Funding Terror Is Funding Terror?

[aquapub]

Hogwash.

He used WMD, thereby proving that he is ok with using them. He openly sponsored terrorism, thereby proving that he was ok with doing that as well. Where is any leap required to deduce that he would sponsor terrorism with WMD? You admit he was a threat and that he was linked with terror, but you oppose us having taken him out?

What am I missing here?

 

[jfuh]

Refute something I have said. You are the only person here providing no specifics and citing nothing. :roll:

because nothing you have said is worth any time to be spent on sourcing your errors. My rebuttle is quite simple, you're constipatedly full of bullshit.
As for you lieing about my being the only person here citing nothing. Actually no one in this thread has cited any source whatsoever. What's the point, you don't believe any liberal anyway.

 

[jfuh]

He used WMD, thereby proving that he is ok with using them.

That's BS, the US used WMDs to end a world war, does it mean that we're ok with using it again at our disposal as a first attack weapon?

He openly sponsored terrorism, thereby proving that he was ok with doing that as well.

The US CIA made Binladen. During the resistance against the soviets war in Afganistan the US trained several of the current alqaeda group to assault the soviets. Looks like that plan really back fired.

Where is any leap required to deduce that he would sponsor terrorism with WMD? You admit he was a threat and that he was linked with terror, but you oppose us having taken him out?

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

What am I missing here?

Rational

 

[Navy Pride]

That's BS, the US used WMDs to end a world war, does it mean that we're ok with using it again at our disposal as a first attack weapon?

The Japanese were warned over and over again to surrender.......They ignored the warning......Dropping those A bombs saved and estimated 1,000,000 American and Allied lives that would have been lost on a land invasion of Japan.........Maybe one of them your father or grandfather......think about it........

 

[jfuh]

The Japanese were warned over and over again to surrender.......They ignored the warning......Dropping those A bombs saved and estimated 1,000,000 American and Allied lives that would have been lost on a land invasion of Japan.........Maybe one of them your father or grandfather......think about it........

:spin: :spin: :spin:
Completely unrelated to the rational of my argument.

 

[Navy Pride]

:spin: :spin: :spin:
Completely unrelated to the rational of my argument.

[QUOTEThat's BS, the US used WMDs to end a world war, does it mean that we're ok with using it again at our disposal as a first attack weapon?][/QUOTE]


Your words not mine........I justs calls em as I sees em.........

 

[aquapub]

because nothing you have said is worth any time to be spent on sourcing your errors. My rebuttle is quite simple, you're constipatedly full of bullshit.
As for you lieing about my being the only person here citing nothing. Actually no one in this thread has cited any source whatsoever. What's the point, you don't believe any liberal anyway.

:lol:

Like I said, you clearly have no argument.

 

[aquapub]

That's BS, the US used WMDs to end a world war, does it mean that we're ok with using it again at our disposal as a first attack weapon?

We didn't use WMD to commit unprovoked genocide, Saddam did. We used it to END bloodshed, not to initiate it. Using WMD without provocation, to exterminate people DOES establish that Saddam was ok with using them again.

Likewise, our use of them to end a war is a sign that we too would be ok with using them FOR THAT PURPOSE again.

Nice try.

But I am not going to let you get away with knowingly excluding pertinent information in your reasoning here. THIS is exactly what I mean when I say that liberals are intellectually dishonest. You cannot expect to make accurate assertions and assessments when you intentionally exclude the whys and hows as you have in your comparison here.

 

[aquapub]

The US CIA made Binladen. During the resistance against the soviets war in Afganistan the US trained several of the current alqaeda group to assault the soviets. Looks like that plan really back fired.

And this has what to do with my statement that Saddam sponsored terror? I was establishing that Saddam HAS sponsored terror, hence he WOULD AGAIN sponsor terror, and you have responded by arguing that we also sponsor terrorism? This has nothing to do with my point at all.

Try to keep up. You're getting distracted.

 

[aquapub]

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

Again, who are you having a conversation with? I didn't suggest anything like that.

