Cyprus-Forum.com

[FreeSpirit]

Correct, Pheonix, however, GR was talking content and not mechanics.

GR was in this instance talking absolute nonsense. The question was that two DAWN SYNDROME innocent girls...

That sounds more like the syndrome you get Miltiades first thing in the morning because you couldn't get it up in the evening...

Only someone of your ilk would make light of the plight of these young women.
carry on you'll soon be rquired to carry a bell warning people of your prescence.

[Filitsa]

Let me help you, fellas. "If" does not establish a query; it establishes a contingency. That said, following the logic established above, GR is not only a "liar," he's an "idiot" too.

You’ll be lucky to help yourself comprehend the basics of the English language let alone help others!

"IF" is a Boolean query having only two possible outcomes and they are either TRUE or FALSE.

For example, the statement… “If you are over 18 you can vote” ...can only yield a “yes” or “no” and there is no such thing as a MAYBE. The same applies to every other use of the “if” IF (pun intended) you care to research.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/di ... y/entry/if

(I apologize for going off-topic, but I just can't let this one go.)

Admittedly, I'm a techno-midget , but to my limited knowledge "if" isn't on the list of common Boolean operators (i.e. and, or, not), but this is beside the point.

Like I said before, "if" establishes a contingency. To use your example and words from the definition you referenced in the above link:

"'In the event that' you are over 18, you can vote," or

"'Granting that' you are over 18, you can vote," or

"'On the condition that' you are over 18, you can vote"

All the same as saying, "If you are over 18, you can vote." The latter depends upon the former, thus establishing the contingency: "Contingent upon being 18, you can vote."

P.S. If you worry about being a "liar" and and "idiot," I'll worry about my basic English comprehension skills. Okay?

[FreeSpirit]

Let me help you, fellas. "If" does not establish a query; it establishes a contingency. That said, following the logic established above, GR is not only a "liar," he's an "idiot" too.

You’ll be lucky to help yourself comprehend the basics of the English language let alone help others!

"IF" is a Boolean query having only two possible outcomes and they are either TRUE or FALSE.

For example, the statement… “If you are over 18 you can vote” ...can only yield a “yes” or “no” and there is no such thing as a MAYBE. The same applies to every other use of the “if” IF (pun intended) you care to research.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/di ... y/entry/if

(I apologize for going off-topic, but I just can't let this one go.)

Admittedly, I'm a techno-midget , but to my limited knowledge "if" isn't on the list of common Boolean operators (i.e. and, or, not), but this is beside the point.

Like I said before, "if" establishes a contingency. To use your example and words from the definition you referenced in the above link:

"'In the event that' you are over 18, you can vote," or

"'Granting that' you are over 18, you can vote," or

"'On the condition that' you are over 18, you can vote"

All the same as saying, "If you are over 18, you can vote." The latter depends upon the former, thus establishing the contingency: "Contingent upon being 18, you can vote."

P.S. If you worry about being a "liar" and and "idiot," I'll worry about my basic English comprehension skills. Okay?

As well as being a proven liar you are now a proven idiot.
Hows the hole coming along?

[CopperLine]

I think that I'll just re-post my original post in its entirety. Perhaps Miltiades & FreeSpirit will actually read it in its entirety this time. First, I agreed it was a barbaric act. Second, I did not seek to justify the bombing or who conducted the bombing. Third, I said that whilst it is easy to condemn it is much harder to explain (not justify) these actions. Fourth, I pointed out the real difficulty of resolving these kinds of conflicts once started, hence using the example from Algeria (which Militiades, FreeSpirit is NOT a justification, it is not a comparison of killings, and it is certainly not a call for more killings. Eliko, Get Real, and others immediately understood the point about that excerpt; you on the other hand came to a quite perverse conclusion). Anyway here's the full original post again :

Miltiades, there is no doubt that these acts are horrific. I share your outrage. Outrage is only human. Condemnation is the easy bit. Try resolving - by military or political (negotiating) means. Now that is the difficult bit. Here is an excerpt of the script from the Battle of Algiers (the Giles Pontecorvo film). The character Ben M'Hidi is an FLN liberation fighter - what today would be called a 'terrorist - who has been captured by the French and is being interviewed by journalists (and who later becomes an Algerian national hero for leading the Algerians to freedom). I highlight the morally and politically difficult bit for you :



Quote:
PREFECT'S OFFICE. PRESS HALL. INSIDE. DAY. FEBRUARY 25.

Ben M'Hidi is standing in front of the journalists with handcuffs on
his wrists and ankles. He is without a tie. He is smiling a little, his
glance ironical. There are two paras behind him with machine guns
ready. The picture is still for an instant; Ben M'Hidi's smile is
steady, so too his eyes, his entire face. Flashes, clicking of cameras.

