The Official Syria (and all things about it) Thread

[Souriya Al-Assad]

He's attacking an argument. You're attacking the poster. He's doing the right thing. You ain't. It's as simple as that.

To a 3 three year old who can't read, perhaps.

Thank you

You see why it is pretty much impossible for either you or him to admit their wrong even if, as you believe, you two are correct?

No matter what truths are launched at you, you will constantly try to refute them. You and Hardcore Conservatives have a lot in common.

Ah yes, lets bring the two-party farce rhetoric into our discussions. Whence in fact I oppose both of these.

Your flaw, is that most of what you are saying is blinding extreme "patriotism", the sort that is "exceptionalism", the sort that Putin rightfully refuted.

Your argument is basically, "You cannot argue against us, bashing Russia non-stop is the most important task of a 'patriot' lols! Kthxbai!". I have made a concise post not too long ago refuting your manner of thinking, which as I have noticed has been explicitly ignored.

My point is, some justify bashing against Russia non-stop, then pretend that they are in fact on the defencive, as if they do not bash Russia enough, whilst completely utterly circumvent debate whence one points out the colonialist, as well as neo-colonialist madness of our leaders, in addition to the far worse, far greater suffering as well as death they unleashed in both said eras, the latter era still being existential today. (As for the former, in Belgian Congo alone tens of millions met brutal barbaric deaths under King Leopold, per example. As for the latter, in another example per se, the UNITA faction our governments supported slaughtered 500 000 - 1 000 000 Angolan civilians, brutally plundered the nation's economy then left it into a quagmire cesspool that it still is today, that the Angolan government is having serious difficulties facing.)

Its borderline insanity, one that I frown upon. You wrongfully believe Russia is not "criticised" enough, however you completely ignore how our Western governments do not actually get the rightful scrutinising they should have been receiving for decades by now. Scrutinisation by the way, which if done properly as well as massively, especially at making sure we kept our elites in line, would have stopped much suffering on all fronts, both in colonialism as well as the World Wars, then from there onwards in the neo-colonialist front, mostly pushed through by our private sector elites, whom effectively control our corruptible spineless politicians.

[The Godly Nations]

It is always a good sign of things to come when you decide to correct your opponent's grammar in the first line.

It is, it displays my opponent's incompetence in English.

You haven't.

I have. Saying that I haven't really doesn't change the fact that I, indeed, have done so. Is there any misrepresentation of your point- you continually claim that there is, but have yet to provide any argument that doesn't vindicate my position.

You an try harder than that, the only advantage you can try and pull at this point is humor, otherwise you're simply stating inane pointless facts.

If they are inane and pointless, the one thing that can't be denied is that they are facts, whereas you continually lie about your position then repeat that same position within the span of a single sentence.

It's also important to note that who have now changed your original contention from me implying "America, love it or leave it" to "America, if you don't love it, why are you even here?"

No, you clearly said 'America, if you don't love it, why are you even here?' which is basically of the same substance as 'America, love it or leave it'.

I am into inaccuracy, which through clear partisanship and personal bias you appear not to be a fan of.

Fixed. After all, being accurate means contridicting your own position in the span of less than three posts and saying that you said something beside what you actually and clearly said, right?

As is the majority of NSG, including Shofercia.

So, the majority of NSG have been wrong on that specific point, what of it?

I suppose it is if you completely mutilate both the meaning and the wording.

I suppose that if you think so, you are a toddler who can't read.

You quite often like to paint out my argument as something it is not. None of what I said has anything to do with love, it has to do with hate. Since I believe Shof hates the majority of the US government and its actions, why would he stay here through choice, when the rarely criticized Russian government is often praised and defended.

So, with a bit of word juggling, you have said exactly what I claim you said, and what I point out to be chauvinistic nonsense which silence all criticism in the form of 'Why are you in America if you hate America so much?' or 'America, love it or leave it', which both means same thing.

If you are going to resort to this buffoonery you may as well just concede.

But Siby, your constant denial of what you actually said, as well as your hopelessly inept responces are far greater buffoonery. Shouldn't you, then, concede?

[Sibator]

Ah yes, lets bring the two-party farce rhetoric into our discussions. Whence in fact I oppose both of these.

Pretty sure that point was clearly made.

