Author Topic: Well, it didn't take long, did it? (Read 2877 times)

Eagler · « **Reply #105 on:** November 17, 2006, 05:52:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
THEY WERENT KILLING EACH OTHER BEFORE WE WENT IN, EINSTIEN!!!

that's because they didn't have the freedom to do so.
not our fault we are dealing with humans one half step above animals ... most any other place would love for the US to rebuild its country to modern day standards ... but keep thinking its bad ole USA's fault .. many seem to believe your delusion.

ps

Albert Einstein was slightly smarter than I and way, way smarter than you ...

Gunslinger · « **Reply #106 on:** November 17, 2006, 06:07:29 PM »

I love this rethoric that Sadam didn't tolerate terrorism.

It was common knowledge that during the late 90s he promised and sent money to the familys of palistinian mass murderers (read suicide bombers)

and then there's this little quip of english most forgot about:

Quote

Saddam Hussein offered asylum

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

Oops I forgot is CNN a good enough source still?

Stringer · « **Reply #107 on:** November 17, 2006, 06:20:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
not our fault we are dealing with humans one half step above animals ...

Actually, Yes it is.....we CHOSE to invade.

Donzo · « **Reply #108 on:** November 17, 2006, 06:21:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
... the liberals want to balance the books?

Now that's funny.

Stringer · « **Reply #109 on:** November 17, 2006, 06:22:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I love this rethoric that Sadam didn't tolerate terrorism.

It was common knowledge that during the late 90s he promised and sent money to the familys of palistinian mass murderers (read suicide bombers)

and then there's this little quip of english most forgot about:

Oops I forgot is CNN a good enough source still?

I'm sorry, I missed the actual AQ/Iraq link in that article. Can you underline the part that said Bin Laden actually met with Saddam or was even housed in Iraq?

midnight Target · « **Reply #110 on:** November 17, 2006, 06:31:48 PM »

Hey comon!

We KNEW they had WMD... We still have the receipts.

VOR · « **Reply #111 on:** November 17, 2006, 06:32:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Stringer
I'm sorry, I missed the actual AQ/Iraq link in that article. Can you underline the part that said Bin Laden actually met with Saddam or was even housed in Iraq?

It wouldn't matter. You wouldn't believe it.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #112 on:** November 17, 2006, 07:26:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Stringer
I'm sorry, I missed the actual AQ/Iraq link in that article. Can you underline the part that said Bin Laden actually met with Saddam or was even housed in Iraq?

well I don't remember being able to write in anything other than english but the post was pretty self explainatory.

Sadam not only tolerated terrorism he was a philanthrper (SP) of it.

FT_Animal · « **Reply #113 on:** November 17, 2006, 07:30:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VOR
It wouldn't matter. You wouldn't believe it.

How many political people in the know, including the president, does it take to make the point that everything we intially went there for was unfounded? I don't understand why people hang on to something proven wrong over and over and over and over until it so redundant, that ya just can't listen anymore. Also there IS a report from the senate that states several times, that it was all false. Now, if you need further convincing, I would be glad to post a link any American can find in 5 minutes. If you could please tell us all how many times it takes so we can just jump to that number.

Just sayin:)

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #114 on:** November 17, 2006, 08:07:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
yes because we all know that Al Queada is the ONLY terrorist group we need to look after.

EDIT:

and help me out here whithawk cause i'm confused....

according to your logic, they don't have to be Iraqi but if they attack Americans they are freedom fighters.

But, If they attack fellow Iraqis because they are shi'ites and blow up a market full of civilians and/or blow up lets say the golden mosque (you know because they are trying to insite....terror)......does that make them terrorists?

If so do they lose their terrorist label when they go back to fighting Americans and become freedom fighters again or does the whole terrorist thing kinda stick to them?

Can they be terrorists one day and freedom fighters the next or does it not flip flop like that?

If they are a terrorist who fights for freedom by killing there own civilians does it make them "super terror freedom fighters"?

First of all, there is a civil war ragin in iraq. Sunnis vs Shi'ites. These are the peopel killing each other. There is also a rebel army fighting the invading hoard of americans. This army is funded by Iran and Syria with Russian aid. You will notice, if you quit listening to master heroine addict Rush, that the rebel army does not use suicide bombers to carry out its attacks, they use IED's and Snipers as Hilts eluded to. 2 different wars and tactics. NO TERRORISTS WHATSOEVER ANYWHERE!!! Quit listening to heroine addict Rush and use your own brain. This is war for oil.

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #115 on:** November 17, 2006, 08:13:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
well I don't remember being able to write in anything other than english but the post was pretty self explainatory.

Sadam not only tolerated terrorism he was a philanthrper (SP) of it.

Step up to the plate. Why did we go into iraq? why are we there now? Answer the question please. dont parrot Rush limboauhs latest hoerine hallucination.

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #116 on:** November 17, 2006, 08:17:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VOR
It wouldn't matter. You wouldn't believe it.

Thats nice VOR. You have inside info that even the CIA couldnt come up with, try as they might. Go ahead and link us to the blessed event. Humor us skeptics. Put your money where your mouth is, for once.

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #117 on:** November 17, 2006, 08:20:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I love this rethoric that Sadam didn't tolerate terrorism.

It was common knowledge that during the late 90s he promised and sent money to the familys of palistinian mass murderers (read suicide bombers)

and then there's this little quip of english most forgot about:

Oops I forgot is CNN a good enough source still?

Once again, Isreal is an occupying force. They are occupying arab land and strangling the palestinian people. It is not terrorism to stand up and fight like a man. Is it?

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #118 on:** November 17, 2006, 08:22:59 PM »

Well, at least you can spell Rush correctly. That's pretty much it though.

When you get past your fixation on Rush Limbaugh and heroin, let us know. At that point you might develop a coherent argument. But before you do anything else, read this: Saddam Hussein never sponsored terror?

VOR · « **Reply #119 on:** November 17, 2006, 08:36:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FT_Animal
How many political people in the know, including the president, does it take to make the point that everything we intially went there for was unfounded?
Just sayin:)

Don't confuse yourself. I don't think OBL is in Iraq or ever was. If someone did happen to find him in a hole in the ground, I'd believe it at that point unlike some people around here.