See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: LP owner allows poster to plant 1-pixel gifs in order to track LP users
Source:
Libertypost
URL Source: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/ ... .cgi?ArtNum=179683&Disp=16#C16
Published: Mar 9, 2007
Author: add925
Post Date: 2007-03-09 14:17:36 by F.A. Hayek Fan
Keywords: None
Views: 8885
Comments: 257
FYI....very interesting indeed.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-141) not displayed.
.
.
.
#142. To: BeAChooser (#122)
I've already told you, I don't supply proof to trolls. Now let's see those WMD's. I'm betting you won't be able to supply them.
Please answer the question.
He was difficult to capture by a foreign army who does not know the culture and the language and makes enemies by its actions. Says who, you and your arm? After more than a trillion dollars and 5 1/2 years, all you can come up with is "perhaps?" "Is that all you have?"
Here's the original quote. BEFORE we invaded Iraq, al-Zarqawi, operating out of Iraq, was plotting attacks against US allies and Americans. One such plot hoped to kill every American in the US embassy in Amman. What would you have done about him and his associates, given that Saddam was showing no willingness to stop him?" (1) Zarqawi was not "operating out of Iraq" that was under Saddam's control any more than he was operating out of Jordan, Yemen, or any other country where he had followers. (2) Except for Afghanistan, the US had not invaded any other country Zarqawi has affiliates in, so Beachooser's claim he was not alleging a Saddam connection with Zarqawi reeks of intellectual dishonesty. (3) Saddam had an arrest warrant out for Zarqawi, so the claim that "Saddam was showing no willingness to stop him" is a bald-faced lie. (4) You can make the same statements about the Zarqawi "operating out of Iraq" and the US "showing no willingness to stop him" for the 3+ years since April 2003 to the middle of last year that American forces did not capture or neutralize Zarqawi. (5) Even the US military admits that most of the Iraqi insurgents are local, not foreigners, so the insinuation that conditions in Iraq are caused by international jihadists is also intellectually dishonest.
Zarqawi was not killed [by the Americans] for 3 years. That's a pretty spectacular failure to get someone who you are claiming was so dangerous. Actually, that shows how difficult he was to capture. One reason he was dangerous. What it actually shows is that Zarqawi felt safer in an Iraq under American occupation than he felt in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, or Iran. What's more, during those 3 years his group killed thousands of people and carried out hundreds of attacks. Now compare that with many people did Zarqawi's groups kill under Saddam.
Hey shit for brains. There are more terrorists everywhere there are any terrorists than there were in 2002. Thanks to Bush and his ever-dwindling cadre of shillbot supporters like you. The number of terrorists has not decreased in any countries where they previously were. And the number of terrorists, alleged terrorists, and terrorist incidents has increased exponentially in Afghanistan and Iraq. Terrorist attacks in Iraq routinely kill hundreds week in and week out. There were no such attacks when Saddam was in control of Iraq. What's more, your stupid little straw man about "What would you have done about Zarqawi" should be posed to your butt-buddies in the White House and not to people on this site. Because, the Bush Administration turned down 3 separate requests to attack Zarqawi in Northern Iraq, where he was protected by the US Air Force and beyond Saddam Hussein's reach Miklaszewski wrote that "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam." That is, the Bush White House let Zarqawi alone so it would have an easier time selling the war in Iraq. Here are some excerpts from the Miklaszewski article: 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...[t]he Pentagon...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.... 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.... 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. Let's see that arrest warrant. I'm betting you won't be able to supply one. I've already told you, I don't supply proof to trolls. Now let's see those WMD's. I'm betting you won't be able to supply them. Interpol media release 28 December 2005 Arabic Español Français Interpol issues red notice for Al Qaeda’s Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi Algeria requests notice in connection with diplomats’ murder LYON, France – Interpol has issued an international wanted persons notice for Ahmad Fadil Nazal Al-Khalayleh (alias Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi), one of the world’s most notorious terrorist suspects, wanted by police in several countries for a series of attacks on behalf of Al Qaeda. The Red Notice was issued at the request of Algeria, through the Interpol National Central Bureau, which is seeking Al-Zarqawi’s arrest in connection with the kidnapping and murder of two Algerian diplomats in Iraq in July 2005. Al-Zarqawi is also wanted by authorities in Germany, in Iraq in connection with a series of terrorist offences, and in Jordan where he has claimed