confuzzled dude wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
What I & I believe Max were alluding to was how president Reagan's freedom fighters became Taliban and helped plot an attack on the US

you should get on a time machine, go back to 1980 and give reagan your future vision glasses that tells him exactly how things will turn out 20 yrs from then. 1980s america misses your profound genius so much

That's right! I forgot that we should keep doing the same and expect different results.

ppl have been forming expedient alliances and turn around to fight them later on. that is the nature of humans. you towering intellectual geniuses with perfect 20-20  future vision glasses can see all the combinations of what might happen to eternity but most of ppl that are in responsible positions are hamstrung from that perspective. you should distill all your genius and wisdom developed from years of reading wapo into a wisdom source that future generations can use.

Which is precisely why I'm against arming so called good rebels; It didn't take that long for the Afghan freedom fighters to turn around and bomb WTC, did it? Soviet-Afghan war ended in '89, they tried to blow away WTC in '93. Only fools don't want to learn the lessons from their previous experiences.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Really! TBT, rise of radical islam is less dangerous than communism?! You take Kashmir, Taliban, Al-Qaeda over a communist regime.

Still not ONE negative word about the ISIL from you or your Mullahs-in-arm.

In Arab Jubour, once a Sunni insurgent haven just south of Baghdad, Sheikh Mustafa al-Shabib says he has rejected approaches by Iraqi officials for him to help coordinate the new national guard. For him, it bears too much resemblance to the Awakening Movement, or Sahwa, a program started by the United States in 2006 to use Sunni tribesmen to crush al-Qaeda. The U.S. military regarded the program as critical in defeating the Sunni insurgency at the time.

However, the project had an acrimonious end after it was transferred to the Iraqi government, which did not pay salaries or keep promises to incorporate the Sunni fighters into the regular security forces.

A perception of treachery

Shabib said that when the Awakening forces were disbanded, he was offered a job in the army as a regular soldier, which he said was an insult after he served as a general under Saddam Hussein and later led 3,000 tribal fighters.

In 2009 he was arrested under terrorism laws that Sunnis complain are used to target their community.

“They betrayed the Awakening project, and therefore they will pay the price,” Shabib said.

truthbetold wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

you should get on a time machine, go back to 1980 and give reagan your future vision glasses that tells him exactly how things will turn out 20 yrs from then. 1980s america misses your profound genius so much

That's right! I forgot that we should keep doing the same and expect different results.

ppl have been forming expedient alliances and turn around to fight them later on. that is the nature of humans. you towering intellectual geniuses with perfect 20-20  future vision glasses can see all the combinations of what might happen to eternity but most of ppl that are in responsible positions are hamstrung from that perspective. you should distill all your genius and wisdom developed from years of reading wapo into a wisdom source that future generations can use.

Which is precisely why I'm against arming so called good rebels; It didn't take that long for the Afghan freedom fighters to turn around and bomb WTC, did it? Soviet-Afghan war ended in '89, they tried to blow away WTC in '93. Only fools don't want to learn the lessons from their previous experiences.

CD

It is amazing how data works for you. All the islamic extremism and soviet threats are figments of imaginations. But if amit shah says as much as muslim,  your future danger radar blares at full throttle.  Your data works only one way. If it is RSS/BJP/modi/CBN you can yell fire and danger even if its a figment of your imagination but if its soviet union or islamic extremism a world full data is useless data.  In one case you forecast how dangerous RSS is to the fabric of India but for the life of you you cannot find a rationale way to say islamic extremism is even a small threat to India.

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:reading CD's comments on muslims makes me feel like muslims are not humans but some animals, devoid of rationalizing, and that pretty much everyone else needs to adjust so as not to raise the wrath of the beast, or else, it will be our fault only.

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:reading CD's comments on muslims makes me feel like muslims are not humans but some animals, devoid of rationalizing, and that pretty much everyone else needs to adjust so as not to raise the wrath of the beast, or else, it will be our fault only.

truthbetold wrote:CD

"Islamic terrorism will be a threat to India"


So your assessment is that it is not a threat at this time. It is a future threat.  


