So Bismark is Quite a Chain Yanker

I was wondering if he (she?) was an Muslim Apologist, or perhaps working for a university Islamic Studies department, or a masterful troll…

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/international_jihadis_and_the_wests_response?id=6206052&pageNo=8

Bismarck sayeth:

I USE THIS FORUM AS A TESTING GROUND FOR VARIOUS ARGUMENTS, WHICH ARE OFTEN PURPOSELY CONTRARIAN. It also serves as a form of catharsis, which is why I (needlessly) come across as an asshole at times. I don’t aspire to be a spokesperson, so there is no need for me to vulgarize my arguments. I’M TRAINING TO WRITE WITH POLICYMAKERS IN MIND, not the lowest common denominator.

Interesting. I wonder which policy maker he had in mind when he inserted a claimed powerlifting total into a long post stating that he had never been in the military, in a thread asking which posters had been in the military.

A call out thread. I think the last one of these sophomoric ad hominem circle jerks was directed at Pushharder.

If you’re going to take the trouble to go through the last six months of my posts, at the very least quote me honestly and in context. You purposely and dishonestly omitted the qualifier “often.”

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Practice coming out with shit like that in front of a mirror keeping a straight face. You could WH spokesperson one day. You have the gift of the gab and a sophist’s scruples. You need to dress down your terse academic style and make it more conversational though. Remember, the average IQ is at a minimum a standard deviation below yours. More likely two or even more. Average mind. Roughly half of them are even lower. They don’t like pretentious, fancy talking college boys. Just take a look at the current spokeswoman for pres. I don’t remember her name but she talks like some teenage valley girl…like, yeah? You think she didn’t affect that? Most people actually affect different accents and behaviours in different circumstances without even thinking about it. If I’m talking to some country town folk out yonder I speak in a completely different way to how I speak to professionals from the city / suburbs. It’s subconscious mostly. I learned and used both accents throughout my life so they’re both “real”. Not put on.[/quote]

The style over substance fallacy seems to be directed at me more than any other. I find it amusing that you accuse me of gab given your “Alpha Male Fashion” thread in GAL. My writing is hardly inaccessible, nor is my diction ornamental. It wouldn’t serve my purposes to debase my posts in PWI. I use this forum as a testing ground for various arguments, which are often purposely contrarian. It also serves as a form of catharsis, which is why I (needlessly) come across as an asshole at times. I don’t aspire to be a spokesperson, so there is no need for me to vulgarize my arguments. I’m training to write with policymakers in mind, not the lowest common denominator. Do you have any objections to the actual substance of my post?[/quote]

It’s cool that so many guys were talking about Rambo in that thread.

[quote]Bismark wrote:
A call out thread. I think the last one of these sophomoric ad hominem circle jerks was directed at Pushharder.

If you’re going to take the trouble to go through the last six months of my posts, at the very least quote me honestly and in context. You purposely and dishonestly omitted the qualifier “often.”

[/quote]

Sorry for the sand in your vagina.
Actually was looking up Sex Machine’s last post thinking you two were the same.

Because your motives for posting here are put in your own words, I can easily see how that is out of context, sophomoric, and an ad hominem.

Haha what a Google obsessed fraud.

I figured him to be a know it all College kid a while back and put him on ignore. I’ve only used ignore for two people over the last 11 years or so. But, he is absolutely not worth my time.

[quote]treco wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
A call out thread. I think the last one of these sophomoric ad hominem circle jerks was directed at Pushharder.

If you’re going to take the trouble to go through the last six months of my posts, at the very least quote me honestly and in context. You purposely and dishonestly omitted the qualifier “often.”

[/quote]

Sorry for the sand in your vagina.
Actually was looking up Sex Machine’s last post thinking you two were the same.

Because your motives for posting here are put in your own words, I can easily see how that is out of context, sophomoric, and an ad hominem.

Haha what a Google obsessed fraud.[/quote]

What’s the purpose of this thread other than to bash me? It’s pathetically amusing.

Why did you deliberately remove the qualifier “often” from the post you partially quoted other than to peddle a narrative?

Google obsessed fraud? What am I purporting to be, exactly?

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Interesting. I wonder which policy maker he had in mind when he inserted a claimed powerlifting total into a long post stating that he had never been in the military, in a thread asking which posters had been in the military.[/quote]

Richard Armitage: Now here's a powerful figure

[quote]Bismark wrote:

What’s the purpose of this thread other than to bash me? It’s pathetically amusing.

Why did you deliberately remove the qualifier “often” from the post you partially quoted other than to peddle a narrative?