responsibility for attacks and bombings, including the triple bombs in Amman in November that killed more than 50 people. Interpol Red Notices are distributed to all of Interpol’s 184 member countries using the organization’s global police communications system. They serve to communicate to the world’s police that a suspect is wanted by a member country and request that the suspect be placed under provisional arrest pending extradition. Earlier in December, Interpol published the first Interpol-United Nations Security Council Special Notices for four individuals, including Al-Zarqawi, who are the targets of UN sanctions against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Those notices are aimed at helping a United Nations Security Council committee to carry out its mandate regarding the freezing of assets, travel bans and arms embargos aimed at groups and individuals associated with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. 'We congratulate Algeria for being the first country to take the important step of requesting an Interpol Red Notice against Al-Zarqawi,' said Interpol Secretary General Ronald K. Noble. 'This will decrease the likelihood that such a notorious suspect will be able to evade detection.' http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2005/PR200551.asp
Saddam allowed terrorists safe haven in his country (like the 1993 WTC bomber). Saddam supplied terrorists with money (for example, the al-Qaeda in the Phillipines and the palestinians). Saddam freed suspected associates of al-Zarqawi even after they were captured and even though those who captured them thought them guilty of the crime they were suspected of having committed. Saddam applauded the 911 hijackers. Saddam continued contacts with al-Qaeda after 9/11. al-Zarqawi not only sought medical treatment in Baghdad but he and an entourage of dozens of other al-Qaeda operated out of Baghdad for many months planning mass casualty attacks against the US and its allies. Are you sure?
In other words, you don't have any proof of an arrest warrant. You just made that up. (or misremembered).
Yes he was. The terrorist captured in Jordan admitted they met with al-Zarqawi IN BAGHDAD and they had to have met with him there BEFORE THE INVASION since they say they didn't return to Iraq after going to Syria before the invasion. The only intellectual dishonesty around here is yours. See #1. Which curiously enough, you seem unable to prove. More examples of your "intellectual dishonesty". By the way, Zarqawi is now DEAD. US troops killed him. The opinion of the US military is actually divided on this point.
Thank you for proving the fine debating skills of 4um members. Those, that is, that don't bozo themselves to avoid debate ... and that appears to be the majority of them. And there were more terrorists everywhere in 2002 than there were in 2000. And more in 2000 than in 1998. You see my point? It is a war. Has it? The number of folks who went through Bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan before we ever invaded ... before 9/11, in fact ... was tens of thousands. Are there tens of thousands of terrorists in Afghanistan now? Do they control the government? Yet thousands were dying week in and week out when Saddam was in control. So have things really changed for the worse? It's not a strawman. It's a real and serious question that you clearly don't and can't answer. You are just like the democRATS. All talk. You have NO plan for what you would have done about a guy in Iraq who was funding and masterminding plans to kill tens of thousands in Jordan, including many Americans. Would you have just ignored him and his activities? Maybe so since you don't seem to think the threat from terrorists is real. At least in that respect some democRATS show a little more sense. Hey, I'm not saying Bush and his administration didn't make serious mistakes. They did. But at least they finally ended the threat of Saddam and no part of Iraq is now the safe haven ... as some once were ... for terrorists. And his proof for this? What's the name of his source? Perhaps what the Bush administration said is the reality. That after what happened with bin Laden (the bombing of his camps and completely missing him), the administration wanted to end the problem once and for all. By going in on the ground. Again, what would you have done about al-Zarqawi? Am I correct in suggesting that you'd have also been against bombing the camps in Northern Iraq? That you would have been against sending in special forces to take care of them? Perhaps this indeed just another strawman you are putting forth to avoid telling us what you would have done about al-Zarqawi and al-Qaeda in Iraq ... to avoid telling us what you would have done to end Saddam's growing support of terrorists worldwide? Again, what's the source in the administration for this?
do you want me for a sunbeam?
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering Joan. - Tom Frost
Hahahaha, you almost made me puke.
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering Joan. - Tom Frost
What an interesting term! Is there another kind, or is this another element of disinformation and psyops, on the order of "pro-active?" You're active or inactive; what's this "Pro" crap?
