Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #361
What.
Are you from an english speaking country?
-
-
"If". With my original argument saying there has been no rock solid evidence about any war crime brought forth from the imaginary stack of war crime documents.
-
Ragy came later, and I give you tons more leeway in baseless claims than I give him, since you simply don't make baseless claims. It was ridiculous, I admit. I know there are names in the documents, I'm just not convinced that anything will happen to those people.
Well can you prove me wrong? That's what debates are for.
So this should be rated funny?
Edited:
Did you just doubt the existence of the documents
-
Stop trying to derail it even more, you're wrong, get over it.
-
Whoa what the hell did I miss
-
Yes, the imaginary stack of war crime documents. All full of war crimes.
-
Ragy says the documents don't exist and that life and universe is only a dream and that truth is subjective and that nothing is real
Edited:
Why can't you be imaginary
-
Its war, things like that happen unfortunately. I guess that's the reason they don't get reported. They only seem to be reported if its the result of a huge cockup.
-
You know what, yes Ragy. YOu won.
Yep, you're totally right. Why don't you go out and celebrate?
-
Oh god.
-
I'm sorry I ever doubted you Ragy. You're right, there are no documents.
-
I will, thank you.
-
Der Spiegal and the New York Times are uncredited papers run by lying hobos.
I'm sorry we ever thought otherwise.
-
My point has been proven and now you're making sarcastic comments trying to push your failed argument forward.
-
Never heard of either of those sources before, not sure why I made up those two names. They don't exist, I admit.
Bah, foiled by nihilism once again
-
Ragy is raging because nobody likes him.
I judged him by 5 posts, and he IS an asshole and a moron.
-
No Ragy, really. The documents released don't exist. No one's read them because that would be impossible, and no one knows what's in them.
-
"My failed argument"?
Your entire argument was that two+ respected news organizations are making things up and that the documents they cite don't say what they say they do.
-
Calling them lying is not what I'm saying and yet you're pulling stuff from no where. There is no evidence of these "war crimes" they claim there to be.
-
What do you mean respected? They didn't have any data at all.
-
So the fact that people have read about them in the documents doesn't matter because YOU haven't read about them?
-
what point did you prove? that you're an ignorant imbecile? because you did a good job proving that one.
if you're so absolutely sure the documents contain literally nothing then read it yourself. or is wikileaks completely lying about the documents for no real reason?
-
They cite the documents, not any real evidence. That's like citing the Bible and saying God is real.
-
You don't exist either, I'm dreaming right now
Edited:
So now you doubt the veracity of the leak?
You're a debating shotgun. You spray arguments all over and when nothing hits you spray some more.
-
Why would I read them? All I'm saying is you're believing in these war crimes which have no backbone.
-
What a horrible thread.
-
so the documents themselves (which are actual commissioned reports from the fucking government) are not credible? or does the military just make shit up about itself?
-
So you doubt the veracity of the events depicted in the reports, but not the names of the people in the events depicted in the reports, is that it?
-
The backbone is the documents. What do you fail to understand here?
Edited:
He doesn't know what he knows.
-
yep and what horrible people trying to hold back the truth
-
You can't be a native english speaker.
-
Please counter-argue my arguments without throwing insults. You somehow believe fiction stories are true.
-
oh so the documents are fiction
good, so they put absolutely no one at risk because they're not true : D
-
prove those names are real.
-
Again, they say. I have yet to see any document about any war crime.
-
Will you read the documents?
-
That's some great logic. The bible is a book which could easily be bullshit and not a true account of what took place. These documents are reports which have been (indirectly) authenticated by the US government. The things contained in these documents is the truth (assuming the people filing the reports are accurate).
-
You obviously didn't read the thread, because I stated three times that Wikileaks said they were pulling names out. That means there are names. Hurr.
-
The real documents could be forced into the public domain by a court using a subpoena.
Or just someone doing a simple FoI request (its apparently a lot easier to do a FoI request when you now the exact file name of the document in question...)
-
THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE
YOU ARE NOT FOLLOWING YOUR OWN RULES
YOu can't say that what wikileaks says about the documents is true and persist in saying that they're fictional! That is impossible!
Funny x 1
Dumb x 1
Agree x 1