bjorn_skurj Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 The Knights Templar, one of the major forces in the Crusades, were alleged to not be as pious as one would think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baphomet My other point is that for us, Iraq is about oil, but for many Muslims, it's about religion, specifically a resumption of the Crusades that started with Zionism. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 You think the two are mutually exclusive? good god no...i was merely commenting on how i found it funny that in one thread our military actions are unequivocably 100% ('don't kid yourself!') all about oil (which i actually agree is the biggest reason for our presence there) and then in another thread they are based on a religious agenda. that said, i really do like the concept melding the two into a holy army of mindless pawns being duped/controlled by an sinister 'upper 10%' illuminati comprised of old dudes that probably look and act exactly like lex luthor in a quest for oil. somebody call stan lee! i agree w/ matt, there is a huge amount of grey here...however, to be fair, a lot of the statements comparing the us military to al qaeda are falling way outside said grey area. 'suicide missions that will take out large numbers of civilians' completely removes any shade of intent for the safety/survival of our soldiers and as few civilian casualties as possible. the level of disregard between one and the other makes the comparison extremely weak...and, much like the brouhaha last week w/ the hitler comparisons, the hyperbole adds a potential level of ire that can, IMO, shut down any level of intelligent debate and replace it w/ a fight instead. that's what i personally find makes it reckless or, at least, irresponsible...no shread of any intention of 'worthy and honest debate'. most of these threads seem to be about a place of commiseration than a hopefulness of dialogue or for people who enjoy arguing (present company included). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 good god no...i was merely commenting on how i found it funny that in one thread our military actions are unequivocably 100% ('don't kid yourself!') all about oil (which i actually agree is the biggest reason for our presence there) and then in another thread they are based on a religious agenda. that said, i really do like the concept melding the two into a holy army of mindless pawns being duped/controlled by an sinister 'upper 10%' illuminati comprised of old dudes that probably look and act exactly like lex luthor in a quest for oil. somebody call stan lee! i agree w/ matt, there is a huge amount of grey here...however, to be fair, a lot of the statements comparing the us military to al qaeda are falling way outside said grey area. 'suicide missions that will take out large numbers of civilians' completely removes any shade of intent for the safety/survival of our soldiers and as few civilian casualties as possible. the level of disregard between one and the other makes the comparison extremely weak...and, much like the brouhaha last week w/ the hitler comparisons, the hyperbole adds a potential level of ire that can, IMO, shut down any level of intelligent debate and replace it w/ a fight instead. that's what i personally find makes it reckless or, at least, irresponsible...no shread of any intention of 'worthy and honest debate'. most of these threads seem to be about a place of commiseration than a hopefulness of dialogue or for people who enjoy arguing (present company included). Caliber, Could you break this down to plain speakin' for an under-educated neocon? Thanks, JUDE Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Caliber, Could you break this down to plain speakin' for an under-educated neocon? Thanks, JUDEParagraph 1: jnickerson says on the one hand, the war is 100% about oil, then on the other, that it is also about religion. There cannot be more than 100%. That's science. Paragraph 2: MrRain's assessment of Bush's motivations is inaccurate and leaves no room for intelligent debate. Paragraph 3: JUDE smells like dysentery. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Linking Bush to Al-Qaeda is a piece of cake though. Hell, if Michael Moore can do it, anyone can! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PigSooie Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Paragraph 1: jnickerson says on the one hand, the war is 100% about oil, then on the other, that it is also about religion. There cannot be more than 100%. That's science. Paragraph 2: MrRain's assessment of Bush's motivations is inaccurate and leaves no room for intelligent debate. Paragraph 3: JUDE smells like dysentery. Thanks for clearing this up. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 But if he believes Bushco is evil, wouldn't he be an appeaser if he said any differently? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 good god no...i was merely commenting on how i found it funny that in one thread our military actions are unequivocably 100% ('don't kid yourself!') all about oil (which i actually agree is the biggest reason for our presence there) and then in another thread they are based on a religious agenda. that said, i really do like the concept melding the two into a holy army of mindless pawns being duped/controlled by an sinister 'upper 10%' illuminati comprised of old dudes that probably look and act exactly like lex luthor in a quest for oil. somebody call stan lee! i agree w/ matt, there is a huge amount of grey here...however, to be fair, a lot of the statements comparing the us military to al qaeda are falling way outside said grey area. 'suicide missions that will take out large numbers of civilians' completely removes any shade of intent for the safety/survival of our soldiers and as few civilian casualties as possible. the level of disregard between one and the other makes the comparison extremely weak...and, much like the brouhaha last week w/ the hitler comparisons, the hyperbole adds a potential level of ire that can, IMO, shut down any level of intelligent debate and replace it w/ a fight instead. that's what i personally find makes it reckless or, at least, irresponsible...no shread of any intention of 'worthy and honest debate'. most of these threads seem to be about a place of commiseration than a hopefulness of dialogue or for people who enjoy arguing (present company included).Then the answer, of course is to be pre-emptively reckless and over the top so you can obfuscate anyone's point with attacks and banter and double-talk because that is truly the way we'll have a hopeful dialogue. You are *so* altruistic. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Paragraph 1: jnickerson says on the one hand, the war is 100% about oil, then on the other, that it is also about religion. There cannot be more than 100%. That's science. Paragraph 2: MrRain's assessment of Bush's motivations is inaccurate and leaves no room for intelligent debate. Paragraph 3: JUDE smells like dysentery. What if one worships oil? .... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted July 9, 2008 Author Share Posted July 9, 2008 Paragraph 1: jnickerson says on the one hand, the war is 100% about oil, then on the other, that it is also about religion. There cannot be more than 100%. That's science. That Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I was merely distilling that other guy's argument.Let me know when it's distilled enough to drink. Will it mix with Kool-aid? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted July 9, 2008 Author Share Posted July 9, 2008 I was merely distilling that other guy's argument. Yes, by misstating what I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Yes, by misstating what I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 What if one worships oil? .... in the words of peak oil theorist, Mathew Savinar, we all do. don't let anybody tell you different. as far as the whole altruistic obfuscating banter and double-talk thing...no, i will not make out with you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 No, by clearly stating what he said. Take it up with El Famous. Easy for you to say hiding behind that alias, something about having enough sack... P.S. thanks for that clarification earlier. P.P.S. What does 'altruistic' mean? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 in the words of peak oil theorist, Mathew Savinar, we all do. don't let anybody tell you different. as far as the whole altruistic obfuscating banter and double-talk thing...no, i will not make out with you.... especially if you smell like JUDE. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 ... especially if you smell like JUDE. good one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I wonder if Skygod (The fake ones that we are all suckered into believing) and Groundgod (Matthew Savinar in disguise) are friends? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I smell like lavender and Goldbond. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I smell like lavender and Goldbond.And ass. Don't forget ass. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Act 1: topic of thread.Act 2: thread veers off course to discuss Hitler/Bush/God/SkygodAct 3: reasonable efforts at maintaining level headed discourseAct 4: reasonable efforts crash and burnAct 5: thread veers off course to discuss naked women/irrelevant posts/general snarkinessAct 6: thread dies or GoTo Act 3 and repeat. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Act 1: topic of thread.Act 2: thread veers off course to discuss Hitler/Bush/God/SkygodAct 3: reasonable efforts at maintaining level headed discourseAct 4: reasonable efforts crash and burnAct 5: thread veers off course to discuss naked women/irrelevant posts/general snarkinessAct 6: thread dies or GoTo Act 3 and repeat. This reads like the House Docket from the Federal Register Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Back on topic... would a just God allow this thread to continue? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Back on topic... would a just God allow this thread to continue? No, that's Act 2. You have to go to Act 3 or let the thread die. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.