 

[jfuh]

We didn't use WMD to commit unprovoked genocide, Saddam did. We used it to END bloodshed, not to initiate it. Using WMD without provocation, to exterminate people DOES establish that Saddam was ok with using them again.

Likewise, our use of them to end a war is a sign that we too would be ok with using them FOR THAT PURPOSE again.

Nice try.

But I am not going to let you get away with knowingly excluding pertinent information in your reasoning here. THIS is exactly what I mean when I say that liberals are intellectually dishonest. You cannot expect to make accurate assertions and assessments when you intentionally exclude the whys and hows as you have in your comparison here.

Like I said, you reject all the facts and even your own rational anytime it doesn't suit you.

 

[jfuh]

And this has what to do with my statement that Saddam sponsored terror? I was establishing that Saddam HAS sponsored terror, hence he WOULD AGAIN sponsor terror, and you have responded by arguing that we also sponsor terrorism? This has nothing to do with my point at all.

Try to keep up. You're getting distracted.

Us trained terrorists. Does this in anyway conclude that the US continues to train terrorists?

 

[jfuh]

Again, who are you having a conversation with? I didn't suggest anything like that.

You didn't suggest anything of such? Just look at the threat poll that YOU created. How's your foot taste?

 

[jfuh]

Your words not mine........I justs calls em as I sees em.........

You really like to edit out rational that doesn't agree with you huh?
You wrote:

The Japanese were warned over and over again to surrender.......They ignored the warning......Dropping those A bombs saved and estimated 1,000,000 American and Allied lives that would have been lost on a land invasion of Japan.........Maybe one of them your father or grandfather......think about it........

This was in response to my post # 28 to which I was responding to Aquapub's rational that because Saddam used WMD's before he'll use them again. Then you go into how the US WMD drop prevented further loss? Neither here nor there.
Indeed you call them as YOU see it and respond according to how YOU feel it, 99% of the time, completely irrationality and irrelevance to the original post.

 

[jfuh]

We didn't use WMD to commit unprovoked genocide, Saddam did. We used it to END bloodshed, not to initiate it. Using WMD without provocation, to exterminate people DOES establish that Saddam was ok with using them again.

As with any nation, they only dare to use WMD's when that whom they used against didn't posses such weaponry. Highly highly unlikely that any nuclear power would ever dare to use it against another nuclear power.
Very typical of your arguments aqua, dispicable.

Likewise, our use of them to end a war is a sign that we too would be ok with using them FOR THAT PURPOSE again.

Bullshit, this just goes to further illustrate your ignorance. The US will not use such weaponry unless first struck by such weaponry.

But I am not going to let you get away with knowingly excluding pertinent information in your reasoning here. THIS is exactly what I mean when I say that liberals are intellectually dishonest. You cannot expect to make accurate assertions and assessments when you intentionally exclude the whys and hows as you have in your comparison here.

What pertinent information have I excluded ap?

This is the exact form of nonsense rejection I referred to. Damn us liberals for being so argumentative and making life upsetting for you huh?

 

[stsburns]

aquapub you run the most ONE sided polls I have ever seen! I wonder if CNN or MSNBC has an opening? :doh God forbid anyone think any different than you! :rofl

 

[aquapub]

aquapub you run the most ONE sided polls I have ever seen! I wonder if CNN or MSNBC has an opening? :doh God forbid anyone think any different than you! :rofl

When I encounter an argument defending Saddam that isn't false on its face, one that I can actually take seriously, I will be more two-sided.

 

[jfuh]

When I encounter an argument defending Saddam that isn't false on its face, one that I can actually take seriously, I will be more two-sided.

When you turn a blind eye to all the facts that will be difficult.

 

[The Mark]

When you turn a blind eye to all the facts that will be difficult.

From what I've seen, there seems to be several ways to interpret the facts.

Thus all sides might be able to convince themselves that they are right (or at least partially right).

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by aquapub
When I encounter an argument defending Saddam that isn't false on its face, one that I can actually take seriously, I will be more two-sided

Your poll is a good indication of just how un-educated and dumb Americans have become.

 

[aquapub]

Your poll is a good indication of just how un-educated and dumb Americans have become.

:rofl

Yeah, I wish I could be more educated and responsible like you-and respond to points about Saddam's unprovoked invasion of Kuwait by alleging Bush senior and Saddam were in on it together. :roll:

I have said it a hundred times. Liberals have no facts, no evidence, just conspiracy theories.

If you are a measure of what is educated and wise, then adults (conservatives) must be geniuses. :lol:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by aquapub
Yeah, I wish I could be more educated and responsible like you-and respond to points about Saddam's unprovoked invasion of Kuwait by alleging Bush senior and Saddam were in on it together.

I have said it a hundred times. Liberals have no facts, no evidence, just conspiracy theories.

If you are a measure of what is educated and wise, then adults (conservatives) must be geniuses.

I never said they were in it together. You didn't do very good in english, didn't you? Here's the link if you care to read what I was talking about.

The invasion of Kuwait on the night of August 2, 1990 brought Al-Zubaydi back to the center of activity. This was the turning point in the history of Iraq, which paved the way for two wars, leading up to the fall of the dictatorship last April.

"I was present at all three meetings between Saddam and then U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie, during her three-year term. I can say with certainty that the Americans had in fact been notified of the intention to attack Kuwait, and responded with tacit acquiescence. Furthermore, as late as mid-July, the State Department sent a telegram with personal apologies to the president after the latter had protested against certain broadcasts on the Voice of America that were critical of the Ba'athdictatorship.

"On July 25th I was called to join the last meeting between Glaspie and Saddam. I was a close friend of her No. 2 at the embassy, Joseph Wilson, who in turn met with Saddam on August 7th, before leaving Iraq permanently. I remember this because it was my birthday. Joseph was an excellent Arabist, and spoke our language correctly. He, like Glaspie, was well aware of the situation.

"In any event, Glaspie arrived breathless at the meeting. She was offended because security wanted to take her handbag. `What happened to diplomatic immunity?' she snapped at me. Then she got upset because she was told that she could not expose the soles of her shoes to the president or cross her legs in his presence.

"But she had good news for us. It was a message for Saddam from President Bush [senior]. `It is not U.S. policy to interfere in inter-Arab affairs,' she said to us in English.

"I must admit, however, that one thing has puzzled me ever since: If we had been given a green light for the attack, how is it that Glaspie, who was not married and lived in Baghdad with her sick, elderly mother, did not change her plans to go on vacation on July 26th? I am convinced that that day she understood our plans to send armored divisions toward Kuwait City. So how come 24 hours later she went on vacation?"

http://www.activistsreader.com/articles folder/lost-in-translation.html

 

[jfuh]

:rofl

Yeah, I wish I could be more educated and responsible like you-and respond to points about Saddam's unprovoked invasion of Kuwait by alleging Bush senior and Saddam were in on it together. :roll:

I have said it a hundred times. Liberals have no facts, no evidence, just conspiracy theories.

If you are a measure of what is educated and wise, then adults (conservatives) must be geniuses. :lol:

More ad hominen nonsense from you as always.

 

[aquapub]

I never said they were in it together. You didn't do very good in english, didn't you? Here's the link if you care to read what I was talking about.

:lol:


That's not what I was referring to. In the Wiretapping thread, I brought up Saddam's unprovoked invasion of Kuwait and you responded with this...and I quote:

"He asked for, and received tacit approvel from Bush Sr. regarding his intention to attack Kuwait."


And, since you asked, I did superbly well in English. This isn't, however, about English. It is about credibility-which you are at a total loss in.

 

[aquapub]

More ad hominen nonsense from you as always.

Look up ad hominem, genius. When I repeatedly assert that liberals operate on conspiracy theories instead of facts, evidence, or reason, and then repeatedly point out proof of it, as I just did with Bill O'Really, that is the antithesis of ad hominem.

It's called proving my case. What this IS more of is you mindlessly deflecting any and all criticism of the hysterical left without even presenting a case. You suck at debate. Go away. :lol: