Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I am a licensed mental health professional. I have made no diagnosis of you. Your posts are not lucid. They are disjointed and disorganized because you do not take any of my posts as a whole. You break them down into sections which destroys the continuity. By the time you are through, I just don't know what you are trying to say, as you posit nothing of real substance, except that you disapprove of my position.

If this were true, and you really didn't understand what I am saying to you, how come you don't simply ask for specific clarification?
You aren't fooling me. You may think I'm far younger than you, but I have lived long enough to know that I don't have any trouble making myself understood, and that when someone is sincerely interested in dialogue, one asks for clarifications rather than finding flimsy shelter behind such excuses...

So if you were sincere in what you just said, you will take the last post I made to you on this topic (or better yet: all the ones you have ignored), and tell me what you want to have explained to you. I am saying this for form: just to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I think its painfully apparent that if you actually were interested in debate, you would have done this without my prompting.

Maybe you think this is debate. I don't and frankly, I am just at a loss as to how to respond to such nonsense, so therefore I do not! In one case, I responded with humor about your taking your meds and hitting the sack, which even those of my profession can do in a venue such as this. And when you referred to your "lucid assessment," I just had to tell you that your assessment is not lucid. It is overly concrete in some cases and overly abstract in others.

Why are you only able to say this abstractly? Why can't you point to precisely where you were thrown off? Anything to avoid facing what I have actually said to you, and which noone else seems to have had any problem understanding...

So in the process of breaking all my posts down into bite-siza chucks, you miss the spirit of the post and fail to take into consider the post I might be responding to. In other words, you can't see the forest for the trees.

Great theory. Can you demonstrate how this works in practice? How have I done such a thing? My posts are here for you to demonstrate this if it is indeed what you believe...

In six years of specialized education, including a year of intensive clinical training and five years of experience, I've gotten pretty good at this. Do I think your mentally ill? No. You just need to get the chip off your shoulder, develop some finesse, and learn to present your own position directly rather than assaulting the position of another in such a piecemeal, disorgainized manner. Learn to present a thesis, develop that thesis and summerize your conclusions. That's what called an essay.

How touching. Thank you. I'll remember that word. Es-say. Very good.
Now, once you have finished the grade school lesson, perhaps you will wake up to the fact that you are the only one on this board or any other that has run away from my arguments with such persistence. When you have finished coming up with creative excuses, perhaps you will return to the topic of the thread and answer some of my points. They don't have to be presented to you in thesis format for you to understand them.

It is obvious to me that you do not like me or the things I stand for and so it is not important to you that we exchange ideas. It is only important that you "deconsruct" my posts into components that are meaningless without the total context, for the sole purpose of discrediting me. Only a fool would fall into such a trap. Those who agree with you in your assessment of me will applaud your effort. Those who can see through your charade will at least understand my position.

Of the two of us, I am certainly the most interested in exchanging on topic ideas. My deconstruction of your ideas occured because they were weak and unable to hold up. Don't blame me for that. The exchange commences when you return and show me that perhaps I underestimated the point you were making, or misunderstood it. You have done everything in your power not to commence this exchange... So I logically conclude that you cannot.

I do not respond to you because you are obviously trying to entrap me and in doing so, you don't give me anything of substance to respond to. And just because I don't repond to you doesn't mean that I have not had good dialogues with those who have chosen to do so in a non-confrontational way.

Well I'll remove yor final excuse: I did not mean to be confrontational, but I do not mince my words, and I say what I think. There, now that you realize I just want to talk about the subject at hand (already), perhaps you can respond to my points?

I have debated with extremely belligerent people before. Take a tip: the best tactic is to calmly remain on topic. You have done the opposite in the face of my alleged 'confrontational' posts: you have completely avoided the topic. Another reason why I doubt the sincerity of your excuses not to confront my reasoning.

And before you call me a troll, take a look at all the contributions I have made to this site in such a short period of time--about 15 posts per day, the last time I checked, and numerous contributions to Collaborative Fiction.

I am a contributor to this site and just because I avoid those who are openly hostile and I use the most light hearted means I can muster to do so, does not define me as a troll. If anything, you have trolled for me. Read your own posts.

Thank you.

Well if you are sincere, and we got off on the wrong foot, please accept my apologies and rest assured that I will make sure you cannot use my behaviour as an excuse again.
Ok, now are you ready to debate? The ball is in your camp, as it has been since the beginning.

U.

bla bla bla

dictionary posters.
i was really enjoying that, really!....but its about time you guys started saying something. upuaut, you win already. give it up.


-lost

Yes, you are trully right to say that, in fact is your home that had been attacked by the so called "terrorists".

But are a few remarks that i would like you to pay attention to:

First of all, you, americans, not as a people but by your leaders are playing "God" with some human beings. Is violence the answer to violence. More, isn't this violence determined by some actions taken by your gouvernors around the world?

Please all readers of my humble reply not feel offended by my words for you aren't referred to. Your gouvernors maybe, The Big Brother certainly.
Also these are my opinions and I'm pretending to hold the truth key in my hands.

To resume, who gave the right to american army and gouvern to act as the world police?
I would say to you that if by any means o group of romanian terrorists would attack the U.S. I wouldn't be happy at all being bombarded and shot in my own contry for the mistakes (provoked or not) of a few people.

Let's talk about terrorists. Here in Romania, as you probably DON'T KNOW we had a so called revolution. Follow these: There was a riot against comunism in a city called Timisoara. To justify the intervention of the army, ex-dictator Ceausescu, called those actions "caused by terrorists" and declared total military and police intervention "against terrorists". Doesn't this tell anything?!?

