Posted by bad_luck on 1/31/2016 10:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/31/2016 10:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/31/2016 10:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/31/2016 10:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/31/2016 9:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/29/2016 8:52:00 PM (view original):
Well, if we hadn't decided a military response was the correct action following 9/11, and had done nothing instead, ISIS wouldn't exist.  Al Q'aida is bigger now than it was then, but that might have happened anyway.  So I guess we can just blame ISIS on our military activities in the Middle East.

So yeah, doing nothing would have been better.  Unambiguously so.

He's talking specifically about ISIS, tec. That's enough enough of a hint that he isn't talking about the war in Afghanistan.

You might notice that he does not mention the name of any particular country in this post.  He only mentions "Middle East".

Which countries were the target of the US military response in the Middle East following 9/11?

Hint: there are two.  One was a direct response to 9/11.  The other was supposedly related to the broader war on terror, and not specifically 9/11.

Yes, we invaded two countries. Only one, though, is the primary home of ISIS. Which is what we were talking about. Which is why it was odd that you said we had to respond to the 9/11 attacks.

Clearly, you don't know what "we're" talking about.  Maybe you shouldn't try to insert yourselves into discussions when you don't understand what is being discussed.  Or are you that desperate for attention?  Maybe you should get a dog.

How was ISIS involved in 9/11?

Well, let's walk through this.

- You and I were arguing about whether or not you were pro-war regarding ISIS.

- dahs said a fight against a group as big as ISIS counts as a war.

- Mike and dahs got into it about taking out ISIS leaders. dahs said (sarcastically) that taking out al queda leaders worked so well before.

- Mike called dahs mr. donothing

- Dahs said yeah, we made ISIS worse by invading in the first place.

- You responded with "9/11 happened, should we have just shrugged it off."

You were clearly responding to dahs' argument that our decision to invade the Middle East made ISIS worse.

So is it your stance that dahs is Mr. DoNothing against Iraq, but Mr. DoSomething against Afghanistan?  Is that what you're taking from his post?

Sounds to me like he was Mr. DoNothing against the Middle East.  That includes Afghanistan.  Particularly since he specifically mentioned "following 9/11" in his post.  Afghanistan was the military response that occurred immediately after 9/11.  It was a pretty big deal at the time.  They even talked about it on the TV news.

How stupid are you?

Posted by tecwrg on 2/1/2016 5:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/31/2016 10:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/31/2016 10:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/31/2016 10:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/31/2016 10:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/31/2016 9:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/29/2016 8:52:00 PM (view original):
Well, if we hadn't decided a military response was the correct action following 9/11, and had done nothing instead, ISIS wouldn't exist.  Al Q'aida is bigger now than it was then, but that might have happened anyway.  So I guess we can just blame ISIS on our military activities in the Middle East.

So yeah, doing nothing would have been better.  Unambiguously so.

He's talking specifically about ISIS, tec. That's enough enough of a hint that he isn't talking about the war in Afghanistan.

You might notice that he does not mention the name of any particular country in this post.  He only mentions "Middle East".

Which countries were the target of the US military response in the Middle East following 9/11?

Hint: there are two.  One was a direct response to 9/11.  The other was supposedly related to the broader war on terror, and not specifically 9/11.

Yes, we invaded two countries. Only one, though, is the primary home of ISIS. Which is what we were talking about. Which is why it was odd that you said we had to respond to the 9/11 attacks.

Clearly, you don't know what "we're" talking about.  Maybe you shouldn't try to insert yourselves into discussions when you don't understand what is being discussed.  Or are you that desperate for attention?  Maybe you should get a dog.

How was ISIS involved in 9/11?

Well, let's walk through this.

- You and I were arguing about whether or not you were pro-war regarding ISIS.

- dahs said a fight against a group as big as ISIS counts as a war.

- Mike and dahs got into it about taking out ISIS leaders. dahs said (sarcastically) that taking out al queda leaders worked so well before.

- Mike called dahs mr. donothing

- Dahs said yeah, we made ISIS worse by invading in the first place.

- You responded with "9/11 happened, should we have just shrugged it off."

You were clearly responding to dahs' argument that our decision to invade the Middle East made ISIS worse.

So is it your stance that dahs is Mr. DoNothing against Iraq, but Mr. DoSomething against Afghanistan?  Is that what you're taking from his post?

Sounds to me like he was Mr. DoNothing against the Middle East.  That includes Afghanistan.  Particularly since he specifically mentioned "following 9/11" in his post.  Afghanistan was the military response that occurred immediately after 9/11.  It was a pretty big deal at the time.  They even talked about it on the TV news.

How stupid are you?

Maybe BL just needs a map.     Where's Miss Teen South Carolina when you need her?

I imagine that BL must really suck at logic puzzles.  You know the ones where they give you five or six statements of fact and you then have to figure out something like "who ate the cheeseburger"?  Because he'll completely ignore two statements, change a third into something else, and add three of his own to come up with the wrong answer.  And then he'll argue why his answer was the only right one.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/1/2016 5:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/31/2016 10:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/31/2016 10:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/31/2016 10:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/31/2016 10:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/31/2016 9:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/29/2016 8:52:00 PM (view original):
Well, if we hadn't decided a military response was the correct action following 9/11, and had done nothing instead, ISIS wouldn't exist.  Al Q'aida is bigger now than it was then, but that might have happened anyway.  So I guess we can just blame ISIS on our military activities in the Middle East.

So yeah, doing nothing would have been better.  Unambiguously so.

He's talking specifically about ISIS, tec. That's enough enough of a hint that he isn't talking about the war in Afghanistan.

You might notice that he does not mention the name of any particular country in this post.  He only mentions "Middle East".

Which countries were the target of the US military response in the Middle East following 9/11?

Hint: there are two.  One was a direct response to 9/11.  The other was supposedly related to the broader war on terror, and not specifically 9/11.

Yes, we invaded two countries. Only one, though, is the primary home of ISIS. Which is what we were talking about. Which is why it was odd that you said we had to respond to the 9/11 attacks.

Clearly, you don't know what "we're" talking about.  Maybe you shouldn't try to insert yourselves into discussions when you don't understand what is being discussed.  Or are you that desperate for attention?  Maybe you should get a dog.

How was ISIS involved in 9/11?

Well, let's walk through this.

- You and I were arguing about whether or not you were pro-war regarding ISIS.

- dahs said a fight against a group as big as ISIS counts as a war.

- Mike and dahs got into it about taking out ISIS leaders. dahs said (sarcastically) that taking out al queda leaders worked so well before.

- Mike called dahs mr. donothing

- Dahs said yeah, we made ISIS worse by invading in the first place.

- You responded with "9/11 happened, should we have just shrugged it off."

You were clearly responding to dahs' argument that our decision to invade the Middle East made ISIS worse.

So is it your stance that dahs is Mr. DoNothing against Iraq, but Mr. DoSomething against Afghanistan?  Is that what you're taking from his post?

Sounds to me like he was Mr. DoNothing against the Middle East.  That includes Afghanistan.  Particularly since he specifically mentioned "following 9/11" in his post.  Afghanistan was the military response that occurred immediately after 9/11.  It was a pretty big deal at the time.  They even talked about it on the TV news.

How stupid are you?

Would the argument "we made ISIS worse by invading Afghanistan" make sense? Or was he likely talking about Iraq?

How stupid are you?

Can I answer for him?

Sure.  Go ahead.

You can't answer can you? We can wait for dahs to confirm but it makes sense that he was talking about Iraq and not Afghanistan.

"Military response in the Middle East following 9/11".

What countries in the Middle East were the targets of US military response following 9/11?

Here's a hint as to one of them.

How stupid are you?