SudsyFist

Sometimes I want to have sex. With another person, that is.

Yes. Fortunately we're not talking about blister agents. You were arguing against the potential categorization of white phosphorus as a WMD by identifying properties allegedly unique to white phosphorus (vs. WMD). All I did was mention a WMD that has the same properties you identified as absolving white phosphorus from the being categorized as such; your argument as a canteen would leave you very thirsty.

Some blister agents pass this test with flying colors.

I'll let everyone else dispute the issues in the rest of your post, but I'll tackle this one: No, it is not.

What the hell is honorable about striking someone who says something with which you don't agree? What the hell is honorable about hitting "little dipshits trying to have a good time"? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1914494#1914494 It was a mosh pit -- most folks push or throw, rather than hit (saves on medical bills). I just tend to do so more effectively. On a side note, I went to a death metal concert in Hollywierd on Sunday night... now *that* was a pit!!!

What the hell is honorable about striking someone who says something with which you don't agree? Whoa...hold on there. When did I ever say anything about that. You want to disagree with me, go ahead all damn day. I have no problem with that. You want to insult the honor of my deceased friend to my face, that's a different story. That's not a disagreement, that's a verbal assault. That's someone saying something. Words. Fucking words. If you react emotionally to someone's words, that's *your* problem, no matter how rude or provocative those words are. And your attempt at justifying responding to words with physical harm with the label, "assault," is weak, at best. Allowing your emotional reaction to words to drive you to physical violence deprives you of the very honor which you boast about defending. It's got nothing to do with justice or what someone deserves; it's just a petty excuse for your lack of self-control. Sad, it is.

What the hell is honorable about striking someone who says something with which you don't agree?

I figure all I need is a lobotomy and some tights.

*shaking head* Violence begets more violence. You do nothing but cause more harm with such an attitude. Try some Kant. It goes down well with a swig of humility.

The Swiss have tweakers, too?

White phosphorus is to napalm as high-explosive fragmentation rounds are to cannonballs. No shit, the difference is night and day.

Not to derail the thread, but that's precisely the kind of attitude I wouldn't want to see a CCW permit holder to display. Kinda hurts the cause, ya know?

If this is their only use of white phosphorus as a weapon (EDIT: in an antipersonnel context), then I see no problem with it. But he said this earlier in the article: That's so fucked. Spirit vs. letter of the law. Fucked. I'd rather be hit with VX. I've thought about this a lot since Trent brought it up in another thread, and I could come up with only one strategic value (note, no tactical value) for the employment of white phosphorus as an incendiary anti-personnel weapon over other, more conventional options, particularly in the urban warfare environment we have in Iraq: Terror.

Did noone else get this? That was the awesomest post I've seen today!

No prob. It happens to all of us at times. Thanks for the link.

When have I discounted your sources? I don't even know who they are. I don't remember having done so, myself, but it's hardly a liberal, conservative, or sadomasochistic tactic. If you're engaged in any sort of debate, and you bring up information to support your position, your source needs to be credible. If it isn't, then it's not going to be taken seriously. Would you accuse John Rich of employing liberal tactics if he scoffed at someone's using editorial quotes from a viciously anti-gun web site in support of their arguments in his threads? (Disclaimer: John, I'm not picking on you.) I was talking about 6th grade, dude. And I think you're mistaken about what I think; it's ludicrous to consider that one's self is smarter than an entire group of anonymous people. Why are you attacking me, anyway? Oh, and I don't play that liberal/conservative game. I don't watch football, either. EDIT: Spelling.

Oh, I'm sorry, but where I got my meager (EDIT: 6th grade) education, I was taught then when I quoted a source, I should cite the source. Perhaps I was being a bit overbearing in expecting the same from you.

If it is just repression then why not back the free elections in iraq instead of pushing to pull out of Iraq and freeing SH to come back to power.... why were the iraqi's not doing this in SH's iraq. Are you saying they were free then? First, note that in the text of mine which you bolded, I listed several potential factors. Second, note that many stories are coming back with soldiers deployed to the area that describe support for the regime change, and support for the elections. So not everyone in Iraq is against it, and I'm sure that not everyone is polar/binary about it (strongly against or for), but there's rather a spectrum of complex feelings. Among those feelings include the fact that a foreign, seemingly imperialistic nation has invaded their country, killed their neighbors and family members, and is attempting to setup a government that's more conducive to their influence not only on their soil, but across the whole area. I bet some of those people take that as some serious provocation. And that's regardless of whether they were Muslim or gay hippies. The problem is Muslims clerics and their followers. You do not see mormons or methodists doing this. Excellent. We're making progress. We also do not see Mormons or Methodists in the position of many of the people in the Middle East, now do we? it does not fit, it was not the masons or the DNC doing this. It was muslim clergy... "Muslim clergy" is just a superset of some of those who are directing (or otherwise influencing) terrorist activity, just as "religious leaders" are a superset even higher up the chain. That's my point. It wasn't the Masjid Al-Ansar mosque here in San Diego making this happen. Nor was it the El Farouq mosque in Houston. So there's something much more specific than "Muslim clergy" involved here. But if you stick to using such a broad categorization of the source of these attacks, then you're just as guilty of unfairly propagating hurtful stereotypes as one who would accuse religion, itself. Dig deeper. There's so much more to this than what meets the casual eye. Wrong. I'm not assuming that it's because they're repressed. See above. Further, I contest your argument that it's clergy who are training them. Perhaps in some cases, yes, but there are a number of training scenarios that occur out there, some of which are organized, whereas others of which are rather impromptu. Are some Muslim clergy supporting the attacks? Without a doubt. Does that mean that there's clearly violence inherent in Islam that's to blame? Not at all. For every story of Muslim violence, there are hundreds (or more) of charity. But those don't make Western news very often. Consider guns in the news. Islam just doesn't have a John Rich here to help us see more of the story. The fact is that one of the most effective ways to influence people is to use religion. It's a direct channel to the deepest depths of the faithful's motivations. Use it. Twist it. Fuck with their heads. And they'll abandon even conscientiousness for you with interminable faith. Fuck, how this kind of manipulation pisses me off. It's not just used in the Middle East. It's not just used in times of desperation or threat. You'll find it right in your own backyard. I can't even count the number of church-going Christians I know who don't follow politics at all, yet went to the polls to cast their votes for Bush *both* times. And what was their reason? "He's God's man for the job."

Please link to your sources. I'd rather respond to your posts when authenticity and credibility are not in question. Thanks.

Oh, I'm sorry. Between the, "horseshit," "fucking," and other expletives, I may have inadvertently got the idea you may use an occasional double contraction. Please forgive me for my insolence. Sorry again. Didn't get that signal; perhaps it was drowned out by all the drooling and lip-smacking over the cakes and ices. XX? Check. Vagina? Check. Bitches when you don't pay enough or pay too much attention? Check.

Keep mentioning? What are you talking about? You *asked* me! Hence my aforementioned mention of "extreme fringe."

Much Better! - DISCREET and to the point! You know Fine Sudsy Style when you see it!

XX? Check. Vagina? Check. Bitches when you don't pay enough or pay too much attention? Check.

*blinking* You neglected to mention how you oh-so-coyly asked me, "You hate fatties, don'tcha?" to which I responded in the affirmative, but also noting that the criteria are largely subjective, and I'm largely on the extreme fringe. After my pointing this out, you then asked me whether I thought you were fat. ENTRAPMENT! You don't need to excuse yourself, silly; your spare tire is not the least bit offensive.

Fixed. For some reason, I figured the URL would be self-explanatory...