The ball is in your court.
You say "wrong", but you don't say *what's* wrong.
I made many points and provided an elaborated argument, yet you provide zero rebuttal of your own.
"Wrong" is not an argument.
And now you say prove it . . . prove . . . *what* ?
I say to you . . . provide a rebuttal that makes some attempt to "prove" your assessment of "wrong" - whatever it is that you think is wrong.
You need to come up with a little effort, otherwise it just comes across as a simple emotional response.
I don't agree with most of what Carson says or stands for - don't think he's fit for presidency - but I think this is actually a misreading of the analogy he's using on the face of it.
Analogy :
" A similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar" or "a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect".
The rabid dog he is referring to are the dangerous individuals / terrorists, what have you, not all refugees.
I or you might disagree with the level of vetting he's proposing - moreover the hysteria and panic being sewn mostly by Republicans - but to but to be intellectually honest I don't think he's actually positing all refugees as rabid dogs here. That's not an accurate reading.
Kind of an inflammatory analogy to come up with though, to be sure.
Juan,
I'm glad to see you putting things like this up there now and then.
One needs to see a little charm in the universe to break up all that's so out of control.
She was really a one-of-a-kind, a classic . . . . sexy, beautiful but strong and in charge.
I even read she could talk like a stevedore when inclined.
That's one hell of a woman.
The Israelis claim Hamas is terrorist partly because they fire rockets indiscriminately into populated areas, then they themselves in the last 24hrs go and fire tank shells into Gazan heavily populated areas, heavily damage a UN school and kill many innocent civilians, and claim that mortars were being fired from"nearby" - as if there was any chance of hitting those locations with that method.
It seems kind of obvious that all the bombing has almost nothing to do with the tunnels at this point. It's more along the lines of collective punishment and/or "this is how much damage you'll sustain (or we can get away with) until you cry uncle." We'll just call it "tunnels" though. As well, the idea seems to be, if enough devastation is rained on Gaza, the populace might turn against Hamas. Or, shock & awe might make Hamas rethink their approach, which might work in the short term, but as usual, for only about a couple of years.
For Hamas, their strategy seems senseless - the only thing I can think of is that the objective might be to incite the Israelis into war crimes territory, which might actually be working. Pretty cynical and harsh though to sacrifice your own population for such vague aims.
Also, it seems to fall into the general behavior in the Mideast of rage driving simple revenge - strategically shooting (bombing ?) oneself in the foot just to save some morsel of pride, or just appear to be indefatigable. The Israelis are doing the same thing.
That last quote by H.R.P. Dickson reminds me of T.E. Lawrence's line in the movie, "So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are. "
While Lawrence most assuredly didn't actually say that, the patronage and arrogance is remarkable.
Nevertheless, I can't myself help but wonder how many will need to be slaughtered for a century to arrive when tribalism is not the guiding principle.
Still love the movie though.
I'm wondering if you could say something about this . . . something I haven't had time to research yet . . .
What is the Russian's dog in this fight ?
They're wanting to push back against further western influence/footholds in the Levant ?
They want to maintain their own influence/footholds in the Levant ?
They just don't seem to have a moral position on this, only strategic.
The other day I believe it was the Russian foreign affairs minister that I heard stating that it didn't make sense that the Syrian govt. was responsible for the atrocities at Houla. The proof ? : It would be stupid for a govt. to do something like that right before a visit by Kofi Annan.
That was the sole proof.
We're really supposed to accept such disingenuity ?
As if no govt. had every acted stupidly in times previous.
I'm not a Russian hater by any means, but I really don't see them taking taking up a cause on the right side of anything these days - more the support of both internal and externally bullies.
How long can they be allowed such moral iniquity ?
The ball is in your court.
You say "wrong", but you don't say *what's* wrong.
I made many points and provided an elaborated argument, yet you provide zero rebuttal of your own.
"Wrong" is not an argument.
And now you say prove it . . . prove . . . *what* ?