Your flaw, is that most of what you are saying is blinding extreme "patriotism", the sort that is "exceptionalism", the sort that Putin rightfully refuted.

I have criticized the American government before. Many of my peers consider my political far too-left wing for their taste, and my disdain for things such as the "under God" in the Pledge for Allegiance has garnered me criticism.

I am not "blindly patriotic."

Your argument is basically, "You cannot argue against us, bashing Russia non-stop is the most important task of a 'patriot' lols! Kthxbai!". I have made a concise post not too long ago refuting your manner of thinking, which as I have noticed has been explicitly ignored.

I never said you can't argue against the US. I stated doing so and then constantly defending and praising Russia is idiotic.
In my very first post, for fuck's sake, stated the exact opposite as you claim. The reason I "ignored" your post is I didn't see it, considering these posts have been spanning entire pages.

I will try to respond shortly.

My point is, some justify bashing against Russia non-stop,

Which I do not.

then pretend that they are in fact on the defencive, as if they do not bash Russia enough, whilst completely utterly circumvent debate whence one points out the colonialist, as well as neo-colonialist madness of our leaders.

You ideological drivel here does not even connect to your main point.

Its borderline insanity, one that I frown upon. You wrongfully believe Russia is not "criticised" enough,

No, I don't. I actually believe there is too common a stereotype among Americans that paint Russians as jingoistic Communists. I believe among Americans it Is criticized quite enough, I also believe Shof doesn't.
however you completely ignore how our Western governments do not actually get the rightful scrutinising they should have been receiving for decades now.[/quote]
You haven't been on this forum long have you? Because they do.

I do believe among American conservatives they aren't, but neither I nor Shof are American conservative.

[The Godly Nations]

Sibator, Sibator, Siby, if criticism of our government is that offensive to you, why do you live in America, a country that, theoretically, should be unamiable to you? Shouldn't you seek climate more suited to your constitution? A place where all criticism and opposition are silenced?

[Wytenigistan]

Why?

He is Atlas.

I am who now? Anyway, I've explained myself. If you want to contest what I've said, be my guest.

[The Godly Nations]

He is Atlas.

I am who now? Anyway, I've explained myself. If you want to contest what I've said, be my guest.

But Assad is a terrible and evil person.

[New Chalcedon]

It is always a good sign of things to come when you decide to correct your opponent's grammar in the first line.

It is, it displays my opponent's incompetence in English.

No, it displays your petty fixation on tangential points.

[Wytenigistan]

He's attacking an argument. You're attacking the poster. He's doing the right thing. You ain't. It's as simple as that.

To a 3 three year old who can't read, perhaps.

Thank you

You see why it is pretty much impossible for either you or him to admit their wrong even if, as you believe, you two are correct?

No matter what truths are launched at you, you will constantly try to refute them. You and Hardcore Conservatives have a lot in common.

You've done nothing but attack anything but his argument the entire time. I am starting to wonder if you are being serious. Stop insulting people and making false assumptions about them. This thread is supposed to be about what is going on in Syria, not Shof's opinion on the US vs his opinion on Russia.

[Wytenigistan]

I am who now? Anyway, I've explained myself. If you want to contest what I've said, be my guest.

But Assad is a terrible and evil person.

lol yeah, I forgot Assad is the embodiment of pure evil, worse than Hitler, and likes to eat babies for breakfast and the rebels are all model world citizens who can do nothing wrong. I'm sorry, my bad.

[Wytenigistan]

It is, it displays my opponent's incompetence in English.

No, it displays your petty fixation on tangential points.

Not if he addresses their argument as well.

[Sibator]

Shofercia is only doing what we as Westerners should actually do more often.

Not really.

Putin exists as a necessary counter to the jingoistic behaviour of our elites,

The whole "balance of power" diplomatic policy was disproven in the 1800s when the world powers both exploited the intermediary states.

whether you like him or not,

I don't.

this is the most important reason why its necessary that Moscow take strong foreign policy stances.

They should but not for the reason you describe.

Now into the context of this thread. Is it hegemonic in character? No.

Not institutionally, and it hasn't been trying to since it knows it won't be achieving much. Russia has handed that torch to China.

Is its relation with Syria unequal? Definitely not.