I think Zarqawi was a simple baker or something from Amman who because he was poor only had that one picture of himself that we kept seeing. He probably died, and the military decided to use his identity and turn him into this fierce super-terrorist for our benefit. They won't need to create anymore terrorists though because the actions of the US in the mideast have created a whole lot at this point that wouldn't have existed otherwise.
Before you raise him to sainthood, Diana ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800299.html "His real name was Ahmed Fadhil Nazar al-Khalaylah, an identity that he abandoned several years ago when he renamed himself after his home town, Zarqa, an industrial city 17 miles northeast of Amman. He grew up in a family of modest means and was a troublemaker from an early age, dropping out of high school and repeatedly getting into drunken brawls, intelligence officials said." http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/eng_n/zarqawi.htm " Ahmad Fadheel Nazaal al-Khalaylah (“Abu Musab al-Zarqawi” is his nom de guerre) was born in Zarqa, Jordan in October 1966. He came from a large family belonging to the trans-Jordanian Bani Hassan tribe, which is known for its loyalty to the royal Hashemite family. He grew up in the al-Ma’ssoum slum, was an indifferent student and spent most of his time in the municipal cemetery (located opposite his home), which served as his playground. He was known for being rebellious, got left back at school and turned into a juvenile delinquent, even spending time in jail."
I'm not doing any such thing. I just said if he did exist he was probably some simple guy who died and then had a new identity created for him. How do you know that stuff above isn't made up? If he got into drunken brawls, hey wait, I thought Muslims are forbidden to drink alcohol.... Don't be doing things like accusing me of making Zarqawi out to be a saint; we don't want Aaron from LP to be tying up the Homeland Security phone lines again.
And a zoom-zoom sha-boom-boom to you, pervert.
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering Joan. - Tom Frost
Speaking of bin Laden videos, do you view the "confession" video as authentic?
Speaking of bin Laden videos, do you view the "confession" video as authentic?
Speaking of bin Laden videos, do you view the "confession" video as authentic?
Only if videos I film under duress are legally admissable. /Wait...no...
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering Joan. - Tom Frost
The one I'm talking about is the one that Bush used as evidence that bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks. Here's an image that compares the real bin Laden to the one in that video.. The one on the right is the real bin Laden, where the one on the left is the one in the "confession video". Notice anything wrong?
Howdy Ho!
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering Joan. - Tom Frost
Hey asswipe. When you post your off-the-wall drivel, such as your Zarqawi strawman, and your totally dishonest "What would you do about Zarqawi" when Bush himself did nothing about Zarqawi, you're insulting the intelligence of anyone who reads it. Either you're saying they're stupid enough to be blind to your obvious twisting and spinning, or you're saying you don't consider them worthy enough of a serious answer. Kind of like farting loudly instead of replying when someone asks you a question. So fuck you, troll. Interactions with you are not about *debate* because you are fundamentally intellectually dishonest, and debates have rules and principles which you continually flout. You've been rebutted soundly time and time again with facts and basic logic, and your only reply is to change channels and bring up other argument(s) and hope you can wear others down with your sheer volume of unrelenting bullshit. You'll never admit you've been wrong, and you'll never modify your position. Instead your posts are nothing more than a form of mental masturbation, where you take it as a challenge to distort and twist any arguments and facts that go against your own agenda, and mis-construe them into something they are not. And when you insult people by not bringing your "A" game, you've earned all the insults you receive in response, and then some. So fuck you, troll.
Idiot, if your strategy is creating more enemies rather than fewer enemies, it is a failure. You see my point? Then go fight it yourself. Address the issue, which is the WOT is supposed to result in fewer terrorists, not more. According to the people of Iraq, yes. And your claim that "thousands dying week in and week out when Saddam was in control" is dubious to put it mildly. And even if it were true, it is irrelevant, because you were talking about Zarqawi's terrorism - when it suits you. Hey asswipe. Why was Bush "just like the DemocRATS" and turned down 3 separate requests by his own armed forces to attack Zarqawi when he was in Kurdistan beyond the reach of Saddam and protected by the United States Air Force. You're just like Bush. All talk. Right under the nose of the American occupation, Zarqawi actually did kill thousands including many Americans, and not just "plot" to do it as you allege. So you've been rebutted. Your comments about "What would you have done about Zarqawi" are absolutely and totally irrelevant, because (A) Bush himself did nothing about Zarqawi, and (B) Under American occupation Zarqawi actually killed thousands of people, while all you can allege under Saddam is that he was considering doing it, but never actually did it. You've absolutely and totally been refuted. So naturally, you'll come up with more bullshit to try to obscure this fact. Is Bush a democRAT, brainless twerp? Because Bush did nothing about "him and his activities" in spite of being asked by his own armed forces on 3 separate occasions to do something. Iraq is a safe haven for terrorists to this day. And far more of them than there were during Saddam's time. That's why thousands of non-terrorists are dying every month. More of your patented intellectual dishonesty. Get your butt kicked with facts, and demand more proof. Again, what would Bush have done about Zarqawi? The facts are that Zarqawi was not killing people when Saddam was in power, so all your bullshit about Zaraqwi is irrelevant. Fuck you and do your own research, troll.
Notice anything wrong? I couldn't believe they actually tried to pass that off as real.
In response to your "Has it? Blah blah blah blam spam spam spam spam." I'd like to say ROTFLMAO! And demanding an admin source for a quote like, "(We) feared (that) destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut (our) case for war against Saddam." is absurd. The BushCo ops aren't ever going to be caught in a quote like that. But, the obvious and irrefutable truth is BushCo and his cronies wanted this "war", and they phonied up intel and pulled out all stops to sell it. When it suited them they pointed to Saddam's alleged non compliance with a UN resolution, hypocritically ignoring Israel's topping the non compliance list. This fact coupled with the attacks against every legit critic (because there can be no such thing as a legit critic of the war or Israel-their divine right demands it) is all the reason anyone needs to dismiss the shills. Why waste time arguing with lying, murdering, criminals and their facilitators/enablers? If the rules of honest debate and fair play cannot be successfully invoked and if the next morning any points you scored are ignored and the shill is right back on the playbook, then you should assume that any frustration you display is a source of humor for them. I wouldn't give them the satisfaction. If you're having fun trying to pin a greased pig then, fine. But, if you ever expect him to say "Wow, you sure nailed me with that inescapable logic! I concede the point!" then you will be disappointed. He is by his own admission posting for the benefit of casual readers who may scan a post and pick up a tidbit of misinfo then later repeat it. He isn't posting for the benefit of those who may be following your exchanges and keeping score. (You're slaughtering him on points of course) BushCo's constituents and supporters are not known for their keen analytical abilities and intellectual honesty. They're herded like sheep with sound bites and faux patriotism. They won't ever do their homework then conclude that they've been duped. In fact they'll go to their graves believing that Bush is a great "Merken" unless their own Kosher pastors and/or Rush/Sean/Bill tell them otherwise, and that's not likely. So, if you're attempting to defeat a worthy adversary in a stand up fight and he's only concerned with repeating talking points for the benefit of little monkey children who scan the thread (and, what are Bush supporters but immature simians?) then his goal is met and yours isn't. Why don't you try this: I say what I have to say and shill boy simply has to read it because like gay stud/Republican Jeff Gannon he's a "boytoy on a mission". BUT, I don't ever have to suffer his replies because as I told him, unless a "sponsor" thinks his posts are worthy of my time and quotes them then flags me I don't read them at all! In order to be worthy of my time and consideration at least one reasonable, respected member has to consider shill boy's points worthy, or they are in effect filtered for me! Would you have stood up in the White House press room and tried to seriously reply to Gannon's rhetorical, scripted questions? (White House protocol aside of course) Well, shill boy's talking points require no more serious consideration than Gannon's. Nothing anyone could have said could ever mean more to Gannon than his gay relationships with closeted admin officials. He isn't motivated by truth or logic, but rather the soft moaning of his satisfied customers. And by pretending to be a blue suit he was (and probably is) even more attractive to the dirty queers masquerading as "conservatives". And considering how the White House operates, shill boy may be Gannon! Good luck trying to prick holes in the stiff defenses he's erected before you! While you're trying to argue with truth and logic he's waving a stiffy...and neocon talking points....for a bunch of homos! Now, in light of this don't his non sequitur replies make a lot more sense?
