The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
And how are they doing that? Well, whilst pursuing 4 suspected terrorists (they'd ran a checkpoint in their car), US troops managed to accidentally kill between 8-11 (depending on which report you read) Iraqi policemen, as well as the 4 suspects.
Hm...yeah, way to go boys! THAT will really encourage the people of Iraq to trust in the occupying coalition. I mean, there may well be more to it; maybe the policemen will turn out to be Saddam loyalists, who knows? But the fact is that the coalition are still behaving in a cack-handed and bullying fashion. That's not a recipe for lasting peace in Iraq, it's a recipe for disaster.
~shakes head~
And people still wonder why the US is so widely hated?
Hm...yeah, way to go boys! THAT will really encourage the people of Iraq to trust in the occupying coalition. I mean, there may well be more to it; maybe the policemen will turn out to be Saddam loyalists, who knows? But the fact is that the coalition are still behaving in a cack-handed and bullying fashion. That's not a recipe for lasting peace in Iraq, it's a recipe for disaster.
~shakes head~
And people still wonder why the US is so widely hated?
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
> Rather Light's proved my point, he responds as he does solely towards
> me because he rarely grapples with the actual topic.
Nooooo, I'd say he posts solely towards you as he does because you are borderline pyschopathic in the detailed response to a post if anybody dares to suggest you run The Sunshine Bus.
Or I'd say he posts solely towards you as he does because you are unable to simply say "Whoops, heh, silly me" when it becomes screamingly obvious you are wrong (Rush Limbaugh, I was wait for it...wrong, Kapos, Prostitution etc etc)
Or possibly because 95% of the responses from you follow a crushingly predictable pattern.
You are either The Black Knight from The Holy Grail (it's ok, it's a comedy film, I understand you haven't seen it) refusing to concede at any point
OR
You are Colonel Nathan Jessup from A Few Good Men, sticking to the official party line until you get so riled under questioning that you let slip the idiocy that permeates your thought pattern, leaving the gallery to gasp in surprise and shock.
> It was a TEST (as we are so keen on doing in this forum) - my opinion
> posted under a different user name to see the effect. And look at the
> effect - my point proven thank you very much.
Yes. You've proved your point that you warrant mocking laughter and spanking like a puppy that's peed on the paper.
Nobody else gets this response, because nobody else has such a history of being a stubborn, so-often-wrong assclown.
And I'll have a quarter of cola cubes please Captain Pic'n'Mix.
> Rather Light's proved my point, he responds as he does solely towards
> me because he rarely grapples with the actual topic.
Nooooo, I'd say he posts solely towards you as he does because you are borderline pyschopathic in the detailed response to a post if anybody dares to suggest you run The Sunshine Bus.
Or I'd say he posts solely towards you as he does because you are unable to simply say "Whoops, heh, silly me" when it becomes screamingly obvious you are wrong (Rush Limbaugh, I was wait for it...wrong, Kapos, Prostitution etc etc)
Or possibly because 95% of the responses from you follow a crushingly predictable pattern.
You are either The Black Knight from The Holy Grail (it's ok, it's a comedy film, I understand you haven't seen it) refusing to concede at any point
OR
You are Colonel Nathan Jessup from A Few Good Men, sticking to the official party line until you get so riled under questioning that you let slip the idiocy that permeates your thought pattern, leaving the gallery to gasp in surprise and shock.
> It was a TEST (as we are so keen on doing in this forum) - my opinion
> posted under a different user name to see the effect. And look at the
> effect - my point proven thank you very much.
Yes. You've proved your point that you warrant mocking laughter and spanking like a puppy that's peed on the paper.
Nobody else gets this response, because nobody else has such a history of being a stubborn, so-often-wrong assclown.
And I'll have a quarter of cola cubes please Captain Pic'n'Mix.
Belldandy wrote:
> Goatboy wrote:
> Why would Light be hostile to another user? You don't seem to
> understand it's just towards you.
> Because you are a clown.
>
> Rather Light's proved my point, he responds as he does solely towards
> me because he rarely grapples with the actual topic.
*L* And what topic is that Bell? You post your original point, someone posts in response, you post insults in response to that. I've said all along that you're the only person I hurl invective at, because that's all you can offer. In fact, I recall you trying to whine that I was like that to everyone. So this is yet another example of you doing a U-turn in order to try and keep your doublethink going.
>
> It was a TEST (as we are so keen on doing in this forum) - my opinion
> posted under a different user name to see the effect. And look at the
> effect - my point proven thank you very much.
So; the effect was a polite response to a fairly polite post. Here's the thing Bell; if you posted in that manner more often, and with less of the prissy self-importance, you'd get a lot more polite responses.
> Goatboy wrote:
> Why would Light be hostile to another user? You don't seem to
> understand it's just towards you.
> Because you are a clown.
>
> Rather Light's proved my point, he responds as he does solely towards
> me because he rarely grapples with the actual topic.
*L* And what topic is that Bell? You post your original point, someone posts in response, you post insults in response to that. I've said all along that you're the only person I hurl invective at, because that's all you can offer. In fact, I recall you trying to whine that I was like that to everyone. So this is yet another example of you doing a U-turn in order to try and keep your doublethink going.
>
> It was a TEST (as we are so keen on doing in this forum) - my opinion
> posted under a different user name to see the effect. And look at the
> effect - my point proven thank you very much.
So; the effect was a polite response to a fairly polite post. Here's the thing Bell; if you posted in that manner more often, and with less of the prissy self-importance, you'd get a lot more polite responses.
Blank wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> It was a TEST (as we are so keen on doing in this forum)
>
> Do you realise that by saying that you are actually mocking yourself?
> That's not rhetorical - do you? Honestly? I actually can't tell.
> Truly.
