IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Oh that is too good.
So, Bill Pathetic says that military training will enable people to detect terrorists.

What, specifically, about military training will do so?

A high school equivalence, no rap sheet, an understanding of the word >duty< maybe.
A high school equivalence.

You see, you can join the military even if you have a "rap sheet".

And an "understanding" of the word >duty<.

So, someone who manages to graduate high school is equiped to detect terrorists? Just because s/he knows what "duty" means?

Remember the other war over there? When some of our people died because they were too fucking STUPID to follow instructions and get to the shelter when the missle alert sounded?

Prior to exercises, I had to call up the WIVES of my troops to make sure their HUSBANDS had left them the checkbook (with enough money in the account) and emergency phone numbers.

I cannot begin to describe how stupid and irresponsible the average soldier is.

And you think that 6 weeks of Basic and some AIT is going to change that?

Remember the female pilot with the affair and her court-marshal? And she was college educated.

All military training means is that you can march, salute, know your chain of command and have fired an M16 under training conditions.

It does NOT make you a responsible individual.
(The platoon sergeant gets the calls to get the troops out of jail and when they've stopped paying the bills and for every other infraction.)

It does NOT make you an educated individual.

It does NOT make you a more aware individual.

It does NOTHING that will enable you to better detect terrorists.

If anything, the near constant indoctrination and propaganda would do the OPPOSITE.

Or aren't you aware of just who the airlines were entrusting your >life< to?
I KNOW who they have working security. The lowest bidder.

By way of comparision, I made $15K a year as E-6(p) after 7 years.

Pay attention to the phrase "lowest bidder".

Rather than believing in the magic of the military, why don't you join? Then you could see how stupid they are. Or, if you can't manage that, why don't you talk to people who were in and listen to the stories of stupidity from them.

If you can't find any friends, why don't you read about the problems that were reported with the military doing security in the airports just a few months ago. I know they were posted here.

Unfortunaltely for you...you seem to believe in some fantasy that the Fed will get something right...that complaining will work. Too late...everyone on the hill is in love with this new plan...its going to be implemented and the masses will >feel< safe.
You see, "The Fed" is us.

If you don't like the plan, write to your congress critter about it.

Have you?

I have.

Make sure you point out the flaws and recommend ways it could be improved.

This is the US government. There is no magic involved.

I don't like the plan.
Strange, you were defending it just a little while ago. My my my.

Just a few that will NEVER happen. And having those few NEVER happen will mean that any >plan< will only give the >illusion< of security.
Strange. You see, I pointed out how having those implemented would STILL not stop the attack.

But you DID use the word "ensure" in your statement.

Got a half dozen dead that would disagree. Nope...its not 3000...but its dead people as the result of terrorists and explosives.
Sorry, I was using the word "failed" as in "failed to achieve the terrorist's objective". They didn't do what they set out to do. They failed.

And...if you think the next attack will be planes I want what you're smoking.
I was illustrating the holes in your "logic". You need more illustration? NYC. Rush hour. A small plane (prop) with a guy tossing out pipe bombs as he flies along the streets.

Or, if that is too complicated for you, there are always Mexican airliners. Sure, the explosion wouldn't be as big as with a full fuel tank, but the terror would be maintained. And security in Latin America isn't as strict as in the US.

More? Does Saudi Arabia have it's own airline with stops in the US? Why yes they do. Even to NYC. Would it be simplier for a terrorist to just get a job as a pilot or co-pilot? Sure, it would take a few years to get in the right spot, but Allah doesn't care.

More? Well there are more, but I think I've made my point. Even when we KNOW we're vulnerable from aircraft, we STILL cannot defend ourselves.

Well, not with a plan as stupid as that one.

The point is that we CAN defend ourselves. Just as was outlined in that OTHER plan. But it will require that the US change it's policies and mindset.

Something that you have demonstrated is impossible for the average idiot to comprehend.

Rather than dealing with the problem, we'll just piss away our freedoms while knowing that we aren't any safer and that will be that because that's the way it is.

And anyone who disagrees with you is living in a fantasy.

Whatever.

You still haven't answered WHY Osama is targetting us.

#1. Know your enemy.

Besides...you brought up suicide bombers. Most of them use themselves (or a car) full of explosives.
And I file "hijackers who crash planes into buildings" as "suicide bombers".

And your point is? The explosives are used because it is the simplest method. You don't need to be particularly intelligent or adept to manage that.

Now, the problem they have is that there are a limited supply of those kind of people. Of course, more are born everyday. But we could practically dry up their supply in one generation.

Ever wonder why there are so few US citizens who become suicide bombers in the US? We have our fundamentalists. We have our poverty. We have fundamentalists in poverty. So, what is the difference? Why do we see so many in the mid-east but NONE in our mid-west?

Again, the root cause. Find that and you can end the supply of bomb carriers.

That will leave the few professionals. Which will have to be dealt with differently.
New That pretty much settles it...
Strange, you were defending it just a little while ago. My my my.
Where? Who's posts were you reading?

This is why I created the "strawman" login...so you could use it when you decide to invent my position.

There are quite a few other places in this post that also qualify...

So why don't you just log in and have your own discussion. It'll save me the time of posting things that you'll subsequently ignore or misstate.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Awww, are the facts too much for you?
Run away now.
New So when you make things up, they're facts???
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New You must provide support for you statement.
It isn't sufficient to start screaming "He's lieing! He's lieing!".

As when I was providing support for my position that you were resorting to strawmen and lies, I provided links to previous posts and compared the content there with the content in current posts.

You seem to believe that by mere shrill repetition your lies will be mistaken for facts.

But I've already established that you follow that pattern. Back when I established that your primary "debate" tactics were lies and strawmen.

And you continue to engage in them.

You want to call me a liar? That is your perogative.

You want to PROVE that I'm a liar? Well, that takes some linking.

Once again, I can provide links, you cannot. I can provide support, you cannot.
New Simple.
Show where I stated I was in favor of Bush's plan...or more precisely...where I >defended< it.

I can't link to something I never stated nor ever did.. yet you claim it to be so and I have already quoted the statement.

Beyond that, I have no interest in proving >anything< to you.

Once again, I can provide links, you cannot. I can provide support, you cannot.


Well...goody for you.


You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New And once again, you lie.
Show where I stated I was in favor of Bush's plan...or more precisely...where I >defended< it.
I didn't say that you said you supported it.

I said you supported it.

You said I was incorrect.

So I told you to clearly state that you didn't.

You had a problem with that.

You seem to be operating under some childish notion about what you say/don't say.

[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41703|here]

As for "supporting" it...

[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41640|here]

Or do you call it something else?

You're attempting to counter my points against it by linking to someone who counters my points against it.

But you don't support it?

Did you just feel the need to argue with me? If so, why?

Either you support the points of the person you linked to or you do not.

If you do, you support the plan.

If you do not, why did you link to them?
New Wow. There must be a new definition
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41782|Hmmm...I must have to use short,choppy sentences for you to actually get it.

I don't like the plan.

Short and choppy enough for you?]


I guess it wasn't short and choppy enough for you.

[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41646|Nope. But by you bringing it up, I'm going to guess that you support his position.]


That would be a >no<..excepting you never bother to ask...you just make up my position and then continue on your merry way. ID=strawman password=brandioch. If you want to fight with yourself...be my guest.

In addition...that post was a response to [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41637|this one] where you felt the urge to tell me you watched crossfire...without bothering to at least give a relevent snip...after I told you that Lieberman was just on Cspan telling the camera's that Bush's plan and his proposal were damn near the same.

That prompted a semantics rant on your part where you [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41704|claimed] to have ripped my position to shreds...because it was "bush's" actual plan instead of Lieberman's "really close" (his own words) plan.

Wow. You win. Rip me to shreds baby. Like it makes any difference.

And if calling Bob T an asshole means I support GW's plan....I've been a supporter of the plan since long before 9/11...since Bob's one of >my guys (NJ)< in Washington...and he >is< an asshole.

Like I said. You've created an all new definition of "lie". Funny how it now means the opposite of what you thought.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New No new definition. Look up "chronology".
You posted a link that was an attempt to refute my statements.

You refused to post that you didn't support it.

Later, after it became apparent even to you that this was an unsupportable plan, you changed your tune and decided to not support it anymore.

Otherwise, how do you explain that you posted a link to someone claiming that including animal control would protect our food supply from terrorists?

In addition...that post was a response to this one where you felt the urge to tell me you watched crossfire...without bothering to at least give a relevent snip...after I told you that Lieberman was just on Cspan telling the camera's that Bush's plan and his proposal were damn near the same.
No. I did not tell you that I watched crossfire. I got that off the CNN website.

As for your point about Lieberman, if you will recall, I had previously pointed out that you seemed overly concerned with who was supporting the plan rather than what the plan was.

You Lieberman link is more proof of that.

Again, if you opposed the plan AT THAT TIME, why were you busy pointing out to me who supports it?

That prompted a semantics rant on your part where you claimed to have ripped my position to shreds...because it was "bush's" actual plan instead of Lieberman's "really close" (his own words) plan.
It wasn't a claim. It was a fact.

Again, you seem to be obsessively focuses on who supports this plan. But now you claim to oppose it. But you're still linking to your posts pointing out all the people who support it.

Yet you haven't linked to any posts where you point out anyone who opposes it.

Very strange behaviour.

Or are you indicating your opposition by pointing out the "bad" people who support this plan?

Does that make Bush and Lieberman "bad" people, in your opinion?

And if calling Bob T an asshole means I support GW's plan....I've been a supporter of the plan since long before 9/11...since Bob's one of >my guys (NJ)< in Washington...and he >is< an asshole.
Well, you're starting to see the whole picture.

When you started, you were focusing on the people who were supporting this plan (or ones similar to it, in their own words).

You were posting links to people who attempted to justify things like including animal control in the plan.

You would not say you opposed the plan.

You were posting all of those in response to other people's posts in which they opposed the plan.

But you really oppose the plan.

What is it that you didn't like? That people were saying Bush was fascist for proposing this?

Allow me to kill this thread now.

Hitler proposes a Nazi regime.

People say Hitler is a fascist.

You say that OTHER people have proposed SIMILAR plans.

You provide links to people who justify the specifics of Hitler's plan.

And that SOMEHOW, in YOUR mind, translates to you opposing Hitler's plan?

Now....

Bush proposes a plan.

People say it is fascist.

You say that OTHER people have proposed SIMILAR plans.

and so forth.

And you think that >I< am the one with the problem?

godwin
New Please use the strawman login...and this isn't usenet
If you are going to continue to invent my position...post it yourself.

I did all the work for you.

login=strawman
password=brandioch

You posted a link that was an attempt to refute my statements.


I posted a link to counter an assenine post by you. That post was an attempt, by you, to act informed by referencing that day's episode of Crossfire...which I happened to have watched.

I then called Torricelli an asshole. My prerogative...since he's one of my reps in Washington.

I then mentioned that Kit rebutted each one of his statements. A simple effort to point out that one side says one thing...the other another...and in the end its all politics as usual...which I had stated [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41582|long before] is a >bad thing<.

Again, if you opposed the plan AT THAT TIME, why were you busy pointing out to me who supports it?


In case you missed it...I had already [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41602|explained] that way up at the top of the thread. Right before you decided to invent my position. (on several occasions...by the way...one of those inventions was linked to in my previous post)

When you started, you were focusing on the people who were supporting this plan (or ones similar to it, in their own words).
No shit Sherlock. My entire fucking point was to point out to jb4 that they were ALL in on it...not just GW. Are you >really...really< that stupid???? Or do you just play an idiot on the internet?

And you want to lecture me on chronology? Follow it yourself. I've made these explanations on more than one occasion...each time to be ignored by you as you continue to further invent my position.

You are pitiful.