That's pretty funny and a good way to describe it!
I'm long past attempting to debate with this botspammer. That's why I only supply proof when I feel it's appropriate, and principally to impeach the botspammer's contentions. Otherwise I'd be at the computer or the library 24/7 to meet the spammer's demands for proof and more proof. I will, however, continue to rebut lies, misinformation, and seriously flawed excuses for arguments as I feel like it. And try to economize my use of words and my time while doing so. Not really for his benefit, but it does make me a better writer. As far as lurkers scanning the thread - BAC's pretend audience - no one's going to take mountains of words seriously when they continually get rebutted with a few short paragraphs or sentences. Even in presentations to top management the Golden Rule is "Keep It Simple, Stupid." Even more so when the [pretend] audience is not at that level of sophistication. For BAC to allege that anyone scanning this site is going to wade through mountains of his contorted logic, when all that person has to do is skip ahead and see the concise rebuttal, is just further proof of his delusional nature. "ROTFLOL!"
I believe there are 2 sides and not just 1 that want war in the Middle East. The majority of the world's Muslim population wants to get on with their daily lives just like all other people everywhere else and does not want war. However among them there is certainly a minority that claims its violent actions are sanctioned by that religion. And the actions of this country over the last few years have been to increase the power and influence of that violent minority.
perfect
perfect Let's take this a little futher. Can you as site administrator tell how many people are lurking on BAC's threads? ROTFLAMO!
Thanks. BushCo's follies is an uproarious bundle of sight gags and Vaudevillian punch lines, and the constant repetition of themes such as calling the one Pentagon officer who tells the truth a "liar" while pretending that the world doesn't know how Moe Bush, Larry Cheney, Curly Rumsfeld (with an occasional episode featuring "Shemp" Wolfowitz) browbeat, threatened, bullied and fired every officer (who didn't have the good fortune to recently retire) and civilian employee who was tempted to speak truthfully. And, the army's own expert returned from Iraq with his dying team and soon to be failing health and reported that there should be an immediate and permanent moratorium on the use of DU, and he too was called a "liar" by our resident shill. And, the army physician who examined and treated(?) him refused to document the effects of DU, and from this we can be absolutely certain of two things; Maj. Rokke had no reason to lie, and the doctor is under orders to avoid documenting the effects of DU. And what did shill boy say? Why, there's no documentation to support the diagnoses of DU sickness in any service people, or the estimated 500,000 Iraqi babies who were affected. And, what about the ALA guard unit who upon return from Desert Storm suffered a 67% rate of profound birth defects, including children born with no eyes, arms or brain stems? Well, because a FOX is guarding the hen house instead of serving a watchdog media role, these and other stories of sick and dying around the world just don't exist. (BushCo understands the power of national news and media images all too well. Just as they arranged for the "spontaneous" demonstration to pull Saddam's statue down to bounce off of satellites, they arrange to have DU stories that quote credible sources or show deformed babies strangled in the media nursery along with any parent reporters who can't take hints.) And, at the mere suggestion that our president, the most weasely, corrupt, blatantly evil in our nation's history would lack the character to admit something as devastating as the truth about DU, his shills recoil in horror at the assertion that he's lied about anything! These folks think it's just coincidence that bad news stories never saw daylight even as stories labeling Wilson, Plame and Ritter as " Democrat fibbers" and "Bush haters" all of whom are natural born "liars" fly from mainstream media sources to Mom and Pop's TVs, papers and radios at the speed of lie! So, as near as I can discern the culprits fall into two main groups-the deliberate disinfo artists who float these turds of "Bush truths" and the followers, some of whom can't understand the manipulation and some who won't. Either way we've passed the point of no return and the republic has peaked and begun its decline as predicted by "Poor Richard" and others who knew history better than Bush knew how to use daddy's influence to avoid learning anything while in college, and the rest of his adult life. In fact it's a point of considerable pride with George. "Whatever the rules are they don't apply to me. My daddy is CIA and the most influential importer of all of Air America's clients, and he can make governors' and senators' planes corkscrew into the earth on the sunniest, blue bird flying days. And , if you make fun of my speech and grammar your kids may be run over. Maybe not today but, when I leave office I'll have lots of spare time and a list of things to do...." BushCo shills can find nothing bad to say about him, and their one size fits all reply is, "Just another Bush hater!" without ever explaining why he's so universally despised. The good news is, once Bush no longer needs these shills they'll be in the same boat (or rail car) as the rest of us. And then we can only hope that their stubborn belief in Bush's infallibility will expose them. And then those of us who are so inclined can show them Christian love and forgiveness, assuming that such displays aren't against the law by then.
