. Until you can do that, you've not "smacked" me over anything at all, and really bring into question the issue of where any "ignorance" may lie.

Until you get the point, there is no sense in doing this back and forth when it's based on semantics.

In other words, you CAN'T CITE any "international laws" (to which you were previously appealing) that were broken thus making it "illegal". Got it.

If you're having difficulty in comprehending the English language, I'd be happy to help. Which part of "SHOULD not" is causing you to stumble? I'd be quite content to pull everything American out of the Middle East and let them eat each other until only one is left standing.

Cold hard reality...Yeah...

Does that mean you now understand the difference between "should" and "will" or "are"?

Interesting. You seem to know what race I am, if you claim I have some sort of racial dog in this fight. Tell me, what race am I? After you can tell me that, THEN you can try to gloat over your alleged intellectual superiority. Not until.

You are of the human race. Whatever other complexes you have are of yours.

This is what that was in response to, just to refresh your memory:

You're trying to justify a point of view that comes forth from racial-superiority-complexes by saying: "no one listens to me". I suggest you read some more...

Since you now claim it's a "human race" thing, which race is this attitude demonstrating a superiority complex over (other than human, of course. Hard to be superior over one's self)? See? I DID read some more. Maybe you would have preferrred that part to be left unread...

I'm going by user names. You are quite right, perhaps the kids or family pets have hacked their accounts and are posting contradictorily on their behalf. I stand corrected.

It's about the select few posters whom you have memorized posts of, I see. Here's a piece of cold hard reality for you: people change their minds.

Yeah. "Situational ethics". Got it. They don't like this situation, and are all heated up to start another war, I suppose.

Tell you what, it's fine by me - as long as they get it rolling with their OWN rucks and their OWN rifles and their OWN boots on the ground. Leave mine alone, because I ain't got no dog in these fights.

The Afghanistan issue was Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, the Iraq issue was WMD's, the Libya issue is protectic civilians. This is how it is presented at first to the majority of people. Still lost?

Afghanistan was about the Taliban, and THEIR sheltering of bin Laden and Company, and their refusal to give him up, not about bin Laden and AQ per se. Iraq was a boneheaded move, and Libya is shaping up fast to be another.

I'll let you figure out how you used a straw man there by disregarding the information the people were fed, thus not acknowledging the propaganda that has been spread.

The propaganda is just that, NOT the root source. Explain to me what your concept of "straw man" is again, please. Oops, did I say "again"? I meant for the first time, despite this being a second request...

Iraq, no. I've always said the Iraq war was a boneheaded move brought on bu Bush Junior's wounded pride.

Sure, the reason for that war was PRIDE. Nothing to do with oil or contracts, it was pride!

Yep, pride. Explain how it affected Iraqi oil flow, other than truncating it somewhat at the beginning (not an optimal result for your argument), and WHO is actually getting those worrisome "contracts" these days...

This is what I call psychosis as you apparently live inside your own little world where wars start because of one mans pride and not because of "colonialist" multinationals.

Yup. If it's as you claim, why aren't those "colonialist mutinationals" raking in the oil from Iraqi oil fields this instant?

Don't you think part of Bush Jr's appointment was so that even LESS attention would be drawn to the real reasons behind the war, namely multinational contractors?

Funny. If that was the rationale, it seems not to have stopped that particular smoke screen from being thrown out. Still cranking the smoke generator?

You may play the semantics card now if you please.

OK.

se·man·tics
   /sɪˈmæntɪks/ Show Spelled[si-man-tiks] – noun (used with a singular verb)

1.Linguistics.
a.the study of meaning.
b.the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.

2.Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote.

3.the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.

4.general semantics.

Source

Your turn. Demonstrate which of those you are attempting to employ, and how.

I have a very intricate understanding of Wahabbism, Sufism, and a lot of the islamic "isms" and "ites". Have you considered that you may be arguing with a muslim, or a former muslim? I bet you haven't...

Of course you do. Of course you do. And I'm not arguing with a muslim or former muslim, I'm arguing with a human.

Nice. So to you, apparently, muslims are not "human". Nice.

WHY do you appeal to International Law, then? Yet you have the temerity to accuse ME of having some sort of "psychosis"...

Because THE PEOPLE have been told fairy tales about International Laws. There is no international law...there is just the will of colonialist companies...can you not see past the semantics and see the point?

Uh... that STILL doesn't explain your former appeals to international law. Quite the contrary, if you believe that, then the appeals are all the more mystifying.

So then, if there is no law, NOTHING is illegal. Please refrain from throwing out any such red herrings as use of the term "illegal" in the future.

You seem to be overestimating the American people. Like the Egyptians, they won't riot until it becomes an issue of being priced out of existence.

And you seem to be ignorant of the bigger picture. Of course most won't protest until it hits our stomachs...that's simply our animal nature. Our human nature however, can see the steps that lead up to "no food" and can, RIGHTFULLY, protest before this happens. And it hasn't a thing to do with RIOTING, although I appreciate your deflection attempts, it has everything to do with PROTESTING. Government much?

"Protesting" vs. "rioting". Now THERE is a fine exercise in the use of semantics, definition 3. I call 'em like I see 'em, and don't try to pretty them up by employing "semantics".

I'll have to ask you to clarify the "government much?" question. Are you trying to imply that I'm a "paid government disinfo agent" too? If so, I'm sure there's a club around here somewhere you can join. None of the membership can produce any facts to back THEIR contentions, either.

Again, if the action of bringing in foreign troops is done at the request of the US government, it would be entirely "legal".

Sigh. You're not winning any argument here...Your definition of legal is the one in books and papers that you've been told are valuable. While in reality they are not because seemingly not everyone is upheld to the same laws to the same extent. So the laws are useless. Of course the crushing of the poor civilian is going to be legal, but that's because the RICH MAN writes the laws. But that is not what laws are supposed to be about! Get the point yet? Or do you want to play sollicitor some more?

At least I HAVE a definition of "legal", which involves compliance with, erm, LAWS. I've yet to see YOUR definition of "legal", but in all, your dancing around that, it seems to imply something independent of law, which one would presume should be called something other than "legal" or "illegal", since LAW is not involved in it...

Now, "semantics" would be your attempt to re-define "legal" and "illegal" to mean something other than involved with a "law".

If "the rich man" is writing your laws, why is he paying a higher percentage of income in taxes? Seems to me that if he were writing the laws, he could do better than that... you know, something approaching "equal representation" in the tax laws...

Switzerland. Want another one?

Really? What do you call attracting wealthy people because they can evade taxes in your country? REALLY? OF ALL THE NATIONS YOU BRING UP SWITZERLAND

Again, a memory refresher. That was a response to this:

Show me ONE (1) country IN THIS AGE that doesn't partake in what you point out to be "expansionism". Unless you can do that, referring to it as expansionism just sounds like more wardrums.

What part of Switzerland is being "expansionist"? Which countries have they colonized or taken over?

In closing:

"Its better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6."
- Old American proverb probably thought up by an Old American

Yes, old AMERICAN proverb...PROBABLY thought up by an OLD AMERICAN. Sadly, the 12 who are judging you are bought and paid for by others, while the 6 that are carrying you, either don't do it for the money or you were the one that paid for them!

Sadly, that's not the way of it here. I've done jury duty, more than once, and no one paid me off to produce any specific outcome. How depressing. To think I could have gotten rich!

One must wonder, however, why everything boils down to the almighty dollar to you. Is there nothing in life more important to you?

Now THAT could well and truly be considered "sad"!

Anyone with a brain should be capable of smelling yer complex from miles away.

And that "complex" IS, Dr, Freud? Guess which category an inability to define that puts you in...

reply to post by nenothtu

Since you now claim it's a "human race" thing, which race is this attitude demonstrating a superiority complex over (other than human, of course. Hard to be superior over one's self)? See?

The word COMPLEX means that it is YOUR issue. You can show, via communication, reasoning which gives said complexes away. If you could think for YOURSELF you wouldn't need to ask these questions and make yourself look stupid. But I'll bite; just because there is ONE human race does not mean people like yourself can try and divide that one race into many just to feel superior. That is why it's called a COMPLEX.

Yeah. "Situational ethics". Got it. They don't like this situation, and are all heated up to start another war, I suppose.

Do you blame them when their one source of news is the mass media?

Tell you what, it's fine by me - as long as they get it rolling with their OWN rucks and their OWN rifles and their OWN boots on the ground. Leave mine alone, because I ain't got no dog in these fights.

You don't HAVE ANYTHING. You are completely irrelevant and insignificant. Get over yourself and maybe then we can properly discuss these things.

Afghanistan was about the Taliban, and THEIR sheltering of bin Laden and Company, and their refusal to give him up, not about bin Laden and AQ per se.

IRRELEVANT. You need a few classes of reading comprehension. Sure, there are words...but what do those words mean TOGETHER? What POINT is being made?

Explain to me what your concept of "straw man" is again, please. Oops, did I say "again"?

You have google don't you? :-) Go check it out.

Yep, pride. Explain how it affected Iraqi oil flow, other than truncating it somewhat at the beginning (not an optimal result for your argument), and WHO is actually getting those worrisome "contracts" these days...

