Joe Dees] Please do. Any objective review of the incident, not colored by Bush-hatred, anti-war fervour, and personal animus, will have to conclude that:
1) I made a single statement to you, ONCE, while Irvken made several statements in a short time, on different threads, sliming me viciously, even AFTER he was banned by Lucifer.
[Casey] So, you agree with my initial assertion. Thank you.
(Joe 2) I always did agree that I made the statement; I also always vehemently disagreed, and still do, that my single statement , which called no names, is an any way, shape, mode, manner and/or form equivalent to Irvken's sustained sexual slander attack.
[Joe Dees] 2) I did not TELL you to chant "Allahu Ackbar" while watching the Nick Berg beheading video, but, instead, asked you if, considering your approval of Kos, who stated 'screw them' in regards to four Americans murdered and mutilated by fallujan-based Jihadis, if you would like to do so. I never called you any name whatsoever, least of all, a motherfucker, nor did I call you a fuckwit, or a propagandizer, or tell you to shut the fuck up. But as to the last one, I'm getting there.
[Casey] This statement "I did not tell you to chant 'Alluha Akbar' while watching the Nick Berg beheading video" was refuted by your own words in previous posts as noted earlier today.
(Joe 2) Not according the the original post (and I cut and paste):
Perhaps you'd like to re-view the video I posted of Berg's beheading and chant a little sotto voce Allahu Ackbar.
That is a request or solicitation, not a command or demand. I was quite obviously not telling you what to do - that is, for anyone who possesses a rudimentary facility in parsing the English language. For you to assert otherwise paints YOU as a willful liar; and the fact of the lie can be readily verified by recourse to the original post. I also note that it is cannot be construed as an insult to call a person what they in fact provable are.
[Joe Dees] 3) My comment did indeed have to do with a seemingly uncaring attitude to the mutilation and murder of Americans, which is just a short step away from approving of such actions, while Irvken's remarks concerning sex with my mother (an asinine and hurtful slander which he assumed from the execrable Hermit, knowing that my mother is afflicted with Alzheimers' Disease) had nothing whatsoever to do with ANY FUCKING THING EXCEPT VILE AND VICIOUS EMOTIONAL ATTACK!!!
[Casey] I never knew that by saying that I applaud Kos, someone whom you brought into this equation initially, for his forthright manner and outspoken nature would deem me uncaring. Read the archives of his blog. That's what I did. I didn't take his one post about Fallujah as my only reason for applauding his efforts of disseminating information.
(Joe 2) However, I had previously mentioned precisely that post, so IT, and not the totality of Kos's corpus, was the reference point.
[Joe Dees] Considering these multiple and manifest differences, no one possessing a scintilla of fairness, justice or balance could possibly equate the two.
[Casey] But, your words do incite. Your words do carry weight. Your words do have an effect on others. Just as Irvken's and Hermit's words have had on you.
(Joe 2) Incitation does not mean comparable incitiation.
[Joe Dees] 4) If you take such action, I would like to file a counterclaim of vicious and ideology-inspired harassment, based upon the contents of this thread. Resorting to tag-team smitings of my posts by Hermitic minions, as has recently happened, while they also, tag-team fashion, applaud each other, should not affect such a judgment, except to confirm these contentions. If people are known by the character of their adversaries, I hope I soon reach -100; I would consider it a badge of honor.
[Casey] There is no idealogical-inspired harassment present in this thread. Not on my account, at least. As I've already stated on the BBS and in the CoV email list, I feel the US should employ it's military in an effective manner and not use quasi-mercenaries to fufill security operations.
(Joe 2) But does this include not caring if such people, who travel to Iraq for the benefit of both their families and the people of Iraq, are mutilated and murdered? I would hope that this is one opinion that you do not share with Kos (and, BTW, he later apologized for his intemperate remark, under intense popular pressure).
[Joe Dees] In conclusion: You will not succeed in pushing my buttons and troll-baining me into a self-condemning tirade, any more than Hermitess could do with Jonathan Davis, no matter how diligently you try to do so. If you decide to file such a case, you will have to deal with the pathetically and pitifully inadequate case you posssess at present - one which should, if it succeeded, should, in all fairness, also get Hermitess silenced, as she called me much worse things in her posts, quisling and rude, slimy, two-faced shit being chief among them.
[Casey] I've not once tried to push your buttons. I only want you to live up to the standards that you've set for others. You've complained about Irvken, you've complained about Hermit, you've complained about Hermitess, and you've complained about Jake Sapiens in the past. With all of these complaints posted by you, it would seem only fitting that you live up to the standards that you've argued for.
(Joe) I have done so. Others have not. Others, still, could not see ANYTHING I say as devoid of insult, or anything others say to me as constituting an insult. It's called a double-standard.
