Who we Gonna Blame Now ... Ghostbusters?

[jones jones]

And so once again we have a crisis in Iraq and dear me, there are only 100 US Marines there who provide security at the American Embassy. So who are the Left gonna blame this time?

Personally and I’m not saying this cos I’m an Atheist, but sadly we have to once again blame the silly, misguided canon fodder who believe in their g-d.

The Sunni-Shiite problem is about who should succeed the Prophet Muhammad after his death in 632. It’s like a family feud you see. Shiites say the prophet’s cousin and son-in-law was his heir but he was cheated when authority went to the Sunni’s Caliphs.

Sunni’s are the majority in the Islamic world but the Shiites came to power after Saddam was toppled and this resulted in sectarian fighting and massacres perpetrated by both sides. So the Sunni’s are prepared to support Al Qaida or the devil himself to overthrow the Shiites.

When Mosul was taken several million dollars was “liberated” by the terrorists who now have lots of lolly and a base from which to launch 9/11 type attacks on whomever they please.

And so violence is an increasing problem in many many parts of the world. Of course the mass media are supposed to be the main culprit when it comes to the birth of violence.

Me Jj, I believe that violent earthlings are born and not made. Would Adolf Hitler have behaved differently if he’d been born in America? Would Charles Manson and his family not have killed so many people if they’d been born in the UK? Would Genghis Khan have become a priest of he’d been born in Rome? (Hey I know that’s a bad comparison!) The answer to all the questions is a resounding NO!

In my youth I drank a lot and experimented with drugs, but I never ever felt the urge to beat up my girlfriend or anyone else.

Its time for us earthlings to take responsibility for our own actions and to stop blaming everything we do on our parents, society or our governments.

[High Threshold]

Don't play sarcastic naive. The CIA trained, funded and encourage Sunni/Shia murder mayhem in Irak, more commonly known as the “death squads”. The blame you speak of belongs firmly in the lap of the United States. Is anyone reading this gasping in surprise???

[jones jones]

High Threshold;1457748 wrote: Don't play sarcastic naive. The CIA trained, funded and encourage Sunni/Shia murder mayhem in Irak, more commonly known as the “death squads”. The blame you speak of belongs firmly in the lap of the United States. Is anyone reading this gasping in surprise???


Citizen HT ... You make it very difficult for anyone to have a constructive intelligent conversation with you. You make wild and unsubstantiated statements and before you even get into the grist of the mill you say" "Don't play sarcastic naïve."

Your hatred of the USA should not prevent you from taking an objective view of world politics and in particular spending some time in reflection before you rush into condemning everything American.

I have a feeling that you are incapable of debating in good faith. I also have a sneaking belief that you may not be whom you present yourself to be.

We shall see.

[Saint_]

High Threshold;1457748 wrote: The blame you speak of belongs firmly in the lap of the United States.


Actually the blame lies in the arbitrary borders that the European nations drew after WWI. They cut straight across tribal and ethnic lines. The resulting frail countries were held together by repressive dictatorships, until the Arab Spring revolutions. Now begins the chaotic process of reforming those boundaries as they were pre-WWI.

[High Threshold]

jones jones;1435105 wrote: Citizen HT ... You make it very difficult for anyone to have a constructive intelligent conversation with you. You make wild and unsubstantiated statements and before you even get into the grist of the mill you say" "Don't play sarcastic na�ve."

Your hatred of the USA should not prevent you from taking an objective view of world politics and in particular spending some time in reflection before you rush into condemning everything American.

I have a feeling that you are incapable of debating in good faith. I also have a sneaking belief that you may not be whom you present yourself to be.

We shall see.


Why wait? Join me now for the next 50 minutes and learn just how “wild” and “unsubstantiated” my contributions to this and other FG threads have been. I realize it may be difficult for someone as pro-American as yourself to see beyond the mis/disinformation smoke screen of the White House propaganda, but whip yourself up a batch of buttered popcorn and a large tap of chug-a-lug Diet Cola and get comfortable … then all you need to do is “click”:

James Steele: America's mystery man in Iraq - video | World news | theguardian.com

[Snowfire]

Saint_;1457756 wrote: Actually the blame lies in the arbitrary borders that the European nations drew after WWI. They cut straight across tribal and ethnic lines. The resulting frail countries were held together by repressive dictatorships, until the Arab Spring revolutions. Now begins the chaotic process of reforming those boundaries as they were pre-WWI.


Ditto Africa. Colonial borders that showed no respect for tribal lands.

We should have left Saddam Hussain in power. He was a least a stabilizing influence, however repressive he was. Now he's gone its just havoc, murder, terrorism in bucket loads

[High Threshold]

Going well, JJ? How's your objective view of world politics, your capabilites in debating in good faith? You feel alright?

[jones jones]

High Threshold;1457760 wrote: Why wait? Join me now for the next 50 minutes and learn just how “wild” and “unsubstantiated” my contributions to this and other FG threads have been. I realize it may be difficult for someone as pro-American as yourself to see beyond the mis/disinformation smoke screen of the White House propaganda, but whip yourself up a batch of buttered popcorn and a large tap of chug-a-lug Diet Cola and get comfortable … then all you need to do is “click”:

James Steele: America's mystery man in Iraq - video | World news | theguardian.com




You figure that copying & posting links is intelligent conversation leave alone debate?

[jones jones]

High Threshold;1457763 wrote: Going well, JJ? How's your objective view of world politics, your capabilites in debating in good faith? You feel alright?


See my previous post.

[High Threshold]

jones jones;1457764 wrote: You figure that copying & posting links is intelligent conversation leave alone debate?


I honestly did expect your reply to be gutless but I thought you would have at least employed a small percentage of "plan B" humility that could have been cryptically interpreted in your favour when the seat got too hot.

An excellent example of an overwhelmly incapability of debating in good faith, and total lack of wholesome-ness. Really too bad.

[jones jones]

High Threshold;1457772 wrote: I honestly did expect your reply to be gutless but I thought you would have at least employed a small percentage of "plan B" humility that could have been cryptically interpreted in your favour when the seat got too hot.

An excellent example of an overwhelmly incapability of debating in good faith, and total lack of wholesome-ness. Really too bad.


You talk the talk ... but you never walk the walk. Cut out the links and be creative if you can ... For your information creativity "is a phenomenon whereby something new and valuable is created."

[tude dog]

jones jones;1457751 wrote: Citizen HT ... You make it very difficult for anyone to have a constructive intelligent conversation with you. You make wild and unsubstantiated statements and before you even get into the grist of the mill you say" "Don't play sarcastic na�ve."

Your hatred of the USA should not prevent you from taking an objective view of world politics and in particular spending some time in reflection before you rush into condemning everything American.

I have a feeling that you are incapable of debating in good faith. I also have a sneaking belief that you may not be whom you present yourself to be.

We shall see.


Well said JJ

[High Threshold]

jones jones;1457775 wrote: You talk the talk ... but you never walk the walk. Cut out the links and be creative if you can ... For your information creativity "is a phenomenon whereby something new and valuable is created."


I’m going to take a wild stab at this situation and say that you wouldn’t think any efforts that I might make, without any political or media connections, a meagre income and no sponser ....... that it would impress you more than the well-made and exhaustive documentary film I gave you. Am I right, or am I right?

So the problem is:

1). You failed to do much research yourself.

2). So you decided to wing it and air your dislike for the indigenous population of that country

3). Have taken a pro-American approach without any concerns for the facts

4). Got caught off-balance by my response

5). Decided to make spontaneous personal insults to me rather than check out the facts as I suggested them

6). And rather than eat crow and admit that my comment and link were worthy of discussion, you’ve decided to blow some more smoke

I suggest then, that you take a closer look at your unfavourable comments to me and apply them to yourself. What do you think?

[High Threshold]

tude dog;1457796 wrote: Well said JJ


That's a 'lame-brain' response if I ever hoid one. Oh sorry, I forgot - you've never heard of Larry Fine.

[Lady J]

Hello Threshold...

when you first came to this forum you were very courteous but now you are jabbing and poking just to cause a stir out of the members. Why are you being such a jerk? And please don't give me any of that **** you have been throwing around.

Either you place YOUR personal opinions....not of others in a link or stand up and be a man.

I may not say much here but I do read all the threads.

[High Threshold]

Lady J;1457817 wrote: Hello Threshold...

when you first came to this forum you were very courteous but now you are jabbing and poking just to cause a stir out of the members. Why are you being such a jerk? And please don't give me any of that **** you have been throwing around.

Either you place YOUR personal opinions....not of others in a link or stand up and be a man.

I may not say much here but I do read all the threads.


A thread was started in which a question was submitted, complete with the

answer. I disagree with that explanation and said so. I gave my own personal opinion to which I was slandered (more or less). So I supported my opinion with a well/documented link. That too was disregarded out of hand.

Excuse me if I do not submit a link spelling out the proper way to debate in a civilized manner but my personal opinion will have to do in explaining why disagree with your assessment.

[Wandrin]

There have been at least 6 civil wars in Iraq in the last 100 years. The thing that they all have in common is that whichever faction controls the country (Shiite or Sunni) treat the other like crap and treats the Kurds even worse. The Muslim population is about 60% Sunni and 40% Shiite, so which ever denomination is in power has a large and unhappy group that feels discriminated against.

The government installed under US occupation is all Shiite. All Sunnis were removed from power in both government and military. That means that the current government has no one with any experience, nor does the military command.

Iran is most Shiite and supports the current Shiite government in Iraq. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and many other countries would like to see the Sunnis return to power and provides funding and support for the insurgents.

There is no simple way for any outsider to meddle without increasing animosity.

[High Threshold]

Wandrin;1457821 wrote: There have been at least 6 civil wars in Iraq in the last 100 years. The thing that they all have in common is that whichever faction controls the country (Shiite or Sunni) treat the other like crap and treats the Kurds even worse. The Muslim population is about 60% Sunni and 40% Shiite, so which ever denomination is in power has a large and unhappy group that feels discriminated against.

The government installed under US occupation is all Shiite. All Sunnis were removed from power in both government and military. That means that the current government has no one with any experience, nor does the military command.

Iran is most Shiite and supports the current Shiite government in Iraq. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and many other countries would like to see the Sunnis return to power and provides funding and support for the insurgents.


All true.

Wandrin;1457821 wrote: There is no simple way for any outsider to meddle without increasing animosity.


Yes, and no.

The problem, as it is today, is the direct consequence of the illegal invasion of Irak by the U.S. Now, you say “There is no simple way for any outsider to meddle without increasing animosity.” I am sure you are right, however ……… UN endeavours had already taken fruit and a milestone event was only days, if not hours, away. But that is the very moment the U.S. told everybody to clear out, we are sending in the bombers! Of course the “oh so near” completion of the inspection team is (let us face it) the very reason the U.S. jumped the gun.

What I am trying to say is that although there is “no simple way” the UN had made a lot of headway on the “less than simple” way. And after all, that is how real progress is achieved.

[tude dog]

High Threshold;1457816 wrote: That's a 'lame-brain' response if I ever hoid one. Oh sorry, I forgot - you've never heard of Larry Fine.


It's lame "brain" to tell another poster that what he posted was well said?

What's your point about Larry Fine?

[AnneBoleyn]

tude dog;1457832 wrote: It's lame "brain" to tell another poster that what he posted was well said?

What's your point about Larry Fine?


Have your avatar look in a mirror.

[Oscar Namechange]

There are many reasons for the chaos In Iraq. Historically, there has and will always be bloodshed between Sunni and Shea. For Western societies to enter that Internal conflict with their own agenda Is to add to the powder keg.

We should never have gone Into Iraq full stop.

[Saint_]

We should never have elected Bush. full stop.

[Bruv]

Oscar Namechange;1457842 wrote:

We should never have gone Into Iraq full stop.


Saint_;1457845 wrote: We should never have elected Bush. full stop.


In homage to the opening poster......Je ne regrette rien

[High Threshold]

tude dog;1457832 wrote: It's lame "brain" to tell another poster that what he posted was well said? What's your point about Larry Fine?