Syria needs Russia. Russia doesn't need Syria.

Indeed, the Syrian-Russian relationship, as well as the Syrian-Iranian one, has been compared to, by persons on either side of these two exchanges, an exquisite, well off mutual marriage.

A marriage where one spouse owns all the money and property.

Russia threatened to leave the Middle East completely if it lost Syria as an ally. Is this the hegemonic behaviour you would expect? No.

Not from a power that has neither wanted nor needed to do so.

Both nations are sincerely very good allies, have been in this special relationship for decades. Do not expect that to end sometime soon.

Russia is not doing it out of the goodness of its heart. To claim so is as valid as claiming the American intervention is the same.

Furthermore, Russia, China, Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Belarus, Algeria, amongst a plentiful of others are all nations very much crucially needed for their strong stances against neo-colonialism.

Because brutally devastating lands that want independence(Russia), literally invading other sovereign nations and annexing them(China), launching threats about invasion that piss off not only the West but also China(DPRK), and the supporting said actions (Cuba, Venezuela) are very much so "anti-colonialist."

Its because of them, that our elites have not gone a step over board to completely go on an insane rampage of neo-colonialism.

It is a combination of that and the fact that the public wouldn't support it. And of course, because not all politicians lack a conscience, as you seem to claim, while turning around and declaring your idols as role models.

Their counter-policing is a necessary balance, a necessary contribution to a paradigm shift in favour of an egalitarian, multi-polar world

A world where intermediary states are oppressed by both sides is not a world that is wanted.

where all nations equally hold a strong voice without being on top of the other.

Monaco should not and can not have as strong a voice as Sweden.

Without these above nations, as well as numerous others, Syria would have been bombed, Balkanised, as well as utterly blown into failed-state oblivion,

That's rather arguable, because had the FSA been supported from the start, much of the radicals would not have gotten a chance to join.

ruled by sectarianised-genocidal insurgent tyrannical Emirs.

Compared to the genocidal Assad.

Without these above nations, far more destabilisation conflicts would have emerged to keep Tri-Continental nations (Asia

China has doen an excellent job of that itself.

(including Russia & Eastern Europe),

You must have missed the part where the USSR brutally repressed Eastern Europe without the help of the West.

Africa

Which the West has shown relatively little interest in.

, Latin America) (as Che calls them) from ever being stable nor fully sovereign.

The USSR had done the same to West-leaning nations.

Far more wars in the false name of "spreading democracy" would arise,

You act as if this is unique to America pray tell, if the US didn't exist and only China were around, what do you think would happen?[/quote]

which to me is indeed reminiscent of the old-era "spreading civilisation" rhetoric

Except in most cases the people are actually oppressed. The question comes when it is wondered whether or not an intervention is effective.

(which unfortunately for humankind, said rhetoric is still being utilised by some extreme megalomaniacs today, such as that infamous pastor comparing the invasion & occupation of Iraq to being a 'necessary religious war', or Winston Churchill justifying utilising chemical weapons on 'uncivilised tribes' in a flagrantly racist reference to the Kurdish people).

You can hardly say Churchill's statement is "still used today".

Without the above nations I mentioned, we would see a renewal of the colonial era,

The same is true if the US disappeared.

in the form of corporations committing the abuses,

Corporations are not the universal boogeyman you make them out to be.

in the form of private military corporations

Which rarely exist outside of making the equipment the US uses.

(that however would not be too different from the East India companies of old) spreading chaos wherever they wish for profit,

You contradicted yourself here, because corporations don't have the power to do that. It would be dependent on the US government sanctioning it.

as well as in the utter form of financial giants leeching the bloody hell out of Tri-Continental nations in unequal agreements for loans (IMF, World Bank).

Then they shouldn't agree to the loans. I don't necessarily support those institutions, but many nations you fuck their budget over have wasted it on nonsense. Including the United States.

It has not gone this far, to the bloodiest extent just yet, because of people like Putin.

All you need for such a being is Russia to exist. No one really believes Russia should be wipe doff the map. You are fetishizing him for his role, when he could be much better while still fulfilling the role.

However they cannot do that (maintaining a multi-polar balance) on their own, its also up to us Western civilians to speak out in favour of a multi-polar balance, as well as keeping the roving actions of neo-liberal/neo-conservative idealists in check.

They largely are 9% of the population supported intervention.

[Sibator]

To a 3 three year old who can't read, perhaps.

You see why it is pretty much impossible for either you or him to admit their wrong even if, as you believe, you two are correct?

No matter what truths are launched at you, you will constantly try to refute them. You and Hardcore Conservatives have a lot in common.

You've done nothing but attack anything but his argument the entire time. I am starting to wonder if you are being serious. Stop insulting people and making false assumptions about them. This thread is supposed to be about what is going on in Syria, not Shof's opinion on the US vs his opinion on Russia.

I will admit it is threadjacking, but all they have done is try and point fallacies at me without any form of substance.

[The Godly Nations]

It is, it displays my opponent's incompetence in English.

No, it displays your petty fixation on tangential points.

It is hardly petty, since his ineptitude may hold the key as to why he continues to contridict himself over and over again, within the span of a single sentence.

[Sibator]

Sibator, Sibator, Siby, if criticism of our government is that offensive to you, why do you live in America, a country that, theoretically, should be unamiable to you? Shouldn't you seek climate more suited to your constitution? A place where all criticism and opposition are silenced?

I refuse to continue to argue with you if you keep making that assertion. If you can't get it over your head that isn't what I believe, then there is no hope of convincing you.

[Sibator]

No, it displays your petty fixation on tangential points.

It is hardly petty, since his ineptitude may hold the key as to why he continues to contridict himself over and over again, within the span of a single sentence.

It is rather petty, or the continuing shrink in the size of your arguments show you are rather beginning to acknowledge, at least to yourself, that you have lost.

At least pointing out logical fallacies can be constructive when they are actually there. Correcting grammar shows you are desperate to hit where you can, because you aren't confident with the main material of your argument.

[The Godly Nations]

But Assad is a terrible and evil person.

lol yeah, I forgot Assad is the embodiment of pure evil, worse than Hitler, and likes to eat babies for breakfast and the rebels are all model world citizens who can do nothing wrong. I'm sorry, my bad.

Yes, he may be less evil than Hitler, but that does not make him a nice person worthy of being support, just as the rebels are not all good people, but it may be that they are less bad than Assad.

[Evraim]

Of course. And in terms of Rwanda, I completely agree with you, I'll just add that the thing that made Rwanda feasible, is that the US had the power to carry out an intervention with an over 90 percent chance of success. I'm played through the Rwanda Sim, I can get you the details on it if you like. So if there's clear evidence of massive Human Rights Violations and if the intervention will do much more good than harm, one should intervene. Rwanda is the posterboy example of that.

In this case, I take it that you believe the intervention would not be successful. I would disagree, depending on the sort of intervention and the manner in which it is executed. A full-scale war may be out of the question, due to the squeamishness of the general public and the reluctance of national governments to engage in an endeavor so fraught with risk. A strike, on the other hand, might humble the Syrian government somewhat, and Assad needs some humility. Brazen flouting of international law should not be tolerated.

Of course, whatever decision or lack thereof that they eventually embrace will have consequences. We may decide that Putin isn't just throwing up rhetoric, which seems likely, since we want to believe that an intervention may not be necessary. Getting a despot to give up his toys would please the less passionate persons concerned with this affair, but it won't stop the killing. Not that it will necessarily matter to anyone who isn't under the scope of a loaded gun.

What do you believe should be done, Shof? I suspect you would prefer to preserve Assad's governance in preference to that of the rebels, many of whom claim allegiance to a theocratic ideology, at least so long as it remains convenient to do so. Do you think Putin will deliver on his promises to the United States, or is he stalling?

So, as long as it is one-sided enough, it is a strike. In that case, Israel is having a strike against the Palestinians.

Israel has performed strikes against the Palestinian governments in the past. However, it has also made war against those institutions. Why? Because the Palestinian militants have been able to respond to the Israeli military operations with operations of their own, inflicting significant casualties on the aforementioned state's military population.

If our leaders have an iota of sense, they wouldn't go about bullying about other nations to their bidding and throwing a temper fit every time things don't go their way.

You mean compelling foreign governments to listen to heed international law and not murder civilians? I wouldn't consider that bullying. War is the continuation of policy through other means. Your characterization makes it seem as though there is no method to the American foreign policy, and you are sorely mistaken. Likewise, what does this have to do with not becoming an isolated state? Advocating the Monroe Doctrine, an old doctrine made for a different time, in a modern context is reckless, unenlightened, and detrimental to national and global welfare.

[Shofercia]

It could just be an inept attack, one that's too lame to be an insult.

Whatever makes make you get excited about yourself.

Rest assured, your posts only make me amused.

Ad Hominem is when you attack the poster, instead of the argument that he's making,

My entire argument as not been in the form of an insult or attack. My primary thesis had been in the form of a question, about why you were in America when, by the observation of your posting patterns, you so clearly view the government in such a negative light.

Why are you constantly attacking posters who don't fit your viewpoint, while playing the victim?

Hey look, my primary thesis is also in the form of a question. And for the umpteenth time, I don't view the government in a negative light. I criticize the government a lot more than I praise it on an online forum, because *gasps* I want to talk about things that need to be improved, rather than things that the government does well.

which is exactly what you did.

Except it wasn't.

Except it was.

Except you did. Otherwise, what was the point of your post? To inquire about why I'm not in Russia? Why not just ask that directly, and only that?

Because that would have in no way fed into the exact same argument you have been making about supposedly wishing that you leave, wouldn't it?

I argued about wishing to leave?

First, I don't criticize America at every opportunity.
I haven't see a bear shit in the woods. I'm fairly certain they do it. But if you even managed to read my posts in this very thread, you'd be able to find some positive things that I've said about Obama. And America

I'm sure you can. of course, such posts are either A. defending Russia in the same breadth or B. going on to criticize them at the same time.

How about an entire thread that shows that you are continuously bullshitting about me?

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=202936

Don't you ever get tired of bullshitting about your fellow posters?

Referring to stereotypes doesn't mean hating the country.

No it's just offensive. If I started making stereotypes about Russians being drunks, you would most certainly make a stereotype in response or refute it.

Nope. I'd simply chalk that up to you bullshitting. Wouldn't even be a first.

You seem hellbent on attacking my credibility though, and you're doing an extremely poor job of it.

Of course you would say that, because admitting I'm correct you would mean all the time you've spent trying to refute my point with your worthless prattle would have been wasted.

You're not correct. There are two other posters here informing you that you are incorrect. But you must continue to attack me, since you cannot attack my arguments. Ironically, you are adhering to the stereotype of the ignorant Murikan that you're claiming I'm creating, with extreme perfection.

Interesting way to shift goalposts:

Quite interesting, considering I didn't.

You did! You claimed that I always paint Russia as innocent. I pointed out that Russia wasn't innocent in terms of Libya, and you bitched about me criticizing American being the World Force Police. That's a classic goal post shift. You need to understand that.

You: "I just want to point out you zealously defend Russia and her actions at almost every opportunity"
Me: "when Russia failed by inaction in Libya, I criticized Russia too."
You, shifting goalposts to promote your extraordinarily biased an pathetic attack against me: "And immediately proceeded to rail on America"

I suppose to someone who can't quite comprehend English this would be true. But had you read my first post clearly enough to see more than blurry line you would have noticed you admit that Russia has done bad actions, and then immediately rail against America and/or Russia's enemies. I mean for fuck's sake, are you even trying? This was in my first post.

America is not Russia's enemy. Additionally, in the thread where I admitted that Gulags, Purges and Collectivization were bad, I didn't immediately rail against America. Rather, I praised FDR. Now can you please stop bullshitting about your fellow posters, Sibator?

Did you think I wouldn't catch that giant goal post shift?

I had assumed you do not see things that don't exist.

Is English your first language? I have to ask, because what you did was a blatant goal post shift, so maybe something that I'm saying is simply lost in translation. Again:

You claimed that I always paint Russia as innocent. I pointed out that Russia wasn't innocent in terms of Libya, and you bitched about me criticizing American being the World Force Police. That's a classic goal post shift. You need to understand that.

"Your Honor, my opponent is an extraordinarily biased piece of shit. I'm not insulting him, just referring to his posting habits"

If your attempt at completely misrepresenting my argument in this line was your goal, it was a complete success.

Since your first post here, you've been trying to paint me as biased, something that Bill O'Rielly does on Faux News quite often. I call a spade, a spade. That's not misrepresentation. It's the truth.

Have you tried a career in comedy? You'd be quite good at it.

I would most likely do quite a bit better then the shity sarcastic tone you have been launching at me.

Ahhh yes, the good old "I'm here to paint other posters as biased, while completely ignoring their actual argument, oh noes, why are they being mean to me?!" card. I've been waiting for you to play it again. It's not having any effect, but keep on playing it, as that amuses me.

You might want to work on your arguing skills. If you're placing two opposite arguments in the same quote, you aren't succeeding. You are doing what the FSA is doing, and I believe the technical term for that is "failing". Miserably so.

I advice you take some of your own pills doctor, cause I don't follow the advise of doctor's who don't know what they're talking about. You have not even refuted a single thing I've said in those post, and have now entirely focused on trying to misrepresent my argument. Literally, every line up to this point as been exactly that.

You don't have an argument. You have an attack. The goal of your attack is to paint me as extremely biased. You failed. You've been called out on that. Numerous times. By numerous posters. And yet you boldly continue advancing towards failure. Again, it's very ironic. You claim that I stereotype Americans as ignorant, and yet, in this very thread, you're doing everything you can to personify that stereotype. Thankfully, I know better.

As for your nonsensical claim, they don not contradict. Were you following Russia hook- line and sinker, you would never, ever criticize Russia. For instance, apologists do not have to agree with everything their government tells them, but they will always paint it in a positive light.

I've painted the Russian Government in a negative light in regards to Libya, anti-LGBT bill, EG, the Serdyukov Scandal, etc. Once again facts trump your bullshit. Now, can you please stop bullshitting about your fellow posters, Sibator, and focus on the thread's topic?

An extremely stupid and fallacious statement that's been disproved by facts in this very thread.

Except, it has not, and statements have been growing increasingly desperate. I would suggest you talk this out to someone, because you are really trying not to even stick to the discussion at this point.

Before you require others to adhere to the point, Sibator, you need a point. All you have are attack on your fellow poster. When are you going to stop that, Sibator?

"I'm going around forums, attacking posters instead of their arguments, and making shit up about them being biased, bawww, why are they so mean to me?!?!?!"

My first post was not hostile, and if it was perceived as so, you could have simply pointed it out and I would have apologized for it for hostility not intentioned. But instead, you decided to being launching insults right out of the gate, and you get what you receive.

It was.

Are you trying to flamebait me here?

No, if you are feeling anger, it is probably the result of the hostility that you basically asked for.

Is being inconsistent in every post a requirement of the stereotype that you're trying to adhere to? I asked if you were trying to bait me, and you responded "no", and then informed me that I asked you for it.

"Did you attack this guy?"
"No, Your Honor, he got what he received, since he asked me for it!"

As I said earlier, most amusing.

You shouldn't be certain about anything when it comes to me, considering that were just proven dead wrong about me. So please, stop making up bullshit about others, and then playing the victim card. It's getting truly pathetic.

Of course I can't, nothing I judged you by has been from anything but what you have publicly stated.

All you have been doing is spitting shit at me in a desperate and futile attempt to cover the flaws in your own argument. Honestly, if anything here is pathetic, and it has been your statements.

Please show me a single argument that I made in this thread that has flaws that you've actually addressed? Because all you're doing here so far is running around going "bawww, Shof is like superbiased in my opinion, and I'm going to make outlandish and ridiculous claims that he can easily rebut with examples!"

To show that I view Putin and Obama in an equal light on certain issues, which completely destroys your absurd claim about me. I expected you to miss that, and you lived up to my expectations.

Except, I never stated you did. Your post included the post about supporting Putin, which was completely pointless and trite considering what I have been arguing.

Yeah, you did. You claimed that I always support Russia's Government, which you then changed to not always, and then to always again, thus living up to the stereotype that accused me of creating, and always oppose America's Government, as part of your bullshitting about fellow posters program, Sibator. You do realize that both, Obama and Putin, represent their respective Governments, right?

How so?

Pretty much every "Fuck yeah America" stereotype you use insults American culture and many citizens.

So everytime someone watches South Park the movie, and repeats those quotes, they're insulting America's Culture. Once again, you're living up to the stereotype they portray. America, Fuck Yeah! I consider Matt Stone and Trey Parker as influences to American Culture. I'm sorry that you don't.

Pretty sure I do. I even had a thread on it. Not that I'd expect you to find it.

And in that thread, at what point to you admire anything about American culture or its people? I am fairly certain within that thread you criticize the obstructionism of Congress that leads to the mishandling of Obama's education policy. I am certain this thread is not only abut positives, and will backhand the institutional structure of the US government within the same breadth.

Well, considering the whole thread was about me praising California's Proposition Process... and that California is a state in America last time I checked...

Also, I criticized Congressional Obstructionism on Obama's Healthcare Reform, (which is a well known fact to most Americans,) not on Obama's Education Reform.

Really?

Yes, although you should stop looking so dumbfounded, since it will cause people to make assumptions.

My sarcastic apologies for preferring facts over assumptions.

I've never seen someone contradict themselves twice in their very own response. It's very unique.

I have also never seen someone so pathetically and desperately attempt to defend their argument like this, especially going so far as to see things that aren't there.

I'm not defending arguments. I'm pointing out that bullshit that you made up about me, Sibator, is actual bullshit. I think it's important that you comprehend that.

Since you apparently need to take remedial English classes, allow me to point out what that means. When you paint Russia out in an innocent light, you are improving their position. You can still criticize them, but usually it only follows positions that extremely unsupportable, and even then you focus the hatred and hostility on the enemy's actions. In the very argument, you constantly mentioned the Nazi prison camps, claiming(I do not necessarily disagree) that they were worse than the Gulags.

I believe that you are the one who needs to take English classes, since the term "innocent" means "not guilty". Thus if Stalin is guilty, he cannot be innocent. Additionally, I only mentioned Nazi Death Camps in an argument of who was worse, Stalin v Hitler. In a thread about the crimes of Stalin, I didn't need to mention Hitler's crimes, since you know, I prefer to talk about the OP, instead of bullshitting about my fellow posters, unlike you, Sibator.

You may ask.

At what age did you move here?

I said you may ask. I did not say that I'll answer.

Indeed. I do not reside in a bomber's cockpit.

Nor do you reside outside California.

Indeed.

Bible thumping? How do you... even remotely... whatever.

Why else would you mention Fox News without trying to paint me out as that caricature?

Because, just like Bill O'Rielly on Faux News, you're attacking your fellow debater with bullshit arguments, instead of talking about the actual issues.

Your initial post. Would you like me to repost it?

Go right ahead, seeing as how nothing in my post goes in line with much of anything you have claimed.

Really?

You rarely make a post referencing America that isn't in negative or demeaning fashion. I'm not saying America doesn't deserve to be criticized or Russia doesn't deserve to have some of its actions defended, but its pretty much all you do with occasionally post defining Slavic culture and traditions. So, do you want to move back to Russia?

[Wytenigistan]

You've done nothing but attack anything but his argument the entire time. I am starting to wonder if you are being serious. Stop insulting people and making false assumptions about them. This thread is supposed to be about what is going on in Syria, not Shof's opinion on the US vs his opinion on Russia.

I will admit it is threadjacking, but all they have done is try and point fallacies at me without any form of substance.

By what measure? If you don't want people to do that to you, don't make stupid false assumptions about them. Now be a big boy and prove you can be the more mature person by getting back on topic.

[Sibator]

It is, it displays my opponent's incompetence in English.

Only if you opponent's wording is literally unreadable or painful to comprehend on a linguistic basis. When you use it as you do, it merely shows your desperation.

have. Saying that I haven't really doesn't change the fact that I, indeed, have done so.

No, you haven't. I am beginning to question whether your argument is even worth my time. You're obviously too entrenched in your position to see daylight, and at least Shofercia was the person I was directly referring to, along with delivering argument that are, albeit incorrect, both greater in substance and quality then yours.[/quote]

Is there any misrepresentation of your point- you continually claim that there is, but have yet to provide any argument that doesn't vindicate my position.

"I was simply wondering, for someone who hates America(at least the government) and loves the Russia one so much, is even here, when he could be there."