So now I have to educate you? Go do some reading yourself...

Yup. If it's as you claim, why aren't those "colonialist mutinationals" raking in the oil from Iraqi oil fields this instant?

Lol. Here's some questions for YOU: How much did Halliburton make because of the Afghan and Iraq war? What company makes more revenue than ANY other on the planet at this moment? You ask why they aren't doing it...are you blind?

Funny. If that was the rationale, it seems not to have stopped that particular smoke screen from being thrown out. Still cranking the smoke generator?

Of course...if you were a self-proclaimed muslim as you say yourself you should have some understanding of the metaphysical and the way people think. Most people have pride issues of their own so when they make this little 1+1 they stop thinking. There is no smoke generator needed when every single person is a smoke generator on their own, you just need to put in the proper ingredients(read: information) and watch the smoke billow out.

Your turn. Demonstrate which of those you are attempting to employ, and how.

You know...a dictionary is not all there is to words...

Nice. So to you, apparently, muslims are not "human". Nice.

Now I KNOW you have never even given serious thought about the faith of Islam. All Muslims are human, I find it personally(and I'm not alone in that, go check with the people who have spent their entire lives studying and expanding their faith) that an insignificant human cannot BE something else than a human. Whether that be Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc... these are all NAMES we give to ourselves(get the semantics now?) and when we ACT according to these names we give ourselves we divide ourselves. GO READ MORE.

So then, if there is no law, NOTHING is illegal. Please refrain from throwing out any such red herrings as use of the term "illegal" in the future.

Ah now you're getting it...so what is the POINT of illegal/legal when everyone is not upheld to the same laws to the same extent? Oh right, then it is irrelevant...wrong becomes illegal - that which you should not do. Simple no? Or are you going to run around saying this and that is illegal when mercenaries shoot your familymembers?

"Protesting" vs. "rioting". Now THERE is a fine exercise in the use of semantics, definition 3. I call 'em like I see 'em, and don't try to pretty them up by employing "semantics".

Those are two DIFFERENT words with two very DIFFERENT outcome. When people PROTEST they do so peacefully, as was the case in Bahrain. The government has no reason to break protests up as they are peaceful in nature, a group of people standing behind their values...however, a riot is break&burn...and then the government has a reason, by their own reasoning, to break up the protests to prevent harm to humans. That's why there are agent provocateurs in EVERY PROTEST.

I'll have to ask you to clarify the "government much?"

Sure...

Are you trying to imply that I'm a "paid government disinfo agent"

No, what I meant by that was that you stop thinking for yourself and instead of your own ideas you play the "official response" tape. Paid government agent? No. You're too unknowing for that...

Now, "semantics" would be your attempt to re-define "legal" and "illegal" to mean something other than involved with a "law".

Actually, as you will soon come to understand, there are no illegal and legals when there isn't a law that is applied to the poor and the rich the same way. The whole legal/illegal conversation becomes void (I don't know why you kept dragging it on) and it becomes a matter of universal human rights. Which according to you are a fantasy as well right? Since they have no...pfff...basis in rich man law.

If "the rich man" is writing your laws, why is he paying a higher percentage of income in taxes? Seems to me that if he were writing the laws, he could do better than that... you know, something approaching "equal representation" in the tax laws...

I'm not talking about the middle classed citizen who is too stupid to understand the situation. They don't write the laws. I'm talking about those who write the laws. Do you honestly believe they do so without monetary incentives?

Sadly, that's not the way of it here. I've done jury duty, more than once, and no one paid me off to produce any specific outcome. How depressing. To think I could have gotten rich!

I see...did you write those laws you were supposed to uphold? On jury duty, did you have full understanding of every law there existed? LOL. Jury Duty...any schmuck can get a letter for jury duty no? That doesn't mean you know ish about laws and how they work... You're cracking me up here man...

One must wonder, however, why everything boils down to the almighty dollar to you. Is there nothing in life more important to you?

Not to me...but to those invading other nations for resources it is. And last I checked the US does that. Who enables the US to do that then? The lobbies and lawmakers. You sound confused to me...

And that "complex" IS, Dr, Freud? Guess which category an inability to define that puts you in...

Freud? That lunatic? Please...you give the books in elementary school too much credit

reply to post by Zamini

Originally posted by Zamini

Since you now claim it's a "human race" thing, which race is this attitude demonstrating a superiority complex over (other than human, of course. Hard to be superior over one's self)? See?

The word COMPLEX means that it is YOUR issue. You can show, via communication, reasoning which gives said complexes away. If you could think for YOURSELF you wouldn't need to ask these questions and make yourself look stupid. But I'll bite; just because there is ONE human race does not mean people like yourself can try and divide that one race into many just to feel superior. That is why it's called a COMPLEX.

Communication is the fine art of getting your point across. That cannot be done when, as you do, one re-defines words to suit his own meanings independent of the commonly accepted definition. The redefined words mean nothing at all to any other than that individual. He has then, in essence, created his own language, usable only by himself. That's not very effective in communicating with others.

Here is what "complex" REALLY means in the context in which you used it:

A complex is a core pattern of emotions, memories, perceptions, and wishes in the personal unconscious organized around a common theme, such as power or status (Schultz, D. & Schultz, S., 2009). Primarily a psychoanalytic term, it is found extensively in the works of Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud.

Yeah. "Situational ethics". Got it. They don't like this situation, and are all heated up to start another war, I suppose.

Do you blame them when their one source of news is the mass media?

Yes.

Tell you what, it's fine by me - as long as they get it rolling with their OWN rucks and their OWN rifles and their OWN boots on the ground. Leave mine alone, because I ain't got no dog in these fights.

You don't HAVE ANYTHING. You are completely irrelevant and insignificant.

Insignificant, yes. Irrelevant, no. As far as what I "have" goes, I have boots, I have a rifle, I have a ruck, and I have experience. They need to get their OWN copies of those things and put them to use themselves, and stop sending folks like me to do their dirty work for them. If they want a war, they should have at it - on their own dime and their own time.

Get over yourself and maybe then we can properly discuss these things.

Likewise.

Afghanistan was about the Taliban, and THEIR sheltering of bin Laden and Company, and their refusal to give him up, not about bin Laden and AQ per se.

IRRELEVANT. You need a few classes of reading comprehension. Sure, there are words...but what do those words mean TOGETHER? What POINT is being made?

How can you call them "irrelevant" when YOU are the one who brought them up to begin with? my reading comprehension is fine. Yours appears to stand in need of a bit of brushing up. I note that you couldn't assail the logic I presented, and so decided to deem the conversation YOU began as "irrelevant". Point noted.

Explain to me what your concept of "straw man" is again, please. Oops, did I say "again"?

You have google don't you? :-) Go check it out.

I googled what does Zamini think straw man means. It wasn't very informative. It told me the common definition of "straw man" - which I already know, but failed completely to tell me what YOU think it means. Since I asked a direct question of you, and you utterly failed to answer it, I'm forced to conclude that even you don't know what you think it means.

Yep, pride. Explain how it affected Iraqi oil flow, other than truncating it somewhat at the beginning (not an optimal result for your argument), and WHO is actually getting those worrisome "contracts" these days...

So now I have to educate you? Go do some reading yourself...

I already have, long past. The object there was to get YOU to educate yourself. It appears that you are supremely unwilling to do so, so I won't ask you anything that might cause you to have to educate yourself any more. It's obviously too much trouble for you.

Yup. If it's as you claim, why aren't those "colonialist mutinationals" raking in the oil from Iraqi oil fields this instant?

Lol. Here's some questions for YOU: How much did Halliburton make because of the Afghan and Iraq war? What company makes more revenue than ANY other on the planet at this moment? You ask why they aren't doing it...are you blind?

The question was about the oil you claimed that "colonialist multinationals" were raking in from the oil fields. Which oil wells are Haliburton pumping oil out of? Never mind - the answer to that would require you to educate yourself, and I've already said I won't do that any more.

Your turn. Demonstrate which of those you are attempting to employ, and how.

You know...a dictionary is not all there is to words...

Already addressed above, but I'll re-state it, to underscore the importance. Proper usage of words requires a commonly accepted definition of what the words mean between the communicating parties. Dictionary definitions supply that meaning, and without those definitions and that common understanding that a word means what a word means, no meaningful communication is possible.

I further note that you failed to indicate which usage you were attempting to employ, and so must conclude that you had no idea of what the actual meaning was, you were just trying to sound intelligent by throwing out "big words".

Nice. So to you, apparently, muslims are not "human". Nice.

Now I KNOW you have never even given serious thought about the faith of Islam. All Muslims are human, I find it personally(and I'm not alone in that, go check with the people who have spent their entire lives studying and expanding their faith) that an insignificant human cannot BE something else than a human. Whether that be Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc... these are all NAMES we give to ourselves(get the semantics now?) and when we ACT according to these names we give ourselves we divide ourselves. GO READ MORE.

"Never given serious thought about the faith of Islam"? I was a practicing muslim for a number of years, although I am not any more. This statement from you is a side-step, a diversionary tactic. I didn't make a statement about what muslims believe, I made a direct statement about YOUR comment. Yes, I see your semantics here, although I can't claim to "get it" in the sense of being able to agree with your attempted sidestep.

