Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

king thong returns
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 18 22:10:42 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ok, so I'm back now after a very busy week at the office.
Probably most of you didn't even know I was absent. Seems I missed a few really good arguments.
kisses to all you plinkers from king thong and the rest can bow in capitulation.


 
Mesh Posted: Fri Jun 18 22:31:06 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Pffft, screw all that bowing nonsense.


But nice to have you back. I had wondered where you dissapeared to.


 
libra Posted: Fri Jun 18 22:43:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I knew you were gone. Just this morning i pulled up your profile to see when your last post was to confirm my suspicions that you had been scarce. Welcome back!! Its not the same without you.


 
Mesh Posted: Fri Jun 18 22:50:13 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  PS Libra youre cute.


 
Zacq Posted: Fri Jun 18 23:10:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Ok, so I'm back now after a very busy week at the office.

Yes... office...

While you were 'away,' the September 11th Commision proved there was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, and Bush, in an attempt to basically just confuse people with utter stupiditiy, used the proof against him to prove his own point... What?


 
Mouse Posted: Fri Jun 18 23:30:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  This confirms the fact that have control over the universe. I ask where people went and they come back. ;P
Welcome back, hif. :) You missed some good times, so now we have to have more of them!


 
JAZER Posted: Sat Jun 19 01:41:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Welcome back hif, I was gettin ready to make a 45 minute drive and find ya and make sure ya hadnt deserted us.


 
Mesh Posted: Sat Jun 19 02:40:24 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yeah, and I was gonna go with him. We had.


 
FN Posted: Sat Jun 19 07:38:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I noticed hif lol

In the meantime erika took your place.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 19 08:37:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>While you were 'away,' the September 11th Commision proved there was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, and Bush, in an attempt to basically just confuse people with utter stupiditiy, used the proof against him to prove his own point... What?
>
ok dude, number one, they didn't "prove" anything, it was merely their conclusion. Number two, they didn't say there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, they only said there was no complicity between Iraq and Al Qaeda concerning 9/11. Big difference eh ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 19 08:39:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Everyone else thanks for the welcome home.
Erika thanks for beating up on Chris for me, he tends to get cranky and irritable without his daily fair share of abuse.


 
FN Posted: Sat Jun 19 08:46:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Erika thanks for beating up on Chris for me, he tends to get cranky and irritable without his daily fair share of abuse.

Your subconscious self has clearly adapted itself to see severe defeats as a victory after having suffered so many in oder to be able cope with it.


 
Mesh Posted: Sat Jun 19 09:00:08 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hooray for antagonizing!!!!!


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 19 09:02:16 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Your subconscious self has clearly adapted itself to see severe defeats as a victory after having suffered so many in oder to be able cope with it.
>
Ah, a testament to the thoroughness of king thong's victories, his victim so soundly defeated and not even aware of it.


 
addi Posted: Sat Jun 19 09:58:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  it's about time, hif! Don't do that again!
I need you around here like yin needs the yang, good needs evil, smart needs dumb, and a weiner needs a bun!

: )

i'm not sure what the last analogy means so don't bother asking


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 19 10:08:19 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>it's about time, hif! Don't do that again!
>I need you around here like yin needs the yang, good needs evil, smart needs dumb, and a weiner needs a bun!
>
>: )
>
>i'm not sure what the last analogy means so don't bother asking
>
ok, but I get to be the bun and the smart guy.





HEY ZACQ ! READ THIS !

Misleading Reporting
Friday, June 18, 2004
By Bill O'Reilly


Once again we are mislead by some in the press.

I know some of you complain about me, but it’s on days like this that you should appreciate the No Spin Zone.

The 9/11 Commission (search) has come to some conclusions and Thursday newspapers across the country blared headlines.

The New York Times wrote: "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq tie."

The Washington Post put forth: "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed."

The Los Angeles Times opined: "No Signs of Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties Found."

And even the conservative Wall Street Journal trumpeted: "No Iraq-al Qaeda Link."

But if you read below the headlines you see the Commission said something a bit different: That there was no a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda regarding Sept. 11. That's true, but there were certainly links and ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda and that's provable.


The smoking gun is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search), an Al Qaeda leader who found his way to Baghdad after being severely wounded fighting against American forces in Afghanistan.

Zarqawi arrived in Iraq in May of 2002 and had surgery in an Iraqi hospital, run by -- are you ready -- Uday Hussein. I believe that might be a tie, but there's more.

Next, the Al Qaeda big shot -- who was wanted by the USA -- traveled to Lebanon to meet with leaders of Hezbollah.

A short time after that meeting, in October of 2002, Lawrence Foley, an American official, was assassinated in Jordan. The arrested killers said Zarqawi was involved in the plot.

Zarqawi wound up back in Iraq after the assassination of Foley and met up with the Ansar al-Islam group, which operated in Northern Iraq and is affiliated with Al Qaeda.

In January 2003, several Ansar terrorists were arrested in Britain and charged with planning to put Ricin in the military food supply. Some of those terrorists fingered Zarqawi in the plot.