1ST JOURNALIST
Mr. Ben M'Hidi ... Don't you think it is
a bit cowardly to use your women's baskets
and handbags to carry explosive devices
that kill so many innocent people?

Ben M'Hidi shrugs his shoulders in his usual manner and smiles a
little.

BEN M'HIDI
And doesn't it seem to you even more
cowardly to drop napalm bombs on unarmed
villages, so that there are a thousand
times more innocent victims? Of course,
if we had your airplanes it would be a lot
easier for us. Give us your bombers, and
you can have our baskets.

[FreeSpirit]

I think that I'll just re-post my original post in its entirety. Perhaps Miltiades & FreeSpirit will actually read it in its entirety this time. First, I agreed it was a barbaric act. Second, I did not seek to justify the bombing or who conducted the bombing. Third, I said that whilst it is easy to condemn it is much harder to explain (not justify) these actions. Fourth, I pointed out the real difficulty of resolving these kinds of conflicts once started, hence using the example from Algeria (which Militiades, FreeSpirit is NOT a justification, it is not a comparison of killings, and it is certainly not a call for more killings. Eliko, Get Real, and others immediately understood the point about that excerpt; you on the other hand came to a quite perverse conclusion). Anyway here's the full original post again :

Miltiades, there is no doubt that these acts are horrific. I share your outrage. Outrage is only human. Condemnation is the easy bit. Try resolving - by military or political (negotiating) means. Now that is the difficult bit. Here is an excerpt of the script from the Battle of Algiers (the Giles Pontecorvo film). The character Ben M'Hidi is an FLN liberation fighter - what today would be called a 'terrorist - who has been captured by the French and is being interviewed by journalists (and who later becomes an Algerian national hero for leading the Algerians to freedom). I highlight the morally and politically difficult bit for you :



Quote:
PREFECT'S OFFICE. PRESS HALL. INSIDE. DAY. FEBRUARY 25.

Ben M'Hidi is standing in front of the journalists with handcuffs on
his wrists and ankles. He is without a tie. He is smiling a little, his
glance ironical. There are two paras behind him with machine guns
ready. The picture is still for an instant; Ben M'Hidi's smile is
steady, so too his eyes, his entire face. Flashes, clicking of cameras.

1ST JOURNALIST
Mr. Ben M'Hidi ... Don't you think it is
a bit cowardly to use your women's baskets
and handbags to carry explosive devices
that kill so many innocent people?

Ben M'Hidi shrugs his shoulders in his usual manner and smiles a
little.

BEN M'HIDI
And doesn't it seem to you even more
cowardly to drop napalm bombs on unarmed
villages, so that there are a thousand
times more innocent victims? Of course,
if we had your airplanes it would be a lot
easier for us. Give us your bombers, and
you can have our baskets.

Yes we've read it, he wants a plane so he can kill more people how ambitious, I always wanted to be a Rock Star, he wanted to be a murderer, I think I made a better choice even if I didn't succeed.

[CopperLine]

Militiades, FreeSpirit,

What would you say of a Prime Minister deciding whether to invade another country but showing no interest in what effect such an invasion would have ? What would you say of a military leader who, ignored all specialist and expert advice and invaded a country depsite grave warnings about the security turmoil whichy would result ? What would you say of a political leader who ignored all legal advice against invading another country, including from his own foreign ministry, and still invaded ? What would you say of a foreign leader who invaded your country on the 'invitation' of some of your fellow country men who had been brought together and paid for by that foreign country solely in order to issue that invitation ?

You might want to look at this, though I very much doubt that you'll actually bother reading it :

Britain 'as inept as US' in failing to foresee postwar Iraq insurgency Jonathan Steele The Guardian 21/01/08
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2244206,00.html

[Eliko]

I think that I'll just re-post my original post in its entirety. Perhaps Miltiades & FreeSpirit will actually read it in its entirety this time. First, I agreed it was a barbaric act. Second, I did not seek to justify the bombing or who conducted the bombing. Third, I said that whilst it is easy to condemn it is much harder to explain (not justify) these actions. Fourth, I pointed out the real difficulty of resolving these kinds of conflicts once started, hence using the example from Algeria (which Militiades, FreeSpirit is NOT a justification, it is not a comparison of killings, and it is certainly not a call for more killings. Eliko, Get Real, and others immediately understood the point about that excerpt; you on the other hand came to a quite perverse conclusion). Anyway here's the full original post again :

Miltiades, there is no doubt that these acts are horrific. I share your outrage. Outrage is only human. Condemnation is the easy bit. Try resolving - by military or political (negotiating) means. Now that is the difficult bit. Here is an excerpt of the script from the Battle of Algiers (the Giles Pontecorvo film). The character Ben M'Hidi is an FLN liberation fighter - what today would be called a 'terrorist - who has been captured by the French and is being interviewed by journalists (and who later becomes an Algerian national hero for leading the Algerians to freedom). I highlight the morally and politically difficult bit for you :



Quote:
PREFECT'S OFFICE. PRESS HALL. INSIDE. DAY. FEBRUARY 25.

Ben M'Hidi is standing in front of the journalists with handcuffs on
his wrists and ankles. He is without a tie. He is smiling a little, his
glance ironical. There are two paras behind him with machine guns
ready. The picture is still for an instant; Ben M'Hidi's smile is
steady, so too his eyes, his entire face. Flashes, clicking of cameras.

1ST JOURNALIST
Mr. Ben M'Hidi ... Don't you think it is
a bit cowardly to use your women's baskets
and handbags to carry explosive devices
that kill so many innocent people?

Ben M'Hidi shrugs his shoulders in his usual manner and smiles a
little.

BEN M'HIDI
And doesn't it seem to you even more
cowardly to drop napalm bombs on unarmed
villages, so that there are a thousand
times more innocent victims? Of course,
if we had your airplanes it would be a lot
easier for us. Give us your bombers, and
you can have our baskets.

Yes we've read it, he wants a plane so he can kill more people how ambitious, I always wanted to be a Rock Star, he wanted to be a murderer, I think I made a better choice even if I didn't succeed.

A Rock Star !!!mm , with white plimsolls and a bad back ?, I don't think so, you do look a little like Buddy Holly, providing you adopt large horn rims.

[Eliko]

Militiades, FreeSpirit,

What would you say of a Prime Minister deciding whether to invade another country but showing no interest in what effect such an invasion would have ? What would you say of a military leader who, ignored all specialist and expert advice and invaded a country depsite grave warnings about the security turmoil whichy would result ? What would you say of a political leader who ignored all legal advice against invading another country, including from his own foreign ministry, and still invaded ? What would you say of a foreign leader who invaded your country on the 'invitation' of some of your fellow country men who had been brought together and paid for by that foreign country solely in order to issue that invitation ?

You might want to look at this, though I very much doubt that you'll actually bother reading it :

Britain 'as inept as US' in failing to foresee postwar Iraq insurgency Jonathan Steele The Guardian 21/01/08
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2244206,00.html

Copperline, they might read it BUT, unfortunately, understanding it might present difficulties.

[miltiades]

Militiades, FreeSpirit,

What would you say of a Prime Minister deciding whether to invade another country but showing no interest in what effect such an invasion would have ? What would you say of a military leader who, ignored all specialist and expert advice and invaded a country depsite grave warnings about the security turmoil whichy would result ? What would you say of a political leader who ignored all legal advice against invading another country, including from his own foreign ministry, and still invaded ? What would you say of a foreign leader who invaded your country on the 'invitation' of some of your fellow country men who had been brought together and paid for by that foreign country solely in order to issue that invitation ?

You might want to look at this, though I very much doubt that you'll actually bother reading it :

Britain 'as inept as US' in failing to foresee postwar Iraq insurgency Jonathan Steele The Guardian 21/01/08
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2244206,00.html

I would most certainly call these political leaders inadequate , a dreadful political miscalculation , underestimating Not the resolve of this people but their capacity and willingness to commit such horrific acts against their own people.It comes as surprise that most , if not all M.Eastern countries are ruled by dictators relying on their continued reign on ruthless measures.
This thread however was devoted to the animals who used the two mentally inept children , I call them Children because Dawn Syndrome sufferers rarely reach a mental age above that of a child.
The savages were not created by the USA but existed already in these sick circles of perverted religious hijackers , because these horrid people hijacked their own religion by the use of violence.
Unfortunately the USA can not just simply walk away , they will remain until the Iraqi people are able through their elected government to take control of the situation.

[Eliko]

[quote="FreeSpirit] We used to put the heads of cretins like him down the toilet and pull the flush.[/quote]

THAT statement categorizes you as something of a 'Bully' and probably explains the reason for why you are so ready to accept the actions of the U.S. in Iraq, thanks for the additional information, it is now much easier to understand where you are coming from.

Obviously the 'Victim' of your assault would need to be much smaller than yourself (and in all probability your mates) in order for you to engage in such actions.

A classic example of what has happened in Iraq, though on a much smaller scale, I understand similar techniques were used in Guantanamo, I think it is called 'Water-Boarding', not sure though never been a fan of 'Bullying' myself.