Pissed off, whiney-ass muslims

Quote:
Originally Posted by spike
Obviously 15-20 Iraqis is not a sampling good enough to make the claims he did. So yes, links to real evidence are needed.

Gato:
So when are you going to go there and see for yourself, since my sampling is not good enough? Perhaps you like to rely too much on other's work to form your opinion. Of course, that would require something you don't have, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

But how could he beleive them even???

it's like the child who always asks 'Why?' ...

I am curious Spike old boy :) - what thus then constitutes 'real evidence'??

Sure, we can all (and do! ;) ) take anything Gato says with a pinch of salt :D (j/k) ..but then, the same can be said all round ... to my mind someone on the ground is first person and has a certain validity - how much (as you drag out in each and every post) is to a degree a valid point ... but in the end what IS valid 'real' evidence???

Like the insistent child that continually asks why? - a search for pure 'real' evidence is pointless ultimately- take on board other's views and filter it into your own ideas, or not ... :shrug:

and let's all move on outta this 'ere particular rut.
 
Blog...another blog...Photo op...my personal experiences...plus all the stories I posted off of the news wire while I was deployed mean nothing to spike because they are obviously lies meant to dupe the ignorant, but he refuses to go over and see for himself. When confronted with this, I become a janitor or a fool. I was done arguing with him, but you do bring up an interesting point...What constitutes 'real' evidence?

Biggest Hassle - High-ranking visitors. More disruptive to work than a rocket attack. VIPs demand briefs and "battlefield" tours (we take them to quiet sections of Fallujah, which is plenty scary for them). Our briefs and commentary seem to have no affect on their preconceived notions of what's going on in Iraq. Their trips allow them to say that they've been to Fallujah, which gives them an unfortunate degree of credibility in perpetuating their fantasies about the insurgency here.
Click to expand...

The last quote is from here. ;)

And, finally, the news you never see...
 
spike said:
They did.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Right. You'll pardon me as I remain singularly unconvinced of that fact. As I've stated earlier, polls are notoriously easy to bias. You might want to look up the last Quebec referendum. 80% of the legal time was spent .... ensuring that the question posed actually said "do you want to separate" instead of the mumbo jumbo the separatist party was trying to slip past. And this is in a literate, first world nation, not illiterate third world camel herders.

(take a minute and think about the first thing that popped into your head when you read 'camel herders'. You've just been 'directed'. That's how easy it is. Have a nice day)
 
Poll after poll says quebecers want to separate from Canada. 30 years, 2 referendums and they're still here.
 
Quebecers? Hell no. If they did separate, they'd have noone to whine about, and they'd have to start blaming themselves. The fastest way to stop quebecers from talking separation is to suggest that they might actually succeed.
 
Professur said:
Quebecers? Hell no. If they did separate, they'd have noone to whine about, and they'd have to start blaming themselves. The fastest way to stop quebecers from talking separation is to suggest that they might actually succeed.
Click to expand...

Careful. His poll is les biased than yours. After all...even though he's probably never been to Quebec, those polls tell him all he needs to know. :rolleyes:
 
I suppose if you just asked 15 Quebecers with a gun in your hand you'd know everything about everything. :rolleyes:
 
I'm not getting between you two love birds. I'll stick to tossing popcorn at you both from the sidelines, thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top