"We support the troops but not the mission"

[Gunny]

Rahul, please verse yourself in DP basics before you argue:

Pale = stupid
Gunny = not stupid

Thanks for playing

I beg to differ. Pale is hardly stupid simply because he holds a political ideology contrary to yours.

Rahul however is as dishonest as the day is long.

[Gunny]

Too bad you and I never ran into one another when I was deployed over to your backwards-assed end of the world.

[Rahul]

Too bad you and I never ran into one another when I was deployed over to your backwards-assed end of the world.

What is your point? Do you ever offer anything except insults and putdowns?

[Gunny]

What is your point? Do you ever offer anything except insults and putdowns?

Look, if your continual ranting about my treatment of your anti-American, loser ass is some lame attempt to play to the crowd, most everyone on this board knows I'm more than capable of ripping you a new ass, and alredy have more than once. Your continued refusal to accept facts, the truth, and that several members as well as myself have shown you for the uninformed, lying anti-American dirtbag that you are that has earned you nothing but my contempt.

[JohnDoe]

Too bad you and I never ran into one another when I was deployed over to your backwards-assed end of the world.

Immature and useless, threatening, post imo.

Wtf is it with this childish name calling instead of debating the issues? Or are you only in to CIRCLE jerks, and patting backs with your like minded friends?

[JohnDoe]

I'm not doing homework for information that is so readily available all over the net when it would be wasted on a useless mind.

That he supported terrorists/terrorist organizations is FACT. If you choose to ignore the facts on this as you apparently do anything that shows your anti-US propaganda fro what it is, that's on YOU.

saddam gave SUPPOSEDLY BUT NOT CONFIRMED by any means that i have read, 25 k to the families of palestinian suicide bombers in ISRAEL.

is this what YOUR claim means?

And wtf does that have to do WITH US? Or is that not the point? You just wanted to baffle Rahul with your BULLSHIT?

[Rahul]

Look, if your continual ranting about my treatment of your anti-American, loser ass is some lame attempt to play to the crowd, most everyone on this board knows I'm more than capable of ripping you a new ass, and alredy have more than once.

You are not capable of mounting a decent argument and instead indulge in insults, putdowns and character assasinations.

[Gunny]

Immature and useless, threatening, post imo.

Wtf is it with this childish name calling instead of debating the issues? Or are you only in to CIRCLE jerks, and patting backs with your like minded friends?

You have a question in regard to the topic, Einstein? All I see is you trying to convince yourself you're cool.

[Gunny]

saddam gave SUPPOSEDLY BUT NOT CONFIRMED by any means that i have read, 25 k to the families of palestinian suicide bombers in ISRAEL.

is this what YOUR claim means?

And wtf does that have to do WITH US? Or is that not the point? You just wanted to baffle Rahul with your BULLSHIT?

I'm kind of wondering how you can go on the attack with an unloaded weapon .... the answer to your question has been made obvious more than once.

Who's trying to baffle WHO? Saddam supported terrorist organizations. That is FACT. Your new-found boyfriend has repreatedly attempted to blow smoke up everyone's ass and say that since it is unproven that Saddam had direct ties to OBL that he did not support terrorism, and trying to be some kind of hero or some shit just want to go down with your ass-buddy.

Rahul was baffled LONG before he ever got to me.

[Gunny]

You are not capable of mounting a decent argument and instead indulge in insults, putdowns and character assasinations.

When you get an honest, legitimate argument ... y'all come back and see us, y'hear?

[JohnDoe]

I'm kind of wondering how you can go on the attack with an unloaded weapon .... the answer to your question has been made obvious more than once.

Who's trying to baffle WHO? Saddam supported terrorist organizations. That is FACT. Your new-found boyfriend has repreatedly attempted to blow smoke up everyone's ass and say that since it is unproven that Saddam had direct ties to OBL that he did not support terrorism, and trying to be some kind of hero or some shit just want to go down with your ass-buddy.

Rahul was baffled LONG before he ever got to me.

Yes, Saddam, if it could be proven true, supported terrorism, by giving money to the family of any suicide bomber who killed Israelis...and even though I don't remeber the 911 commission confirning this, I believe it to be true personally.

I do admit that I have not read this entire thread and began the thread from the last thread on up, reading backwards, starting with your comment, which I thought was inappropriate no matter what was said in the previous posts that I had not read yet, thus my outburst.

I admit now, that it is none of my business, keep threatening him and keep calling him whatever inappropriate name you wish. It's your call, not mine.

Getting back to the issue at hand,

Without me going through the entire thread, is your contention that because Saddam was supportining terrorism by giving money to sucide bomber families, that our Invaision and Occupation of Iraq, was justified, as a retalliation for 911?

Or justified because it was support of terrorism in one way or another?

And if this is the case, then we could virtually invade any country in the middle east and it would also be "justified"?

For example, the UAE, United Arab Emirates supported terrorism and the terrorists of 911, and were uncooperative with our CIA for the next two years on the investigation of their ties. The uae's port was used to transfer nukes or nuke material/plans- to Lybia, and north Korea, I believe they were complicit!

Pakistan supports terrorism and is probably harboring Bin Laden.

15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia with some financial support indirectly from some of the Princes there.

Chechnya and Russia support of terrorism.

Turkey and Kurdish support of terrorism.

Iran supports terrorism and Lebanon indirectly supported terrorism.

Columbia supports terrorism and a great deal of South American countires do too.

I can go on and on regarding the support of "terrorism" indirectly related to various governments or leaders, or royal families.

So, why would Saddam be so "special" to recieve our Ammo up his and his country's ass for just giving 25 k to a couple of families of suicide bombers in Israel?

Certainly THIS is not justification in sending our soldiers in to WAR to possibly die for, is it?

And IF NOT, then what is the point you are trying to make with Rahul, Gunny?

Rahul's point is that there was NO RELATIONs established between Saddam and Alqaeda or 911, or the support in any way for the terrorists that came after us on 911....from what I did get to read.

As I have said, I did not go through the entire thread, so I apologize if you had answered some of these questions of mine, or if "I got the gist of this thread all wrong".

[Gunny]

Yes, Saddam, if it could be proven true, supported terrorism, by giving money to the family of any suicide bomber who killed Israelis...and even though I don't remeber the 911 commission confirning this, I believe it to be true personally.

I do admit that I have not read this entire thread and began the thread from the last thread on up, reading backwards, starting with your comment, which I thought was inappropriate no matter what was said in the previous posts that I had not read yet, thus my outburst.

I admit now, that it is none of my business, keep threatening him and keep calling him whatever inappropriate name you wish. It's your call, not mine.

Getting back to the issue at hand,

Without me going through the entire thread, is your contention that because Saddam was supportining terrorism by giving money to sucide bomber families, that our Invaision and Occupation of Iraq, was justified, as a retalliation for 911?

Or justified because it was support of terrorism in one way or another?

And if this is the case, then we could virtually invade any country in the middle east and it would also be "justified"?

For example, the UAE, United Arab Emirates supported terrorism and the terrorists of 911, and were uncooperative with our CIA for the next two years on the investigation of their ties. The uae's port was used to transfer nukes or nuke material/plans- to Lybia, and north Korea, I believe they were complicit!

Pakistan supports terrorism and is probably harboring Bin Laden.

15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia with some financial support indirectly from some of the Princes there.

Chechnya and Russia support of terrorism.

Turkey and Kurdish support of terrorism.

Iran supports terrorism and Lebanon indirectly supported terrorism.

Columbia supports terrorism and a great deal of South American countires do too.

I can go on and on regarding the support of "terrorism" indirectly related to various governments or leaders, or royal families.

So, why would Saddam be so "special" to recieve our Ammo up his and his country's ass for just giving 25 k to a couple of families of suicide bombers in Israel?

Certainly THIS is not justification in sending our soldiers in to WAR to possibly die for, is it?

And IF NOT, then what is the point you are trying to make with Rahul, Gunny?

Rahul's point is that there was NO RELATIONs established between Saddam and Alqaeda or 911, or the support in any way for the terrorists that came after us on 911....from what I did get to read.

As I have said, I did not go through the entire thread, so I apologize if you had answered some of these questions of mine, or if "I got the gist of this thread all wrong".

You would be incorrect. Rahul's "point" is that because there is no proven, established, operational link between Saddam and AQ, that Saddam had no ties to and/or did not support terrorism.

If you cannot see the dishonest semantics in THAT, I really don't know that it cam be explained any clearer.

I did not, and have not argued that Saddam's support of terrorists/terrorism alone was justification to invade Iraq and depose him. You not only are reading more into my current argument than is there, but also have done no research on the topic to know what my stance is concerning the removal of Saddam from power.

Finally, I suggest you read the anti-American drivel Rahul continually spews forth prior to attempting to judge me for responding on basically the same intellectual level as a liar.

[Rahul]

You would be incorrect. Rahul's "point" is that because there is no proven, established, operational link between Saddam and AQ, that Saddam had no ties to and/or did not support terrorism

Saddam Hussein was a Socialist dictator who did not favor chaos and anarchy in his country. Socialists by their very nature come down hard on Terrorists. Further, there is not one shred of evidence linking Saddam and Al Quaeda. In fact, Saddam disliked Al Quaeda as I have shown before. You have it backwards as usual.

[Gunny]

Saddam Hussein was a Socialist dictator who did not favor chaos and anarchy in his country. Socialists by their very nature come down hard on Terrorists. Further, there is not one shred of evidence linking Saddam and Al Quaeda. In fact, Saddam disliked Al Quaeda as I have shown before. You have it backwards as usual.

Not favoring anarchy and chaos has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he was willing to support Islamic terrorism.

And as I have repeatedly stated and you absolutely REFUSE to accept, whether or not Saddam did not like nor support OBL and al Qaeda has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he supported Islamic terrorists/terrorism.

Your argument is blatantly and transparently dishonest.

[JohnDoe]

Saddam Hussein was a Socialist dictator who did not favor chaos and anarchy in his country. Socialists by their very nature come down hard on Terrorists. Further, there is not one shred of evidence linking Saddam and Al Quaeda. In fact, Saddam disliked Al Quaeda as I have shown before. You have it backwards as usual.

You've got it "right and wrong" in my opinion Rahul.

Right-Saddam did have no link to 911

Right- that saddam did not want chaos and anarchy in his country, thus did not support Islamic terrorism in his own country.

Wrong- that he did not possibly support the killing of Israelis by Palestinians willing to kill themselves, by paying the families of such suicide bombers, thus making him a supporter, indirectly, of terrorism, upon an adversary of his, but on to, an allie of ours.

Right- that this terrorism support of Saddam's was NOT support of AlQaeda.