Right now, Zarqawi is believed to be in Fallujah working with some of Saddam's former generals in planning terror attacks. Just last week he took credit for killing 13 people in a bombing.

I believe that's a lot of links and ties between Saddam, Iraq and Al Qaeda. But again, I believe the Commission when it says Saddam was not directly involved with Sept. 11. That’s true.

Faced with the misleading headlines ... President Bush said this Thursday:

“The reason that I keep insisting that there’s was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda.”

So, what we have hear is spin. Some in the press used the Commission's report -- which is accurate -- to suggest Bush mislead the public about Saddam and Al Qaeda.

I do not believe that is true.





 
addi Posted: Sat Jun 19 10:28:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Misleading Reporting
By Bill O'Reilly

So true! Hahaha

If you want to hif you can make a link or connection to just about anything. I'm sure someone could connect Kevin Bacon to Al Qaeda.

Here's the point, and where the deception enters. Bush, whether he literaly said it or not, implied that there was a strong link between Bin Laden and Saddam. It was used as rational to invade Iraq. We were after the Al Qaeda terrorists responsible for 9-11, right? That's why we invaded Afganistan. So Bushie boy does his best to put the two in bed together to help justify the war. We even know now that Bin Laden asked for Saddams assistance and he turned him down.

Here's O'Righty's No Spin:
The players of this administration decided long ago that a regime change in Iraq was vital to american interests and with Dubya in the white house, and an event like 9-11, they saw their golden opportunity. They weren't going to let minor details like the truth get in their way.




 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 19 10:36:43 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>Misleading Reporting
>By Bill O'Reilly
>
>So true! Hahaha
>
>If you want to hif you can make a link or connection to just about anything. I'm sure someone could connect Kevin Bacon to Al Qaeda.
>
>Here's the point, and where the deception enters. Bush, whether he literaly said it or not, implied that there was a strong link between Bin Laden and Saddam. It was used as rational to invade Iraq. We were after the Al Qaeda terrorists responsible for 9-11, right? That's why we invaded Afganistan. So Bushie boy does his best to put the two in bed together to help justify the war. We even know now that Bin Laden asked for Saddams assistance and he turned him down.
>
>Here's O'Righty's No Spin:
>The players of this administration decided long ago that a regime change in Iraq was vital to american interests and with Dubya in the white house, and an event like 9-11, they saw their golden opportunity. They weren't going to let minor details like the truth get in their way.
>
The connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda are now proven, period. They have existed for many many years.
And no, we didn't go after Saddam to get the perps for 9/11, that was never insinuated. We were going after terrorists and those who support them. Yes regime change was mentioned even before 9/11, but that's because Iraq had been thumbing their collective noses at the world through the UN and their endless issuance of one resolution after another. It was the Clinton administration who first used the term "regime change" with regards to Saddam anyway.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 19 10:39:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And I'm still pissed off because no one responded to my "John Barleycorn" thread.



 
addi Posted: Sat Jun 19 10:48:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit


Bush senior's administration wanted him out. Implying Clinton as the orchestrator of the "Get rid of Saddam" movement does nothing but show the total extent of your conservative brainwashing by Fox, O'Reilly, Coulter, Will, and the other small pool of misinformation generators you frequent.


 
addi Posted: Sat Jun 19 10:50:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>And I'm still pissed off because no one responded to my "John Barleycorn" thread.

I would have responded, but then everyone here would have guessed I was old, and I'm trying to keep the misinformation about my real age going.
: )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 19 11:09:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit
>
>
>Bush senior's administration wanted him out. Implying Clinton as the orchestrator of the "Get rid of Saddam" movement does nothing but show the total extent of your conservative brainwashing by Fox, O'Reilly, Coulter, Will, and the other small pool of misinformation generators you frequent.
>
Sorry dude, I won't argue that Bush sr. wanted him out, I was merely talking about the term "regime change" in reference to Saddam, nothing more.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 19 11:11:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>And I'm still pissed off because no one responded to my "John Barleycorn" thread.
>
>I would have responded, but then everyone here would have guessed I was old, and I'm trying to keep the misinformation about my real age going.
>: )
>
I was hoping some of our friends in the UK might comment on the historical significance of the song. It's somewhere around 500yrs old now.


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Jun 19 11:19:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yes, that's quite the connection. Except we have more of a connection with Saddam Hussein then that. Self-bombing commences in 3, 2...

Woohoo! Vague connection! Except we didn't go after Hussein mainly because he supported terrorists. First it was because of WMDs. When that fell through, it was supposedly because he supported al Qaeda. When that fell through, the reason became that he was involved with terrorists. I don't think the reason for why a war was started should be that hard to figure out.


 
addi Posted: Sat Jun 19 11:23:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

> I was merely talking about the term "regime change" in reference to Saddam, nothing more.


Oh, well then...

i guess I'm still pissed Smarty Jones didn't pull it off!


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Jun 19 11:27:15 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And the Bush administration has been talking about a lot more connection between al Qaeda and Iraq than just one guy (Zarqawi). Last Monday, Cheney said Iraq "had long established ties with al-Qaida."