[Casey] And, finally, I thank you for agreeing with my initial assertion that you lied.
(Joe 2) I never agreed to the truth of such a lying assertion, and do not do so now, simply because I cannot, in all good conscience, call a lie a truth, whether it is about me or not. The fact that I did and do not lie about my making the statement, but vehemently insisted, and still do, that it was and is morally incomparable to the sick and vicious slurs laid against me by Irvken, is something that I will stand on until the hightest mountains crumble into the silty sea.
[Casey] I don't appreciate being told to "sotto voce Alluha Akbar" while watching the Berg decapitation, nor do I appreciate being called one of "Hermit's minions", nor do I appreciate being told that my applauding someone (Kos) for their right to speak freely is akin to being a Bush-hater, or is somehow indicative of some anti-war fervour. It was, and I'll stand by this claim, a statement supporting his right to speak freely and openly. Something I find to be important in a society that supports freedom of speech. FWIW, I believe you should be able to speak freely and openly. However, I feel that that all of the standards that you want others to abide by should also apply to you. In other words, don't jump down people's throats because they may disagree with you. Nor, would it be appropriate for you to utter such disgusting suggestions as you have to me. I take offence to them, especially now that you are defending them so righteously.
(Joe 2) I defend and support the rights of anyone, including myself, to proffer any opinions they choose to proffer, and the rights of anyone, including myself, to disagree with such proferred opinions. This does not, and never will, include the right to off-topic slander a person with vicious sexual canards concerning their invalid and Alzheimer's-afflicted mother. To even consider contemplating equating the two is prima facie evidence of sheer and utter insanity.
Note that I am not here calling you insane, I am merely describing the parameters of the shoe. It is up to you whether or not your foot fits it.
I also refuse to allow this travestous imbroglio to disrupt the original focus of the tread; I will continue to post evidence of Al Qaeda planning and preparation for domestic pre-election homeland attacks here.
Re: virus: Re:'Disturbing' data suggest plot for summer terror
« Reply #31 on: 2004-06-02 11:11:32 »
: PS: I suspect that the actual : motivation behind this personal : harassment is that people have c
I think, Joe, it's the volume, tone and character of your posts.
Also, you come from the perspective that “you are right and everyone else is wrong”.
Finally, you have a gift for picking on one flaw in a large argument, rather than addressing the entire argument.
This is a time consuming, frustrating and philisophically weak attack that wins out in the short term, but in the long run gets you ignored.
My guess is that you feel ignored in your real life as well.
Here's a hint: once, just once, take someone's advice. Just one time. --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Washington's conventional wisdom is as notorious for its often wrong-headedness as for its frequent flip-flops. One of the most flagrant recent demonstrations is on the ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, which were confirmed beyond doubt a few years ago, but now are considered laughably dubious.
Stephen Hayes shows that to be the case in his cover story of this week's Weekly Standard and in his recently published book on the same subject, "The Connection." While neither publication breaks new ground, they are worthwhile not only for punctuating the collaboration between Osama bin Laden and Saddam, but also for underlining the liberal media's shifting conventional wisdom on the subject.
For instance, in a Jan. 11, 1999, story headlined "Saddam + Bin Laden?" Newsweek said, "Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas ... U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden ... Saddam and bin Laden have interests -- and enemies -- in common." About the same time, NPR's Mike Shuster asserted in an interview, "Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994." Mr. Hayes also cites a Feb. 13, 1999, AP article, posted on CNN that day and published in The Washington Post on the following morning, on bin Laden's departure from Afghanistan, which stated, "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers."
Despite the additional evidence of those ties that has surfaced since then, liberal elites have now decided that no such connection exists. As Mr. Hayes says in the book's introduction, "On the Washington, D.C. cocktail party circuit, the mere mention of Iraq-al Qaeda ties elicits laughter, even derision." Mr. Hayes quotes "60 Minutes" anchor Lesley Stahl saying "there was no connection" between Saddam and al Qaeda; the editor of the Los Angeles Times asserting that proof of the connection is a "myth"; and a Reuters dispatch that read, "There is no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."
What happened? The derisive decision had more to do with the regime change of 2000 than that of 2003. The Washington press corps, ever eager to give the benefit of the doubt to a Democratic occupant of the White House, is rarely ready to do so with a Republican resident. The bad news from Iraq -- which has buried much of the ongoing good -- has also been a factor.
But the facts themselves have not changed. If anything, more have been added. As Mr. Hayes says, "By the time the Iraq War began, the evidence of Iraqi links to al Qaeda went well beyond a few dots. It was a veritable constellation." There are now a veritable thousand points of light, all illuminating the connection. While members of the press corps have chosen to walk in the darkness, honest information brokers should chose to walk in the light.
Author
Logged
