Don't detract - first resolve this point: do you think it is right of you to say that "I am wasting my time" when you wrote an answer twice as long?

As for me, I just wanted to highlight everyone's badness in arguing here, and just for fun, really; I was bored. But you wrote your answer out of vanity - to shield your ego and to attack specifically me (while what I wrote could maybe be thought as an attack, I attacked all, not anyone specific). To shield only your points and to somehow find all of them invalid (you must really be perfect).

Well Juq, you basically wasted your time here, and by twice as long, how is my answer longer since you just replied here with 3 massive walls of text full with nothing worth to read? You are a champion in this domain. Congratulations.

"highlight everyone's badness in arguing", whereas you are not better than most of us, seriously Juq, you talk about pretention, tell me how is this not pretentious?
Shield my ego? Well I think that the person taking it the most seriously is you Juq, calm your tits and take it easy, this is only a chat, we are discussing and sharing our opinion, we can disagree (major and me) but your own comment "highliting everone's badness in arguing" is a real waste of time, showing a behavior full of pretention and arrogance.

Arguably I have given the most relevant thing of all to a debate: a fault list of everyone, so that maybe they can improve themselves, or know of their faults. Far more handy than the goal of your argument (which hasn't got anywhere): to convince each other of a relatively small outlook. If one of you convinces the other, then the other is a bit smarter for it, but otherwise the same. If I convince with the list (and I don't see Smedley vanely shielding every point he has, so obviously it's working at least partially), then you both become more logic, polite, and likable arguers, a knack better than just a kind of outlook.

Again a statement full of pretention and arrogance "given the most relevant thing of all to a debate", you are not the one qualified to judge your own participation, let other people reading your post judge it instead.
And "a list...so they can improve" do you really believe you would make me swallow this enormous lie? You were clearly adopting a condescending posture with no objective to help others at all, but denigrate what they say. Frankly if it was for helping us, instead of enumerating our sentences and randomly state "pretentious, false, insult", you should explain to us clearly how to improve our "poor" rhetorical skills like "instead of saying it, you should say". A Juqish saying for you because I like it: "Curb your arrogance".

It didn't take that long. Who do you think has wrote more on the thread, bitching words, as you say, anyhow?

Did not take that long? Let me check something: you started answering my response at 3:07 (actually you just published it so you may have started to type your post some min before), and you finished your last wall of text at 5:29, 2 hours wasted, well I suppose that for you it is "not that long", since you may be used to waste hours posting loads of lame paragraphs that nobody would read anyway.

You said all are wrong, actually, and that's where I came to look at your appeals - this is more axiomising on your part.

Aren't you "axiomising" yourself? Truth is universal. Perception of truth varies.

Nice to see you believe propaganda. A ethnic group in Northern Mali that was largely left alone by the government decided to go independent, seeing this as a opportunity, the US sent Al-Qaeda in to destabilize the country and prevent China from further investing in the country, while France went in to fight the ethnic rebels and Al-Qaeda to protect it's interests in Mali.

*is against the unjust initiation of force*

*supports armed groups that defend themselves and others from the unjust initiation of force while not committing violence against others unjustly*

Yeah I must be pro Al-Qaeda.

About the Touaregs (I suppose you were referring to them), I am aware of it, remember I am part myself of a minority? There are often many cultural events gathering Basques and Berbers, often musical but also political debates, very interesting actually.

The thing is Touaregs were duped by Al Qaeda they took advantage of their hatred against the Malian State, this is why they formed a coalition. It is rather funny you constantly try to minimize the presence of Al Qaeda here and other islamic groups. I also noticed you weren't even aware that Touaregs broke their solidarity with the Islamists. The Touareg fight has to be taken in count, and I am actually in favor of a recognition of the Touareg nation. Borders in Africa were made by colonisers, this is mainly why sadly there are wars like this one.

Tell me anyway how the US sent AQMI there? Would be interested to know it, since AQMI originates mainly from Algeria, a very anti American state actually (it used to be one of the most important socialist state and anti imperialist); tell me how Algerians were indoctrinated by US agents? I am rather ignorant as you know, so if you could enlighten me about it please do it.

But anyway to go back to the topic about Mali, tell me how would be the region if nobody would have stopped Al Qaeda and allies there? Easy answer: see Iraq and Syria. Timbuktu was basically the Raqqa of Africa before the coalition retook it.

Let me see if I've it right and short.

You're...

*claiming that I'm bad in many ways (scantily supported)?
**irrelevantly claiming that I'm wasting my time (some support)?
**claiming that I think I've argued flawlessly here (no support at all)?
*You're wanting that I help you learn how to argue in a logic, polite, and likeable way?

So how does this relate to the validity of the 28 (and growing) points?

Also since you have a hard on for hating the NRA , how about we compare the deaths caused by the French government and them? I'll make sure to only start from NRA foundation onwards though.

NRA: A organization dedicated to teaching marksmanship, gun safety, and responsible gun ownership. It isn't a army or a government, just a organization.

French government 1871 onwards: A government with it's own army , that ritualistically practices in indoctrination of youth in occupied areas, prohibition of drugs in occupied areas, and mass extortion in occupied areas.

NRA 1871-1900:

It teached marksmenship and gun safety.

French government 1871-1900: It participated in heavy imperialism in Africa and Asia. Thousands were subjegated, killed and oppressed.

NRA 1900-1939: Taught marksmenship.

French government 1900-1939: Is responsible for millions of deaths across Europe, occupied and subjegated folk in Anatolia and Mashriq, continued occupation of places in Africa and Asia.

Do I need to go on?

Considering the US cooperated with Al-Qaeda agents before the formation of it, the leader was a CIA agent, the US used a Al-Qaeda attack as an excuse to invade a country, let them into another, and is currently acting as Al-Qaeda's Air Force in Syria, it's hard to believe that the US isn't colluding with Al-Qaeda in some form.

if you want to compare them compare it well not again in a obvious biased way.
In recent years, NRA is responsible of ten thousand of death each years caused by domestic violence and guns.
Even France participating in wars in recent years is not responsible of that many deaths of innocents in the different operation these last 15 years.
NRA and gun ownership are the direct consequence of why an American guy has 50 times more chance to get killed by domestic violence and guns than a French guy. With 88% of American citizens armed, the only country beating the US in terms of gun ownership is Yemen, a model nation in terms of non violence... The US are also dominating for the number of young people killed by guns (below 15 yo).

And NRA is supporting it, keep defending it Major. Keep believing their lies.

Yet show me the US were colluding and helping AQMI would you.

The NRA is responsible for those deaths how exactly? They don't go handing out guns to terrorists, but France has done that. They don't urge folk to kill, but France has done that. They aren't responsible for more violence in the Americas compared to Europe, though France does have some guilt for its invasion of Mexico.

Go ahead say a organization that gets money from donations can outspend a government with much larger stores of money and has a much greater use for propagandized folk than the organization. Honestly, the person who loves indoctrination, armies and mass violence against innocents is the one trying to get the moral high ground? You're a fascist, Koala, you just can't admit it yet.

Let me see if I've it right and short.

You're...

*claiming that I'm bad in many ways (scantily supported)?
Do you deny this? So you are claiming you aren't bad in many ways? Oh wait yes, you are indeed claiming you are better than others, even judging them with your erroneous and gratuitous claims and telling them how bad they are compared to you.

**irrelevantly claiming that I'm wasting my time (some support)?
already gave you some support, by the time you took to post you different walls of text, but well you ignore what you want to ignore, a common behavior seen among hypocrites.

**claiming that I think I've argued flawlessly here (no support at all)?
You only provided here again your own opinion of yourself (very narcissistic). Without letting others what they really think about you.

*You're wanting that I help you learn how to argue in a logic, polite, and likeable way?
Well most of the people wanting to help others would indeed try to be logic, polite in a likeable way, is this that hard to conceive this for you?

How is NRA not responsible? They are encouraging this policy, and closing their eyes on the problem generated by massive gun ownership.

In recent wars (2000 and after), tell me how France has urged to kill innocent? In the meantime innocent are shot and killed due to domestic and gun violence in the US, and this is an indirect cause of NRA supporting these policies.

An organization can do as bad things as states sadly, see Al Qaeda again, it is an organization too.

And if I am a fascist, then you are a National Socialist.

The NRA supports folk being good at shooting, only shooting for sport and defense, and doesn't support mass killings or mass extortion. France supports mass killings, mass extortion, and shooting if a person disagrees with you.

Did the NRA support any mass shootings? Did their policies contribute to those shootings happening? No.

French policies? Supporting America in wars, going to war, and robbing folk.

Actually he was wrongly using Mashriq since I think he was referring to Maghreb instead.

You still have not proved anything Major, you havent proved France in recent years was supporting mass killing.
NRA is an organization as Al Qaeda, and both are responsible of the death of thousands and thousands of people each year.

^ to anoym

Edited 5/13/2016 23:20:03

well, not as much as in Maghreb, France worst colonist policies were mainly in Maghreb, Africa and Indochina. As for Mashreq it did not lasted that long (only 20 years I think), and it was a mandate, Lebanon had good relationship with France, because culturally closer, and as for Syria they achieved independence early and weren't subjugated and colonized by the French as in Algeria or even Morocco.

did you miss "recent years" per chance?

The French gov. supports American military actions, supported going into Afghanistan, and has already killed masses of innocent folk in Syria via bombings.

The NRA taught folk how to properly handle a gun.

supported US military actions? Did you miss 2003 per chance?