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 19 11:29:58 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>And the Bush administration has been talking about a lot more connection between al Qaeda and Iraq than just one guy (Zarqawi). Last Monday, Cheney said Iraq "had long established ties with al-Qaida."
>
that's correct,
now what was that you said about the 9/11 commission saying they've proven no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda ?


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Jun 19 11:34:58 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  There is a definite connection between Zarqawi and Iraq. He apparently ended up in Iraq a few times and worked with them. But I don't see the whole of al Qaeda working with Hussein, just one man. One. That's would be like saying that the entire U.S. Government was assisting Hussein because some stupid people helped him try to assassinate a leader. But that's just hypothetical ; )


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Jun 19 11:36:06 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And it's been shown time and time again that the people of Fox News don't read or watch the stuff they mention in their reports. What are the chances Bill O'Reilly actually read the report?


 
antartica Posted: Sat Jun 19 11:43:13 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  all hail king thong!!!


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 19 11:43:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>And it's been shown time and time again that the people of Fox News don't read or watch the stuff they mention in their reports. What are the chances Bill O'Reilly actually read the report?
>
It's been shown time and time again ?
Please explain and be specific, as Fox is not in the habit of being forced to make corrections concerning factual errors like the NY Times must do repeatedly.

O'Reilly's talking points was not supposed to detail the whole memo, he has covered this many times before. He was trying to make a point about how the liberal media spins their stories, not hammer home the connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, a point that has already been proven.
Also a point that you keep sidestepping. Just exactly what did the 9/11 commission prove ? (referring to your posting earlier on this thread)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 19 11:44:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  antartica said:
>all hail king thong!!!

Thank you kind sir.


 
antartica Posted: Sat Jun 19 11:45:17 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Thank you kind sir.

only for you, your royal thongness..... : O


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Jun 19 11:52:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>O'Reilly's talking points was not supposed to detail the whole memo, he has covered this many times before. He was trying to make a point about how the liberal media spins their stories, not hammer home the connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, a point that has already been proven.

Collaborative connection, as it is often put, means that al Qaeda as a whole and Saddam Hussein worked together, not just one guy. Unless that guy was Osama bin Laden, he alone cannot be called a collaborative connection. Bill said that the September 11 Commission claimed no collaborative connection between Iraq and al Qaeda concerning Sept. 11, and that is true. But the report says that there was no relation at all between al Qaeda and Iraq in any other way either. I read the damned thing - Osama had actually once sponsored the Kurds in fighting Hussein. He only met together with an Iraqi official because wanted him to. But al Qaeda (which is made up of more than one person) did not have collaborative connections with Iraq. I know this is repetitive, but oh well.

>Also a point that you keep sidestepping. Just exactly what did the 9/11 commission prove ? (referring to your posting earlier on this thread)

They proved there was no collaborative connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. They say this several times in the report.


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Jun 19 11:53:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>He only met together with an Iraqi official because wanted him to.

Sorry, that should be 'because Sudan wanted him to.'


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 19 11:59:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Woohoo! Vague connection! Except we didn't go after Hussein mainly because he supported terrorists. First it was because of WMDs. When that fell through, it was supposedly because he supported al Qaeda. When that fell through, the reason became that he was involved with terrorists. I don't think the reason for why a war was started should be that hard to figure out.
>
Remember Un resolution 1441 ? Does that ring a bell ? Anything at all ?
That was our reason for the invasion.

Now for the WMD's, did you think they weren't there ? Cause if you did, you were just about the only person on the planet that did. Virtually every country on the planet thought he had them.
Since we've occupied Iraq, we have proven the WMD programs were in place, we just haven't found any "stockpiles".
Where did you get your crystal ball that said he didn't have WMD's?


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Jun 19 12:03:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Haha, great job Bill. Apparently Tenet said a while back that there wasn't even much evidence Zarqawi was working with Hussein and that they have little connection other than geographical. Zarqawi also spent much of his time in Iraq in a region Hussein had little control over.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 19 12:03:50 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Collaborative connection, as it is often put, means that al Qaeda as a whole and Saddam Hussein worked together, not just one guy. Unless that guy was Osama bin Laden, he alone cannot be called a collaborative connection. Bill said that the September 11 Commission claimed no collaborative connection between Iraq and al Qaeda concerning Sept. 11, and that is true. But the report says that there was no relation at all between al Qaeda and Iraq in any other way either. I read the damned thing - Osama had actually once sponsored the Kurds in fighting Hussein. He only met together with an Iraqi official because wanted him to. But al Qaeda (which is made up of more than one person) did not have collaborative connections with Iraq. I know this is repetitive, but oh well.
>
>>Also a point that you keep sidestepping. Just exactly what did the 9/11 commission prove ? (referring to your posting earlier on this thread)
>
>They proved there was no collaborative connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. They say this several times in the report.
>
Ok, just what was the mandate for the 9/11 commission ?
They were charged with findings concerning the events of 9/11 and nothing else.
They didn't "prove" anything, althought they did reach some conclusions. One of them was that Iraq did not collaborate with Al Quaeda concerning the 9/11 attacks. They said nothing about any other clandestine meeetings between Iraq and Al Quaeda, and if they had, it would have been outside of their mandate.

Are you saying that a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda did not exist ?


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Jun 19 12:11:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>They didn't "prove" anything, althought they did reach some conclusions. One of them was that Iraq did not collaborate with Al Quaeda concerning the 9/11 attacks. They said nothing about any other clandestine meeetings between Iraq and Al Quaeda, and if they had, it would have been outside of their mandate.
>
>Are you saying that a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda did not exist ?

First, did you read the report? They did say al Qaeda and Iraq had no ties. And even if they didn't have the mandate or whatever, the only argument against them is Zarqawi.

Zarqawi was in Iraq, but there is no evidence that he at any point was assisting the government in Baghdad or Hussein. There are only loose connections. And if we really did think he was such a problem, then Bush should've taken him out. They had the chance.

By Jim Miklaszewski
Correspondent
NBC News

With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,” Cressey added.

And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today.



 
Zacq Posted: Sat Jun 19 12:13:17 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And don't say "Oh, the al Qaeda group was operating in Iraq." Tenet said that there was no evidence Saddam had any control over them, and that he didn't even have too much control in that area anyway.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 19 12:31:58 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  So, now you are criticizing Bush for NOT attacking ? sheesh !
You have no idea what goes into a military strike and the whys and wherefores of attacking or not attacking.
You bash him for attacking and you bash him for not attacking.



 
Zacq Posted: Sat Jun 19 12:34:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>It's been shown time and time again ?
>Please explain and be specific, as Fox is not in the habit of being forced to make corrections concerning factual errors like the NY Times must do repeatedly.

Well there's, for one, the Paul Wellstone incident. Many lied about it. There was a memorial service for Paul Wellstone, a political candidate who died. Thousands attended to watch.

Sarah Janacek claimed that there were screens inside prompting audience reaction. What she was referring to was the screen where the hearing impaired could read what was being said. When confronted with this, she claimed it was sick the whole thing was scripted. However, the words appeared on the screen about five seconds after being said.

Rush Limbaugh, besides faking sorrow, randomly claimed that the twenty thousand people that came were bused in. Many came on buses, but these were organized by the unions that wanted to come because Wellstone had fought so hard for them over the years.

Tucker Carlson picked up on Limbaugh's lead and claimed Republican friends of Wellstone were booed at when they tried to speak. Later, much later, he admitted that it never happened, and that he hadn't seen the service at all.

Peggy Noonan, Mort Kondracke, Christopher Caldwell, and others said on fox that the 20,000 booed. In reality, far less than one hundred did.

People on Fox claimed that people that died in the crash with Wellstone were not mentioned at all. Actually, they received long emotional eulogies just like Wellstone.

Some later did admit they'd never seen it.

There are numerous more examples of this just about this one event.


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Jun 19 12:35:59 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>So, now you are criticizing Bush for NOT attacking ? sheesh !
>You have no idea what goes into a military strike and the whys and wherefores of attacking or not attacking.
>You bash him for attacking and you bash him for not attacking.

I bash him for the war on Iraq. I am a fan, however, of the war in Afghanistan and the war against al Qaeda, wherever they may be. Zarqawi was left alive so that they could use him as a connection to Iraq. And way to address the rest of what I said.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 19 12:44:30 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>It's been shown time and time again ?
>>Please explain and be specific, as Fox is not in the habit of being forced to make corrections concerning factual errors like the NY Times must do repeatedly.
>
>Well there's, for one, the Paul Wellstone incident. Many lied about it. There was a memorial service for Paul Wellstone, a political candidate who died. Thousands attended to watch.
>
Dude, not a single person you named works for FOX news, and Tucker Carlson works for CNN !
>Sarah Janacek claimed that there were screens inside prompting audience reaction. What she was referring to was the screen where the hearing impaired could read what was being said. When confronted with this, she claimed it was sick the whole thing was scripted. However, the words appeared on the screen about five seconds after being said.
>
>Rush Limbaugh, besides faking sorrow, randomly claimed that the twenty thousand people that came were bused in. Many came on buses, but these were organized by the unions that wanted to come because Wellstone had fought so hard for them over the years.
>
>Tucker Carlson picked up on Limbaugh's lead and claimed Republican friends of Wellstone were booed at when they tried to speak. Later, much later, he admitted that it never happened, and that he hadn't seen the service at all.
>
>Peggy Noonan, Mort Kondracke, Christopher Caldwell, and others said on fox that the 20,000 booed. In reality, far less than one hundred did.
>
>People on Fox claimed that people that died in the crash with Wellstone were not mentioned at all. Actually, they received long emotional eulogies just like Wellstone.
>
>Some later did admit they'd never seen it.
>
>There are numerous more examples of this just about this one event.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 19 12:45:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Dude, not a single person you named works for FOX news, and Tucker Carlson works for CNN !



 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 19 12:46:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I don't expect this to change your mind, but at least you will have some facts to work with:

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Jun 19 13:01:28 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I was going to type more about the Wellstone thing about how the Fox News began the trend of insulting it but I pressed enter by accident. Anyway, I easily get sick of arguing with someone who shows no signs of ever changing their mind, and I have to go mow the lawn. I would like to end with one thing.

My original statement at the beginning is true. After the Commission filed their report, Bush used, as evidence, a meeting between bin Laden and Iraq to show the connection. Iraq never responded to bin Laden's requests after the meeting. So yea, Bush did use evidence against the connection to support the connection theory.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 19 13:15:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
Anyway, I easily get sick of arguing with someone who shows no signs of ever changing their mind,
>
Double standard ?
>
Yeah, you go with that Wellstone thing, since no one you mentioned works for FOX.

>My original statement at the beginning is true. After the Commission filed their report, Bush used, as evidence, a meeting between bin Laden and Iraq to show the connection. Iraq never responded to bin Laden's requests after the meeting. So yea, Bush did use evidence against the connection to support the connection theory.
>
Did you read the article I linked ?


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Jun 19 13:30:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hey, came back in to change my shoes.

How is it a double standard? I don't have to change my mind, because I don't instantly believe everything liberals say and then look at the other side. I read Al Franken's book (Lies), but I also read Treason by Ann Coulter. The latter was hard to force down but I managed. I'm primarily a liberal, because I agree with them usually. They have had some pretty radical ideas though, you know, like abolishing slavery, women's rights, charity and so forth, but I manage to stick with them.

You've spent an hour arguing something without ever saying anything about whether or not Zarqawi is one man or forty seven. Yea I read the article you linked. Thanks for finally linking rather than pasting. I was mad at myself when I pulled a hif and did it with the NBC article.

"Just taken on its own terms, this paragraph is both internally inconsistent and ambiguously worded. First, it cannot be true both that the Sudanese arranged contacts between Iraq and bin Laden and that no "ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq." If the first proposition is so, then the "[t]wo senior Bin Laden associates" who are the sources of the second are either lying or misinformed."

So meetings that Iraq never responded to and therefore propositions that were dropped and never spoken of again count as collaborative ties? Then I've had collaborative ties with Bill O'Reilly because I once e-mailed him.


 
addi Posted: Sat Jun 19 13:37:14 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:

>
> Then I've had collaborative ties with Bill O'Reilly because I once e-mailed him.

Hahahaha!
According to some folks difinitions of "ties", zok, you and O'Reilly are now past lovers!

*crap. I thought about emailing Rush Limbaugh once. I wonder what that means?! : (


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Jun 19 13:58:15 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yea, I e-mailed him after he had Ann Coulter on his show a month or two ago and said "I dislike you somewhat less now," because he tried to limit Ann's radical spewings. She tried to say the war in Iraq was going perfectly, and he mentioned that generals from Iraq told Fox News it was going worse than expected. Then she said like 'Well I don't believe that,' and he kind of laughed at her and asked who she got her stuff from and she said Rumsfeld. He made it clear to the audience that she was being stupid and that obviously generals in Iraq are going to tell the truth before a politician whose neck is on the line.

And no Addison.
I did not have sexual relations with Bill O'Reilly.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 19 15:07:13 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>"Just taken on its own terms, this paragraph is both internally inconsistent and ambiguously worded. First, it cannot be true both that the Sudanese arranged contacts between Iraq and bin Laden and that no "ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq." If the first proposition is so, then the "[t]wo senior Bin Laden associates" who are the sources of the second are either lying or misinformed."
>
>So meetings that Iraq never responded to and therefore propositions that were dropped and never spoken of again count as collaborative ties? Then I've had collaborative ties with Bill O'Reilly because I once e-mailed him.
>
Perhaps you should read it again, it is in reference to "statement 15" of the 9/11 commission report and it clearly states that a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Bin Laden in 1994. Yes it is true nothing came of this meeting, but they did in fact meet.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 19 15:08:54 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Bye the way, when you get done mowing the lawn, my car needs a good wash and wax. Just got it back from the body shop all nice and shiny, and now it's covered in birdshit.
Fucking liberal doves !


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Jun 19 15:42:08 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Perhaps you should read it again, it is in reference to "statement 15" of the 9/11 commission report and it clearly states that a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Bin Laden in 1994. Yes it is true nothing came of this meeting, but they did in fact meet.

That's the entire point. They met, and that was all. That's no connection. We have more of a connection with Hussein than al Qaeda does. Most of the world has more of a connection.


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Jun 19 18:52:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ah, I went to the library with a book in mind and it was sadly taken out. But fortunately, they had Al Franken's 'Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot' and let me just say it is quite the read.


 
addi Posted: Sat Jun 19 19:14:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
> and let me just say it is quite the read.

indeedie


and it's so true, to boot!


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Jun 19 19:23:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.borowitzreport.com/


 
Mesh Posted: Sat Jun 19 20:35:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>> I was merely talking about the term "regime change" in reference to Saddam, nothing more.
>
>
>Oh, well then...
>
>i guess I'm still pissed Smarty Jones didn't pull it off!


Yeah that horse is one stupid whore.


 
Mesh Posted: Sat Jun 19 20:39:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  LOL, Oh how I LOVE these political debates.

Try this one on for size.


The saddam regime was attacked and overthrown by the United States because, Saddam was actually a member of the Zincorian alien species. Iraq and his regime were a staging point for their plans on conquering the human race and enslaving us.

Prove me wrong :p




I keed I keed



 
Zacq Posted: Sat Jun 19 20:53:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.thebots.net/FuzzyMath.mp3

Trust me. Listen to it.


 
Mesh Posted: Sat Jun 19 21:00:06 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Consarn wont load.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Jun 20 10:37:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Thought you might be interested to see these words.
Willie finally gets it right :

Highlights from the TIME interview include:

On whether the Iraq war was justified: "You know, I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over. I don't believe he went in there for oil. We didn't go in there for imperialist or financial reasons. We went in there because he bought the Wolfowitz-Cheney analysis that the Iraqis would be better off, we could shake up the authoritarian Arab regimes in the Middle East, and our leverage to make peace between the Palestinians and Israelis would be increased," Clinton tells TIME.

"After 9/11, let's be fair here, if you had been President, you'd think, Well, this fellow bin Laden just turned these three airplanes full of fuel into weapons of mass destruction, right? Arguably they were super-powerful chemical weapons. Think about it that way. So, you're sitting there as President, you're reeling in the aftermath of this, so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that," he tells TIME.

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for. So I thought the President had an absolute responsibility to go the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks. I never really thought he'd [use them]. What I was far more worried about was that he'd sell this stuff or give it away. Same thing I've always been worried about North Korea's nuclear and missile capacity. I don't expect North Korea to bomb South Korea, because they know it would be the end of their country. But if you can't feed yourself, the temptation to sell this stuff is overwhelming. So that's why I thought Bush did the right thing to go back. When you're the President, and you're country just been through what we had, you want everything to be accounted for," he tells TIME.




 
Zacq Posted: Sun Jun 20 11:24:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  You don't stop malaria by killing mosquitos.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Jun 20 11:50:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>You don't stop malaria by killing mosquitos.
>
Actually you do.
Consult the manufacturers of DDT.


 
Zacq Posted: Sun Jun 20 12:08:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And notice that there is still malaria.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Jun 20 12:50:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>And notice that there is still malaria.
>
duh, it was very nearly eradicated until DDT was banned.


 
antartica Posted: Sun Jun 20 13:30:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  oh yeah!!!
shake that booty papa thong!


 
Zacq Posted: Sun Jun 20 13:56:16 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>duh, it was very nearly eradicated until DDT was banned.

The point was comparing malaria to terrorism, in that like the disease, terrorism will not be eradicated by killing individual terrorists. The fact that DDT was effective but was banned only extends the analogy. Maybe atomic weapons would work in removing terrorists, but the consequences would not be worth it.


 
FN Posted: Sun Jun 20 17:57:06 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Lol.

Tell me how atomic weapons would help to decrease terrorism.

It'll only be increased.

That's the whole point of terrorism, it isn't like conventional warfare. You can't bomb terrorism out of existance. You can cripple it for a while with some luck perhaps, but it'll bite you in the ass later on.


And ehrm, hif, are you saying the withdrawal of DDT was a bad thing?




On a different note: I have a big-ass history exam tomorrow which will be composed out 3 questions so I'll either be fucked or I'll ace it.

Spent the whole day studying the cold war, fall of the USSR, the decolonisation, several revolutions, the problems between south and north korea, creation and fall of the berlin wall, and so on; only to find out that the exam is composed out of a mere 3 questions, one of which is about the forementioned package; another one about the background, functions and government of the European Union, and a 3rd one about the (very complicated I might add) government of Belgium.

So basicly I focused on 1 question and had to start learning the other 2 questions this evening thinking the majority of the questions would come from the part about the cold war and the cuba crisis and stuff like that.

Hope I'll dodge the bullet.

I probably will.

*switches to confidence-mode*


 
addi Posted: Sun Jun 20 18:08:16 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Good luck on the exam, chris.
I like history, but I'm weird.


 
Mesh Posted: Sun Jun 20 18:54:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yes. Yes you are weird ;) But I'm weird too. I love history, to the max!


 
Zacq Posted: Sun Jun 20 19:25:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Tell me how atomic weapons would help to decrease terrorism.

Well you could bomb all countries other than the U.S. and Madagascar.

Or in a more cartoonish fashion, put them in boxes marked "To terrorists" and when they open them up, KABLAMO!




 
Zacq Posted: Sun Jun 20 20:57:57 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hah, told you. No collaborative relationship.

SADDAM, OSAMA ‘JUST GOOD FRIENDS’
by Andy Borowitz
‘No Relationship,’ Says bin Laden’s Publicist

Rebutting charges by President George W. Bush that there was a “relationship” between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, a publicist for Mr. bin Laden today told reporters that the two Middle Eastern madmen were “just good friends.”

