Just wondering, why is the Trump Administration so tight lipped on the question?
Is the situation the same as Benghazi? Does that mean Rex Tillerson is guilty of "murder" like Hillary Clinton and should face multiple Congressional investigations?
All it takes is a minute to do a search and find out, but no... lets not let facts get in the way of spouting off more ignorant tripe.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017 … mbush.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-troop … d=50559788
I love the fact that people like you would rather launch an insult than address the point. Typical of Fox News extremists.
Not surprisingly, your links have absolutely nothing to do with my point.
You have no point. I gave reference to where answers could be found on the subject, you ranted about something totally not related.
I could go into how these are vastly different situations and why, but I won't waste the time, any facts brought to the discussion would be ignored, and you would continue with your fact-less ranting.
LOL. The point of my QUESTION is obvious. (I capitalized question in case you didn't see the question mark in my post.)
Americans died in both hostile situations because they lacked proper support. Please read my entire post before flying off the handle.
The fact that anyone claims expertise on both situations from a pair of vague news articles is silly. Just armchair soldiering.
I do read your posts, they are often nonsensical, or unrelated to the topic of discussion, they are either rants or attacks on other posters.
As for this topic, you have no military background, you have no SF insights, so you have no basis to criticize the matter at hand, or how one event compares to the other.
Seriously? Attacks on posters? Look at this whole thread. I simply asked a question. You attacked me. Total hypocrisy.
Why don't you calmly answer the question without losing your temper?
The question doesn't require any military background. Americans without proper support died in both situations. The question asks why.
Would love to hear "Fair and Balanced" Fox news fans justify all the complaints of sexual harassment towards this network.
Reagan got 240 Marines killed in Beirut is the 80s and he's beloved. Trump supporters will find excuses for these deaths. They were unavoidable - just like Benghazi. And what were we doing there? Things that are secret for a good reason. Just like Benghazi.
Just like Benghazi. And Niger.
You are right. If we are going to complain about Hollywood sexual assaults, we should complain about Fox News assaults at the same time. Reasonable people should condemn all of it and not just some of it.
And if we are going to have Congressional investigations into Benghazi, then we also should them for Niger.
"Reagan got 240 Marines killed in Beirut..."
While it is true that 240 Marines died in that barracks bombing during Reagan's presidency Kathleen, your phrasing that "Reagan got them killed" certainly says volumes about the credibility of your statements.
You seriously misunderstand her point. She goes on to say the Beirut deaths were unavoidable like Benghazi.
Reagan didn't "murder" those Marines any more than Clinton "murdered" the four people in Benghazi.
Her credibility is just fine. And so is her point about double standards by the Fox News faction.
I did get her point about the Benghazi comparison promisem, but, but... sputter, mutter, and mumble...
Well damn! you made me go back and look at her post. And double damn! My comment can only be described as an emotional knee-jerk reaction to the "...Reagan killed..." lead-off.
I screwed that one up. It is my credibility that should be questioned on this one. Mia Culpa. I will go back an apologize to her.
Your own credibility just took a big jump higher. I don't know if you care what I think about your credibility, but I'm taking a chance and saying it anyway.
I also made one slight mistake two years ago.
Kathleen, after taking a second look at your post, (prompted by a promisem comment) - that I responded to - I was really off-base. I jumped the gun and shot right past your point. A knee-jerk emotional reaction that reflects more on my credibility than yours. I hope you will accept my apology.
Indeed, well said.
When one considers these attacks and efforts of... I'm not sure what? Revenge for the election results? Blanket efforts to stifle all opposing view with insults? ... come from accomplished intelligent, otherwise rational adults, one has to wonder where we go from here.
Countless times I have been called a Trumpster, Conservative, Republinazi, or labeled with whatever the term is for someone who watches Fox news (I haven't watched any MSM news shows for months). Yet, soon as I, or anyone voice an opinion certain people on here do not like the 'you are one of THEM' statements and attacks come out.
What I do know, is that during the Obama Administration, and prior, the discussions were more civil, at least on my articles and questions, and those I interacted with. It has been unusual that the level of animosity has increased and compounded since this election, when usually it dies down for a couple of years before things start to get wound up for the new election (4 years).
Here is a splash from one of Ken's links: "The Special Forces soldiers are in Africa to bolster the defense capabilities of partner nations, while combating terrorist groups such as Boko Haram and al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb."
It was a good question but easily answered. Every once in a while terrorism strikes somewhere else besides the places we are familiar with hearing about it.
Frankly, you and Ken are attacking each other without listening, promisem. It is the sad way of things these days: Lefties & Moderates are becoming as beligerent as Righties & T-fans.
Trump's parroting supporters start out pushing buttons with rude accusations or insults like this; and we've learned to fight like them - and this is what happens as a result: we regress to their 3rd grade level of attack as a response; and nothing gets accomplished but insults. Not falling for their diverting provocations is the trick. They've obviously learned their extremely-divisive Trump-lessons very well, LoL!
Misfit, I simply asked a question. Ken attacked me on a personal level for asking it: "ranting", "nonsensical", "ignorant tripe".
I've learned that bending down to bullies only encourages them. For that reason, I don't put up with bullies. Nor should anyone else.
I totally get that... But allowing a bully to provoke you into this kind of discourse isn't quite right, either. I'm sorry, it just seems a little beneath you, ha! What would you say to Ken in response if you had a (pretend) 5 yo nephew standing next to you? Maybe you would still respond the same way. I'm just saying, the insults only make situations bigger instead of accomplishing anything - and T-fans like Ken are very good at provoking hard feelings, ugliness & violence just like their beloved 'leader'.
Your point is well taken. I've lived long enough to know that I take the high road in life 90% of the time and the low road the other 10%. I have love and respect from people who know me and matter to me.
I know some people on HP don't feel the same about me.
Taking the low road is not something I enjoy doing. But I do it when I think it's necessary. I have learned it's necessary with most bullies. I've seen them hurt too many people too many times, including my own children.
To your question, I would not write some of the above comments in front of a young child. Or if I did, I would explain why.
I have always admired your stand as a forum participant, it is just that the conservative movement today is defined by intimidation and bullying, look at the head of the serpent? What can we expect?
Thanks, Credence. It means a lot coming from you.
Oddly, I think the "head of the serpent" is doing the country a favor by forcing responsible citizens to consider their votes, who they support and why. The more divisive Trump becomes, the more thinking people step up to the plate.
Thank you, Promisem, I think that Trump is the kind of candidate that his supporters would continue to support even if he had shot the Pope. If you are expecting so many to see reason, you are in for a big disappointment. They are well past that....
This is incorrect, you have continued this tirade. Not very professional for someone who claims to be long experienced in the media/journalist arena. Then again what am I saying, you reflect the MSM so well!
As for not putting up with bullies, I do agree, and while I will not waste my time further responding to you, I want you to know it is not because I have been cowed or reprimanded by your antics here on Hubpages, going back for months now, directed towards others more than anything I have posted.... I simply realize it is beneath me to continue encouraging your pettiness.
I called you out for it, and now I am done.
Could it go back to McCarthyism, "Have you no decency?"
Hi Misfit Chick, Mark Twain offered advice concerning the situation of your last paragraph. I try to always keep his quote in mind as I participate in these forums.
Of course I am not saying it applies to the objects of your comment, but it is good advice: Mark Twain's discussion advice
GA, I'm curious how you would react if my response to your 2nd Amendment question a week or so again was something like the following.
"This is nothing but more factless ranting and ignorant tripe from a right-wing gun nut."
You may claim you wouldn't be upset and respond emotionally. But based on our history together, I strongly suspect you would be upset and show it in your response.
So now I ask. If you have an open, fair and balanced intellect, what prevents you from finding such behavior objectionable?
ah geez promisem. You know I have to offer you a "challenge" to point to one of my responses that you deemed to be from an upset and emotional perspective. Even that 2nd Amendment one you alluded to turned out to be your misperception after an explanation was offered.
I do think I can truthfully reply that any answering responses I would make would not be of an upset and emotional nature. Contrarily I would say such responses would be even more rationally considered so as to convey a message that 'you can go to hell', yet have you thank me for the sentiment. ;-)
It appears you may have taken offense at my Mark Twain quote reference, yet clearly missed my statement that it was not intended to apply directly to you or Ken, but to the type of conversations Misfit Chick was speaking of.
I wasn't calling you an idiot promisem, that would be an emotional response. But... some synonyms for the concept, like; bullheaded, obstinate, etc. may make my Mark Twain thought more applicable.
GA, it sounds like you are evading my point and imagining things about my thought processes.
I would be glad to show you responses you have made that were personal attacks based on being upset with someone. For example:
"That's just baloney Randy. How about addressing the point of the OP instead of just restating silly questions and statements."
Regardless, you misperceive my comment. My point is about double standards on personal attacks and not specific attacks by you.
With that in mind, you didn't answer my question. You run the risk of being accused of having a double standard on civil behavior -- one for your fellow conservatives on here and another for everyone else. So one more time:
If you have an open, fair and balanced intellect, what prevents you from finding such behavior objectionable?
promisem, it sure seems to me that you are making this a lot more complicated than intended. Maybe I did "misperceive" [sic] your comment. It sounded like you were defensive about the Mark Twain quote.
It also seems we have a different perspective of emotional personal attacks;
"That's just baloney Randy. How about addressing the point of the OP instead of just restating silly questions and statements."