"should be eradicated like polio"



Is that a quote from somewhere?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:reading CD's comments on muslims makes me feel like muslims are not humans but some animals, devoid of rationalizing, and that pretty much everyone else needs to adjust so as not to raise the wrath of the beast, or else, it will be our fault only.

https://such.forumotion.com/t26600-the-economist-explains-why-are-indian-muslims-so-moderate#174642

Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?

truthbetold wrote:

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:reading CD's comments on muslims makes me feel like muslims are not humans but some animals, devoid of rationalizing, and that pretty much everyone else needs to adjust so as not to raise the wrath of the beast, or else, it will be our fault only.

 BK,

Do you think it is a threat disguised as opinion?

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:CD

"Islamic terrorism will be a threat to India"


So your assessment is that it is not a threat at this time. It is a future threat.  


"should be eradicated like polio"



Is that a quote from somewhere?

Thanks for dodging my question. Is mounam ardhAngikAram?

confuzzled dude wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:reading CD's comments on muslims makes me feel like muslims are not humans but some animals, devoid of rationalizing, and that pretty much everyone else needs to adjust so as not to raise the wrath of the beast, or else, it will be our fault only.

https://such.forumotion.com/t26600-the-economist-explains-why-are-indian-muslims-so-moderate#174642

Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?

BTW, one thing I noticed is me differentiating extremists from main stream/ordinary Muslims is not popular with many SuCHers. For them they all are one and the same. I guess that is the root of CD evil.

confuzzled dude wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:reading CD's comments on muslims makes me feel like muslims are not humans but some animals, devoid of rationalizing, and that pretty much everyone else needs to adjust so as not to raise the wrath of the beast, or else, it will be our fault only.

https://such.forumotion.com/t26600-the-economist-explains-why-are-indian-muslims-so-moderate#174642

Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?

BTW, one thing I noticed is me differentiating extremists from main stream/ordinary Muslims is not popular with many SuCHers. For them they all are one and the same. I guess that is the root of CD evil.

confuzzled dude wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:reading CD's comments on muslims makes me feel like muslims are not humans but some animals, devoid of rationalizing, and that pretty much everyone else needs to adjust so as not to raise the wrath of the beast, or else, it will be our fault only.

https://such.forumotion.com/t26600-the-economist-explains-why-are-indian-muslims-so-moderate#174642

Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?

BTW, one thing I noticed is me differentiating extremists from main stream/ordinary Muslims is not popular with many SuCHers. For them they all are one and the same. I guess that is the root of CD evil.

truthbetold wrote:
CD
 
I will limit myself to my comments and allow you to respond to others as you please. It is not as if we have thousands of posters.  My questions are simply,  why do you find excuses for radical muslim actions?  Why do always blame some external actor for the actions of radicals?  Why do you always oppose action against radical elements? why do you become aggressive and passionate when criticizing those who oppose radical islam? 

It is not your opinion of ordinary muslims that causes discussion. It is your reluctance to acknowledge the problem of radical islamism that causes surprise and may be vigorous response in few cases.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:reading CD's comments on muslims makes me feel like muslims are not humans but some animals, devoid of rationalizing, and that pretty much everyone else needs to adjust so as not to raise the wrath of the beast, or else, it will be our fault only.

https://such.forumotion.com/t26600-the-economist-explains-why-are-indian-muslims-so-moderate#174642

Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?

BTW, one thing I noticed is me differentiating extremists from main stream/ordinary Muslims is not popular with many SuCHers. For them they all are one and the same. I guess that is the root of CD evil.

yeah rite...BTW, one thing I notice about you and your ilk is you guys combine anyone even remotely supporting BJP or Modi as a hindu terrorist, and not differentiating hindus from RSS (just bcz ppl call themselves hindus is sufficient for you to label them as communal), while not uttering more than a courtesy protest - if at all - at any of the dastardly terror act by bastardly islamic Jehadis who are ably supported by the silence of the "moderate" rest of the muslims.

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:
CD
 
I will limit myself to my comments and allow you to respond to others as you please. It is not as if we have thousands of posters.  My questions are simply,  why do you find excuses for radical muslim actions?  Why do always blame some external actor for the actions of radicals?  Why do you always oppose action against radical elements? why do you become aggressive and passionate when criticizing those who oppose radical islam? 

It is not your opinion of ordinary muslims that causes discussion. It is your reluctance to acknowledge the problem of radical islamism that causes surprise and may be vigorous response in few cases.

Did you answer my question as to why do you think all Indian Muslims are a threat to India?

Let me answer your [false] claims now, When did I not acknowledge radical elements? If anything I was suggesting that arming/training Syrian Free Army is as bad an idea as arming Afghans, in fact I'm asking regional players like Saudi, Turkey that were supporting/funding ISIS to act instead of pushing the US into the fray.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:reading CD's comments on muslims makes me feel like muslims are not humans but some animals, devoid of rationalizing, and that pretty much everyone else needs to adjust so as not to raise the wrath of the beast, or else, it will be our fault only.

https://such.forumotion.com/t26600-the-economist-explains-why-are-indian-muslims-so-moderate#174642

Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?

BTW, one thing I noticed is me differentiating extremists from main stream/ordinary Muslims is not popular with many SuCHers. For them they all are one and the same. I guess that is the root of CD evil.

yeah rite...BTW, one thing I notice about you and your ilk is you guys combine anyone even remotely supporting BJP or Modi as a hindu terrorist, and not differentiating hindus from RSS (just bcz ppl call themselves hindus is sufficient for you to label them as communal), while not uttering more than a courtesy protest - if at all - at any of the dastardly terror act by bastardly islamic Jehadis who are ably supported by the silence of the "moderate" rest of the muslims.

Really! Do I call congress wallahs chaddis? And what are you blabbering about Modi, he is a Rss wallah

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:
CD
 
I will limit myself to my comments and allow you to respond to others as you please. It is not as if we have thousands of posters.  My questions are simply,  why do you find excuses for radical muslim actions?  Why do always blame some external actor for the actions of radicals?  Why do you always oppose action against radical elements? why do you become aggressive and passionate when criticizing those who oppose radical islam? 

It is not your opinion of ordinary muslims that causes discussion. It is your reluctance to acknowledge the problem of radical islamism that causes surprise and may be vigorous response in few cases.

Did you answer my question as to why do you think all Indian Muslims are a threat to India?

Let me answer your [false] claims now, When did I not acknowledge radical elements? If anything I was suggesting that arming/training Syrian Free Army is as bad an idea as arming Afghans, in fact I'm asking regional players like Saudi, Turkey that were supporting/funding ISIS to act instead of pushing the US into the fray.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
https://such.forumotion.com/t26600-the-economist-explains-why-are-indian-muslims-so-moderate#174642

Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?

BTW, one thing I noticed is me differentiating extremists from main stream/ordinary Muslims is not popular with many SuCHers. For them they all are one and the same. I guess that is the root of CD evil.

yeah rite...BTW, one thing I notice about you and your ilk is you guys combine anyone even remotely supporting BJP or Modi as a hindu terrorist, and not differentiating hindus from RSS (just bcz ppl call themselves hindus is sufficient for you to label them as communal), while not uttering more than a courtesy protest - if at all - at any of the dastardly terror act by bastardly islamic Jehadis who are ably supported by the silence of the "moderate" rest of the muslims.

Really! Do I call congress wallahs chaddis? And what are you blabbering about Modi, he is a Rss wallah

Try again...dont avoid uncomfortable question.

truthbetold wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:
CD
 
I will limit myself to my comments and allow you to respond to others as you please. It is not as if we have thousands of posters.  My questions are simply,  why do you find excuses for radical muslim actions?  Why do always blame some external actor for the actions of radicals?  Why do you always oppose action against radical elements? why do you become aggressive and passionate when criticizing those who oppose radical islam? 

It is not your opinion of ordinary muslims that causes discussion. It is your reluctance to acknowledge the problem of radical islamism that causes surprise and may be vigorous response in few cases.

Did you answer my question as to why do you think all Indian Muslims are a threat to India?