Sydni Betts, a Hollywood publicist whom Mr. bin Laden hired three years ago to handle a blizzard of bad press, said that the al-Qaeda kingpin wanted to put to rest “once and for all” the persistent rumors of a relationship between him and the former Iraqi strongman.

“Are they good friends? Yes. Do they like and admire each other? Yes. Is there a ‘relationship’ between them? No. End of story,” Ms. Betts said.

Ms. Betts also disputed claims that Messrs. bin Laden and Hussein had worked together: “They have never found the right project, and there have always been scheduling issues – we’re talking about two very, very busy guys here.”

In addition, Ms. Betts said, the former Iraqi dictator’s current incarceration makes it highly unlikely that he and Mr. bin Laden would join forces in the future: “No one wants to make plans that involve a guy who’s sitting in a prison cell – trust me, I used to handle Robert Downey, Jr.”

At the end of her session with reporters, Ms. Betts lodged her objection to the press’s continuing characterization of Mr. bin Laden as a “madman”: “He always pays on time – if that’s being a madman, I wish all my clients were.”

In other news, the U.S. cited “security concerns” in announcing that Iraqi sovereignty would be transferred on June 30 to Vice President Dick Cheney’s safety deposit box in Zurich, Switzerland.



 
FN Posted: Mon Jun 21 03:54:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>Good luck on the exam, chris.
>I like history, but I'm weird.

Yeah I love it as well but the governmental systems are very complicated in Europe and Belgium and it's quite a bitch to learn all that by heart, on top of all the other stuff.

Exam starts in an hour so I'll be leaving for school in half an hour I guess.

Already know some of the questions from people who went earlier than me, so if I get some of those I'll get through, otherwise it could get risky lol.


 
Mesh Posted: Mon Jun 21 04:59:57 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I know Pi to one million decinal places.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Jun 21 06:54:35 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>duh, it was very nearly eradicated until DDT was banned.
>
>The point was comparing malaria to terrorism, in that like the disease, terrorism will not be eradicated by killing individual terrorists. The fact that DDT was effective but was banned only extends the analogy. Maybe atomic weapons would work in removing terrorists, but the consequences would not be worth it.
>
But we're not killing "individual" terrorists, we're killing them en masse. And you're right, we will never be able to get them all this way, but for now it's the best way to protect ourselves.
Our best bet is for the democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq to take hold and prosper, a long shot but worth the try.
I suppose you think it's only a coincidence that there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 ?
Btw, they stopped a planned terror attack in Jordan some weeks ago. They had 20 tons of sarin. Where do you suppose it came from ?


 
addi Posted: Mon Jun 21 08:02:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>I suppose you think it's only a coincidence that there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 ?

i think you need to be careful about this one, hif. that's the 2rd or 3rd time you've repeated that statement.

another terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the future wouldn't necessarily denote a failure on Bush's strategy to deal with terrorism. If terrorists want to bad enough they will find a way to attack us again in some way, despite Bush's best efforts. There is no way we will stop every well planned out attack coming at us. There's too many places to cover. We can make it more difficult. We will not stop it completely. To equate no attacks as of yet with a successful terrorist policy is unfounded.

Likewise, no attack on U.S. soil up to now isn't irrefutable proof that his policies are right either. Terrorist attacks are still going on in growing frequency all around the world, and many believe while he has hindered Al-Qaeda cells from operating at full capacity in some places, he has also fanned the flames of hatred towards the U.S. from other moderate or neutral islamic groups, and given them just cause for actions against any westerners.
No attack on our soil up to now is a good thing, but it doesn't mean it still won't happen, tomorrow or next month, and it also doesn't mean that Bush's policies aren't in fact creating more terrorists to deal with in the future.

If you are going to use this "no attacks on U.S. soil" as cornerstone evidence in your defence of Bush's policies, then you would have to also be willing to conceed that if we are attacked while he is in office that his policies were a total failure. I'm not sure you want to say that.

A passioned hatred for America will always be around to some extent, whether we have a liberal or a conservative president in office. Attempts to do serious damage to us will also be around as long as we have the power and influence in the world that we have now.



 
Zacq Posted: Mon Jun 21 08:38:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  There weren't exactly daily attacks before Bush came on U.S. soil.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Jun 21 12:56:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>i think you need to be careful about this one, hif. that's the 2rd or 3rd time you've repeated that statement.
>
>another terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the future wouldn't necessarily denote a failure on Bush's strategy to deal with terrorism. If terrorists want to bad enough they will find a way to attack us again in some way, despite Bush's best efforts. There is no way we will stop every well planned out attack coming at us. There's too many places to cover. We can make it more difficult. We will not stop it completely. To equate no attacks as of yet with a successful terrorist policy is unfounded.
>
Before we began the war on terror, we were being hit at a rate of once or twice per year. We have gone almost 3yrs now with no hits. That's a very good start. Of course we'll never stop everything coming at us, but we have made a very good start.
We have killed approx. two thirds of
al qaeda's leadership. That is also a good start.
To use Zaq's analogy, you won't get all the mosquitoes, but you can damn sure keep the under control.

>Likewise, no attack on U.S. soil up to now isn't irrefutable proof that his policies are right either. Terrorist attacks are still going on in growing frequency all around the world, and many believe while he has hindered Al-Qaeda cells from operating at full capacity in some places, he has also fanned the flames of hatred towards the U.S. from other moderate or neutral islamic groups, and given them just cause for actions against any westerners.
>
Doesn't matter, they are the self declared enemy of the west and they must be dealt with. This is religious fanaticism, not a country with different ideals. They won't be dealt with economically or diplomatically. They don't believe in live and let live.
The only thing they understand is kill or be killed. They want to kill me and you. They want to kill your children and my children. For no other reason than a fanatic religious doctrine, and they absolutely do not respond to logic.
All that being said, I couldn't care less about them. If they want to kill me and you and the rest of the west, I think we are not only justifed in killing them first, I think we are obliged to kill them first.



 
FN Posted: Mon Jun 21 12:59:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Did very well on my exam.

Anybody ever heard about these:



http://slate.msn.com/id/2102499/


 
addi Posted: Mon Jun 21 13:17:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>All that being said, I couldn't care less about them. If they want to kill me and you and the rest of the west, I think we are not only justifed in killing them first, I think we are obliged to kill them first.

Kill and then think about the ramifications afterwards, eh? (Summary of Bush's foreign policy)

It's all very clear to you. Why don't you go over to Iraq now and point out the ones that what to kill you and me, and tell the soldiers to shoot at them. But make sure you don't get confused and accidently point to an innocent civilian just trying to make it through the day feeding his family.
Or if they're practicing muslims should every one of them die since we shouldn't give a flying fuck about them? Perhaps we should just nuke any country that we're sure has a terrorist cell operating in it. If all the muslims are dead first they can't hurt us.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Jun 21 13:24:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>All that being said, I couldn't care less about them. If they want to kill me and you and the rest of the west, I think we are not only justifed in killing them first, I think we are obliged to kill them first.
>
>Kill and then think about the ramifications afterwards, eh? (Summary of Bush's foreign policy)
>
>It's all very clear to you. Why don't you go over to Iraq now and point out the ones that what to kill you and me, and tell the soldiers to shoot at them. But make sure you don't get confused and accidently point to an innocent civilian just trying to make it through the day feeding his family.
>Or if they're practicing muslims should every one of them die since we shouldn't give a flying fuck about them? Perhaps we should just nuke any country that we're sure has a terrorist cell operating in it. If all the muslims are dead first they can't hurt us.
>
Now don't go putting words in my mouth . . .
That's not what I said and you know it.
As a matter of fact, I don't think I even used the term Muslim.


 
addi Posted: Mon Jun 21 13:26:13 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  how many of the terrorists aren't muslims?


 
mat_j Posted: Mon Jun 21 13:38:59 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Addi you still about?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Jun 21 13:46:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>how many of the terrorists aren't muslims?
>
Depends on your definition of a Muslim.
I'm sure most moderate Muslims don't consider Mohammed Atta a Muslim, no matter what he calls himself, any more that you might consider Ted Kazinsky to be a Christian.
Then of course, most of Saddam's guys were secularists (is that a word ?).

But it doesn't matter, I never said we should shoot everybody just to make sure we get the bad guys, that's a foolish thing to say, and it's not necessary.
Hell if anyone thought that worked, we could start by nuking Detroit.


 
addi Posted: Mon Jun 21 14:02:17 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:
>Addi you still about?


I'm behind deadlines at work, and it looks like it's going to be at least a 12-15 hour day, if not more. (my boss just informed me that my review is tomorrow, hint hint, so I better stay untill things are finished!)
GawdDamn Work!

Can't answer folks the way I want to right now.
Missed you


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Jun 21 14:08:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>mat_j said:
>>Addi you still about?
>
>
>I'm behind deadlines at work, and it looks like it's going to be at least a 12-15 hour day, if not more. (my boss just informed me that my review is tomorrow, hint hint, so I better stay untill things are finished!)
>GawdDamn Work!
>
>Can't answer folks the way I want to right now.

I know the feeling. Spent most of last week on a special project and not much else got done. Didn't get all the way done with the project either.
Am actually stealing time from the company today to get any posting done, fortunately the phone are not ringing off the hook.
Good luck on your review.
>Missed you


 
Zacq Posted: Mon Jun 21 22:04:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>To use Zaq's analogy, you won't get all the mosquitoes, but you can damn sure keep the under control.

You're definitely not using my analogy. Anyway, part of the reason terrorists aren't hitting the U.S. is because they're busy killing off out soldiers while we kill their innocent citizens.

Ooh, I know should be incorporated into the analogy. Sickle cell anemia is a disorder that causes blood cells to be shaped like sickles. But if you have only partial sickle cell anemia, you don't exhibit many citizens but have partial immunity to malaria.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]