So then, if there is no law, NOTHING is illegal. Please refrain from throwing out any such red herrings as use of the term "illegal" in the future.

Ah now you're getting it...so what is the POINT of illegal/legal when everyone is not upheld to the same laws to the same extent? Oh right, then it is irrelevant...wrong becomes illegal - that which you should not do. Simple no?

The point of the "legal/illegal" discussion was your attempt to claim legal actions were "illegal" and your appeal to International Law to back that contention up, and your demonstrated inability to cite even one such law. Instead, you tried to redefine the conversation to say that no law is valid.

Your original statements that started the "legal/illegal" portion of the conversation are as follows:

When these governments break down on peaceful protests they do so in an illegal manner.

Here

and -

It's ridiculous that you're trying to lessen the reality of what the Saudi's are doing here...illegal = illegal. Go read some international laws before asking people to smack you over your ignorance.

Here

Now, the honorable thing to do here would be to either admit you were wrong, or produce the requested citation to back up your statement - NOT try to change the conversation in an attempt to deflect the issue.

"Wrong" is not a factor in what is legal or what is illegal. There are plenty of things that are "wrong", yet completely legal. Conversely, there are plenty of things that are "illegal", but are not "wrong". Legality is defined by... wait for it... LAW.

Or are you going to run around saying this and that is illegal when mercenaries shoot your familymembers?

I think that I've already been pretty clear that the law would be the last thing on my mind in that eventuality. I'd be too busy to worry over law. The question at this point is: WHY would mercenaries be shooting my family members? We haven't picked any fights with mercenaries in well over 200 years. Leftist guerrillas I could understand, since they HAVE shot my family members (well, NEAR family - I hadn't actually married her yet), but mercenaries?

Those are two DIFFERENT words with two very DIFFERENT outcome. When people PROTEST they do so peacefully, as was the case in Bahrain. The government has no reason to break protests up as they are peaceful in nature, a group of people standing behind their values...however, a riot is break&burn...and then the government has a reason, by their own reasoning, to break up the protests to prevent harm to humans. That's why there are agent provocateurs in EVERY PROTEST.

So how's that Libyan "protest" coming along? Just as one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter", one man's "protester" is another man's "rioter". As I said, it was a fine use of semantics, definition 3.

I'll have to ask you to clarify the "government much?"

Sure...

Are you trying to imply that I'm a "paid government disinfo agent"

No, what I meant by that was that you stop thinking for yourself and instead of your own ideas you play the "official response" tape. Paid government agent? No. You're too unknowing for that...

Apparently my "official response tape" needs to be reprogrammed, since it's anything BUT the official stance. Do you plan on giving up on the personal insults any time soon? They're not very effective, since I and many others here know better.

Now, "semantics" would be your attempt to re-define "legal" and "illegal" to mean something other than involved with a "law".

Actually, as you will soon come to understand, there are no illegal and legals when there isn't a law that is applied to the poor and the rich the same way. The whole legal/illegal conversation becomes void (I don't know why you kept dragging it on) and it becomes a matter of universal human rights. Which according to you are a fantasy as well right? Since they have no...pfff...basis in rich man law.

The legal/illegal conversation will become void when you realize that "law" is the only basis for either of those labels. There most certainly are rights enjoyed by humans universally, although I hesitate to apply the "Universal Human Rights" label to them. When most people hear that phrase, they think of something else altogether, just as they have been conditioned to think. Rights are in no way based upon laws of any kind, however, neither rich-man laws nor poor man laws. Laws deal with privileges that can be revoked. Rights can not.

If "the rich man" is writing your laws, why is he paying a higher percentage of income in taxes? Seems to me that if he were writing the laws, he could do better than that... you know, something approaching "equal representation" in the tax laws...

I'm not talking about the middle classed citizen who is too stupid to understand the situation. They don't write the laws. I'm talking about those who write the laws. Do you honestly believe they do so without monetary incentives?

Neither was I talking about the "middle class". I specifically stated "If the "rich man" is writing your laws", and asked a question about the results of those laws on... wait for it... "the rich man". I note again that you spectacularly avoided answering that question, and chose to attempt another side-step to get away from it. That appears to be a habit with you.

Sadly, that's not the way of it here. I've done jury duty, more than once, and no one paid me off to produce any specific outcome. How depressing. To think I could have gotten rich!

I see...did you write those laws you were supposed to uphold? On jury duty, did you have full understanding of every law there existed? LOL. Jury Duty...any schmuck can get a letter for jury duty no? That doesn't mean you know ish about laws and how they work...

You're cracking me up here man...