Google obsessed fraud? What am I purporting to be, exactly?
[/quote]

[quote]Bismark wrote:

I don’t think folks around these parts realize how lined with red tape the road from displaced person to resettled refugee is. First, the UNHCR or potential receiving state has to determine refugee status. This is spelled out by the 1951 Refugee Convention, which states that a refugee is a person that “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” This is no easy task. The backlogs for the UNHCR alone is close to a quarter of a million applications.

Refugees are then subject to more scrutiny and background checks that any other group admitted to the United States. That screening includes health checks, repeated biometric verification of identity, several layers of biographical and background screening, and in-person interviews. Multiple agencies are involved in the process, including the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Counterterrorism Center and the Department of Defense. And all of this happens before a refugee’s application for resettlement is ever approved or rejected and long before a refugee enters the United States. The process often takes three years. And that was before the recent legislation passed in the United States.

[/quote]

Nice to see you cut and paste Washington Post

or Task & Purpose
http://taskandpurpose.com/debates/should-the-us-deploy-ground-troops-into-direct-combat-with-isis/

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Many of President Obama’s critics believe the Islamic State will not be defeated without U.S. troops fighting on the ground (beyond special operations forces already conducting direct-action and train-and-equip missions). With the deployment of approximately 50 special operators to Syria, stepping up the U.S. ground presence in Iraq seems even more likely. But this would be a severe mistake. The current plan - which involves training, equipping, and otherwise supporting the Iraqi Security Forces in a way that is contingent on the political reforms necessary to resolve Iraq’s conflicts - is the right one, although there are certainly improvements to be made in terms of execution.

While sending troops to engage in combat operations against ISIL would boost efforts to roll back the group, the benefits would not be worth the costs. Deploying U.S. general purpose forces to Iraq (again) would be a boon to jihadist recruitment and remove key incentives currently pushing the Iraqis to sort out their internal political problems. It would also require a greater commitment than many like to admit. U.S. ground troops fighting ISIL requires more personnel and resources for headquarters, hospitals, helicopters, and a far bigger logistics tail.

Washington has run this experiment before. It did not work. Without capable and dedicated security forces that can fight the Islamic State and hold ground, Iraq has no future. The current course might take longer than we’d like, but will result in a more sustainable outcome. The United States must continue to help the Iraqis stand and fight, but beyond SOF conducting specific missions, we would be doing ourselves and Iraq a disservice by putting our troops back on the front line in Iraq. We should have learned by now that sending the troops in is far easier than getting them back out.[/quote]

Why come to a fitness site and jerk us off with your expert wisdom/insight into the most complex political questions in the world and then whine when you are called out for plagiarizing the analysis of others?

Ohh, dont mess with the Bis-han. I like having him around. He’s a lot of fun. I say something pedantic then he responds with an aire of superiority and goes on a rampage to prove how smart he is. Its great comedy from where I’m sitting.

Don’t take that away from me. : )

I’d also like to point at we live in the day and age where it takes an master’s degree to start to understand how government works, maybe time to start bowing down. Republic not a democracy. Dictatorship of the proletariat comes to mind.

[quote]treco wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

What’s the purpose of this thread other than to bash me? It’s pathetically amusing.

Why did you deliberately remove the qualifier “often” from the post you partially quoted other than to peddle a narrative?

Google obsessed fraud? What am I purporting to be, exactly?
[/quote]

[quote]Bismark wrote:

I don’t think folks around these parts realize how lined with red tape the road from displaced person to resettled refugee is. First, the UNHCR or potential receiving state has to determine refugee status. This is spelled out by the 1951 Refugee Convention, which states that a refugee is a person that “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” This is no easy task. The backlogs for the UNHCR alone is close to a quarter of a million applications.

Refugees are then subject to more scrutiny and background checks that any other group admitted to the United States. That screening includes health checks, repeated biometric verification of identity, several layers of biographical and background screening, and in-person interviews. Multiple agencies are involved in the process, including the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Counterterrorism Center and the Department of Defense. And all of this happens before a refugee’s application for resettlement is ever approved or rejected and long before a refugee enters the United States. The process often takes three years. And that was before the recent legislation passed in the United States.

[/quote]

Nice to see you cut and paste Washington Post

or Task & Purpose
http://taskandpurpose.com/debates/should-the-us-deploy-ground-troops-into-direct-combat-with-isis/

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Many of President Obama’s critics believe the Islamic State will not be defeated without U.S. troops fighting on the ground (beyond special operations forces already conducting direct-action and train-and-equip missions). With the deployment of approximately 50 special operators to Syria, stepping up the U.S. ground presence in Iraq seems even more likely. But this would be a severe mistake. The current plan - which involves training, equipping, and otherwise supporting the Iraqi Security Forces in a way that is contingent on the political reforms necessary to resolve Iraq’s conflicts - is the right one, although there are certainly improvements to be made in terms of execution.

While sending troops to engage in combat operations against ISIL would boost efforts to roll back the group, the benefits would not be worth the costs. Deploying U.S. general purpose forces to Iraq (again) would be a boon to jihadist recruitment and remove key incentives currently pushing the Iraqis to sort out their internal political problems. It would also require a greater commitment than many like to admit. U.S. ground troops fighting ISIL requires more personnel and resources for headquarters, hospitals, helicopters, and a far bigger logistics tail.

Washington has run this experiment before. It did not work. Without capable and dedicated security forces that can fight the Islamic State and hold ground, Iraq has no future. The current course might take longer than we’d like, but will result in a more sustainable outcome. The United States must continue to help the Iraqis stand and fight, but beyond SOF conducting specific missions, we would be doing ourselves and Iraq a disservice by putting our troops back on the front line in Iraq. We should have learned by now that sending the troops in is far easier than getting them back out.[/quote]

Why come to a fitness site and jerk us off with your expert wisdom/insight into the most complex political questions in the world and then whine when you are called out for plagiarizing the analysis of others?
[/quote]

Yeah, that’s pretty fucked up, definitely plagiarism.
From wapo

[quote] wapo wrote:
Refugees are subject to more scrutiny and background checks that any other group admitted to the United States. That comes to us from a State Department spokesperson not authorized to speak on the record.

That screening includes health checks, repeated biometric verification of identity, several layers of biographical and background screening, and in-person interviews. Multiple agencies are involved in the process, including the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Counterterrorism Center and the Department of Defense. And all of this happens before a refugee’s application for resettlement is ever approved or rejected and long before a refugee enters the United States.[/quote]

Stupid fucking Bismark.

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Ohh, dont mess with the Bis-han. I like having him around. He’s a lot of fun. I say something pedantic then he responds with an aire of superiority and goes on a rampage to prove how smart he is. Its great comedy from where I’m sitting.

Don’t take that away from me. : )[/quote]

No wonder there’s an air of superiority, they’re not his words!

You mean the guy who claims expert knowledge in every area from theology to military strategy to geopolitics, all while having having his picture set to Machiavelli (or at least he did) and quoting him unironically is actually a plagiarising troll? I’m shocked.

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Ohh, dont mess with the Bis-han. I like having him around. He’s a lot of fun. I say something pedantic then he responds with an aire of superiority and goes on a rampage to prove how smart he is. Its great comedy from where I’m sitting.

Don’t take that away from me. : )[/quote]

No wonder there’s an air of superiority, they’re not his words![/quote]

But they are his words. They’re everybodys words. They were just arranged in a certain order and published by someone else.
He just wants to be viewed as smart. Who doesn’t? Hell, I’d like to be a well heeled internationally educated mover/shaker of geopolitics too, I’m just too busy with the minutae of raising a son and being a simple minded welder/fabricator.

bismark?
well?
how say you?

Dude must live at a holiday inn

He’s an obvious cut and paste guy. No original thoughts.

That was evident with all the SFA garbage in on of the Iraq threads.

I thought everyone knew this.

It’s the same reason he does answer certain questions/posts. The response can’t be scoured in the 11 foregin affairs websites he surfs.

Example: he won’t answer this:

If Obummer had zero experience prior to becoming POTUS, and he is doing such a fine job, why again is experience necessary?

Who has more experience in foregin policy, Obummer in 2008 or Trump/Carson/Cruz/Rubio in 2016?

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
It’s the same reason he does answer certain questions/posts. The response can’t be scoured in the 11 foregin affairs websites he surfs.

Example: he won’t answer this:

If Obummer had zero experience prior to becoming POTUS, and he is doing such a fine job, why again is experience necessary?

Who has more experience in foregin policy, Obummer in 2008 or Trump/Carson/Cruz/Rubio in 2016?[/quote]

Something really important to keep in mind. It’s not just Obama’s lack of experience that causes him to be the worst modern day President. Let’s face it after 7 years a smart guy like Obama could have learned the proper things to do. It’s his far left wing bent that prohibits him from ever doing the smart thing. And it’s his laid back Professor’s style that keeps him from ever trying to encourage a nation that is no doubt concerned about terrorism. And the fact that he’s a racist also plays into his awful performance.

Well, honestly he is bad for many reasons as well. But not just his lack of experience.

Okay, back to the main topic. I’m now taking Bismark off ignore so that I can read his defense of the charges thrown at him on this thread.

Come forward Bismark.