Staredit Network

Think about what you're saying:

It was fine for Clinton to be "isolationist" after Al Qaeda attacked us (wrong use of the word, by the way). However, when Bush does the same thing in the very beginning of his term, it's downright aweful (and suspicious!).

You are so incredibly hypocritcal.

I'm hypocritical because he is decieving the country?

That is funny.

Is that what I said? Nope. Read it again.

I know I lashed out at somebody for repeatedly bringing up logical fallacies when arguing against you, but I now understand why he did.

If that was your idea of an intelligent argument... wow.

Okay, I missread your post.

No one here says that Bush is "downright aweful (and suspicious!)" for being an "Isolationalist" (Which he has not been. Even in the beginning of his term he was pushing for us to go to Iraq to finish what his daddy couldn't)

My god, you truly are dense (or downright dishonest).



Look:



You were saying that it's fishy that he "let" the 9/11 attacks happen.




Yes. You have been saying that 9/11 is Bush's fault because he didn't attack Al Qaeda in his first 7 months. However, you commend Clinton for doing the exact same thing for 8 years!

Partisan Democrats truly amaze me.

Ad Hominem Abusive, nicely done.

" Isn't it kinda fishy that soon as he gets in we get bombed?


You were saying that it's fishy that he "let" the 9/11 attacks happen."

Not once did I say he let them attack us. I clearly stated a question for people to ponder about, and to discuss. But you put words in my mouth that I had clearly not said. Nice work

"No one here says that Bush is "downright aweful (and suspicious!) for being an "Isolationalist" (Which he has not been.


Yes. You have been saying that 9/11 is Bush's fault because he didn't attack Al Qaeda in his first 7 months. However, you commend Clinton for doing the exact same thing for 8 years!"

Again you put words into my mouth. Not once in my argument do I say that 9/11 was all Bush's fault. I clearely stated my opinion, which was that he could have stopped it if he wanted to. But he chose not to, thus causing the devistation of 9/11.

Where have I "condemed" Clinton for "doing the same thing for 8 years"?

If I was to condem him, I would be against him, not for him. Another fallacy on your part.

Anymore things you would like me to point out in how you are being illogical?

Edit: Opps. I forgot one thing:

"Partisan Democrats truly amaze me"

Attacking the person. Another Logical Fallacy

Where exactly did we commend clinton for that?

You're not getting the point, if you're gonna share the blame like that, you can't JUST share it with clinton and bush. You would have to go down further, to almost all the other presidents. It's not bush senior's fault for the attacks on clinton. Or Reagan's fault for the attacks on bush senior, or even FDR's fault for the attacks on reagan. I see you didn't get my original analogy.

Partisan Republicans truly amaze me.

How we love people who are condescending like that. I mean, if you want a liberal vs conservative (or even add moderate to it) or a democratic vs republican, then go make that thread. Just don't bring it here to THIS thread.

If you're picturing me as some vegetarian hippie kid who :censored:es and moans about everything left and right, then you just don't know me.

Um.. FDR is way back there.... And I mean WAAAAAY. He is from the depression.

I think you mean Carter? Then Ford? Then Nixon? Then Johnson? Then Kenedy? Then Eisenhower? Then Truman? THEN FDR?

Oh. And don't stewp (I don't know how to spell) to his level. That will get your arguments no where.

I suppose you're right, I shouldn't go down there.

BTW, I was using FDR as an exaggeration.

Just trying to point out how many presidents were along the line

But I do agree. He just doesn't understand what we are trying to say. To me, he is ignoring our points. But I dunno.

I just know he is logically flawed.

Just like mysel

I'm in shock.

Listen, why would we blame presidents that had no reason to put Al Qaeda on the radar (I don't even know if they were around during Nixon/Carter)?

Clinton, however, did have a reason. You guys are probably too young to remember, but we were attacked under Clinton as well. Clinton did next to nothing to go after the perpetrators. He continued to largely ignore Al Qaeda during the rest 90s and up until the end of his term (including through other attacks). Then, Bush continues Clinton's policy for the first seven months of his term, and all of the blame for Al Qaeda's attack falls solely on him.

That doesn't make sense.

A reasonable person would put most of the blame on Clinton for starting and continuing -- for 8 years -- his policy of "out of sight, out of mind" with Al Qaeda.

Ego, you still didn't get our point. Clinton was using the same policy as all the other presidents. So if you're gonna blame people with that logic, then you'll have to blame all the other ones.

So you got 2 options for the blaming.

Give no blame what so ever to the other presidents.
OR
Give all the other presidents equal blame.

Hmm.. Terrorists weren't around with Nixon and Carter.. Funny.

Clinton had a reason? What was that? That a possible freelance terrorist attacked us, and we are supposed to put the blame on another oranization? Just think about it. How are you so certain it was Al Qaeda? Do you have a reliable source to prove your accusations?

Maybe he couldn't go after the "Perpetrators" because he did not know who they were. And like I said, he could have been a freelancer. How are you so sure it was Al Qaeda? Again. I ask you to cite your source.

And let me as you. Why do you hate Clinton so much? Do you know what he did for this country in his 8 years of office? He did cut military spending, but you do know it was for the better, correct? Without cutting the military budget, we would not have very good school systems (They are starting to fall again because of Bush's neglection)

So please. When you can show plausible evidence that it was "Al Qaeda" and that Clinton is a really horrible president (Don't say because he got sucky sucky that he is bad, because most presidents had sucky sucky, or y y. Look at JFK and MM) I will start to believe your arguements. And please. Show us how "Good" of a president Bush is... With FACTS

I never said that terroism wasn't around during Nixon; I was wondering whether Al Qaeda was around. I don't know how big Islamic terrorist organizations were back then. Please don't lie about my words, thanks.

Also, you always ask for proof from me; why do I never see you showing proof? Well, anyways, here is some information for you about the first WTC attacks (you can look up the subsequent attacks on over-seas interests on your own time):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2800297.stm


And I never said Clinton was a terrible president; I'm just trying to get you to be more fair. It really doesn't look good, you know.

Wow ego and kellimus.

Keep it to a PM, that has nothing to do with 9/11...

(and to a pm because noone really cares what you two say)

(and because it is ONLY you two)

You haven't been in the discussion, so stay out of it. It is between me, Alpha, and Ego.



Trying to show your fallacies about how you just blame Clinton is not fair? Funny.

I never said Clinton couldn't have done anything, he probibly could have. But there probibly wasn't enough evidence to do so

It's not about 9/11. Don't tell me to stay out when you are just trying to be a logical smartass everytime. You repeat what you say and you can't believe facts when they're true. You think your opinion is always right. I am sick of seeing you contiuing to post worthless repeats of discussion. Just stop.


*Merrell waits for kellimus

"This topic is between us 3, stay out.

So anyway clinton is blah blah"

Kellimus, your last post doesn't even make sense, and doesn't address my last post (including the proof I provided). I'm glad you realize that you're wrong. I also realize that it's tough to admit it.

What was the point of posting that link, ego? All it does is talk about the first attack on the world trade center.

It does not help your argument about how Clinton "could have done something"

You asked for proof that the first attacks were Al Qaeda (which is typical of you; you ask for proof from others, but never give it yourself). I provide that proof (the BBC article, which also talks about how the government ignored the threat), and you act like you have no clue why I posted it.

Look, Clinton did do things. He launched missiles. He did a few things. Sure, he wasn't active enough, okay. But Bush just completely ignored it. Clinton's administration told Bush that Al-Qaeda was the #1 threat. He never acted on it. He ignored all the evidence of a jihadist trying to learn how to fly jetliners, evidence predicting 9/11, etc. He just completely ignored that. He took a huge vacation. He did some PR stunts. He really didnt
take the FBI seriously, he actually obstructed them from investigating the Saudis.

Maybe if you would specify what you are proving, here would be no misconceptions about it.

And may I ask why i'm "Not intelligent"? Because people don't specify what they are trying to prove and I get confused?

Maybe if you know how to properly cite things, this wouldn't happen.

Give me a break, I just told you what I was proving (you asked for that proof, anyways). Stop being dense.

This is what you asked:



There you go, and I already provided it. In that link (from the BBC), it also talks about how the government largely ignored the attacks.

Incredible. It's obvious that Clinton has a large share of the blame, yet you -- a partisan -- refuse to admit it, and in the process look stupid.

I have a question for you, now: Why do you always ask others to cite sources, yet you don't cite them yourself?

I'm being dense because I got confused? Um... Okay? Nice avoiding the argument and directly attacking me.

How is it obvious that Clinton has a large share of the blame? Because it's not his job to deal with terrorists? And he expects the people in charge of dealing with terrorists to do their jobs?

The CIA and the FBI are the ones that deal with terrorists, not presidents. Presidents are there to sign policies, and to boss people around.



They didn't do their job eh? The BBC just conformed that they have. Are they liars now?

Exactly! You asked me for something, I gave it to you, then you acted like you had no idea what I was doing. That is dense.



Yet Bush is still to blame? You're setting yourself up left and right.



Nope! However, you blatantly took that out of context. First of all, the entire article was explaining that we did not react enough to the attack. Second, if you read the following sentence, you'll see this:



It then continues to explain how we did not correctly react, and how the US continued to underestimate Al Qaeda and their strength. That was quite a dishonest move, there.


You're out of your league, buddy.