That wasn't intended as a personal attack, and I still don't perceive it as one. My intention, and my perception of the phrase, was to challenge, (okay, maybe you could also say admonish), Randy to address the issue being discussed. I didn't hear from Randy about an "emotional attack," but I did hear from another poster that reconsidered her agreement with your opinion of the comment after reviewing the thread, and my explanation to you.
But, my perception could just as easily be as wrong as I think it is right. After all, apparently my explanation of it to you didn't change your mind - even if it did change other's. In which case, I hope you will let me plead that it was an unintentional emotional response. (but I must be obstinate and refuse to think of it as a personal attack)
Maybe Randy will chime in and let us know if he perceived my comment to be an emotional personal attack.
On the other hand, an accusation of holding a double standard based on allied perspectives would be an affront, one which I would take seriously. I am not certain you actually made such a claim, (benefit of the doubt, and all that), but if you did, I believe I could find sufficient past forum conversations to disprove your thought that I don't hold Conservatives to the same standards you think you are being held to.
As to your last question... I do try to keep an open mind on topics, and I do try to be fair in my considerations, but those are only well intentioned efforts, that aren't always successful - but I do not make those claims for myself.
Concerning personal attacks, I don't consider calling someone's input - in a political discussion, crap or tripe to be a personal attack. I see it as an attack on the input. Crap and tripe may be a more blunt and impolitic approach than I would take, but if the input is crap or tripe - there is nothing personal about it. I see a difference, maybe you don't. Perhaps you are a little too invested in some of your opinions.
ps.I hope I haven't left you feeling I "evaded" your questions, I tried to cover the ones I perceived to be questions. Get back to me if I missed another one.
GA, it's not complicated at all. Some conservatives defend fellow conservatives who behave badly. Some liberals do the same. Criticizing someone who fights back against a personal attack without criticizing the attacker is a double standard.
Thanks for answering my question. But saying that YOU are "ranting" and posting "ignorant tripe" is a personal attack. Claiming otherwise is another way of defending the bad behavior of the attacker and encourages more attacks.
Perhaps you are the one who is a little too invested in some of your opinons. Or maybe just "obstinate".
And here we are once more... a simple difference of perspectives. That I think yours is wrong and overly sensitive is merely my perspective. You keep yours, I'll keep mine, and we will merrily proceed down the stream to the next topic that arises.
You don't think some people defend their fellow liberals or conservatives even when they act badly? I'm sorry, but that's not a difference in perspectives. That's a total disconnect on the part of the person who thinks that way.
As you said yourself, calling someone who thinks that way an "idiot" would be an emotional response. Bullheaded or obstinate would be the operative words.
And let me remind you, you said the above to me. I assume you are OK with me saying it as well. Otherwise, we have more evidence of a double standard.
Now promisem, there is only so much rope to play here.
I didn't say that I didn't think some defend their fellow thinkers even when they are wrong. If you took that from my comments, then you either read more into them than was intended, or I was less than clear on what I meant to say. Regardless, for clarity, I do believe some offer a defense of like-minded thinkers when there is no real defense to offer.
Hmmm... I believe I left myself enough wiggle-room to plausibly deny I called you bull-headed or obstinate, but even if not, I am fine with your use of them.
But you are really wearing out this "double standard" threat. It would probably be best to retire that thought with the rest of the points we have put to bed.
By the way, "obstinate" people stand by their beliefs. They don't change their minds just because someone else insists that they do.
You are almost right about "obstinate" promisem, but I think the more correct operative word would be persuade, rather than insist. And one aspect of that effort to persuade could be the presence of more accurate facts or a more factual consideration of circumstances.
Would being obstinate about a belief that the earth is flat be a good thing?
I see a pattern. I am wrong most of the time, almost right every now and then but never totally right.
Persuasion exists, but so does obstinence. Any other view is unrealistic.
To your question, of course not. As I simply said, obstinate people don't change their minds just because someone else insists that they do.
Even though I am busily eating some crow promisem, I will pause long enough to agree with both your points - the pattern, and the obstinence(sp?).
"Would being obstinate about a belief that the earth is flat be a good thing?"
It wouldn't be obstinate if there wasn't irrefutable proof otherwise. The tenets of the conservative would hardly qualify as irrefutably correct.
Credence2, you surprise me. A partisan comment about conservatives in general... I am shocked. ;-)
However, I do agree, the tenets of any bias should not qualify as proof, but I would soften your "irrefutable" to "plausible" regarding the quality of the truth - for most matters in a political discussion.
This "Command" may well be legitimate. It is just dismaying that we have to have our fingers in so many pies. Is it any wonder that that themilitaty budget has to bankrupt the treasury? How can I continue to pay for this involvement on the most remote parts of the planet?
We have to be concerned about the effects of terrorism everywhere Cred, not just the terrorism directed at our shores. I think our fingers in the pie serve our best interests.
So, how far are we to take this, GA?
