Funding Terror Is Funding Terror?

[Kelzie]

[mod mode]

Let's all just calm down here. Or I can move this to the basement where you can call names to your heart's content.

[/mod mode]

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by aquapub
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.

That link was the reason I made the comment. If your comfortable thinking that I'm a total loss, go ahead. It doesn't bother me a bit.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

When I repeatedly assert that liberals operate on conspiracy theories instead of facts, evidence, or reason...

As oposed to conservative folks like Bill Tierney who operate based on feelings from God, friend's clarivoyant dreams as well as conspiracy theories about the OKC bombing and Iraqi WMD in Syria?

 

[aquapub]

As oposed to conservative folks like Bill Tierney who operate based on feelings from God, friend's clarivoyant dreams as well as conspiracy theories about the OKC bombing and Iraqi WMD in Syria?

Yes, you can find (if you really look) for conservative loonies too. But be honest here, they are always on the fringe with conservatives. Conservatives overwhelmingly make up the majority of normal people who work for a living and have sensibility in their lives. The left has become inundated with irrational conspiracy theorists and hysterics.

 

[aquapub]

That link was the reason I made the comment. If your comfortable thinking that I'm a total loss, go ahead. It doesn't bother me a bit.

So let's get this straight. I brought up Saddam's unprovoked invasion of Kuwait to demonstrate (along with a host of other reasons) that Saddam was a threat, and you refuted that by claiming that Saddam invaded Kuwait with Bush Sr.'s permission. Even if reasonable people play along with this incredibly lame assertion based on the activist reader (enough said), this still would not indicate that Saddam WASN'T a threat. Your hysterically dishonest misrepresentation isn't even relevant to the point I made...And you don't get why you have no credibility here?

This is kind of like your argument that the no fly zones-which were enacted to contain Saddam after all the wars he started and after all the missiles he launched at Israel-were provocations of Saddam that warranted self-defense.

Is there any genocidal, terror-sponsoring, war-mongering enemy of this country you won't defend to such absurd ends? Are you starting to see why Democrats are seen as unpatriotic? If the shoe fits...

 

[jfuh]

So let's get this straight. I brought up Saddam's unprovoked invasion of Kuwait to demonstrate (along with a host of other reasons) that Saddam was a threat, and you refuted that by claiming that Saddam invaded Kuwait with Bush Sr.'s permission. Even if reasonable people play along with this incredibly lame assertion based on the activist reader (enough said), this still would not indicate that Saddam WASN'T a threat. Your hysterically dishonest misrepresentation isn't even relevant to the point I made...And you don't get why you have no credibility here?

This is kind of like your argument that the no fly zones-which were enacted to contain Saddam after all the wars he started and after all the missiles he launched at Israel-were provocations of Saddam that warranted self-defense.

Is there any genocidal, terror-sponsoring, war-mongering enemy of this country you won't defend to such absurd ends? Are you starting to see why Democrats are seen as unpatriotic? If the shoe fits...

THis thread belongs in the basement. Nothing but flame and provacation from Aqua.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by aquapub:
So let's get this straight. I brought up Saddam's unprovoked invasion of Kuwait to demonstrate (along with a host of other reasons) that Saddam was a threat, and you refuted that by claiming that Saddam invaded Kuwait with Bush Sr.'s permission. Even if reasonable people play along with this incredibly lame assertion based on the activist reader (enough said), this still would not indicate that Saddam WASN'T a threat. Your hysterically dishonest misrepresentation isn't even relevant to the point I made...And you don't get why you have no credibility here?

This is kind of like your argument that the no fly zones-which were enacted to contain Saddam after all the wars he started and after all the missiles he launched at Israel-were provocations of Saddam that warranted self-defense.

Is there any genocidal, terror-sponsoring, war-mongering enemy of this country you won't defend to such absurd ends? Are you starting to see why Democrats are seen as unpatriotic? If the shoe fits...

That's not it at all, pubby. I wasn't making the case that Saddam was not a threat to Kuwait. I was offering evidence that it wasn't exactly "un-provoked". They had a border dispute with some territory that had been going on for years. I also wasn't saying Bush Sr. gave "permission" to attack either. I provided a source that specifically stated via our own Ambassador to Iraq, that we had no intention of being involved in "border disputes". It was Hussein's mistake in judgment to think that this condoned what he was about to do. But Bush did make an about face on the matter. And that, isn't even the issue at this point. It is the fact that you are trying to make it seem that I am out there for bringing this up. When I am merely posting what others have said. So how can I be ridiculous? You like to kill the messenger, don't you?

Furthermore, it takes a pretty sick bastard to think that running over 2000 sorties dropping over 600 bombs on over 300 pre-selected targets has anything to do with no-fly zone enforcement.

