Another one about Marwats Apparent Intent
Allright,one more then I won't focus on him here for a while,,I promise.
There are a few other topics I could write about.
Now this one is a set of responses and even includes a couple of posts from different posters.One is for BM,,the other disputes a post by BM.
Here is the first paragraph:
++Employment and deployment of US troops around the world is US business but what's my
concern is that young guys and gals are reported to being recruited by Pentagon like
35000 extra troops for Iraq been notified by Pentagon.++
Three points on this paragraph.First,,it being US business.Do you mean it's business as in commerce,,or as in it's our business,,not someone else?
If it's being reffered to as 'commercial business' then why is it so non cost effective that a common tactic against it is too state just how expensive the 'psychopathic murderers the US is protecting innocent folks from ' make it.
If you mean it's US busines as in not someone elses,,then why did the UN and many other nations agree with taking Saddam out?
(And we all know the Psycho Murderers weren't in Iraq while Saddam was in power was because he was MORE ruthless and psychopathic than they are and would have visciously destroyed them any time they stuck their head out of a hole.
He probally would have played human whak-a-mole with them if he got a hold of any.Hey,,maybe he did.
You can read more of this response set by clicking this line.
Or go to the Staks Index and see others.
There will be other topics there eventually.
Posted by Roy L.H.:That DANG DInGIE American
at 2:23 AM EDT
Updated: Friday, 18 May 2007 2:50 PM EDT
Regarding Barkatullah Marwat
There is a fellow who has posted in the Excite Politics Forum on a few occasions.It appears he is the Cheif Editor of an online editorial/news publication called The Marwat Post.He claims to be an Ex-Partiat of Iraq,,I think,,but he now resides in Kuwait.I haven't seen any articles posted at his web site but he has began posting in the Excite forums with,,well,,to be blunt like DANG Americans often are,,I think he is posting 'Tokyo Rose-esque' style articles that I have an over whelming compulsion to offer counter point on.
I did post one response that I called a Critique in the forum.It was a point by point response and wound up being not quite 20,000 words long.That proved to be a chore when it came to posting it in that forum since the posts are limited to 4000 words each.I wound up breaking it into 6 uneven posts and posted it in two parts since the article Marwat wrote was in two parts.That was called 'Jews vs Christians'.
Anyway,,when he posted another one called, 'What the Pentagon said about Soldiers' I wrote a retort that was over 20,000 words.I went to start posting them at about 5:30 a and got one posted then had a non successful series of attempts to get the next one to post.I gave up around the 6th or 7th try and figured I would come over here and post it as a blog entry.
Well,,it turns out that blog 'editor' wouldn't accept that much either. Not wanting to piece it up as a series of seperate entries here,,I made an area to place large posts such as that.
So,,,with this entry and the below introductory snippet to A Retort to Barkatullah Marwats Article:What the Pentagon said about Soldiers by A DANG - DInGIE American,,you are witness to the birth of The Staks:
~ Barkatullah started with:
++The Pentagon has published a disturbing report on the attitudes of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report indicated that fewer than half the soldiers and only 38 percent of Marines believe noncombatants should be treated with respect. Some 40 percent also think that in order to extract information, torture is legitimate, particularly if used to save the lives of comrades.++
He gives no reference link which could be as simple as this:
Which would reveal info regarding the survey itself,like this:
~The survey of more than 1,300 soldiers and nearly 450 Marines was conducted last year.~
Which give us NUMBERS regarding the polling pool.Now,,I know I have a slightly different take on polls as regards 'true validity' UNLESS one actually polls the entire population that the 'poll' claims to represent.So my retort to this is the same as any other set of assumptions that poll trusters tend to accept blindly.
Such as,,Exactly how can 1,300+450=1,750 individuals opinions be used to accurately determine the 'opinions and attitudes' of 135,000 troops?(as according to this site,,I ain't impartial,,I needed a number,,leftys ought to enjoy the article and the site):
Posted by Roy L.H.:That DANG DInGIE American
at 3:53 AM EDT
Updated: Thursday, 14 June 2007 1:36 PM EDT