I neither wrote the laws in question, nor did I "uphold" them. We APPLIED them to the cases at hand. A "full understanding of every law that ever existed" was not necessary - but a full knowledge of the laws that applied in those cases WAS. I may be "Cracking you up", but it's obvious that I have a far better understanding of the law, and how it works (and is applied) than you do. Nothing that a bit of education on you part won't cure, though, should you ever decide to educate yourself in the matter.

One must wonder, however, why everything boils down to the almighty dollar to you. Is there nothing in life more important to you?

Not to me...but to those invading other nations for resources it is. And last I checked the US does that. Who enables the US to do that then? The lobbies and lawmakers. You sound confused to me...

And YOU sound confused to ME. If it's not important to you, WHY do you continually bring it up?

And that "complex" IS, Dr, Freud? Guess which category an inability to define that puts you in...

Freud? That lunatic? Please...you give the books in elementary school too much credit

Yes, Freud was a lunatic, and yes, I'm aware that he's no longer a big player in psychological circles - having been largely discredited and relegated to the fringe. That doesn't change the fact that you sound an AWFUL lot like you subscribe to his theories. See the quote on "complexes" above for a case in point. I didn't learn about Freud in "elementary school", I learned at the university level.

Oh, and I probably need to note here that you DID FAIL to define or diagnose that "complex" in question...

reply to post by DaddyBare


Why are you even saying this? Is it because of his skin color?

What do you want the man to do? Send our soldiers on yet another play-time mission in the Middle East? What we gonna call it now? Operation Sandbox?

reply to post by nenothtu


So the US passing resolutions to protect, amongst others, these Saudi mercenaries from law...that had NOTHING to do with what I´m talking about right? Quit your whining, it's illegal, they are trying to get around this fact by passing resolutions...it remains illegal because now they, apparent to everyone, are acting outside of the interest of THE PEOPLE.

Why are the more intelligent people across the GLOBE riling up? Because they see what the hell is going on. And I'm not only talking Middle-East, you have enough demonstrations going on in the US as well!

Legal/Illegal are just words when laws are NOT being followed by those who write them.

Originally posted by Zamini
reply to post by nenothtu

 

So the US passing resolutions to protect, amongst others, these Saudi mercenaries from law...that had NOTHING to do with what I´m talking about right?

Mercenaries? I thought they were Saudi national troops. Didn't see anywhere (besides your post) that said they were "mercenaries". Are you re-defining words to mean what you WANT them to mean again?

Quit your whining, it's illegal, they are trying to get around this fact by passing resolutions...it remains illegal because now they, apparent to everyone, are acting outside of the interest of THE PEOPLE.

Is asking for evidence ALWAYS "whining" to you, or is it only "whining" when you are utterly unable to produce the requested evidence? It's a simple thing - if it's "illegal", you should be able to produce a law that has been broken which MAKES it "illegal". A very simple concept, which appears to fly entirely over your head.

Why are the more intelligent people across the GLOBE riling up?

Because things are bad enough already that one doesn't have to re-define words to mean what he wants them to mean? Seriously, that just hurts your case.

Because they see what the hell is going on. And I'm not only talking Middle-East, you have enough demonstrations going on in the US as well!

Lately all the demonstrations in the US (including the "protests" here, local to me) have been Unions agitating, trying to pick our pockets. They can protest all day long, as long as they keep their hands out of our pockets. I've no quarrel with Union protests until they turn violent or in the case of government employees fleecing taxpayers, extortionate. See, I can refuse to buy an over-priced, Union made product in the private sector, but refusing to pay taxes is somewhat more problematic, although still "doable".

Legal/Illegal are just words when laws are NOT being followed by those who write them.

Again, you are welcome at any point to inject a citation of the laws which are being broken, or "not being followed" as you say (same thing).

Really, I think your argument would have a better basis in "right" or "wrong" rather than trying to invoke legality.

reply to post by nenothtu

Mercenaries? I thought they were Saudi national troops.

To me they are mercenaries. And don't bring semantics into the game AGAIN because it's getting stale. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Ever heard that one?

Are you re-defining words to mean what you WANT them to mean again?

When overpriced lawyers and politicians get to do it, so do I. You can be a lemming of course.

It's a simple thing - if it's "illegal", you should be able to produce a law that has been broken which MAKES it "illegal".

Ooooh now I see...you thought I was talking about a law that was broken making it illegal. See, you DO need reading comprehension classes. The POINT(as I've reiterated time and time again) is that there are LAWS(in general) that are not really LAWS(because they don't do the same for everyone) and so LAWS(again in general) become a tool for the rich, until the poor find out. Once this happens, do you think the majority of the people would decide these foreign mercenary troops are legal or illegal? What do you think the answer to this will be once the majority of the Bahraini people have peacefully overthrown their oppressive government and have gotten a democratic one themselves?

Because things are bad enough already that one doesn't have to re-define words to mean what he wants them to mean? Seriously, that just hurts your case.

STOP THE PRESS, someone on the internet is "redefining" words because I don't understand what point he's making.

Lately all the demonstrations in the US (including the "protests" here, local to me) have been Unions agitating, trying to pick our pockets.

Sounds to me like you'd rather live in China.

See, I can refuse to buy an over-priced, Union made product in the private sector

And by doing so forcing companies to outsource making products cheaper, which in return making less money for the US, which in return makes US made products even more expensive, which in return forces more outsourcing, which in return causes an inevitable bubble, which in return turns into a crash, which in return cripples the US economy because nobody is producing except for the jailbirds.

Got it.

Again, you are welcome at any point to inject a citation of the laws which are being broken, or "not being followed" as you say (same thing).

Not in this case, but there are plenty(you can look into US courtcases and dig up some stuff) that shows you laws are not fair as they are supposed to be.

Really, I think your argument would have a better basis in "right" or "wrong" rather than trying to invoke legality.

Semantics. It would have been "better". I'm not here to compete. Enjoy your day.

It's impossible to have a rational conversation with someone who doesn't speak the same language. I'm speaking English, and not sure what you're speaking. It could be anything, but it's anything BUT English when you start redefining words to mean other than what they do in English, so I'm guessing I'm about done here. It's sort of like trying to talk to a cinder block. They can't comprehend dictionaries, either. This then will likely be my last response, due to this language barrier we have here.

Originally posted by Zamini
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Mercenaries? I thought they were Saudi national troops.

To me they are mercenaries. And don't bring semantics into the game AGAIN because it's getting stale. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Ever heard that one?

To you.

There are all sorts of definition as to what constitutes a "mercenary", the most common being an individual soldier motivated solely by profit. I'm using the term as defined under International Law (Geneva Conventions, Fourth Protocol), which stipulates that they NOT belong to the national forces of any particular country (thus being "free agents" for hire to any one, solely at their own discretion). In that case, members of the Saudi armed forces, or any other national force, cannot be "mercenaries" - by common definition OR international law.

I'm not sure how you are defining the term, since I've never run across a definition that is congruent with your usage, and you haven't seen fit to enlighten us with YOUR definition. Nevertheless, I'm forced to accept that you are somehow applying the correct usage pursuant to whatever language you are speaking. In other words, I have to accept that you think that's what it means.

It's a simple thing - if it's "illegal", you should be able to produce a law that has been broken which MAKES it "illegal".

Ooooh now I see...you thought I was talking about a law that was broken making it illegal.

That's EXACTLY what I thought, since that is the definition of the term in English. Nothing can be "illegal" ("against the law") without there being a law for it to BE against.

See, you DO need reading comprehension classes.

Yup, one of us does. Since I don't know what language you're speaking, I don't know where to find comprehension classes in it, though. All I can say for sure is that it's not English, Arabic, Shawnee, or Spanish.

The POINT(as I've reiterated time and time again) is that there are LAWS(in general) that are not really LAWS(because they don't do the same for everyone) and so LAWS(again in general) become a tool for the rich, until the poor find out. Once this happens, do you think the majority of the people would decide these foreign mercenary troops are legal or illegal?

"Legal" and "illegal" doesn't depend on what "people decide", it depends on what Law states. It may be changed in the future, but right NOW it's not "illegal", since no law has been broken.

What do you think the answer to this will be once the majority of the Bahraini people have peacefully overthrown their oppressive government and have gotten a democratic one themselves?

I think your language is not the ONLY fantasy you entertain if you think that will EVER happen. First, no "peaceful" overthrow will ever occur where a government is disposed to meet it with a less than peaceful response. Second, "democracy" will not, in any forseeable future, take root in Bahrain any more than it will Afghanistan or Iraq or Libya, or any of these other troubled places. Like you, they say the word, but it has a different meaning to them than it does "the west". All I hope for is that they get what they want - whatever that may be empirically. It's not my job, nor Mr. Obama's, nor Mr. Bush's to decide FOR them what they ought to have. It's an internal matter, their own business.

The same goes for the current activity in Libya. It's up to them, whichever side they're on, to decide what they want and how to get that. Maybe, as in this case or in the case of the Libyan rebels, that they ASK for outside help - not that it be forced into the equation. Then it falls to the party asked whether to provide that help or not. Saudi Arabia DID provide it to the Bahrain government, and evidently we ARE providing it to the Libyan rebels. I'm dead set against our involvement in Libya's internal affairs, but that seems not to matter much. Matter of fact, I've not noticed my wants having much influence on this government's actions at all. C'est la vie.

Likewise, it's not up to US to decide FOR Saudi Arabia how THEY respond to a request for help from Bahrain. That would be THEIR own internal decision.

Because things are bad enough already that one doesn't have to re-define words to mean what he wants them to mean? Seriously, that just hurts your case.

STOP THE PRESS, someone on the internet is "redefining" words because I don't understand what point he's making.

No, you're "re-defining" words because your usage doesn't conform to English. Of course we can't understand what point you're trying to make when you misuse terms in an effort to make it!

Lately all the demonstrations in the US (including the "protests" here, local to me) have been Unions agitating, trying to pick our pockets.

Sounds to me like you'd rather live in China.

Actually not. I'm opposed to collectivism in ALL it's forms. China is just slightly "left" of the US Labor Unions. I'm way to the other end of the scale.

See, I can refuse to buy an over-priced, Union made product in the private sector

And by doing so forcing companies to outsource making products cheaper, which in return making less money for the US, which in return makes US made products even more expensive, which in return forces more outsourcing, which in return causes an inevitable bubble, which in return turns into a crash, which in return cripples the US economy because nobody is producing except for the jailbirds.

Got it.

Not my problem that the companies can't deal effectively with Unions and so have to find a place where they can't be molested by them.

I didn't know that I had THAT much power - that I could crash an entire economy. It's rather heady, and of course the Unions (and greedy assed CEOs - seems like everyone wants more than their fair share) causing the price gouging to begin with can't have anything to do with that... It's good to know that I individually have more power - enough to crash an entire economy - than ALL of the Unions (and CEOs) "collectively". I wonder... if the Unions weren't raping the consumers, WHERE would I get that power from?

I don't know. All I can say for sure is that I'd be buying their products if they didn't try to push price beyond value, so they seem to me to be cutting their own economic throats. Good to know that activity hasn't anything to do with the economy - it's all ME, and how I personally decide to spend my money - my own choices on who to give it to - that's the REAL problem.

Again, you are welcome at any point to inject a citation of the laws which are being broken, or "not being followed" as you say (same thing).

Not in this case, but there are plenty(you can look into US courtcases and dig up some stuff) that shows you laws are not fair as they are supposed to be.

I've never said laws are FAIR - they are not. I've only said that it takes a law to make something illegal. US court cases don't apply in Bahrain OR Saudi Arabia. There's nothing illegal about this action. Whether it's FAIR or not may be open to debate.

Really, I think your argument would have a better basis in "right" or "wrong" rather than trying to invoke legality.

Semantics. It would have been "better". I'm not here to compete. Enjoy your day.

Not "it would have been better", it "would have a better basis", i.e. a firmer foundation to argue from. A subtle perhaps, but CRUCIAL, difference.

You have an agreeable day as well.

reply to post by nenothtu

I've never said laws are FAIR - they are not. I've only said that it takes a law to make something illegal.

Of course it didn't cross your mind that this speaks for itsself, so when someone is trying to make a point beyond this given, maybe you should read with an open mind. I'm just saying...you might learn a different way of thinking. I'm not sure what the "different language" barrage borders on but I'm going to let it slide this time. You see, the difficult thing with folks like yourself is, you're stuck inside a cage. So anything outside that cage, cannot be computed. You know the definition of legal/illegal, good for you...that was never up for discussion. I don't know if anyone has taught you any social skills, when in a discussion and someone is making a point - you don't take words at face value but rather you look at the bigger picture. It might be something you miss in your culture...I don't know...but it is something you need to fix.

Not "it would have been better", it "would have a better basis", i.e. a firmer foundation to argue from. A subtle perhaps, but CRUCIAL, difference.

Are you..."special" by any chance? Better in between brackets points out to your competition-thinking, I'm not here to discuss this with a jury-duty hero who is trying to play courtcase, you're never going to win...especially when you cannot think of points being made.

"Legal" and "illegal" doesn't depend on what "people decide", it depends on what Law states. It may be changed in the future, but right NOW it's not "illegal", since no law has been broken.

Well, when you put it like that ENOUGH laws have been broken, but as that is beside the point which seems ungraspable to you. You can look this up yourself if you actually were able to change your mind. I'm not here to spoonfeed you. The point was; not everyone is upheld to the same laws making laws obsolete as the point of laws is for them to be applicable to everyone to the same extent. That's what laws are supposed to do, no? THAT'S THE POINT. I'M GOING TO STOP WRITING HERE SO YOU KNOW WHERE TO FIND THE POINT. IN CASE YOU DON'T, IT'S THE SENTENCE BEFORE THIS ONE.