Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Poll Only
Jihadist terrorists
Topic Started: Jan 10 2005, 07:50 AM (2,294 Views)
cptjeff
Captain of the Enterprise-J
and I gave my reasons- it was a cut and paste twisting of sentences and meanings, changing the entire makeup. you quote a sentence of the dulfer report- to claim that saddam had weapons. may I refer you here? well, I guess that answers that question. and that was the primary logic in the entire thing. with that blown to smithereens, I suggest that you work on something productive. like preparing a defence for an Impeachment trial for Bush.

Edited for vulgarity. Cptjeff stick to the topic. Only people who have no argument resort to vulgarities.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
cptjeff
Jan 16 2005, 12:13 AM
and I gave my reasons- it was a cut and paste twisting of sentences and meanings, changing the entire makeup. you quote a sentence of the dulfer report- to claim that saddam had weapons. may I refer you here? well, I guess that answers that question. and that was the primary logic in the entire thing. with that blown to smithereens, I suggest that you work on something productive. like preparing a defence for an Impeachment trial for Bush.

Edited

You didn't give reasons; all you gave were lies and diversions.

You lie by stating I used the Duelfer Report to "claim that saddam had weapons", when in fact I cited the Duelfer Report under a section titled Undermining the Legitimacy of the UN Sanctions. This is the second time you've tried this and this is the second time I'm point it out.

As well, you lie by trying to argue ... ineffectually I might add ... that my writings are twisted cut-n-pastes. And you do all this without providing a shread of supporting evidence. Much like somerled, you simply make statements and then you think everyone else is supposed to accept it out of hand because you arrogantly think you're smarter than everyone else.

On top of the lies are a host of diversions. You tried to divert this to an argument whether or not Iraq had nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, when in fact the essay I wrote isn't about that at all; the essay I wrote is about Iraqs place in the War on Terrorism.

In addition to that, you also tried to divert this to an argument of an impeachment of Pres. Bush.
Offline | Profile ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Dwayne
Jan 16 2005, 02:31 AM
cptjeff
Jan 16 2005, 12:13 AM
and I gave my reasons- it was a cut and paste twisting of sentences and meanings, changing the entire makeup. you quote a sentence of the dulfer report- to claim that saddam had weapons. may I refer you here? well, I guess that answers that question. and that was the primary logic in the entire thing. with that blown to smithereens, I suggest that you work on something productive. like preparing a defence for an Impeachment trial for Bush.

Edited

You didn't give reasons; all you gave were lies and diversions.

You lie by stating I used the Duelfer Report to "claim that saddam had weapons", when in fact I cited the Duelfer Report under a section titled Undermining the Legitimacy of the UN Sanctions. This is the second time you've tried this and this is the second time I'm point it out.

As well, you lie by trying to argue ... ineffectually I might add ... that my writings are twisted cut-n-pastes. And you do all this without providing a shread of supporting evidence. Much like somerlead, you simply make statements and then you think everyone else is supposed to accept it out of hand because you arrogantly think you're smarter than everyone else.

On top of the lies are a host of diversions. You tried to divert this why arguments whether or not Iraq had nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, when in fact the essay I wrote isn't about that at all. The essay is about Iraqs place in the War on Terrorism.

In addition to that, you also tried to divert this to an argument of an impeachment of Pres. Bush.

And that somehow justifies invading a country, destroying their infrastructure and killing a great many Iraqis ?
Offline | Profile ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
That's a loaded question.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
Jan 15 2005, 09:06 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 15 2005, 12:06 PM
Probably because I know your kind too well...  :rotfl:

Besides, you just answered my question. If you had read it, you would have commented on it.

Did not comment or respond to it because I didn't consider it worthy of doing so. Simply not worthy the investment of effort to do so. Like I said - typical Dwayne garbage.

I think I indicated that would be my approach as soon as saw it. You can like that or you can lump it.

Nothing like a closed mind, is there?

You might learn something, even if it might upset your applecart.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
Jan 16 2005, 08:32 AM
Dwayne
Jan 16 2005, 02:31 AM
cptjeff
Jan 16 2005, 12:13 AM
and I gave my reasons- it was a cut and paste twisting of sentences and meanings, changing the entire makeup. you quote a sentence of the dulfer report- to claim that saddam had weapons. may I refer you here? well, I guess that answers that question. and that was the primary logic in the entire thing. with that blown to smithereens, I suggest that you work on something productive. like preparing a defence for an Impeachment trial for Bush.

Edited

You didn't give reasons; all you gave were lies and diversions.

You lie by stating I used the Duelfer Report to "claim that saddam had weapons", when in fact I cited the Duelfer Report under a section titled Undermining the Legitimacy of the UN Sanctions. This is the second time you've tried this and this is the second time I'm point it out.

As well, you lie by trying to argue ... ineffectually I might add ... that my writings are twisted cut-n-pastes. And you do all this without providing a shread of supporting evidence. Much like somerlead, you simply make statements and then you think everyone else is supposed to accept it out of hand because you arrogantly think you're smarter than everyone else.

On top of the lies are a host of diversions. You tried to divert this why arguments whether or not Iraq had nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, when in fact the essay I wrote isn't about that at all. The essay is about Iraqs place in the War on Terrorism.

In addition to that, you also tried to divert this to an argument of an impeachment of Pres. Bush.

And that somehow justifies invading a country, destroying their infrastructure and killing a great many Iraqis ?

So you'd prefer if Saddam Hussein was still in power?

Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
cptjeff
Jan 15 2005, 11:13 PM
and I gave my reasons- it was a cut and paste twisting of sentences and meanings, changing the entire makeup. you quote a sentence of the dulfer report- to claim that saddam had weapons. may I refer you here? well, I guess that answers that question. and that was the primary logic in the entire thing. with that blown to smithereens, I suggest that you work on something productive. like preparing a defence for an Impeachment trial for Bush.

Edited for vulgarity. Cptjeff stick to the topic. Only people who have no argument resort to vulgarities.

Why? He has done nothing impeachable. In fact, his actions are saving American lives by keeping the fight over there than on the streets of Anytown, USA. Have you thought of that (better Baghdad than Boston)?
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
somerled
Jan 16 2005, 09:32 AM
And that somehow justifies invading a country, destroying their infrastructure and killing a great many Iraqis ?

Saddam killed more Iraqi's per month than the total that have died as a result of invading Iraq, so your comments, like Jeff's are a mere diversion from the truth. And the truth is, yes the invasion was justified.
Offline | Profile ^
 
cptjeff
Captain of the Enterprise-J
one simple question- How?

Saddam as evil by our standards, yes, but what applies to us does not always apply to the rest of the world? How many times do I have to tell you that? Saddam hated Terrorists, and he didn't allow them in. Now what is Iraq? a breeding ground.

the man had his flaws, but what so does everybody.

and with the no WMDs, there might be an impeachment (ya know, for lieing to congress for war autoraization...) stay tuned...
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Not only are you clueless, you're a friggin' apologist for the Hitler of our times!! :realmad:

Saddam isn't evil (this is a man who has killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS) by whose standards? You are saying that we shouldn't apply our values to him? Kid, this is by far the STUPIDEST thing you have EVER said.

The man had TORTURE CHAMBERS. He fed people into plastic shredding machines. He dripped acid on people. He had them thrown off of five story buildings.

The man had his flaws?? Jesus X. Christ!!!

As for the lack of WMDs, your hero Bill Clinton said they existed. Your other hero John Kerry said they existed. Both are on tape and on record saying they are. So, just who lied to Congress? NO ONE! This was based on the intelligence we had.

Note to moderator: The post directly above mine may be sufficient reason to suggest Invisionfree raise its lower age limit.

:realmad:
Offline | Profile ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Based on his track record for attempting to be knowledgeable on things (nuclear weapons, evolution) I would say that this is par for course for jeffy boy.

You know, Stalin wasn't that bad either, neither was Hitler. They were just misunderstood.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
A little something from the Timesonline that will spice things up...
Quote:
 
AN EXTREMIST London cleric is using live broadcasts on the internet to urge young British Muslims to join al-Qaeda and has condoned suicide terrorist attacks. Omar Bakri Mohammed, who has lived in the UK for 18 years on social security benefits, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden and told his followers that they were in a state of war with Britain.

The Times monitored Mr Bakri Mohammed’s nightly webcasts in which he declared that the “covenant of security” under which Muslims live peacefully in the UK had been “violated” by the Government’s tough anti-terrorist legislation, The Syrian-born radical said: “I believe the whole of Britain has become Dar ul-Harb (land of war). In such a state, he added, ”the kuffar (non-believer) has no sanctity for their own life or property.“

In his broadcasts, conducted through an internet chatroom, Mr Bakri Mohammed stopped short of calling for terrorist attacks in Britain. But he said that Muslims should join the jihad ”wherever you are“ and told one woman that she was permitted to become a suicide bomber.

Mr Bakri Mohammed, 46, has indefinite leave to remain in the UK but could be detained without trial under the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act if the Home Secretary were to decide he is a terrorist associate.

Last Monday he told his listeners: ”Al-Qaeda and all its branches and organisations of the world, that is the victorious group and they have the emir and you are obliged to join. There is no need . . . to mess about.“ Two nights later he said that the voices of dead Mujahidin were calling young Britons to fight. ”These people are calling you and shouting to you from far distant places: al jihad, al jihad. They say to you my dear Muslim brothers, ‘Where is your weapon, where is your weapon?’ Come on to the jihad," he said.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
doctortobe
Jan 16 2005, 07:53 PM
Based on his track record for attempting to be knowledgeable on things (nuclear weapons, evolution) I would say that this is par for course for jeffy boy.

You know, Stalin wasn't that bad either, neither was Hitler. They were just misunderstood.

Yes, we have to understand the root causes of their penchant for evil. After all, Hitler's daddy spanked him, so that probably made him want to exterminate an entire race of people. Stalin had a last name no one could pronounce (Djugashvili). I'm sure that drove him to purge millions he saw as a threat... because people could pronounce their last names. Saddam had prematurely gray hair and talked like Sylvester the Cat. This probably made him want to kill 300,000 people and dump their bodies in mass graves... thufferin' thuccotash!
Offline | Profile ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

I won't dignify any of the Islamist terrorists (al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hizballah, Ansar Al-Islam, Al-Fatah, et al.) by calling them freedom fighters. The second option that incorporates the term thug comes closer to the way I feel about them.

There seem to be elements of resignation and hopelessness tangled in the bizarre 'motives' of the people who commit acts of terror. It makes me feel a little sad for them, but that is about all of the compassion or understanding that I can muster for them.
^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 17 2005, 09:30 AM
doctortobe
Jan 16 2005, 07:53 PM
Based on his track record for attempting to be knowledgeable on things (nuclear weapons, evolution) I would say that this is par for course for jeffy boy.

You know, Stalin wasn't that bad either, neither was Hitler.  They were just misunderstood.

Yes, we have to understand the root causes of their penchant for evil. After all, Hitler's daddy spanked him, so that probably made him want to exterminate an entire race of people. Stalin had a last name no one could pronounce (Djugashvili). I'm sure that drove him to purge millions he saw as a threat... because people could pronounce their last names. Saddam had prematurely gray hair and talked like Sylvester the Cat. This probably made him want to kill 300,000 people and dump their bodies in mass graves... thufferin' thuccotash!

:loling: You are kidding , aren't you ?

Those can't possibility be your serious and concidered opinions on why Hitler and Stalin became mass murders , and by the way nothing has been proven yet about Saddam .
Offline | Profile ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Poll Only

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus