God/Nature punishing US because Trump cancelled gloabal warming agreement

[1bad65]

My brother.. Well said

Thank you.

Sadly it's not going to matter to him. He has put emotion and opinion over reality and historical fact.

[bluepete]

Yes, I justified them as being a legit military targets.

You're catching up!



Editorializing.

Stick to the facts please.

Not legitimate targets, despite there being milatry targets there, blowing the whole place up and killing everyone wasnt a legitimate act, it was a barbaric act, a disproportionate act, and those people were murdered. You and the sociapths who carried it out can put your own definition on it all you want. It was wrong and they were murdered.

[bluepete]

In your head, yes.
In the real world, nope.



Conjecture.

That's two different fallacies in the span of a few posts. I asked you to cut the fallacy, not to use different fallacies.

The rest of it is more editorializing on your part.

I'm here to discuss the facts of the bombings, not listen to your rants on what you wish was reality.

The fact is you want it all your own way. When Blair declared an illegal war that killed countless innocents on a lie you said he was right to do it. When the US nuked two cities you say it was legal so justifiable. Neither definition changes acts that in reality were wrong. If you don't like my point of view don't waste your time. I'm not here to make you happy.

[1bad65]

Not legitimate targets, despite their being milatry targets there, blowing the whole place up and killing everyone wasnt a legitimate act, it was a barbaric act, a disproportionate act, and those people were murdered. You and the sociapths who carried it out can put your own definition on it all you want. It was wrong and they were murdered.

I asked you to stop editorializing.

You've not stopped, and have now lowered yourself to insults and name-calling.

Can we now say you're unable to offer up an effective rebuttal at this point?

[1bad65]

The fact is you want it all your own way.

Nope. Just citing history, reality, and international law.

Try it sometime and let go of the emotion.

When Blair declared an illegal war that killed countless innocents on a lie you said he was right to do it.

I've not cited Blair. You're back to the strawman fallacy again.

Here, since you're too damn dense to grasp the concept with me teaching it, let's see if someone else can get through your head:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Read it, learn it.

f you don't like my point of view don't waste your time. I'm not here to make you happy.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts and reality.

[bluepete]

I asked you to stop editorializing.

You've not stopped, and have now lowered yourself to insults and name-calling.

Can we now say you're unable to offer up an effective rebuttal at this point?

You can say what you like. I said earlier that you struck me as sociapathic. It didn't seem to bother you then. Now when I post something saying that those who carried out the act were sociapaths you seem to get offended. Interesting timing.

[bluepete]

Nope. Just citing history, reality, and international law.

Try it sometime and let go of the emotion.



I've not cited Blair. You're back to the strawman fallacy again.

Here, since you're too damn dense to grasp the concept with me teaching it, let's see if someone else can get through your head:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Read it, learn it.



You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts and reality.

I said I marched against the Iraq war and Blair and you said he was right to ignore me. You wrote it not me. So, he was right to ignore international law in that case in your opinion. Or do you take that comment back? Oh look, there's that name calling you don't like. Bit hypocritical don't you think? People who have a conscience can follow it just fine. I told you, I don't need suits to tell me something is or isn't a crime. Slavery used to be legal. It was a crime in the eyes of normal human beings. It's not hard to understand.

[1bad65]

You can say what you like. I said earlier that you struck me as sociapathic. It didn't seem to bother you then. Now when I post something saying that those who carried out the act were sociapaths you seem to get offended. Interesting timing.

Dont resort to insults and name-calling in a debate.

If you can't state your case without stooping to insults, you have no case to state.

It's that simple.

(And dont embarrass yourself by trying to psychoanalyze someone else over the Internet.)

[1bad65]

I said I marched against the Iraq war and Blair and you said he was right to ignore me. You wrote it not me.

Yes, I wrote that.

You've shown you put emotion over reality. That's irrational behavior. It's good when leaders ignore irrational people.

[bluepete]

Dont resort to insults and name-calling in a debate.

If you can't state your case without stooping to insults, you have no case to state.

It's that simple.

(And dont embarrass yourself by trying to psychoanalyze someone else over the Internet.)

I think you must have me mixed up with your wife, because you seem to think I take orders from you. I do what I like and say what I please. If I wanted to insult you believe me I could do so much better. You do seem sociapathic. Youre more interested in what the definition of the law was than the carnage of the bombings. I get it, it's not your fault if you were born that way, it's just a little out of line with us ordinary humans. Maybe you like the idea of war since legal or illegal it just seems right to you.