Putin's Letter

[saxitoxin]

I'm still pretty much ok with anyone claiming credit for those guys being prosecuted.

Cool. Let me jump in here right now then and claim credit for arresting Ted Bundy.

Well done, I remain ok.

You better be, I'm a fucking Academy Award nominee.

[Symmetry]

I'm still pretty much ok with anyone claiming credit for those guys being prosecuted.

Cool. Let me jump in here right now then and claim credit for arresting Ted Bundy.

Well done, I remain ok.

You better be, I'm a fucking Academy Award nominee.

Most academy award nominees are for fucking. Still, congrats, I guess.

[Phatscotty]

Interesting comments by Garry Kasparov, weird interview. O'donnell is trying way too hard to bend over for Obama.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09 ... ss-player/

Kasparov argues Russian President Vladimir Putin was able to broker an extremely attractive deal with the U.S. and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is being treated as a partner and not as a war criminal.

Of course, MSNBC personalities don’t see it this way. They see the U.S./Russia deal as a victory for President Obama.

So MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell tried to argue this point — with a world chess champion.

The United States already “lost” in its negotiations with Syria, Kasparov said Monday. Because as long as Assad keeps “complying,” or pretends he’s complying, “he can keep killing his people.”

“Putin got everything he wanted, I think even beyond his wildest expectations,” he added, “and Obama who once said ‘red line’ he just, in my view, is just blowing up the reputation of his office.”

O’Donnell countered by saying the White House won because it “seems” to have stopped the use of chemical weapons.

[Dukasaur]

Interesting comments by Garry Kasparov, weird interview. O'donnell is trying way too hard to bend over for Obama.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09 ... ss-player/

Kasparov argues Russian President Vladimir Putin was able to broker an extremely attractive deal with the U.S. and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is being treated as a partner and not as a war criminal.

Of course, MSNBC personalities don’t see it this way. They see the U.S./Russia deal as a victory for President Obama.

So MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell tried to argue this point — with a world chess champion.

The United States already “lost” in its negotiations with Syria, Kasparov said Monday. Because as long as Assad keeps “complying,” or pretends he’s complying, “he can keep killing his people.”

“Putin got everything he wanted, I think even beyond his wildest expectations,” he added, “and Obama who once said ‘red line’ he just, in my view, is just blowing up the reputation of his office.”

O’Donnell countered by saying the White House won because it “seems” to have stopped the use of chemical weapons.

Reminds me of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The KGB got exactly what it wanted... a safe base within rowboat range of the U.S., with a solemn promise from the U.S. to not blow it up. American propaganda proclaimed this a "victory". In exchange, the Soviets agreed not to park nukes there, although they could be parked on submarines within the same area far more cost-effectively.

[jonesthecurl]

I'm still pretty much ok with anyone claiming credit for those guys being prosecuted.

Cool. Let me jump in here right now then and claim credit for arresting Ted Bundy.

Also, unless anyone else has dib on it yet, I'm responsible for saving the occupants of Titanic lifeboats #12-17. Also, I directed Gone With the Wind. I also starred in it (as Scarlett O'Hara).

Frankly, my dear (as I said at the time), I don't give a damn.

[mrswdk]

The only ones I feel for are the 'innocent' civilians, which basically means the children.

So the adults are all 'guilty'? Are you Catholic or something?

[Serbia]

The only ones I feel for are the 'innocent' civilians, which basically means the children.

So the adults are all 'guilty'? Are you Catholic or something?

I'm using the word "innocent" in this context to refer to those who are not engaged in the conflict in anyway. The ones who aren't fighting, who aren't supporting either side, who don't understand, don't care, and just want to be safe. Basically, the opposite of those who are fighting for either side of the conflict, or supporting one or the other either financially or politically. No 'guilt' is assumed or assigned to any. But nice religion-troll attempt. Not a strong effort, but for your 4th post I wouldn't expect much yet.

Bollocks.

[Gillipig]

He's Catholic.