You continue to idiotically complain that you aren't misrepresenting my points. You are. This very sentence has me asking why he stays here when it appears he doesn't like it. It is logical not to stay places you dislike.

Just because you want the words to mean something else doesn't make it happen.

If they are inane and pointless, the one thing that can't be denied is that they are facts, whereas you continually lie about your position then repeat that same position within the span of a single sentence.

https://www.google.com/#q=definition+of+inane&spell=1

For someone you likes to criticize my English you sure do have a poor comprehension of it.

No, you clearly said 'America, if you don't love it, why are you even here?'

For the purpose of advancing the fucking argument, let's say I have.

which is basically of the same substance as 'America, love it or leave it'.

Prove it. One is a question, the other is an assertion.

Fixed. After all, being accurate means contridicting your own position in the span of less than three posts and saying that you said something beside what you actually and clearly said, right?

You are really grasping at straws by now aren't you?


Perhaps you should stop defending someone who has made the same argument you detest.


That was done already. Try harder, I mean if you going to say useless nonsense at least make it funny to the observer.


I already disproved the nonsense you have claimed earlier in this post.

[/quote][/quote]
I suppose it is hopeless to try and reason with you. You keep shouting nonsense even when confronted with fact after fact. Being a human I am certain I have contradicted myself at points, but not to the point you claim.

And honestly, your argument is really not worth my time when I can instead reply to Shof's.

[Sibator]

I will admit it is threadjacking, but all they have done is try and point fallacies at me without any form of substance.

By what measure? If you don't want people to do that to you, don't make stupid false assumptions about them. Now be a big boy and prove you can be the more mature person by getting back on topic.

"If you don't want people to shout bullshit, stop posting".

Honestly you shouldn't even try. Join another thread and learn to debate there. Then come back.

[The Godly Nations]

It is rather petty, or the continuing shrink in the size of your arguments show you are rather beginning to acknowledge, at least to yourself, that you have lost.

If my post continues to shrink, it is not because I have run out of argument, but that your make the same arguments, and I have already more than adequetly addressed them in my previous posts. The fact that you address nothing that I have said, and that you continue to repeat the thing that I claimed you said, while saying that you didn't say them seems to me a pointless endeavour and, ultimately, receding further and further from the original point (which is strange, given that your entire first post has nothing to do with Syria and everything to do with Shofercia and how he hates America). I have pointed out that the entire thing was simply chauvinistic nonsense, which is simply a form of the same discredited argument to silence all criticism by questioning the speaker's patriotism, what I termed the 'America, love it or leave it' argument. You simply tell me that I misrepresent your point, only to repeat the same thing. I had to repeat that again, and furnish examples within your own post to show that you clearly did say what I claimed you said, but you denied that and reiterated your point. If I corrected your grammar, it is not because I am losing the debate (given that repeating the same thing over and over does not constitute a debate), but that I hold you in utter contempt, and by correcting your grammar, I am showing that you may not have the ability to comprehend what is being said, nor do you have the ability to express yourself coherently.

At least pointing out logical fallacies can be constructive when they are actually there. Correcting grammar shows you are desperate to hit where you can, because you aren't confident with the main material of your argument.

If your argument is one giant fallacy, then pointing it out won't help- Shofercia has already pointed out that your argument against him is simply one giant Ad Hominem attack. You persist in it. I pointed out that you are simply rephrasing 'America, love it or leave it', you claim it means something else entirely. Having pointed it out, and you being unwilling to correct it, by correcting your grammar, I am doing you a faviour, if you seek to express your fallacious arguments, you may now do so with good English.

[Sibator]

No, it displays your petty fixation on tangential points.

Not if he addresses their argument as well.

No, it still does. He clearly referenced the argument afterwards.

[The Godly Nations]

By what measure? If you don't want people to do that to you, don't make stupid false assumptions about them. Now be a big boy and prove you can be the more mature person by getting back on topic.

"If you don't want people to shout bullshit, stop posting".

Honestly you shouldn't even try. Join another thread and learn to debate there. Then come back.

Good advice, maybe you should listen to it.

[The Godly Nations]

Not if he addresses their argument as well.

No, it still does. He clearly referenced the argument afterwards.

Am I petty and I can't argue against you, or do you admit that I do argue against you?