freeflydrew 0 #301 September 9, 2003 Quote this disscussion is getting tireing. The fact in that far more Terrorist attacks that you are not aware of have been thwarted and stopped before they have occured. After Al queda took the first major step in September 11th two year ago it was quite clear that they were ready to go into high gear with more attacks. To sugest that because the current administration sought out retribution for 9/11 that there is a sudden rise in terrorism is just utterly false. thats it You have no idea if any have been thwarted and stopped... what about 9/11 indicated that they were going into high gear with attacks... And, maybe some people in Iraq are doing what they're doing because there have been a number of innocent victims killed by accident by coalition forces? Are you sure that's it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #302 September 9, 2003 QuoteI'm ashamed of you. If you are going to take my line, use the whole thing. I know, I know, but I couldn't remember Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #303 September 9, 2003 QuoteIf I had a dime for every time somebody private messaged ME that they don't agree with YOU, I'd be a very rich man. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I doubt that I don't, both of us, justin and justin, would be rich and living the high life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #304 September 9, 2003 QuoteAfter Al queda took the first major step in September 11th two year ago it was quite clear that they were ready to go into high gear with more attacks. but, but, but...I thought they took the first major step during Clinton's administration? You're playing liberal games trying to say it started during Bush's. QuoteTo sugest that because the current administration sought out retribution for 9/11 that there is a sudden rise in terrorism is just utterly false. We sought retribution? When did we invade Saudi Arabia? QuoteThe top U.S. military commander for the Persian Gulf region said yesterday that terrorism is becoming the "number one security threat" in Iraq, with foreign fighters entering the country through Syria and a revived group called Ansar al-Islam now firmly established in Baghdad. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A29121-2003Aug21?language=printer QuoteThe fighters who have been carrying out attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq are heading into the country from Saudi Arabia and other neighboring Arab nations, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said in an interview with the Arabic-language news network Al-Jazeera. Damn those liberals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #305 September 9, 2003 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf I had a dime for everytime somebody said to me I agree with you just not in public or sent an instant message saying that for that matter I would be a very rich man. If I had a dime for every time somebody private messaged ME that they don't agree with YOU, I'd be a very rich man. I doubt that You know what I've been doing between posts? Reading IM's people have been sending me about how amazed they are at the fallacies you're posting. Quite a few from some of the more conservative on here trying to disassociate from you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #306 September 9, 2003 Quote-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If I had a dime for everytime somebody said to me I agree with you just not in public or sent an instant message saying that for that matter I would be a very rich man. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If I had a dime for every time somebody private messaged ME that they don't agree with YOU, I'd be a very rich man. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I doubt that -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You know what I've been doing between posts? Reading IM's people have been sending me about how amazed they are at the fallacies you're posting. Quite a few from some of the more conservative on here trying to disassociate from you. If we stopped reading our private messages and IM's, we could debunk much faster, but it would take a lot of fun out of things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #307 September 9, 2003 Quote this disscussion is getting tireing. The fact in that far more Terrorist attacks that you are not aware of have been thwarted and stopped before they have occured. After Al queda took the first major step in September 11th two year ago it was quite clear that they were ready to go into high gear with more attacks. To sugest that because the current administration sought out retribution for 9/11 that there is a sudden rise in terrorism is just utterly false. thats it You should respond to the "What are you really good at?" thread with "backpedalling." Billvon said that Iraq wasn't planning to attack us and that there is more terrorism in Iraq now than there was before. You said those were untrue statements. When I asked which of them was untrue, you changed the subject to 9/11 and Al Queda, neither of which have anything to do with Iraq's lack of intent to attack us, or the increase in terror-type attacks going on there subsequent to our invasion. Hmm...I'm suddenly beginning to question whether the constant complaints by conservatives about liberal debate tactics have any merit. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #308 September 9, 2003 QuoteQuote this disscussion is getting tireing. The fact in that far more Terrorist attacks that you are not aware of have been thwarted and stopped before they have occured. After Al queda took the first major step in September 11th two year ago it was quite clear that they were ready to go into high gear with more attacks. To sugest that because the current administration sought out retribution for 9/11 that there is a sudden rise in terrorism is just utterly false. thats it You should respond to the "What are you really good at?" thread with "backpedalling." Billvon said that Iraq wasn't planning to attack us and that there is more terrorism in Iraq now than there was before. You said those were untrue statements. When I asked which of them was untrue, you changed the subject to 9/11 and Al Queda, neither of which have anything to do with Iraq's lack of intent to attack us, or the increase in terror-type attacks going on there subsequent to our invasion. Hmm...I'm suddenly beginning to question whether the constant complaints by conservatives about liberal debate tactics have any merit. Blues, Dave anybody with an ounce of common since knows that Saddam Hussein was onboard with Al Queda. I did not spin anything. Whether or not they choose to say it the way it is, is another thing.If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #309 September 9, 2003 >To sugest that because the current administration sought out > retribution for 9/11 that there is a sudden rise in terrorism is just > utterly false. From CBS: Worried that war in Iraq could lead to terrorist reprisals at home, the Department of Homeland Security has raised the terror alert one level to orange, or "high," and called for an increase in security measures nationwide. Toronto Star: The U.S.-led war on Iraq gave Al Qaeda the opportunity to reinvigorate its weakened terrorist network with new recruits and more funding, say experts on terrorism. The Iraq war "clearly increased the terrorist impulse," said Jonathan Stevenson, senior fellow for counter-terrorism at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies. The U.S.-led invasion, at least in the short term, drew more people toward Osama bin Laden's vision of a global clash between Islam and the West, Stevenson said yesterday. It partly explains the series of co-ordinated, multiple attacks last Tuesday in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where 34 people died, and on Friday in Casablanca, Morocco, where 41 people, including 13 attackers, were killed by five bomb blasts. So you want another shovel or are you doing OK with the one you have? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #310 September 9, 2003 The U.S.-led war on Iraq gave Al Qaeda the opportunity to reinvigorate its weakened terrorist network with new recruits and more funding, say experts on terrorism. ------------------------------------------------------ reinvigorate its weakened terorrist network. Hmmm I guess that a weakened terrorist network proves that there was once a stronger one. Never-the-less there is one. That simply proves that liberal that instist on denying that Al Queda and Saddam had no ties are either lying or simply have their facts all screwed up. I will go with lying because I believe they (the liberal left) cares more about regaining power than they care about national security.If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #311 September 9, 2003 Quotereinvigorate its weakened terorrist network. Hmmm I guess that a weakened terrorist network proves that there was once a stronger one. Right, we weakened it in Afghanistan, and strengthened it in Iraq. QuoteThat simply proves that liberal that instist on denying that Al Queda and Saddam had no ties are either lying or simply have their facts all screwed up. They were enemies. Al Queda had declared jihad on Saddam. I keep seeing you spew accusations of lies and claims of fact without a single reference. Are you using a crystal ball for all your info, or a magic 8 ball? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #312 September 9, 2003 >anybody with an ounce of common since knows that Saddam Hussein > was onboard with Al Queda. I did not spin anything. Whether or not > they choose to say it the way it is, is another thing. Bush has no common sense? From whitehouse.gov: --------- Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th? THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim. ---------- From the washington times: ----------------------------- "There was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist operation," former State Department intelligence official Greg Thielmann said this week. Intelligence agencies agreed on the "lack of a meaningful connection to al Qaeda" and said so to the White House and Congress, said Mr. Thielmann, who left State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research last September. --------------------------- So why do you think there was a connection? Did you read it in another book? And do you really think Bush has no common sense? >That simply proves that liberal that instist on denying that Al Queda > and Saddam had no ties are either lying or simply have their facts > all screwed up. Wow! So is Bush lying, or does he simply have his facts all screwed up? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,587 #313 September 9, 2003 What (besides "common sense") leads you to think that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are linked in any way. Or are you saying that OBL is no longer in control of Al Qaeda? They are both Muslims, but only in the sense that Jerry Falwell and I are both Christians. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #314 September 9, 2003 QuoteWhat (besides "common sense") leads you to think that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are linked in any way. Or are you saying that OBL is no longer in control of Al Qaeda? They are both Muslims, but only in the sense that Jerry Falwell and I are both Christians. Wendy W. Are you not familiar with Islamic Jihad? Can you please tell me of the Christian equivalent to that? I would be interested in knowing.If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #315 September 9, 2003 Yeah, I've heard of Islamic Jihad. In fact Al Queda declared jihad on Saddam Hussein because his policies did not coincide with their goals. QuoteCan you please tell me of the Christian equivalent to that? I would be interested in knowing. Well, Bush's claim that God told him to invade Iraq is pretty close. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #316 September 9, 2003 QuoteAre you not familiar with Islamic Jihad? Can you please tell me of the Christian equivalent to that? I would be interested in knowing. Shock & Awe? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #317 September 9, 2003 QuoteAre you not familiar with Islamic Jihad? Can you please tell me of the Christian equivalent to that? I would be interested in knowing. That doesn't answer the question.What makes you belief they are linked together? Show us some proof that they were working together. Then show us some proof that Iraq and Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. But then again, you never answered two earlier questions I posted. So far you ahve said nothing more than liberals are liars and all muslims are terrorists and should be banned. Not many conservatives have openly spoken against you, so I would almost call you a bad posterboy for the conservative movement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #318 September 9, 2003 >Are you not familiar with Islamic Jihad? Jihad: (Moham.) A religious war against infidels or Mohammedan heretics; also, any bitter war or crusade for a principle or belief. >Can you please tell me of the Christian equivalent to that? Crusade: [n] any of the more or less continuous military expeditions in the 11-13th centuries when Christian powers of Europe tried to recapture the Holy Land from the Muslims [v] go on a crusade; fight a holy war Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pds 0 #319 September 9, 2003 QuoteMuslim faith should be made illegal. you have lost your fucking mind.namaste, motherfucker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #320 September 9, 2003 QuoteQuoteAre you not familiar with Islamic Jihad? Can you please tell me of the Christian equivalent to that? I would be interested in knowing. Shock & Awe? there is a book called Shock and Awe. I suggest you buy it and then you can tell me on what page in the book it talks about all the Christians getting together to fight everybody else. That is what Islamic Jihad is, only not with Christians.If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,587 #321 September 9, 2003 QuoteAre you not familiar with Islamic Jihad? Yes. I'm also familiar with the local Texaco station. I'm not sure what Islamic Jihad (other than the word Islamic) has to do with OBL and Saddam Hussein. Or are you scared to actually address the question I asked. As far as parallels, well, if we can go back hundreds of years to the Islamic movement into Spain to show the nature of Islam, then why can't we go back hundreds of years to the Spanish Inquisition, to show the nature of Christian bigotry? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #322 September 9, 2003 Quoteyou have lost your fucking mind. The succinct version of what we've been saying for the last hundred posts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #323 September 9, 2003 QuoteThe succinct version of what we've been saying for the last hundred posts. LOL, yeah that about sums it up Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #324 September 9, 2003 I have not said a word on this whole thread. But, looking at some things I am seeing, it is time to add something to this. To those of you out there, please understand that Steel's comments are his, and his alone. They should not be viewed as a reflection on the the views of the vast majority of conservatives. While many pm this, I would prefer to publicly distance myself and conservatives from the views reflected therein. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pds 0 #325 September 9, 2003 sorry, didnt mean to parrot, but im still back on 221 trying to catch up. oh my, i do believe i have siezed the troll kings crown. lmao.namaste, motherfucker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