Let me answer your [false] claims now, When did I not acknowledge radical elements? If anything I was suggesting that arming/training Syrian Free Army is as bad an idea as arming Afghans, in fact I'm asking regional players like Saudi, Turkey that were supporting/funding ISIS to act instead of pushing the US into the fray.

cd,

"why do you think all Indian Muslims are a threat to India?"


When and where did I say that or even imply anything like that?  stop using pot in day time. Stop hallucinating. Check posts and rephrase the question. 


Let me answer this way. Me being critical of dr. arrogance daruwala does not mean I am against all daruwalas.  Far from it.  I enjoy a good daru session.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:reading CD's comments on muslims makes me feel like muslims are not humans but some animals, devoid of rationalizing, and that pretty much everyone else needs to adjust so as not to raise the wrath of the beast, or else, it will be our fault only.

https://such.forumotion.com/t26600-the-economist-explains-why-are-indian-muslims-so-moderate#174642

Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?

BTW, one thing I noticed is me differentiating extremists from main stream/ordinary Muslims is not popular with many SuCHers. For them they all are one and the same. I guess that is the root of CD evil.

>>>That is a difference that will hold much more water if mainstream Muslims make that differentiation themselves and have shown consistently that they isolate those extremists. This has sadly not been a prominent feature of Islamic history. I am not talking about sectarian infighting, but purging out extremism. When you an omerta feature built into your religion, there is going to be no turning over of your co-religionists to anyone else of your own volition. A prime example of this is OBL living in a compound in Abbotabad, which is the home of Pakistan's Westpoint. Thankfully Obama did not continue the folly of taking Pakistan into confidence at the time of the raid. This is why I don't think any coalition in the middle east to check ISIL is a pipe dream.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:reading CD's comments on muslims makes me feel like muslims are not humans but some animals, devoid of rationalizing, and that pretty much everyone else needs to adjust so as not to raise the wrath of the beast, or else, it will be our fault only.

https://such.forumotion.com/t26600-the-economist-explains-why-are-indian-muslims-so-moderate#174642

Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?

BTW, one thing I noticed is me differentiating extremists from main stream/ordinary Muslims is not popular with many SuCHers. For them they all are one and the same. I guess that is the root of CD evil.

>>>That is a difference that will hold much more water if mainstream Muslims make that differentiation themselves and have shown consistently that they isolate those extremists. This has sadly not been a prominent feature of Islamic history. I am not talking about sectarian infighting, but purging out extremism. When you an omerta feature built into your religion, there is going to be no turning over of your co-religionists to anyone else of your own volition. A prime example of this is OBL living in a compound in Abbotabad, which is the home of Pakistan's Westpoint. Thankfully Obama did not continue the folly of taking Pakistan into confidence at the time of the raid. This is why I don't think any coalition in the middle east to check ISIL is a pipe dream.

Kris, we've had this argument several times. Carvaka, Max and others have provided numerous examples to prove that it is not the case but for some reason you've made up your mind to believe that is the case so not much I can do to change your opinion. Even, in Iraq some of the sunni tribes have been fighting ISIL and have fought Al-Queda before but that fact some how doesn't register with many.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
https://such.forumotion.com/t26600-the-economist-explains-why-are-indian-muslims-so-moderate#174642

Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?

BTW, one thing I noticed is me differentiating extremists from main stream/ordinary Muslims is not popular with many SuCHers. For them they all are one and the same. I guess that is the root of CD evil.

>>>That is a difference that will hold much more water if mainstream Muslims make that differentiation themselves and have shown consistently that they isolate those extremists. This has sadly not been a prominent feature of Islamic history. I am not talking about sectarian infighting, but purging out extremism. When you an omerta feature built into your religion, there is going to be no turning over of your co-religionists to anyone else of your own volition. A prime example of this is OBL living in a compound in Abbotabad, which is the home of Pakistan's Westpoint. Thankfully Obama did not continue the folly of taking Pakistan into confidence at the time of the raid. This is why I don't think any coalition in the middle east to check ISIL is a pipe dream.

Kris, we've had this argument several times. Carvaka, Max and others have provided numerous examples to prove that it is not the case but for some reason you've made up your mind to believe that is the case so not much I can do to change your opinion. Even, in Iraq some of the sunni tribes have been fighting ISIL and have fought Al-Queda before but that fact some how doesn't register with many.