Human rights? Aren't they disregarded in many other countries. Why U.S. targets only the ones with oil around.

Kosovo? Does the secesionist intentions of a minority justify the intervention of an outer power. More the killing of innocent civilians?

Who is are the U.S. to enter and smash a country's territory in the name of what I ask you? Human rights, terrorists? Aren't they also terrorists in this case? I'm not taking the part of the muslims whom I respect as a people, religious belief, unity and patriotism. I hate unprovoked attacks against innocent people whether amarican, iraki, serbian and so on.

"Don't get drunk with cold water", aren't there enough evidences that the CIA and other secret intelligence socs. were fully aware of 9/11? But without 9/11 would they have enough legitimation to enter foreign territories?

ALL MY RESPECT AND COMPASION FOR ALL THE AMERICAN FAMILIES WHO SUFFERD IN A WAY OR THE OTHER FROM 9/11. THEY WERE JUST VICTIMS OF MUCH MUCH HIGHER INTERESTS. MAY THEY REST IN PEACE AND MAY THAT NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN TO ANYONE!
and let us hope that their death was not for nothing.
Let us hope that someday "the reign of money" will end, and other will be the values of societes in general and people in special.

Also ALL MY RESPECT FOR THE VICTIMS OF ANY ACT OF TERRORISM, WHETHER ISLAMIC, BUT ALSO AMERICAN TERRORISM.

I repeat, these are only my thoughts and I'm the only one to be held responsable for these. I didn't intend to harm and/or offense any people not involved in all these.

So, are the terrorists the only terrorists? Are the not created, supplied and provoked by someone else more obscure and potent?

Let's not forget that also Hitler was discovered, created and then provoked to act like he acted.

With all my respect and love to all of you,

Tudor T.

Originally posted by upuaut
Is there nothing but innocent civilians and terrorists in your census of Iraq?
U.

Yes. Those people fighting for their country were infected by that sick minded saddam, who raised a murderous government terrorizing his own population. There is war in Iraq, innocent civilians could die in any fair war, but not as potential targets. A big difference.

Originally posted by Istvan
Those people fighting for their country were infected by that sick minded saddam, who raised a murderous government terrorizing his own population.

I'm probably stupid but I can't make out logic or sense in that one.
Infected? Raised a government?

If you read interviews with the Iraqis, few are fond of Saddam,but pretty much everybody wants the US to leave. I don't know who infected who.

I agree, that most people want the US to leave.

Do you think, that those firing explosives to US troops are innocent civilians? They know how to fight, because they learnt to do that. And they are not the men of the Iraq government, they are terrorists.

It is understood, that the US no longer controls the government, still, militants want to take over the country. Who do they hate?

Everyone knows, that those terrorists have to be dead, because there is just no other way to stop them.

Originally posted by Istvan
I agree, that most people want the US to leave.

Do you think, that those firing explosives to US troops are innocent civilians? They know how to fight, because they learnt to do that. And they are not the men of the Iraq government, they are terrorists.

It is understood, that the US no longer controls the government, still, militants want to take over the country. Who do they hate?

Everyone knows, that those terrorists have to be dead, because there is just no other way to stop them.

Itvan, the point I am trying to get you to acknowledge is that attacking soldiers does not make you a terrorist. You use the word as if you have no real notion of what it means. Don't let the propaganda get to you: there is a difference between attacking civilians for political leverage (terrorism) and attacking occupying troops (warfare). Please demonstrate that you understand this difference.

Thank you.

U.

Originally posted by Istvan
I agree, that most people want the US to leave.

Do you think, that those firing explosives to US troops are innocent civilians? They know how to fight, because they learnt to do that. And they are not the men of the Iraq government, they are terrorists.

The fact that they a not the men of the puppet govt doesn't make them terrorist. They are former disgruntled civilians that are now a paramilitary force that engages the regular US Army and suffers great losses, vs negligible US losses, as it should be due to absolute US military superiority.

It is understood, that the US no longer controls the government, still, militants want to take over the country. Who do they hate?

a) You said it yourself that they want the US to leave.
b) the notion that the US does not control the govt in Iraq
is laughable.

Originally posted by upuaut
Itvan, the point I am trying to get you to acknowledge is that attacking soldiers does not make you a terrorist. You use the word as if you have no real notion of what it means. Don't let the propaganda get to you: there is a difference between attacking civilians for political leverage (terrorism) and attacking occupying troops (warfare). Please demonstrate that you understand this difference.

Thank you.

U.

I understand the difference. But if those people get away with what they do with the US troops, they will do the same to their own country. They want chaos. Those "civilians" are equipped with heavy weaponary, only their clothing is civilian, and in fact they are "fighting" in an organized manner, not as individuals.

Of course, the US will benefit from this war, but that doesn't change anything. The war has to be finished, and not to ne halted.

My opinion is, that as soon as the Iraq is capable of handling intelligence service, those militants will be brought to justice before any suicide bombing occurs. But there is a long time for that to come.

Originally posted by Istvan
I understand the difference.

No, you don't seem to. See below.

But if those people get away with what they do with the US troops, they will do the same to their own country. They want chaos.

Blanket statement...
We can theorize all we want about what so and so will do tomorrow and the day after. Whatever Iraqis choose to do tomorrow, it is none of our business unless it poses a direct threat to our national security.

Those "civilians" are equipped with heavy weaponary, only their clothing is civilian, and in fact they are "fighting" in an organized manner, not as individuals.

Ok: you are not getting this. I am not calling them civilians. The people with weaponry are obviously combattants. *sigh*. What they are NOT is terrorists, if their targets are soldiers.

Very simple.

U.

The future is decided in the present if you are peaceful now then the future will be peaceful.