What no-fly zone enforcement is, is if his pilots fly into the no-fly zone, we scramble jets to intercept. We then try to contact the pilot via radio or warning shots that he is in a no-fly zone, and if that doesn't work, we shoot his a.s.s down! But under no circumstances is it justified to drop bombs to enforce the no-fly zone. And any, I do mean any, SOB that thinks this is called for, is no better than a common terrorist or suicide bomber. And I do mean that literally.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by aquapub
When I repeatedly assert that liberals operate on conspiracy theories instead of facts, evidence, or reason...

If you don't think stating comments from the very General that was in charge of the air wing that was conducting the no-fly zone enforcement as facts, then I don't know what to tell you. Because, this demonstrates you don't know what the hell a fact is.

 

[dragonslayer]

As oposed to conservative folks like Bill Tierney who operate based on feelings from God, friend's clarivoyant dreams as well as conspiracy theories about the OKC bombing and Iraqi WMD in Syria?

The more that I read in here, the more I believe that to be right wing is to be subject to serious thinking errors. when I read copy of the 9/11 Report, there was nothing to link Sadam and Bin Laden. True they had been sort of partners during the Iraq-Iran war. Yet the report gave no indications or possible implications envolving Iraq and the 9/11 attack. Yet we went to war. Why?? 1:corporate oil and profits for the those supply war materials?, 2: Right wing stupidity? 3: Saddam put out a contract on Bush Senior during the Gulf War??
Contracts are routinely put out against the opposing leaders in War and in Peace.

I am sure that Bush, Cheney, Gingrich, Rumsfeldt, Rice, etc are getting rich from this war.

when will this current government of the USA, be indicted and sent to Gauntaunamo Bay. We can hold them for ten or fifteen years without a trial.

The United States needs start fighting the war on terrorism, and get out of Iraq, and stop putting out billions in tax money collected from the hard working classes in America to pay for the Bush Invasion of Iraq.

 

[aquapub]

If you don't think stating comments from the very General that was in charge of the air wing that was conducting the no-fly zone enforcement as facts, then I don't know what to tell you. Because, this demonstrates you don't know what the hell a fact is.

I'm not sure which one of your conspiracy theories/hysterically unreasonable anti-American interpretations you are trying to justify with this, but I will repeat myself...

Bush senior did NOT give Saddam approval to invade Kuwait. Alsom our bombing of Saddam's anti-aircraft sites (you know, the ones he was using to shoot at our planes) and other similar military targets WAS NOT an example of us bullying a sovereign state and provoking an innocent Arab population. It was a containment policy meant to keep Saddam from attacking anymore of his neighbors. You are throwing your pity party for a modern equivalent of Stalin.

If you could just stop neurotically generating sympathy for America's enemies and think about how lame these statements of yours are, you might just be able to do a 180 and salvage something of your credibility.

 

[aquapub]

THis thread belongs in the basement. Nothing but flame and provacation from Aqua.

:lol:

As usual, YOU are the ony one presenting no facts, no case....i.e., baseless taunting.

Why are you so eager to play the moderator now, suddenly insisting that debate be more constructive than people like you allow it to be? Could it be that you are STILL unable to show any facts, make any case, bring forward ANYTHING but conspiracy theories? But then, that's the whole point here, right?

If you guys have any ACTUAL evidence, by all means, present it...We've been waiting for quite some time now.

 

[aquapub]

1) I wasn't making the case that Saddam was not a threat to Kuwait. I was offering evidence that it wasn't exactly "un-provoked". They had a border dispute with some territory that had been going on for years.

2) I also wasn't saying Bush Sr. gave "permission" to attack either.

3) you are trying to make it seem that I am out there for bringing this up. When I am merely posting what others have said. So how can I be ridiculous? You like to kill the messenger, don't you?

4) Furthermore, it takes a pretty sick bastard to think that running over 2000 sorties dropping over 600 bombs on over 300 pre-selected targets has anything to do with no-fly zone enforcement.

5) But under no circumstances is it justified to drop bombs to enforce the no-fly zone. And any, I do mean any, SOB that thinks this is called for, is no better than a common terrorist or suicide bomber. And I do mean that literally.

1) No, you were making the case that Saddam wasn't a threat worth taking out-even despite his terror-sponsoring, missile attacks on Israel, attempted assassination of Bush Sr., etc:

Then what are we doing in Iraq? They didn't attack us!

Furthermore, if China decided to invade the disputed region of Kashmir right now, the mere fact that the region was in dispute would in no way mitigate the fact that it would be an unprovoked invasion. The only people who would even try to defend the attack with such an argument would be propagandizers with an agenda-because everyone else would see it for the crap it is.

2) Um, yes you were:

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

3) Your point represents a fringe view. You ARE out there for bringing it up. How can it be ridiculous to post what others have said? I think we've identified your problem. Just because others have said it doesn't make it true. As a matter of fact, in the age of blogs, there is a pretty good chance that things "others" write are going to be crap.

You seem to skip over the entire process of evaluating credibility.

4) I'm not one to defend a Democrat, but Bill Clinton was not bombing Saddam to provoke war. From dodging the draft to his retreat from Bin Laden in Somalia, Bill Clinton has demonstrated an unmistakable aversion to war-like most Democrats.

He did drop some of his bombs on critical Lewinsky trial dates, but I would imagine, even for a career-felon like Slick Willy, incessantly bombing an already decimated military...just because...is a bit of an inadequate explanation of things.

5) ESPECIALLY with a modern-day equivalent of Stalin committing genocide, sponsoring terror, and starting wars like Saddam, there is NOTHING wrong with bombing anti-aircraft sites that are shooting down our planes and suspected WMD sites, etc.

It is absolutely hysterical and asinine to call US terrorists for bombing these places. It is also siding with the enemy. Thanks for demonstrating my point.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by aquapub:
1) No, you were making the case that Saddam wasn't a threat worth taking out-even despite his terror-sponsoring, missile attacks on Israel, attempted assassination of Bush Sr., etc:

Sorry junior, wrong again. This is just your perception. It's true, I don't think he was a threat at all. And history is proving this true. Which makes your arguement more the joke. People don't debate you, they laugh at you! You can't prove a single allegation. All you do is hate. Your just like the klan. Your just like a nazi. Your just like a muslim extremist. You are the classic fanatical right. And your words are bullshit. And your losing your minions, pubby!

I don't care how bad a leader gets, there is nothing in International Law that allows for a country to decide on its own for a regime change short of UNSC authorization. Your an anarchist who is advocating breaking the law. Have you ever heard of the word "jurisdiction?" We did not have jurisdiction to go into Iraq or Afganistan or anywhere else a sovereign nation resides. Get that through your head! It's against the law!

Originally posted by aquapub:
Furthermore, if China decided to invade the disputed region of Kashmir right now, the mere fact that the region was in dispute would in no way mitigate the fact that it would be an unprovoked invasion. The only people who would even try to defend the attack with such an argument would be propagandizers with an agenda-because everyone else would see it for the crap it is.

Your dillusional.

Originally posted by aquapub:
2) Um, yes you were:

No I'm not, man!

Originally posted by aquapub:
3) Your point represents a fringe view. You ARE out there for bringing it up. How can it be ridiculous to post what others have said? I think we've identified your problem.

Who's this "we" your talking about? You and your fellow neo's kids that "should of" been on the side of milk cartons.

Originally posted by aquapub:
Just because others have said it doesn't make it true. As a matter of fact, in the age of blogs, there is a pretty good chance that things "others" write are going to be crap.

Maybe, maybe not. But to take a blanket approach and say its all crap is even worse.

Originally posted by aquapub:
You seem to skip over the entire process of evaluating credibility.

You like to think that.

Originally posted by aquapub:
4) I'm not one to defend a Democrat, but Bill Clinton was not bombing Saddam to provoke war. From dodging the draft to his retreat from Bin Laden in Somalia, Bill Clinton has demonstrated an unmistakable aversion to war-like most Democrats.

He did drop some of his bombs on critical Lewinsky trial dates, but I would imagine, even for a career-felon like Slick Willy, incessantly bombing an already decimated military...just because...is a bit of an inadequate explanation of things.

What the hell are you talking about? It was Bush that ordered the bombing during a cease fire. That's an act of war. Iraq had every right to defend themselves. Like I said, it's a pretty sick bastard that thinks they didn't.

Originally posted by aquapub:
5) ESPECIALLY with a modern-day equivalent of Stalin committing genocide, sponsoring terror, and starting wars like Saddam, there is NOTHING wrong with bombing anti-aircraft sites that are shooting down our planes and suspected WMD sites, etc.

Like I said, it's a pretty sick bastard that thinks crap like this is OK. You say anything about us starting wars. I guess that's OK.

Originally posted by aquapub:
It is absolutely hysterical and asinine to call US terrorists for bombing these places. It is also siding with the enemy. Thanks for demonstrating my point.

This statement makes sense coming from an American Mullah such as yourself.

 

[The Mark]

Say, it seems most of the debate is about what the other guy said.......not very helpful to people who might come here to see what people think about the poll's issue.

Which is (greatly striped down and in a less complex form):

Do you agree with aquapub or not?

Therefore, the poll selections should be:

1. I agree with you.

2. I do not agree with you.

3. Other (please explain)

And all the other stuff should be in his first post for people to read and then respond to (or not).