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
     Iceberg? - (Brandioch) - (100)
         The Department of Homeland Securistazi - (jb4) - (99)
             Nobody new. - (bepatient) - (13)
                 Aw, there you go spoiling the fun. - (marlowe)
                 You mean there's no breeding program in effect? - (Brandioch) - (2)
                     Nope. But have anything change... - (bepatient) - (1)
                         You don't pay much attention to the news, do you? - (Brandioch)
                 OK, Mr. Smartypants... - (jb4) - (7)
                     I'm on the >over< - (bepatient) - (6)
                         I didn't get mine until I was 16... - (jb4)
                         Except that... - (Simon_Jester) - (4)
                             Yeah...thats a good one, ain't it? -NT - (bepatient) - (3)
                                 Yepperz...just like - (Simon_Jester) - (2)
                                     (You were expecting 'consistency' too? from Ashcroft et al) -NT - (Ashton)
                                     Re: Yepperz...just like - (bepatient)
                 What really matters - (kmself)
             Stazi? The Register calls it Gestapo - (Andrew Grygus) - (84)
                 It's not brown shirt - (rsf)
                 Toothsome morsel from your eChampions screed: - (jb4) - (82)
                     Aren't you forgetting one little inconvenient fact... - (bepatient) - (79)
                         Thank you for pointing out the (now regular) irony - (Ashton) - (22)
                             It can never be... - (bepatient) - (21)
                                 Er.. 'irony' means - (Ashton)
                                 So..Republicans are "bad" and Democrats are "good"? - (Brandioch) - (19)
                                     Are you that big of an idiot? - (bepatient) - (18)
                                         In case you are... - (bepatient)
                                         I'm still not following your "logic". - (Brandioch) - (16)
                                             I guess you are. - (bepatient) - (15)
                                                 Ummm, remember, you are the one with the memory problem. - (Brandioch) - (14)
                                                     I should learn to expect this.. - (bepatient) - (13)
                                                         So you're changing your story? - (Brandioch) - (12)
                                                             Brandioch's IQ strikes a new low. - (bepatient) - (11)
                                                                 Let's take this chronologically, shall we? - (Brandioch) - (10)
                                                                     Poor baby just can't seem to get it right. - (bepatient) - (9)
                                                                         Oh, I get it. - (Brandioch) - (8)
                                                                             Ah...semantics. - (bepatient) - (7)
                                                                                 No semantics. - (Brandioch) - (6)
                                                                                     Whatever - (bepatient) - (5)
                                                                                         [Contest!] ___ Such 'plans' are not Meant to be understood, - (Ashton) - (4)
                                                                                             Mental... - (bepatient) - (3)
                                                                                                 So then perhaps you even agree (!) - (Ashton) - (2)
                                                                                                     Two options. - (Brandioch) - (1)
                                                                                                         Precisely. Agreed. - (Ashton)
                         Inconvenience is so...inconvenient... - (jb4) - (55)
                             9-7 - (bepatient) - (54)
                                 Bepatient...you have to chalk up their complaints.... - (Simon_Jester) - (43)
                                     So Bush is only implementing the Hart/Rudman proposal? - (Brandioch) - (42)
                                         Closer to Lieberman's proposal - (bepatient) - (41)
                                             Technically "closer", I guess. - (Brandioch) - (40)
                                                 Perhaps you missed... - (bepatient) - (39)
                                                     Seems you flunked English, too. - (Brandioch) - (38)
                                                         Laugh. It was an absolute reference. - (bepatient) - (37)
                                                             If you want to play that way. - (Brandioch) - (36)
                                                                 Perfect. - (bepatient) - (35)
                                                                     Ah, your memory again. - (Brandioch) - (34)
                                                                         Sad. - (bepatient) - (33)
                                                                             Ah, I see. - (Brandioch) - (6)
                                                                                 No. The admission should already be made. - (bepatient) - (5)
                                                                                     Logic is beyond you, isn't it? - (Brandioch) - (4)
                                                                                         OT: Amusing how you two are cooperating... - (a6l6e6x) - (3)
                                                                                             Yeah.... - (bepatient)
                                                                                             Spelling should be logical. :) - (Brandioch) - (1)
                                                                                                 I'm with you on that point. English could have more logic. -NT - (a6l6e6x)
                                                                             Do I espy a tiny clue-let lying behind these exercises in - (Ashton) - (25)
                                                                                 Ferchrissakes. - (bepatient) - (24)
                                                                                     But Of Course! - the thread was doomed to death by - (Ashton) - (18)
                                                                                         Follow the bouncing threads. - (bepatient) - (16)
                                                                                             That's bullshit. - (Brandioch) - (15)
                                                                                                 Chuckle - (bepatient) - (14)
                                                                                                     And this is the reason you don't ever state your position. - (Brandioch) - (13)
                                                                                                         Nope. - (bepatient) - (12)
                                                                                                             Let me explain ONE thing to you. - (Brandioch) - (11)
                                                                                                                 Nitwit 101. - (bepatient) - (10)
                                                                                                                     Oh that is too good. - (Brandioch) - (9)
                                                                                                                         That pretty much settles it... - (bepatient) - (8)
                                                                                                                             Awww, are the facts too much for you? - (Brandioch) - (7)
                                                                                                                                 So when you make things up, they're facts??? -NT - (bepatient) - (6)
                                                                                                                                     You must provide support for you statement. - (Brandioch) - (5)
                                                                                                                                         Simple. - (bepatient) - (4)
                                                                                                                                             And once again, you lie. - (Brandioch) - (3)
                                                                                                                                                 Wow. There must be a new definition - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                                                                                                                     No new definition. Look up "chronology". - (Brandioch) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                         Please use the strawman login...and this isn't usenet - (bepatient)
                                                                                         I think you give him far too much credit. - (Brandioch)
                                                                                     ROTFLMAO... Hello, my name is Dan and I'm a - (screamer)
                                                                                     french redux. - (Ashton) - (3)
                                                                                         Yum... - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                                                             Ahh.. candied Repo brains, prolly. - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                                                                 Can I at least have... - (bepatient)
                                 So what? - (jb4) - (9)
                                     Nice to hear you say it. - (bepatient) - (8)
                                         Mind if I ask a silly question? - (Simon_Jester) - (5)
                                             Not a silly question. - (bepatient) - (4)
                                                 Now that.... I can agree with. -NT - (Simon_Jester)
                                                 Re: shuffle of the deck - (a6l6e6x) - (2)
                                                     I gotta agree with Ted on that. - (Brandioch) - (1)
                                                         Dilbert's been there for quite a while. -NT - (bepatient)
                                         Perhaps I just start calling you "Red" - (jb4) - (1)
                                             That'll work... - (bepatient)
                     The word from Mordor is..... - (Silverlock) - (1)
                         Thar be Dragons_______\ufffdThere\ufffd -NT - (Ashton)

Ohh... they're still working.
188 ms