[mrswdk]

When you declare that only one party is innocent then you are very much saying that the other parties are guilty.

Either way, you appear to be saying that you don't feel sorry for any of the adults still in Syria, as if they are all somehow complicit in the carnage. Which is a bit rich.

[Gillipig]

Serbia vs Newbie, who will come out on top? Taking bets right now!
Given Serbia's trackrecord the house has Newbie as the odds favorit. Good odds on Ipswich this Saturday as well, don't forget to play.

[Serbia]

When you declare that only one party is innocent then you are very much saying that the other parties are guilty.

Either way, you appear to be saying that you don't feel sorry for any of the adults still in Syria, as if they are all somehow complicit in the carnage. Which is a bit rich.

The way I defined innocent is "the ones who aren't involved". The opposite of which would be "the ones who ARE involved". So sure, if you want to accuse me of calling someone who's killing other people in a conflict "guilty" of killing other people in a conflict, well by golly you got me! Good eye Mrs. W.D.K.!!!

I don't feel sorry, because I don't care. Whether I think they are or are not complicit is irrelevant. I'm not rich. Why do you care? And don't give me general feelings of compassion.

Your turn!

Bollocks.

[DoomYoshi]

Serbia vs Newbie, who will come out on top? Taking bets right now!
Given Serbia's trackrecord the house has Newbie as the odds favorit. Good odds on Ipswich this Saturday as well, don't forget to play.

I bet on Syrian chemical weapons industry. Can you give me the stock symbol for that?

[mrswdk]

Well no... what you said was that you feel for 'the innocent civilians, which basically means the children'. What you were saying was that pretty much everyone who is not a child is not innocent.

Your definition of 'civilians who are not innocent' (almost every adult) now appears to have morphed into 'people who are killing other people in the conflict'. Almost every adult in Syria is involved in the fighting. What a ridiculous mind you have.

[Serbia]

Well no... what you said was that you feel for 'the innocent civilians, which basically means the children'. What you were saying was that pretty much everyone who is not a child is not innocent.

Your definition of 'civilians who are not innocent' (almost every adult) now appears to have morphed into 'people who are killing other people in the conflict'. Almost every adult in Syria is involved in the fighting. What a ridiculous mind you have.

Your reading comprehension is non-existent. And you didn't answer my question. This time, actually make an attempt.
Your turn!

Bollocks.

[mrswdk]

It's not my problem if you can't keep your views consistent from one post to the next. Maybe if you stopped trying to troll people and instead tried to think seriously about the issues you are talking about then you would be able to come up with a valuable contribution, rather than simply slinging around sad over-simplifications in the hope that someone will bite.

[Serbia]

My views are consistent. I have thought seriously about the issues and openly admit to not caring. Doesn't bother me if you think my contribution is valuable, this is teh interwebz. You've bit = huzzah?

Now, are you going to answer questions? Or are you going to continue slinging around sad over-simplifications in the hope that I'll bite? From what I've seen of you so far on this site, you are not interested in conversation, only flaming other users. To recap, my questions for you are as follows:

Mrs. W.D.K., why do you care about the people of Syria? And don't give me general feelings of compassion. In fact, I'll even open my question further: Why do the opinions of one solitary American on the subject of Syria induce such strong, negative reactions in you, to the point that you feel you have to flame that American in a (futile) attempt to make him/her feel small and sorry? (those are two separate questions, and I expect detailed and separate answers to be given to both)
YOUR TURN!

Bollocks.

[mrswdk]

Who said I'm getting angry and upset? I'm just questioning the logic of a man(?) who declares that children are pretty much the only 'innocent' people in Syria. I don't understand why you have sympathy for Syria's children but not its adults. Feel free to explain.

[Serbia]

No one said you're "angry or upset". Answer my questions, then I'll entertain yours. Otherwise, feel free to leave this thread. Thank you.

Bollocks.

[mrswdk]

You can answer both of your questions by reading what I said. You fail. Bye.

[Serbia]

You haven't answered a thing. Try again, mrsfail.

Bollocks.