Well, I know you don’t like my opinion on most subjects and that you get easily angry about it. But I’m not the sort of guy who holds grudges nor do I refuse to agree with someone on one subject just because I didn’t agree with him on some other subject. I tried to shuck and jive with you a couple of days ago. I figured if I shared a joke with you that you’d begin to realize that I have nothing against you personally. I posted a quote from Larry but I guess you don’t know who he is so you made an unpleasant comment to me. Oh well. It’s not necessary for your blood to turn to ice just because I’m on the same thread as you. Take it easy, man. There’s room enough here for everyone.

[High Threshold]

AnneBoleyn;1457834 wrote: Have your avatar look in a mirror.


Hee-hee! :wah:

[High Threshold]

Saint_;1457845 wrote: We should never have elected Bush. full stop.


Most people did not vote for him, but he cooked the books in Florida anyway.

[jones jones]

Dear FG Member High Threshold;

I am not being condescending when I state that I am very well educated and that I have a very good command of the English language … my profession requires this of me. I only mention this in passing because of some of the remarks you made about me. This thread which I started yesterday comprises about fourteen sentences only one of which mentions anything about the USA. In fact most of the thread is about religion and the real need for less violence on our planet.

I have read and re-read my thread but I have been unable to find anything remotely sarcastic or naïve in it. On the contrary, your post beginning: “Why wait? Join me now for the next 50 minutes and learn etc …. “is rather sarcastic in content itself.”

Then when I suggested you were incapable of debating in good faith, you made this rather cryptic reply: “I honestly did expect your reply to be gutless but I thought you would have at least employed a small percentage of "plan B" humility that could have been cryptically interpreted in your favour when the seat got too hot. An excellent example of an overwhelmly incapability of debating in good faith, and total lack of wholesome-ness. Really too bad.” I have many faults but "gutless" isn't one of them. Shame on you for fibbing so! The seat can never be too hot for me! I thrive on hot hot hotter!



Then came your response to my suggestion that I thought posting links was not a good debating tool … I am still unsure about what this actually means: “I’m going to take a wild stab at this situation and say that you wouldnt think any efforts that I might make, without any political or media connections, a meagre income and no sponser ....... that it would impress you more than the well-made and exhaustive documentary film I gave you. Am I right, or am I right?” “No you’re so wrong.”

You then posted a list of what you think “the problem is.” I have reproduced the list here with my comments:

1). You failed to do much research yourself. I am a serial researcher … I have to be.



2). So you decided to wing it and air your dislike for the indigenous population of that country. Moi Jj wing it? Never. No, I certainly do NOT dislike the indigenous population of Iraq or any other country for that matter.

3). Have taken a pro-American approach without any concerns for the facts. First six words of this sentence … very true and I make no apology for it. The last six words … not true.



4). Got caught off-balance by my response. Moi Jj caught off balance? Never happens dear … as you might say “Tee-Hee!” or is it "Hee-Hee?"



5). Decided to make spontaneous personal insults to me rather than check out the facts as I suggested them. Untrue. I seldom have nor will I now make “personal insults", spontaneous or otherwise against you or most other members. Not my style see.



6). And rather than eat crow and admit that my comment and link were worthy of discussion, you decided to blow some more smoke. Untrue. Only time I ever blew smoke was when I smoked which was a long time ago. I have eaten crow a quarter of a gazillion times since I joined FG. But in this case there was no crow to eat … besides, I would much prefer to eat a succulent roast pheasant cooked in wine, port, juniper and thyme and served with a bread sauce. Yummy!



I suggest then, that you take a closer look at your unfavourable comments to me and apply them to yourself. What do you think? Personally I do not consider any of my comments to have been “unfavorable” and as such, applying them to myself would be a meaningless exercise.



Oh and I noticed that on another post you went: “… gave my own personal opinion to which I was slandered (more or less).” Are you referring to this? “I also have a sneaking belief that you may not be whom you present yourself to be.” Tsk … Tsk. Hardly qualifies as slander old thing. Anyway, one surely cannot be slandered "more or less?"



In closing allow me to offer you a piece of Jj wisdom, which of course you are free to use or lose. When you come across a thread about a subject you fiercely dislike and it is posted by a member whom you even more fiercely dislike ... Why not do what I do which is to simply ignore the thread and thereby ignore the member as well? It prevents a whole mountain of stress, believe me.

I see that you have been a member since 2005. I'm not sure if you encountered me previously in another guise, but if you have you might know that I get bored rather quickly. As such I simply abhor threads that go on and on and on like some of those religious ones. So this is likely to be my final post on this one and I hope it will then be put to bed.

You may or may not consider this a victory but if you do it will be a rather hollow one I fear.

Now do excuse me … I have to go and console Lady J. Your reply to her post upset her very very much. Toodledoo ... pip pip and all that!

[High Threshold]

jones jones;1457861 wrote: Dear FG Member High Threshold;

I am not being condescending when I state that I am very well educated and that I have a very good command of the English language � my profession requires this of me. I only mention this in passing because of some of the remarks you made about me. This thread which I started yesterday comprises about fourteen sentences only one of which mentions anything about the USA. In fact most of the thread is about religion and the real need for less violence on our planet.

I have read and re-read my thread but I have been unable to find anything remotely sarcastic or na�ve in it. On the contrary, your post beginning: �Why wait? Join me now for the next 50 minutes and learn etc �. �is rather sarcastic in content itself.�

Then when I suggested you were incapable of debating in good faith, you made this rather cryptic reply: �I honestly did expect your reply to be gutless but I thought you would have at least employed a small percentage of "plan B" humility that could have been cryptically interpreted in your favour when the seat got too hot. An excellent example of an overwhelmly incapability of debating in good faith, and total lack of wholesome-ness. Really too bad.� I have many faults but "gutless" isn't one of them. Shame on you for fibbing so! The seat can never be too hot for me! I thrive on hot hot hotter!



Then came your response to my suggestion that I thought posting links was not a good debating tool � I am still unsure about what this actually means: �I�m going to take a wild stab at this situation and say that you wouldnt think any efforts that I might make, without any political or media connections, a meagre income and no sponser ....... that it would impress you more than the well-made and exhaustive documentary film I gave you. Am I right, or am I right?� �No you�re so wrong.�

You then posted a list of what you think �the problem is.� I have reproduced the list here with my comments:

1). You failed to do much research yourself. I am a serial researcher � I have to be.



2). So you decided to wing it and air your dislike for the indigenous population of that country. Moi Jj wing it? Never. No, I certainly do NOT dislike the indigenous population of Iraq or any other country for that matter.

3). Have taken a pro-American approach without any concerns for the facts. First six words of this sentence � very true and I make no apology for it. The last six words � not true.



4). Got caught off-balance by my response. Moi Jj caught off balance? Never happens dear � as you might say �Tee-Hee!� or is it "Hee-Hee?"



5). Decided to make spontaneous personal insults to me rather than check out the facts as I suggested them. Untrue. I seldom have nor will I now make �personal insults", spontaneous or otherwise against you or most other members. Not my style see.



6). And rather than eat crow and admit that my comment and link were worthy of discussion, you decided to blow some more smoke. Untrue. Only time I ever blew smoke was when I smoked which was a long time ago. I have eaten crow a quarter of a gazillion times since I joined FG. But in this case there was no crow to eat � besides, I would much prefer to eat a succulent roast pheasant cooked in wine, port, juniper and thyme and served with a bread sauce. Yummy!



I suggest then, that you take a closer look at your unfavourable comments to me and apply them to yourself. What do you think? Personally I do not consider any of my comments to have been �unfavorable� and as such, applying them to myself would be a meaningless exercise.



Oh and I noticed that on another post you went: �� gave my own personal opinion to which I was slandered (more or less).� Are you referring to this? �I also have a sneaking belief that you may not be whom you present yourself to be.� Tsk � Tsk. Hardly qualifies as slander old thing. Anyway, one surely cannot be slandered "more or less?"



In closing allow me to offer you a piece of Jj wisdom, which of course you are free to use or lose. When you come across a thread about a subject you fiercely dislike and it is posted by a member whom you even more fiercely dislike ... Why not do what I do which is to simply ignore the thread and thereby ignore the member as well? It prevents a whole mountain of stress, believe me.

I see that you have been a member since 2005. I'm not sure if you encountered me previously in another guise, but if you have you might know that I get bored rather quickly. As such I simply abhor threads that go on and on and on like some of those religious ones. So this is likely to be my final post on this one and I hope it will then be put to bed.