Nine-Eleven was 16 years ago. And, we still use the threat of endless war to justify guns over butter. Watching the Vietnam documentary byPBS reminds me how we continue to chase after the futility of a fool's errand. It appears that nothing has been learned, or perhaps we do not want to learn, the military industrial complex is a massive machine that since WWII, will not be denied.
Who says that globocop has to be the way, must it always be so? History tells us that Abe Lincoln worked to keep foreign powers out of our civil war. Why can't we accept the fact that civil war and human conflict on the globe at this period of time is unavoidable and inevitable as an unfortunate by product of the human condition?
This constant threat of total war and endless war is food for the rightwinger as an excuse to deny needed resources on the domestic front.
So, your assessment for the need of endless militarism, I disagree with. Let defense be proscribed to be just that "defense". So, I don't subscribe to the Bush Doctrine.
Ohh gawddd Cred. You got all of that from my comment?
How about this perspective... Ossama and his Al Qaeda fighters have found a safe base in Afghanistan. He has proclaimed he will attack us again, and his group is growing larger and stronger daily. Afghanistan doesn't have the force or will to fight him. Pakistan has both, but doesn't know how to proceed. Would you be okay with sending advisers to train Pakistan's anti-terrorist forces?
But wait, that is a loaded question... instead of Ossama and Al Qaeda, and, Afghanistan, plug in that group from Niger - with the same stated goal of attacking Western nations, and the same circumstances that the country they are based in, and surrounding ones, have the will but not the training to combat them. Would you support U.S. advisers to train them?
I wasn't talking about the "Military-Industrial Complex" cabal of secret power brokers, and I wasn't talking about covert military actions - for political purposes, posed in the guise of fighting terrorism.
Ossama attacked us from Afghanistan. When would you think it is okay for us to turn off our 'other nations' terrorism radar? Is your 16 years long enough?
Don't mean to be a wise guy, but Khrushchev once said that "he would bury us". I don't let verbal threats put us in a position to turn our economy upside down based on raw fear. I worry more about the danger from domestic(home grown) terror and abusers of firearms run amuck. So, why should I allow myself to be distracted? And, again when it comes to 'advisers', isn't that what we were told during the earliest days of American involvement in Vietnam?
I have read more than one account of billions of wasted American tax dollars for graft, abuse associated with building the instrastructure of Afghanistan. Again, the same sort of pacification used to enlist the former South Vietnam in the so called war against international Communism.
If training means just training that is one thing, but if the past is any guide.......
As I said before, these programs, our level of involvement and expense need closer oversight.
Some of this "preemptive" war concept can and does go too far at times?
You make valid points Cred, it's just that I wasn't going in that direction. I was commenting on the appropriateness I see in our efforts to help other nations combat terrorism that could easily grow to be a threat to us.
That those efforts could lead to the points you make is not something I would ignore. (except maybe the Vietnam allusion)
AFRICOM United States Africa Command
* https://twitter.com/USAfricaCommand?ref … r%5Eauthor
I don't have TV service. I follow Hannity, Tucker and Dobbs (a few others on Fox) on social media as time permits. Especially, Hannity, who seems to have a hotline to the President more than once a week.
Added: I expect Fox to come under greater attacks.
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 6 years ago
Most Muslims are peaceful. Why are they not more vocal in denouncing terrorism? If ISIS has 40,000+ terrorist and other terrorist groups have lesser numbers, what percentage of the Muslim population is violent. I understand that those in the Middle East are afraid. What...
by LoliHey 5 years ago
Why is it that with terrorism going on, people are so apt to point out the "cruelty" of Christians?ISIS is a real threat. But people tend to downplay this, by trying to prove that Christians are worse. People love to play the "Hitler was a Christian" card. Anyone can...
by ga anderson 2 years ago
I have heard that there may be more than one version of the Green New Deal. Something about a version posted, (and pulled), from AOC's website, and another version that is somewhere in the legislative process. (Republicans trying to embarrass Democrats)For a common reference point, I will use the...
by Will Apse 5 years ago
Quote:Humans suppress areas of the brain used for analytical thinking and engage the parts responsible for empathy in order to believe in god, research suggests.They do the opposite when thinking about the physical world, according to the study." from what we understand about the...
by PeterStip 4 years ago
You're over 12.000 times more likely to be killed by a gun then by a terrorist attack.In thew US there where 24 deaths from islamist terrorism between 2005 and 2015. But there where 301,797 gun deaths in the same period!!In the 70's and 80's the risk of a terrorist attack was greater then nowadays....
by ptosis 4 years ago
Are you a “potential terrorist”?Conservative, libertarian, Christian or gun owner? Opposed to abortion, globalism, Communism, illegal immigration, the United Nations? Believe in conspiracy theories or living in the “end times”, visit alternative news websites? Answer yes to any of above...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|