>>>The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If Islamic countries have no problems with isolating them, why did Pakistan not hand over OBL, who was living in Abbotabad? Why was the doctor who tipped off as to OBL's whereabouts get thrown in jail? Why are the terrorists that do mischief in India  not handed over and instead allowed to live freely in Pakistan?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:is viewing anything mildly critical of the state of israel as raging anti-semitism, also an omerta mentality? when a siege mentality takes over a people, weird behavior ensues.  when it is aided and abetted by militarily powerful nations, you get israel.  when it is not, you get crude knives and beheadings in the desert.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
BTW, one thing I noticed is me differentiating extremists from main stream/ordinary Muslims is not popular with many SuCHers. For them they all are one and the same. I guess that is the root of CD evil.

>>>That is a difference that will hold much more water if mainstream Muslims make that differentiation themselves and have shown consistently that they isolate those extremists. This has sadly not been a prominent feature of Islamic history. I am not talking about sectarian infighting, but purging out extremism. When you an omerta feature built into your religion, there is going to be no turning over of your co-religionists to anyone else of your own volition. A prime example of this is OBL living in a compound in Abbotabad, which is the home of Pakistan's Westpoint. Thankfully Obama did not continue the folly of taking Pakistan into confidence at the time of the raid. This is why I don't think any coalition in the middle east to check ISIL is a pipe dream.

Kris, we've had this argument several times. Carvaka, Max and others have provided numerous examples to prove that it is not the case but for some reason you've made up your mind to believe that is the case so not much I can do to change your opinion. Even, in Iraq some of the sunni tribes have been fighting ISIL and have fought Al-Queda before but that fact some how doesn't register with many.

>>>The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If Islamic countries have no problems with isolating them, why did Pakistan not hand over OBL, who was living in Abbotabad? Why was the doctor who tipped off as to OBL's whereabouts get thrown in jail? Why are the terrorists that do mischief in India  not handed over and instead allowed to live freely in Pakistan?

All the guys at Gitmo were handed over to the US by Muslims (for a bounty). OBL is a unique case - the ISI prob'ly saw him as a valuable bargaining chip / insurance. Handing him over would have ended the 'war on terror' aka limitless ATM in Pakistani. Has nothing to do with any Islamic omerta.

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:is viewing anything mildly critical of the state of israel as raging anti-semitism, also an omerta mentality? when a siege mentality takes over a people, weird behavior ensues.  when it is aided and abetted by militarily powerful nations, you get israel.  when it is not, you get crude knives and beheadings in the desert.

>>>There are groups like 'jews for palestine' and there are several people within the state of Israel who express liberal points of view freely and in the media. If there are 'arabs fo israel', I haven't heard of them. Israel's 'siege' mentality comes from neighbors who have expressed their sentiments along the lines of wiping Israel off the map of the world. When you are surrounded by unfriendly neighbors, the fears are well grounded.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:is viewing anything mildly critical of the state of israel as raging anti-semitism, also an omerta mentality? when a siege mentality takes over a people, weird behavior ensues.  when it is aided and abetted by militarily powerful nations, you get israel.  when it is not, you get crude knives and beheadings in the desert.

>>>There are groups like 'jews for palestine' and there are several people within the state of Israel who express liberal points of view freely and in the media. If there are 'arabs fo israel', I haven't heard of them. Israel's 'siege' mentality comes from neighbors who have expressed their sentiments along the lines of wiping Israel off the map of the world. When you are surrounded by unfriendly neighbors, the fears are well grounded.

That doesn't make much sense; Israel is a reality and getting billions of dollars in funds annually and hitch arms and it's not like palestines are occupying lands illegally

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:The war should be along the lines of Bush 1991, except it should be completed and ISIL should annihilated.

Simply put Obama should do a Beant Singh on the ISIL.

I hope so too man but going by right-wing's befuddled logic i.e. not leaving residual forces in Iraq was the root cause of the raise of ISIL how do you expect air only strikes to annihilate ISIL? I'm afraid we're in for another long term engagement in ME.

WASHINGTON — Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress on Tuesday that he would recommend deploying United States combat forces against Islamic extremists in specific operations if the current strategy of airstrikes was not successful, offering a more expansive view of the American role in the ground war than that of President Obama.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he said that while he was confident in the ability of the coalition of American, European and Middle Eastern governments to stop the Islamic State, he could not completely close the door to eventually asking Mr. Obama to commit ground troops to fight the group, known as ISIS or ISIL.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:not to mention the doctor who assisted in nailing OBL is a muslim.

We’ve been trying to destroy al Qaeda for 13 years now. We have not. We will not. And we will not destroy ISIS. We can’t destroy these outfits. They’re too nimble and slippery and amorphous, and everybody knows it.

But no, I guess a president can’t say that. A president has to sound like John Wayne. It’s depressing and appalling. If he doesn’t go cowboy on us, the war hawks will call him a weakling, say he is unfit and unprepared—and in Obama’s case, they will surely add that he is unwilling—to defend “the homeland,” this phrase we’re all now supposed to use that carries a slightly totalitarian odor about it. If Obama spoke only of containment, John McCain might just have a stroke, and the Sunday shows would have to go off the air.

But contain is what we should do. And I do wish Obama had the conviction to stand up and say it. The statement would have the virtue of being true. It would treat the American people as if they were mature adults who could handle a complex truth, which I actually think most of them (or most of the ones who follow world events anyway) can. Yes, it would hand some political fodder to the right-wing noise machine, but this is exactly the problem: Making impossible promises about destroying ISIS constitutes pandering to that very noise machine, which will only turn around two years later when ISIS is not destroyd and attack Obama ferociously for issuing a false promise.

He can’t win with those people. So he should just tell the truth to the rest of America and let the wingers hyperventilate all they want.

truthbetold wrote:Obama uses degrade. what is this guy talking about.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Obama uses degrade. what is this guy talking about.

do you not have access to an english dictionary?

truthbetold wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Obama uses degrade. what is this guy talking about.

do you not have access to an english dictionary?

how would a dictionary help me or you?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

truthbetold wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Obama uses degrade. what is this guy talking about.

do you not have access to an english dictionary?

how would a dictionary help me or you?

because you wanted to know what he is talking about, and didn't seem to understand the meaning of the word degrade in the context in which obama used it.

truthbetold wrote:

max
you claim to be a prof. help us understand what degrade means? you can then explain what it means in the context the author used and explain what obama's degrade means. then complete it with why i failed to understand the meaning of degrade.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

truthbetold wrote:

max
you claim to be a prof. help us understand what degrade means? you can then explain what it means in the context the author used and explain what obama's degrade means. then complete it with why i failed to understand the meaning of degrade.

i have never made any such claims. the word degrade has many related meanings. in the context in which obama used it, i took it to mean "make less effective or potent". i have no idea why you failed to understand that. i am not privy to the kind of educational experiences you have had, the newspapers you read on a daily basis, or the books you have read.

truthbetold wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

truthbetold wrote:

max
you claim to be a prof. help us understand what degrade means? you can then explain what it means in the context the author used and explain what obama's degrade means. then complete it with why i failed to understand the meaning of degrade.

i have never made any such claims. the word degrade has many related meanings. in the context in which obama used it, i took it to mean "make less effective or potent". i have no idea why you failed to understand that. i am not privy to the kind of educational experiences you have had, the newspapers you read on a daily basis, or the books you have read.

max
before we get to  your bewilderment of why i failed to.understand degrade, you still have to explain why you thought my understanding of degrade is different from "make less potent".  

truthbetold wrote:Obama uses degrade. what is this guy talking about.

truthbetold wrote:Cd
Do not blame others. obama is not a child.
any person who dealt with risk in a professional environment would be familiar with terms eliminate(destroy in our discussion context) or minimize(degrade). the are used to indicate after action risk status. the ideal would be destroy and practical in most cases is degrade.
actions are based on practicality in most cases with the option to push complete elimination where possible. obama is careful with his language and generally used degrade and destroy.
if anything obama is a bit behind curve on all these developing events. the author is wrong to make a big deal about this wording.