You may or may not consider this a victory but if you do it will be a rather hollow one I fear.

Now do excuse me � I have to go and console Lady J. Your reply to her post upset her very very much. Toodledoo ... pip pip and all that!


I imagine you have inflated your ego 100 times over the recommended psi with that post. Lots of air, little (or no) fact. Why you bothered is the question I would put to you if I thought the answer would fly.

The really interesting part is your comment, “I also have a sneaking belief that you may not be whom you present yourself to be.” This is an astounding bit of observation and you are certainly the only one to have worked it out. Bravo! Everyone else seems to believe that High Threshold is my real name!

Anyway, you have my personal comment at the beginning and you also have the link I posted shortly thereafter supporting it. Those must certainly be the food-stuff of a decent discussion. So why have you not taken it up? You said that my opinion was worthless (not a quote) but the link I provided proved I was right. What is your opinion on that? Better than blaming it on the Ghost Busters - and fully credible to boot, eh?

[AnneBoleyn]

Everyone else seems to believe that High Threshold is my real name!



It's not?

[Bruv]

Who else but JJ, could turn the crisis in the middle east into a "Look at Me thread" ?

[Oscar Namechange]

Who else but Bruv would just have to come In and say that.

[AnneBoleyn]

Oscar Namechange;1457876 wrote: Who else but Bruv would just have to come In and say that.
I give up...........who?

[Bruv]

Oscar Namechange;1457876 wrote: Who else but Bruv would just have to come In and say that.


Apart from the first post...........what has he contributed to the topic?

[Oscar Namechange]

Bruv;1457879 wrote: Apart from the first post...........what has he contributed to the topic? Your and Anne's behaviour Is disgusting. You're not here to debate but to troll. If your so critical of JJ's threads or posts then It's simple... butt out. Anne's beahviour toward our new member was shameful In the Equality thread. I'm done with the pair of you...this moronic behaviour Is returning this forum to the old days.

[Lady J]

Bruv;1457875 wrote: Who else but JJ, could turn the crisis in the middle east into a "Look at Me thread" ?


He didn't ... You just see it that way. I would like to see what Saint reads in your personality quiz. Dare you to take it!:)

[Lady J]

Oscar Namechange;1457880 wrote: Your and Anne's behaviour Is disgusting. You're not here to debate but to troll. If your so critical of JJ's threads or posts then It's simple... butt out. Anne's beahviour toward our new member was shameful In the Equality thread. I'm done with the pair of you...this moronic behaviour Is returning this forum to the old days.


:yh_clap:yh_clap:yh_clap

[High Threshold]

AnneBoleyn;1457871 wrote: Everyone else seems to believe that High Threshold is my real name!



It's not?


:wah::yh_rotfl:wah:

[High Threshold]

Oscar Namechange;1457880 wrote: Your and Anne's behaviour Is disgusting.


Excuse me, Oscar, but I am devastated to see people who I admire at one another's throat. Even if it's only one of them who's doing the choking.

[AnneBoleyn]

Oscar Namechange;1457880 wrote: Your and Anne's behaviour Is disgusting. You're not here to debate but to troll. If your so critical of JJ's threads or posts then It's simple... butt out. Anne's beahviour toward our new member was shameful In the Equality thread. I'm done with the pair of you...this moronic behaviour Is returning this forum to the old days.


Wow, Oscar. I'm crushed. I don't know how I'll ever get over this. Do you feel this way about Tyr as well? Just curious.

[AnneBoleyn]

High Threshold;1457890 wrote: Excuse me, Oscar, but I am devastated to see people who I admire at one another's throat. Even if it's only one of them who's doing the choking.


Don't be concerned, HT. In the big Scope of Life, in the Joys I've had & the Sufferings I've endured, this means very little. I however, still like Oscar. Although we don't agree sometimes she has a great generosity of spirit.

C'est la vie.

[AnneBoleyn]

Lady J;1457887 wrote: :yh_clap:yh_clap:yh_clap


:-1 :yh_brokeh :yh_cry

[High Threshold]

AnneBoleyn;1457939 wrote: ..... I ... still like Oscar. Although we don't agree sometimes she has a great generosity of spirit.


That's what I like to hear! :yh_love