no, i can't. there is the view count on each thread, but there's no way of knowing who specifically is lurking.
True. But that doesn't change the fact that the bin Laden "confession" video was an obvious fake, yet was used by Bush and Cheney as "proof" that bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks.
I can't believe anyone was stupid enough to think it WAS real. Obviously, those that released it knew ahead of time that the majority of Americans ARE that dumb.
al-Zarqawi is dead. Thank you again for proving my point about what passes for *debate* here at 4um.
The govt thought about it and realized that their own "turism experts" (dutiful friendlies like former state department Zionist Robert H. Kupperman and former FBI profiler Clint VanZandt-the guy who told us that the Beltway Sniper was a white militia type-you know, a gun lovin', tax hatin' joo baitin' sumbitch. Oh wait. Thatz mee! :)) taught us that terrorists always claim responsibility for their dasdardly deeds for reasons which you are already well aware. And 9/11 was the first time in the history of terrorism as we define it (violence or threat of same to effect political change) that no one had stepped forward. And, govt has invested considerable intellectual capital programming us to believe that fearless, fanatical Muslims can't wait to get to Allah. And, this "responsibility vacuum" was an embarrassment for those charged with the continuity of the infotainment at places like Freeperville. So, the fact that the "fanatical Islamist" the govt wanted to finger didn't claim responsibility, (for good reason-he didn't do it) left this gaping spall that needed some of "BushCo's Patented PR Epoxy" (an improved version of P.T. Barnum's formula for successful repair of disbelief) so the govt's shills would have something to work with. I mean, even folks who aren't inclined to be mistrustful of govt thought it was darn suspicious that no one claimed responsibility for 9/11, and even more suspicious that Bin Laden hadn't crowed about it since the govt said that A) he's a fanatical Muslim, and B) he despises the Great Satan, and C) he supposedly pulled it off! (And talk radio has partnered devoutly religious Shi'ite Osama with his secular Sunni enemy Saddam-The Sunnis and The Shia don't mix, but most Americans know nothing of this and can't weigh the unlikelihood of this happening. But, our govt can't let a little thing like irreconcilable religious differences stop them from using 9/11 to vilify everyone and every war in every theater that otherwise has no justification. In fact Osama had denied 9/11 involvement, and that kind of news has a way of getting back to the wrong people. Thankfully his denial wasn't in English on tape and Al-Jazeera had nothing to show the world, and, The Good Lord in his infinite wisdom working through public schools made America mostly illiterate and in so doing he keeps the numbers of informed persons down to firing squad-manageable levels. BUT, when the president received a letter from the LIVING WITH DOWN SYNDROME ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA signed in crayon by a million people and questioning the events of that terrible day, he decided that even a bad video with a bad double and a bad translation is better than nothing. Like the Warren Commissioners before them BushCo has decreed that the laws of physics don't apply when inconvenient, so, "they" just added the bad doppelgänger Bin Laden confession video to the list of things that Americans with any professional and/or financial connection to fedgov had better not examine too closely or question ever if they value their livelihoods, their families and their kneecaps. Is this a great country or what? Where else can a man like me sprout from humble Southern stock and grow up to accuse the most powerful creature in the world of being the most evil lizardman to ever slither from the primordial ooze?
just wow! :P
You broke the code; GREAT!
Comments (183 - 257) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestLet's see that arrest warrant. I'm betting you won't be able to supply one.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#143. To: BeAChooser (#138)
#144. To: BeAChooser (#135)
Actually, that shows how difficult he was to capture. One reason he was dangerous.
And perhaps it shows how much help he must have had amongst the Iraqis of the insurgency. Saddam's insurgency. Because those are the folks he must have been hiding amongst.
Oh, and by the way. Where's Bin Laden,
Perhaps dead. You seen a video of him since Tora Bora? Prior to that he LOVED to make videos of himself.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#145. To: SKYDRIFTER (#143)
"Thousands and thousands of islamo- fanatics have gone to Iraq ... and died there. If they weren't attacking us there, they'd likely be causing trouble elsewhere.
Off the top of my head there are 5 serious flaws in these claims.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#146. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, skydrifter (#135)
(Edited)
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#147. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, Skydrifter, christine (#137)
(Edited)
And one more point, AGAviator. How many terrorists were in Afghanistan before we invaded Iraq or Afghanistan, and before 9/11? Just as many as are claimed to now be in Iraq. You see?
In March 2004, NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski reported that the White House had three times in 2002 turned down a Pentagon request to attack Zarqawi, who then was believed to be running a weapons lab in northern Iraq--in territory not controlled by Saddam Hussein's government.
You lying little troll.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#148. To: AGAviator, christine, Zipporah, Rowdee, Robin, Minerva, Diana, kiki (#142)
To: BeAChooser
#149. To: AGAviator, ALL (#141)
You certainly have been making noises like Saddam and Zarqawi had some kind of connection.
Saddam himself wanted to capture Zarqawi
#150. To: AGAviator, ALL (#142)
"Let's see that arrest warrant. I'm betting you won't be able to supply one."
I've already told you, I don't supply proof to trolls.
#151. To: AGAviator, ALL (#145)
(1) Zarqawi was not "operating out of Iraq" that was under Saddam's control
(2) ... snip ... Beachooser's claim he was not alleging a Saddam connection with Zarqawi reeks of intellectual dishonesty.
(3) Saddam had an arrest warrant out for Zarqawi,
(4) You can make the same statements about the Zarqawi "operating out of Iraq" and the US "showing no willingness to stop him" for the 3+ years since April 2003
(5) Even the US military admits that most of the Iraqi insurgents are local, not foreigners, so the insinuation that conditions in Iraq are caused by international jihadists is also intellectually dishonest.
#152. To: AGAviator, ALL (#147)
Hey shit for brains.
There are more terrorists everywhere there are any terrorists than there were in 2002.
The number of terrorists has not decreased in any countries where they previously were.
And the number of terrorists, alleged terrorists, and terrorist incidents has increased exponentially in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Terrorist attacks in Iraq routinely kill hundreds week in and week out. There were no such attacks when Saddam was in control of Iraq.
What's more, your stupid little straw man about "What would you have done about Zarqawi"
Because, the Bush Administration turned down 3 separate requests to attack Zarqawi in Northern Iraq, where he was protected by the US Air Force and beyond Saddam Hussein's reach
In March 2004, NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski reported that the White House had three times in 2002 turned down a Pentagon request to attack Zarqawi, who then was believed to be running a weapons lab in northern Iraq--in territory not controlled by Saddam Hussein's government.
Miklaszewski wrote that "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."
Here are some excerpts from the Miklaszewski article:
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.
#153. To: BeAChooser (#152)
#154. To: BeAChooser (#152)
You are just like the democRATS.
#155. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#151)
.... "intellectual dishonesty".
#156. To: BeAChooser, SKYDRIFTER, robin, All (#151)
#157. To: Diana, ALL (#156)
I think Zarqawi was a simple baker or something from Amman
#158. To: BeAChooser (#157)
Before you raise him to sainthood, Diana ...
#159. To: BeAChooser (#157)
Before you raise him to sainthood, Diana ...
#160. To: BeAChooser (#135)
You seen a video of him since Tora Bora? Prior to that he LOVED to make videos of himself.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#161. To: BeAChooser (#135)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#162. To: BeAChooser, Dakmar, christine, AGAviator (#135)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#163. To: FormerLurker (#162)
#164. To: Dakmar (#163)
Only if videos I film under duress are legally admissable. /Wait...no...
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#165. To: FormerLurker (#164)
#166. To: BeAChooser, christine, scrapper2, SKYDRIFTER, dakmar, FormerLurker (#152)
(Edited)
Hey shit for brains.
Thank you for proving the fine debating skills of 4um members.
Those, that is, that don't bozo themselves to avoid debate
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#167. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, christine, SKYDRIFTER, FormerLurker, Dakmar (#152)
(Edited)
There are more terrorists everywhere there are any terrorists than there were in 2002. And there were more terrorists everywhere in 2002 than there were in 2000. And more in 2000 than in 1998.
You see my point?
The number of terrorists has not decreased in any countries where they previously were.
It is a war.
And the number of terrorists, alleged terrorists, and terrorist incidents has increased exponentially in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Has it? Blah blah blah blam spam spam spam spam.
Terrorist attacks in Iraq routinely kill hundreds week in and week out. There were no such attacks when Saddam was in control of Iraq.
Yet thousands were dying week in and week out when Saddam was in control. So have things really changed for the worse?
What's more, your stupid little straw man about "What would you have done about Zarqawi"
It's not a strawman. It's a real and serious question that you clearly don't and can't answer. You are just like the democRATS. All talk.
You have NO plan for what you would have done about a guy in Iraq who was funding and masterminding plans to kill tens of thousands in Jordan, including many Americans.
Would you have just ignored him and his activities? Maybe so since you don't seem to think the threat from terrorists is real. At least in that respect some democRATS show a little more sense.
Because, the Bush Administration turned down 3 separate requests to attack Zarqawi in Northern Iraq, where he was protected by the US Air Force and beyond Saddam Hussein's reach
Hey, I'm not saying Bush and his administration didn't make serious mistakes. They did. But at least they finally ended the threat of Saddam and no part of Iraq is now the safe haven ... as some once were ... for terrorists.
Miklaszewski wrote that "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."
And his proof for this? What's the name of his source?
Again, what would you have done about al-Zarqawi?
Again, what's the source in the administration for this?
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#168. To: FormerLurker (#164)
The one on the right is the real bin Laden, where the one on the left is the one in the "confession video".
#169. To: AGAviator (#167)
Has it? Blah blah blah blam spam spam spam spam.
#170. To: HOUNDDAWG (#169)
If you're having fun trying to pin a greased pig then, fine.
#171. To: HOUNDDAWG (#169)
(Edited)
So, if you're attempting to defeat a worthy adversary in a stand up fight and he's only concerned with repeating talking points for the benefit of little monkey children who scan the thread (and, what are Bush supporters but immature simians?) then his goal is met and yours isn't.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#172. To: FormerLurker (#162)
Speaking of bin Laden videos, do you view the "confession" video as authentic?
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#173. To: AGAviator (#171)
As far as lurkers scanning the thread - BAC's pretend audience - no one's going to take mountains of words seriously when they continually get rebutted with a few short paragraphs or sentences. Even in presentations to top management the Golden Rule is "Keep It Simple, Stupid." Even more so when the [pretend] audience is not at that level of sophistication. For BAC to allege that anyone scanning this site is going to wade through mountains of his contorted logic, when all that person has to do is skip ahead and see the rebuttal, is just further proof of his delusional nature.
#174. To: christine (#173)
For BAC to allege that anyone scanning this site is going to wade through mountains of his contorted logic, when all that person has to do is skip ahead and see the rebuttal, is just further proof of his delusional nature.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#175. To: Diana (#170)
#176. To: AGAviator (#174)
Can you as site administrator tell how many people are lurking on BAC's threads?
#177. To: AGAviator (#172)
The majority of the world's Muslim population wants to get on with their daily lives just like all other people everywhere else and does not want war. However among them there is certainly a minority that claims its violent actions are sanctioned by that religion. And the actions of this country over the last few years have been to increase the power and influence of that violent minority.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#178. To: Diana (#168)
I couldn't believe they actually tried to pass that off as real.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#179. To: AGAviator, ALL (#166)
when Bush himself did nothing about Zarqawi
So fuck you, troll
#180. To: FormerLurker, christine, Zipporah, Jethro Tull, rowdee, robin, Diana (#178)
I can't believe anyone was stupid enough to think it WAS real. Obviously, those that released it knew ahead of time that the majority of Americans ARE that dumb.
#181. To: HOUNDDAWG (#169)
#182. To: HOUNDDAWG (#169)
.
.
.