So, assuming that this is the actual poll, how about everyone take aquapub's poll selections and answer them by citing facts that either rebuff them or agree with them.

Or you can all tell me I'm and idiot for suggesting such a thing.

 

[jfuh]

:lol:

As usual, YOU are the ony one presenting no facts, no case....i.e., baseless taunting.

Why are you so eager to play the moderator now, suddenly insisting that debate be more constructive than people like you allow it to be? Could it be that you are STILL unable to show any facts, make any case, bring forward ANYTHING but conspiracy theories? But then, that's the whole point here, right?

If you guys have any ACTUAL evidence, by all means, present it...We've been waiting for quite some time now.

Here's the fact. You've created a pathetic excuse of a thread that does and intends for absolutely nothing except for the sole purpose of flaming and talking down on those whom disagree with you. For you to deny such would be a flat out lie.
If you want to have an intelligent debate that people will take seriously then make then start thread without the bs poll you've posted in this one.
As I've said this thread belongs in the basement.

 

[aquapub]

Here's the fact. You've created a pathetic excuse of a thread that does and intends for absolutely nothing except for the sole purpose of flaming and talking down on those whom disagree with you. For you to deny such would be a flat out lie.
If you want to have an intelligent debate that people will take seriously then make then start thread without the bs poll you've posted in this one.
As I've said this thread belongs in the basement.

What a crock! :rofl

This is about you, the least civil fanatic on this site selectively lecturing someone on "intelligent debate" lol: sorry, that's just so funny) because you can't refute what they are posting.

Much like the left's claim that they represent the average Joe, a lie cannot be made true simply by repeating it. You can keep calling this a frivolous, inflammatory thread all you want, but the purpose is this...

I couldn't get Bill O'Reilly-the only hysterical conspiracy theory peddler here worse than yourself-to admit that Bush Senior did NOT give permission to Saddam to invade Kuwait, so I figured I would draw his dishonest, hysterical claim out into the spotlight to force him to defend it in front of everyone.

This isn't inflammatory.

If you guys don't want to keep being called out for your lame assertions, stop being so full of crap.

 

[jfuh]

What a crock! :rofl

This is about you, the least civil fanatic on this site selectively lecturing someone on "intelligent debate" lol: sorry, that's just so funny) because you can't refute what they are posting.

Much like the left's claim that they represent the average Joe, a lie cannot be made true simply by repeating it. You can keep calling this a frivolous, inflammatory thread all you want, but the purpose is this...

I couldn't get Bill O'Reilly-the only hysterical conspiracy theory peddler here worse than yourself-to admit that Bush Senior did NOT give permission to Saddam to invade Kuwait, so I figured I would draw his dishonest, hysterical claim out into the spotlight to force him to defend it in front of everyone.

This isn't inflammatory.

If you guys don't want to keep being called out for your lame assertions, stop being so full of crap.

Finally some truth, you admit you're baiting.
And yes this thread as well as your posts are very much inflammatory.

 

[aquapub]

your posts are very much inflammatory.

Pot, meet kettle!

How long exactly have you been on crack? :lol:


And yes, when you can't stop someone from spewing asinine things like "Bush Sr. gave Saddam permission to invade Kuwait," their egregious credibility issues become the debate and must be addressed before anything else can go on, hence this thread.

There is nothing inflammatory about that, it is just the nature of intelligent debate.

 

[jfuh]

Pot, meet kettle!

How long exactly have you been on crack? :lol:


And yes, when you can't stop someone from spewing asinine things like "Bush Sr. gave Saddam permission to invade Kuwait," their egregious credibility issues become the debate and must be addressed before anything else can go on, hence this thread.

There is nothing inflammatory about that, it is just the nature of intelligent debate.

Have I ever in any post ever made such a claim? You're full of $hit as usual.

 

[aquapub]

Have I ever in any post ever made such a claim? You're full of $hit as usual.

We were talking about why I started this thread and I was talking about what Bill O'Reilly said that made this thread necessary.

No one accused you of saying anything.

You are jumping to conclusions and smearing people erroneously. THAT is what's usual here. Jesus, take some midol and THEN read people's posts.

 

[jfuh]

We were talking about why I started this thread and I was talking about what Bill O'Reilly said that made this thread necessary.

No one accused you of saying anything.

You are jumping to conclusions and smearing people erroneously. THAT is what's usual here. Jesus, take some midol and THEN read people's posts.

SO who said this ""Bush Sr. gave Saddam permission to invade Kuwait,"
Bill O'Reilly the newscaster? Or BillO the poster on DP.

 

[Indy]

LOL, another joke poll from Aquapub.

You know Aquapub, I secretly believe that you are a Libertarian and have been all along, you just act like a right wing exremist just to get people going. Admit it, you voted for Badnarik in 2004 didn't you??