Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-20-2008, 11:16 PM   #91 (permalink)
Whatever
 
Predator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 344
Default

If this had been quick and easy, the country would not be as opposed as they are now. To bad MOUT isn't quick or easy. Read toward the end of the article I posted last and you can gain a better understanding of an expected time line.
Most people who oppose the war are not disrespecting the troops. However, I have seen protests in Portland with stuffed soldiers being beaten. I have seen protests saying that soldiers are murderers. Every time a soldier sees a sign saying they are wrong, their morale lowers.

EDIT:
I am not saying that opposing the war means that you oppose the the troops. It is a matter of how you choose to show your opposition to the war. Of course, if you choose to oppose the troops, that is also your choice.
__________________
Jack be nimble
Jack be quick

I be a lunatic

The answer is hidden in plain view.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Last edited by Predator; 04-20-2008 at 11:39 PM.
Predator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2008, 12:25 AM   #92 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
Default

I support our troops, and I think now we should support them by getting them the hell out of Iraq.
boo boo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2008, 05:58 PM   #93 (permalink)
isfckingdead
 
sleepy jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 18,969
Default

Okay re-opened.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by METALLICA89 View Post
Ive seen you on muiltipul forums saying Metallica and slayer are the worst **** you kid go suck your **** while you listen to your ****ing emo **** I bet you do listen to emo music
sleepy jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2008, 08:07 PM   #94 (permalink)
Whatever
 
Predator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 344
Default

I wish I was a fat fucktard with nothing better to do than stalk and spam a music forum. Ruining a perfectly good debate with general jackassness. Go do something productive like shoving a fork in your eye.
__________________
Jack be nimble
Jack be quick

I be a lunatic

The answer is hidden in plain view.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Predator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2008, 08:52 PM   #95 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
Default

Man. This guy was relentless.
boo boo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2008, 10:45 PM   #96 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Zombeels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 339
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo View Post
Yeah, I guess outright f*cking admitting to doing it is not enough for some people.

I mean you could say that since radical Islamists celebrated 9/11 Bin Ladin just wanted to take credit for it, but thats just too damn stupid to believe. Thats practically begging someone to come after you even though you didn't do anything.

You're not one of those 9/11 Truth dopes are you?
Everything I stated was the truth.

FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"

Even the FBI page doesn't list the attacksof 911
Most Wanted Terrorist - Usama Bin Laden
__________________
What It Is
Zombeels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2008, 11:36 PM   #97 (permalink)
Whatever
 
Predator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels View Post
Everything I stated was the truth.

FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"

Even the FBI page doesn't list the attacksof 911
Most Wanted Terrorist - Usama Bin Laden
I'm sorry to continue beating a dead horse about citations, but I really can't let it go. I've spent to much of my time reading and writing research papers to simply ignore the fact that citations in to many articles are either worthless or completely missing. Citing your references is what draws the line between opinion and reputable information. If someone writes an article and isn't willing to provide the reader with information to confirm their statements, it may as well be listed as an opinion piece. I've seen articles with no references, some with references that do not support the opinion in the article and even articles about articles citing the article in question as the only reference when that one has no references.
I'd just like to ask that when posting links to articles to back up your statements, can we at least make sure they are reputable sources and not simply someone else that supports your opinion?

EDIT:

Adding information from another opinion piece found in the Washington Post.

Quote:
"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."
Here is a link to the entire article. Its pretty much the flipside to your link.

Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?
__________________
Jack be nimble
Jack be quick

I be a lunatic

The answer is hidden in plain view.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Last edited by Predator; 04-22-2008 at 12:03 AM.
Predator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 08:43 AM   #98 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Zombeels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 339
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator View Post
I'm sorry to continue beating a dead horse about citations, but I really can't let it go. I've spent to much of my time reading and writing research papers to simply ignore the fact that citations in to many articles are either worthless or completely missing. Citing your references is what draws the line between opinion and reputable information. If someone writes an article and isn't willing to provide the reader with information to confirm their statements, it may as well be listed as an opinion piece. I've seen articles with no references, some with references that do not support the opinion in the article and even articles about articles citing the article in question as the only reference when that one has no references.
I'd just like to ask that when posting links to articles to back up your statements, can we at least make sure they are reputable sources and not simply someone else that supports your opinion?

EDIT:

Adding information from another opinion piece found in the Washington Post.



Here is a link to the entire article. Its pretty much the flipside to your link.

Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?
My piece does have citations. The person who wrote the piece talked to the FBI investigator himself and even quoted him. I'm pretty sure the piece would have been deleted by now if the FBI spokesman knew he was quoted in an article and he did not say those things. Things like:
Quote:
“The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Yes everything that Paul Sheridan says is opinion and speculation but what is quoted is fact.
__________________
What It Is
Zombeels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 08:54 AM   #99 (permalink)
Whatever
 
Predator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels View Post
My piece does have citations. The person who wrote the piece talked to the FBI investigator himself and even quoted him. I'm pretty sure the piece would have been deleted by now if the FBI spokesman knew he was quoted in an article and he did not say those things. Things like:
The citations in your last posted article are a link to Bin Ladens most wanted poster, and 3 news articles talking about the video in question. These things do not even support the point he wants to make.
Perhaps the FBI spokesman said those things, along with other information. It is pretty easy to take a few blurbs and make it appear to say what you want. Did you realize that the quote I posted was from the same source?

Here it is again.

Quote:
"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."
__________________
Jack be nimble
Jack be quick

I be a lunatic

The answer is hidden in plain view.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Predator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 02:15 PM   #100 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Methville
Posts: 2,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator View Post
It is pretty easy to take a few blurbs and make it appear to say what you want. Did you realize that the quote I posted was from the same source?
This works both ways. You'd need to find a non-bias way to string together the line of thought in said quotes to make any progress on this point.

However, I do find it interesting that he said "There is a logic to it." and then doesn't really expand on that much. That logic could be pretty much anything.
The Unfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.