I say to you . . . provide a rebuttal that makes some attempt to "prove" your assessment of "wrong" - whatever it is that you think is wrong.
You need to come up with a little effort, otherwise it just comes across as a simple emotional response.
Huh ? No logical argument or cogent points presented so, I guess, just chalk one up for "disagree". Whatever.
I don't agree with most of what Carson says or stands for - don't think he's fit for presidency - but I think this is actually a misreading of the analogy he's using on the face of it.
Analogy :
" A similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar" or "a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect".
The rabid dog he is referring to are the dangerous individuals / terrorists, what have you, not all refugees.
I or you might disagree with the level of vetting he's proposing - moreover the hysteria and panic being sewn mostly by Republicans - but to but to be intellectually honest I don't think he's actually positing all refugees as rabid dogs here. That's not an accurate reading.
Kind of an inflammatory analogy to come up with though, to be sure.
Juan,
I'm glad to see you putting things like this up there now and then.
One needs to see a little charm in the universe to break up all that's so out of control.
She was really a one-of-a-kind, a classic . . . . sexy, beautiful but strong and in charge.
I even read she could talk like a stevedore when inclined.
That's one hell of a woman.
The Israelis claim Hamas is terrorist partly because they fire rockets indiscriminately into populated areas, then they themselves in the last 24hrs go and fire tank shells into Gazan heavily populated areas, heavily damage a UN school and kill many innocent civilians, and claim that mortars were being fired from"nearby" - as if there was any chance of hitting those locations with that method.
It seems kind of obvious that all the bombing has almost nothing to do with the tunnels at this point. It's more along the lines of collective punishment and/or "this is how much damage you'll sustain (or we can get away with) until you cry uncle." We'll just call it "tunnels" though. As well, the idea seems to be, if enough devastation is rained on Gaza, the populace might turn against Hamas. Or, shock & awe might make Hamas rethink their approach, which might work in the short term, but as usual, for only about a couple of years.
For Hamas, their strategy seems senseless - the only thing I can think of is that the objective might be to incite the Israelis into war crimes territory, which might actually be working. Pretty cynical and harsh though to sacrifice your own population for such vague aims.
Also, it seems to fall into the general behavior in the Mideast of rage driving simple revenge - strategically shooting (bombing ?) oneself in the foot just to save some morsel of pride, or just appear to be indefatigable. The Israelis are doing the same thing.
Kent
San Francisco
That last quote by H.R.P. Dickson reminds me of T.E. Lawrence's line in the movie, "So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are. "
While Lawrence most assuredly didn't actually say that, the patronage and arrogance is remarkable.
Nevertheless, I can't myself help but wonder how many will need to be slaughtered for a century to arrive when tribalism is not the guiding principle.
Still love the movie though.
It's over on myFox8 :
link to myfox8.com
I love it that you're not above throwing a bit of zany humor in there every once in while.
And what is going on with the animal kingdom anyway.
Just this week we've had the talking elephant :
link to bbc.co.uk
and the talking beluga whale :
link to bbc.co.uk
But I'm not sure it's going to be that good an idea to imitate us.
Juan,
I'm wondering if you could say something about this . . . something I haven't had time to research yet . . .
What is the Russian's dog in this fight ?
They're wanting to push back against further western influence/footholds in the Levant ?
They want to maintain their own influence/footholds in the Levant ?
They just don't seem to have a moral position on this, only strategic.
The other day I believe it was the Russian foreign affairs minister that I heard stating that it didn't make sense that the Syrian govt. was responsible for the atrocities at Houla. The proof ? : It would be stupid for a govt. to do something like that right before a visit by Kofi Annan.
That was the sole proof.
We're really supposed to accept such disingenuity ?
As if no govt. had every acted stupidly in times previous.
I'm not a Russian hater by any means, but I really don't see them taking taking up a cause on the right side of anything these days - more the support of both internal and externally bullies.
How long can they be allowed such moral iniquity ?