You missed the irony and/or sarcasm.
> Belldandy wrote:
> It was a TEST (as we are so keen on doing in this forum)
>
> Do you realise that by saying that you are actually mocking yourself?
> That's not rhetorical - do you? Honestly? I actually can't tell.
> Truly.
You missed the irony and/or sarcasm.
Belldandy wrote:
> It was a TEST (as we are so keen on doing in this forum)
Do you realise that by saying that you are actually mocking yourself? That's not rhetorical - do you? Honestly? I actually can't tell. Truly.
> It was a TEST (as we are so keen on doing in this forum)
Do you realise that by saying that you are actually mocking yourself? That's not rhetorical - do you? Honestly? I actually can't tell. Truly.
Goatboy wrote:
> Why would Light be hostile to another user? You don't seem to
> understand it's just towards you.
> Because you are a clown.
Rather Light's proved my point, he responds as he does solely towards me because he rarely grapples with the actual topic.
It was a TEST (as we are so keen on doing in this forum) - my opinion posted under a different user name to see the effect. And look at the effect - my point proven thank you very much.
> Why would Light be hostile to another user? You don't seem to
> understand it's just towards you.
> Because you are a clown.
Rather Light's proved my point, he responds as he does solely towards me because he rarely grapples with the actual topic.
It was a TEST (as we are so keen on doing in this forum) - my opinion posted under a different user name to see the effect. And look at the effect - my point proven thank you very much.
Belldandy wrote:
> Oh dear you slipped up here Light, where's your rage gone in the reply
> below eh ? You did know I assume, that that was me on my Uni account
> ?
Erm, let me get this straight; you post under another name. I, assuming it was someone else (I don't run EVERYONE'S posts through the Literary Fingerprinting dear boy; just the Halo Fan ones, cos it was funny watching you deny it all. Besides, weren't you whining about GB assuming all newbies were you?), reply in kind. You go all "AHA! You were being polite cos you didn't know it was me!".
I think I've missed your point. Other than showing your cowardice on a whole new level, what does that prove?
> Oh dear you slipped up here Light, where's your rage gone in the reply
> below eh ? You did know I assume, that that was me on my Uni account
> ?
Erm, let me get this straight; you post under another name. I, assuming it was someone else (I don't run EVERYONE'S posts through the Literary Fingerprinting dear boy; just the Halo Fan ones, cos it was funny watching you deny it all. Besides, weren't you whining about GB assuming all newbies were you?), reply in kind. You go all "AHA! You were being polite cos you didn't know it was me!".
I think I've missed your point. Other than showing your cowardice on a whole new level, what does that prove?
What's this, Bell being a coward and posting under another account because he lacks the courage of his convictions, or at least can't remember which side of the issue he's taken this week?
Why would Light be hostile to another user? You don't seem to understand it's just towards you.
Because you are a clown.
Why would Light be hostile to another user? You don't seem to understand it's just towards you.
Because you are a clown.
Oh dear you slipped up here Light, where's your rage gone in the reply below eh ? You did know I assume, that that was me on my Uni account ?
Keitaro wrote:
> Noticeably you ignore the valid point that the chain of command means
> that no Western military troops can be ordered to do something
> contrary to any convention if they themselves do not feel it is
> justified.
Where does that valid chain of command say one should engage in an hour long turkey shoot with Iraqi's (who turned out to be policemen) trying to surrender?
>
> They aren't butchering civlians, they have rules of engagement. Not
> to mention that they're in a position they should not be in. I'd like
> to see what you'd do, stuck in a hostile foreign city, with people
> you can't always understand, shots coming at you etc Could you be so
> perfect in that situation ?
Nope, but I think I might have tried to train and warn my troops. Alas, Rumsfield seemed to think a minimal force would hold Iraq, and so they are under excessive strain and making stupid mistakes. I'm not blaming the troops as a whole (though I do blame individuals); I'm blaming Rumsfield and his short-sighted and ignorant planning of this ugly little land grab.
> Noticeably you ignore the valid point that the chain of command means
> that no Western military troops can be ordered to do something
> contrary to any convention if they themselves do not feel it is
> justified.
Where does that valid chain of command say one should engage in an hour long turkey shoot with Iraqi's (who turned out to be policemen) trying to surrender?
>
> They aren't butchering civlians, they have rules of engagement. Not
> to mention that they're in a position they should not be in. I'd like
> to see what you'd do, stuck in a hostile foreign city, with people
> you can't always understand, shots coming at you etc Could you be so
> perfect in that situation ?
Nope, but I think I might have tried to train and warn my troops. Alas, Rumsfield seemed to think a minimal force would hold Iraq, and so they are under excessive strain and making stupid mistakes. I'm not blaming the troops as a whole (though I do blame individuals); I'm blaming Rumsfield and his short-sighted and ignorant planning of this ugly little land grab.
Light wrote:
> Nah, they've just butchered innocent civilians cos they were trigger
> happy.
Noticeably you ignore the valid point that the chain of command means that no Western military troops can be ordered to do something contrary to any convention if they themselves do not feel it is justified.
They aren't butchering civlians, they have rules of engagement. Not to mention that they're in a position they should not be in. I'd like to see what you'd do, stuck in a hostile foreign city, with people you can't always understand, shots coming at you etc Could you be so perfect in that situation ?
> Nah, they've just butchered innocent civilians cos they were trigger
> happy.
Noticeably you ignore the valid point that the chain of command means that no Western military troops can be ordered to do something contrary to any convention if they themselves do not feel it is justified.
They aren't butchering civlians, they have rules of engagement. Not to mention that they're in a position they should not be in. I'd like to see what you'd do, stuck in a hostile foreign city, with people you can't always understand, shots coming at you etc Could you be so perfect in that situation ?
Page: