Actually, I am completely with Varrus on this one. While direct links connecting al Qaeda to Iraq may be lacking, Saddam still had direct ties to terrorists.
Does anybody dispute this? Anybody at all? Please speak up now so that I may smack you down with verifiable and empirical proof that terrorists were living, training, and enjoying sanctuary in Iraq under Hussein's wing.
And while each of you may need direct links to Al Qaeda to justify tying 9/11 to Iraq, I am perfectly content to lump all terrorists together and take action as needed to satisfy my bloodlust and desire for revenge. And if that means plowing through Iraq in the process, well, tough ******* to them. The lesson for everyone else is don't harbor terrorists and act in accordance with international law.
Any questions?
Totem
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Terminator sells ca
Terminator sells caFollow
Quote:
Does anybody dispute this? Anybody at all?
oooh me! me!
Totem wrote:
I am perfectly content to lump all terrorists together
The lesson for everyone else is don't harbor terrorists and act in accordance with international law.
. . . Any Questions?
The lesson for everyone else is don't harbor terrorists and act in accordance with international law.
. . . Any Questions?
Erm. . . So training and arming terrorists doesn't count then? Or is there a qualifying line "Unless they make access to Oil reserves more convenient"?
Edited to add Iraq-specific reference
Edited, Thu Sep 2 12:43:21 2004 by Nobby
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Quote:
Any questions?
Totem
Totem
Yeah, are you sad that the helicopters you fly now don't have guns on em?
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Quote:
Jindo you can't be that moronic in real life?
Well, I'm pretty dumb, but at least I'm smarter than you.
Quote:
How many socialist do you know cut taxes?
You're right. Socialists at least keep their runaway taxes in line with their runaway spending. Bush just likes to spend like a socialist. So I guess we can say that Bush is even more irresponsible than socialists in the budgeting. Way to go, George!
Quote:
And by reactionary do you mean responding, blah blah blah, blah blah blah...
No, refer yourself to the political definition of reactionary. I'm referring to his knee-jerk ultra-conservatism.
Quote:
You are talking about California aren't you? And you're saying party affiliation doesn't play a factor in the governors race? LOL!!!
Yes, yes, and LOL back at you.
Look at every single gubernatorial election in CA; you'll see I'm right. The dems win when the pubs put forth a social conservative. They lose when the pubbies put forth a social moderate, or at least someone who downplays his conservatism. Look at EVERY SINGLE ELECTION since the 1980s and you'll see I'm right.
Not sure if Drudge has discussed it, though, so I guess you'll probably just have to take my word for it.
Edited, Thu Sep 2 22:39:44 2004 by Jindo
Nobby wrote:
Totem wrote:
I am perfectly content to lump all terrorists together
The lesson for everyone else is don't harbor terrorists and act in accordance with international law.
. . . Any Questions?
The lesson for everyone else is don't harbor terrorists and act in accordance with international law.
. . . Any Questions?
Erm. . . So training and arming terrorists doesn't count then? Or is there a qualifying line "Unless they make access to Oil reserves more convenient"?
Edited to add Iraq-specific reference
Two points Nobby:
1. The statement wasn't "no other countries in the world harbored terrorists". It was that Iraq *did*, thus making them qualify as a "bad guy" under the policies established post9/11. That, combined with all the other "bad guy" things going on with Iraq *and* the fact that we already were in a state of war with them (cease fire in effect only), put them at the top of "the list".
Again. Refute Totems actual statement. Did Iraq harbor/train/support terrorist groups? Yes or no? If yes, then exactly how does Iraq not fall into the catagory of nations that the 9/11 policies were meant to address? Wasn't the whole point of those policy changes to prevent terrorist groups from being able to hide behind the protection of national borders?
2. There's a pretty clear distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters. I'll be the first to admit that people tend to use the definition or term most useful for them at the time, but there is a distinction.
In general, if you are living in country A and conduct attacks against citizens in countryB in an attempt to force them to change some policy, or generally just because you don't like them, then you are a terrorist.
If you are conducting the same attacks in the country you live in, then you are a freedom fighter. That doesn't mean that freedom fighters can't also use tactics that aren't very nice, but it is totally incorrect to say that the guys we trained in Afghanistan so they could defend themselves against Soviet military *in their own country* were terrorists.
The fact that they took that training and later moved to making attacks on citizens in other countries does make them terrorists. But not at the time we trained them and gave them weapons. You can say we goofed and didn't think about what these guys were going to do down the line, and you'd be right. However, I think given the whole cold war thing, it's pretty excusable.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Today in our local paper, the San Jose Mercury news, on the front page was an article titled:
Scharzenegger For President?
or some such nonsense. Then it's key point was something about how in the move "Demolition Man" there is a joke about how due to the popularity of Arnold, a new amendment was passed to allow non-US born citizens to run.
Was his speech really that good? And is winning California in what was essentially a vote to oust the incumbents grounds for a future presidential bid that is illegal?
I don't know if I'll be paying 25 cents for that paper again.
Scharzenegger For President?
or some such nonsense. Then it's key point was something about how in the move "Demolition Man" there is a joke about how due to the popularity of Arnold, a new amendment was passed to allow non-US born citizens to run.
Was his speech really that good? And is winning California in what was essentially a vote to oust the incumbents grounds for a future presidential bid that is illegal?
I don't know if I'll be paying 25 cents for that paper again.
Tell me, Nobby, is Abu Nidal a freedom fighter or a terrorist?
And yes, Debalic, I miss my 20mm gatling gun. Nothing gave me a woody faster than pulling the trigger on that baby.
Totem
And yes, Debalic, I miss my 20mm gatling gun. Nothing gave me a woody faster than pulling the trigger on that baby.
Totem
And yes, Debalic, I miss my 20mm gatling gun
Vulcan Cannon unless you were turning it with a crank.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 317
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (317)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Terminator sells ca
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC